Showing posts with label benchmark. Show all posts
Showing posts with label benchmark. Show all posts

27 May 2008

GeForce 8600GT vs 9600GT

It's been a very long time since my last post in this blog. Now I returned with one-to-one benchmark review of two nVidia GeForce video cards. The first one is the last year's champion for mid-range video card 8600GT and the second is current year's most favourite video card 9600GT.

There is no major improvement since last year's DirectX 10 and Shader Model 4.0 are newly equipped in 8600GT. The 9600GT also adopt the very same technology, therefore there is no graphic quality difference between these two cards, except for the speed performance.

Before going to the benchmark result, first I will show you the general comparison between these cards:


8600GT 9600GT
Core Clock 540 MHz 650 MHz
Shader Clock 1190 MHz 1625 MHz
Memory Clock 700 MHz 900 MHz
Memory Amount 256 MB 512 MB
Memory Type GDDR3 GDDR3
Memory Interface 128-bit 256-bit
Memory Bandwidth 22.4 GB/s 57.6 GB/s
Texture Fill Rate 8.64 Billion/s 20.8 Billion/s
Stream Processors 32 64
Interface PCI-E 1.1a PCI-E 2.0


In this test, I used a EVGA GeForce 8600GT OEM card and a Galaxy 9600GT Single Slot Fan card. My 8600GT actually don't run in standard speed, it was overclocked from the factory to 600MHz for the core clock. For comparison purpose, I also made a test for an overclocked 9600GT to 700MHz/1000MHz/1750MHz for its core, memory, and shader clock. Below are the picture of both cards:
EVGA OEM GeForce 8600GT
Galaxy GeForce 9600GT Single Slot Fan
And here's my PC specifications:
  • CPU: Intel Pentium D 940 overclocked to 3.60GHz
  • RAM: 2 x 1GB DDR2 PC-4200
  • Mainboard: Gigabyte GA-8I945PLGE-RH Intel 945PL chipset
  • Harddisk: 2 x Western Digital 7200rpm SATAII 160GB
  • OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic SP1
To test these cards' performance, I use the new 3DMark Vantage to test DirectX 10 and Shader Model 4.0 performance. Also, I used 3DMark06 as this program still yields relevant result and that these cards are not high-end. To test gaming performance, I used Crysis with Crysis Benchmark Tool version 1.05. For all tests, I used relatively the same display settings, with 1024x768 resolution and without anti aliasing. Here are the test results:
From results above, 9600GT obviously outperforms 8600GT significantly. With over 60% difference for 3DMark Vantage, 36% for 3DMark06, and almost 100% in average for Crysis, GeForce 9600GT is surely a worthy successor of 8600GT. It is also shown that the performance increases quite significantly when 9600GT is overclocked. However, the performance difference is subtle in Crysis, perhaps it is because of the bottleneck with my processor speed.

Although superb in performance, 9600GT is also very power consumptive, a 600W power supply is a must as this card requires additional power (using two headed molex power cable which should be attached directly from your power supply). Also, its big size makes a micro-ATX case won't fit, therefore a mid-size ATX with cleared hard-disk bay is required.

With cheap price tag, around $140 now, no wonder 9600GT becomes a very popular card for mid-end gamers who don't have much money to buy the luxurious 9800GTX or GX2. If this price is still too expensive, nVidia offers a slightly slower version of 9600GT named 9600GS (a.k.a 8800GS) is also a good choice as it only slightly different in speed but quite much cheaper. Another more expensive alternative (but still in similar price range) is 8800GT, which is more powerful than 9600GT but with a slight more expensive price.

At last, nVidia moto The perfect price and performance combination to get the most bang for your buck for GeForce 9 series is finally proven.


31 March 2008

Affordable Virtual Machines Benchmark

I've written an article about virtual machine (VM) for Windows before. I reviewed VMWare Workstation 6.0 and Virtual PC 2007 at that time. Now I returned with some benchmark of affordable VMs software popular in the market.The virtual machines included in the test are:

Here are the screenshots of each VM:

I didn't include VMWare Workstation because it is very expensive and not considered affordable. Moreover, this review is intended for hobbyist and beginners who only use VM personally not for IT professionals. Unlike the VMs mentioned above, VMWare Workstation is considered resource intensive and heavyweight, therefore it needs rather high-end computer to run.I tested these VMs based on its performance (shown by PCMark05), features and application compatibility. I used the same system when testing these VM, and here's my system specs:
  • CPU: Intel Pentium D 940 Overclocked ~3.60GHz (with Intel Virtualization enabled)
  • Memory: 2 x 1GB Samsung DDR2-533 (512MB Allocated for VM)
  • Video Card: EVGA GeForce 8600GT 256MB
  • Hard Drive: Seagate 40GB 7200rpm ATA133 (Where virtual machine hard drive image is located)
  • Host OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic SP1
  • Guest OS: Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
Firstly, to test each VM performance, I used Futuremark PCMark05 v1.2.0. Even though all of the VM cannot produce a complete result due to lack of 3D support, I simply test some values like HDD speed, graphics performance, web page rendering, text editing, file activities, and AV encoding. For comparison purpose, I also give the host OS result as well.


*Note that blue coloured value means the best.

About basic features, each VM has its own pros and cons, below is the summary:
Virtual Machine Table 2

For me, the most important for VM feature is that it can run broad range of applications for supported OS. Too bad that none of these software can support Direct3D (However VMWare Workstation support DirectX 8.1) therefore no Direct3D game / applications can run. Shared folder is essential where you can access the host machine files from guest OS and it should have quick access. Another important feature is USB emulation so that you can simply use any USB device in your VM. While Drag and Drop ability makes copying files from host to VM become very convenient.


To see applications and multimedia compatibility, I tested each machine to run Adobe Photoshop, Windows Media Player, and Planescape Torment. The result is that every VM here can run Adobe Photoshop smoothly, there are no glitch in the cursor or while editing and saving images. All VM also passed Windows Media Player test, where each VM has to play a 3 minutes DivX movie. Although it can play media files nicely, Windows Media Player in Virtual PC cannot play media files directly from host OS. You must copy it first to the local guest OS disk in order to play.
The last test is to run an old game called Planescape Torment, it is basically a 2D RPG game and should be enough to test these VMs (considering none of them can run 3D games). The result is that Virtual PC can run it perfectly in full screen or windowed without any artifacts or oddity. In the other hand, VirtualBox can run this game perfectly but only in Windowed mode because as it is converted to full screen, there will be a black border surrounding the small game window. It is because of VirtualBox does not support changing host resolution (See screenshot below). The worst is Parallels Workstation where there are many graphical glitches in windowed and fullscreen and the sound is not working. Here's some screenshots:


Planescape Torment run in small but full screen in VirtualBox


Graphical glitch (near character photos) in Parallels Workstation 2.2

Talking about guest OS compatibility, Parallels Workstation is the most complete, followed by VirtualBox. VirtualBox and Parallels supports Windows, Linux, and Mac as the host system where Virtual PC only supports Windows and Mac. The compatibility may be the main problem for Virtual PC as it basically only supports Windows (and with little Linux support) as the host OS.

All the above VM are actually comparable in performance and all of them utilizes Virtualization technology which supported by many modern processors (can increase around 5% performance). Actually all of these VM are good and each of them have their own special features, therefore the choice depends on you. If you like your VM to support many Windows applications and games, I would recommend Virtual PC. If you need many type of guest OS and have a stable fast VM, you can try Parallels Workstation. And if you want a free VM but supports USB emulation and many basic features, you can use VirtualBox and so on.
At last, if you seek features than these virtual machines, the best choice is VMWare Workstation 6.0 because not only it includes all the features these VM have, but also additional advanced features such as debugging and of course faster performance. However it comes with expensive price (US$189) and high system resources.

Download links:


22 February 2008

Crysis Benchmark Part 2

Here is the second part of my Crysis Benchmark as I promised. Now I have upgraded to Pentium D 940 3.20 GHz, let's now see the difference in Crysis performance!

Since Pentium D processors are naturally friendly to be overclocked, I used two clock settings in my benchmark. The first one is the original clock, which is 3.20 GHz, and the second one is the overclocked one 3.60 GHz. I got this by increasing the bus speed from 200MHz to 225 MHz (225 MHz x 16 = 3.60 GHz)

An overclocked Pentium D 940

To see my complete computer specs, please see my first post at: http://avateck.blogspot.com/2008/02/crysis-benchmark-part-1.html

I. Pentium D 940 original speed (3.20 GHz)
In this part, like usual I used two settings, one is overall high and the other is custom settings I used to play Crysis (combination of medium and high settings).

Test Run #1
Settings: High (Global settings to High)
Resolution: 1024x768
AntiAliasing: No
Demo Level: benchmark_cpu @ 7a.m.
Average FPS Results: 12.95 FPS
Screenshot:

Test Run #2
Settings: Custom
- VolumetricEffects=Medium
- Texture=High
- ObjectDetail=Medium
- Sound=Medium
- Shadows=Medium
- Water=High
- Physics=Medium
- Particles=Medium
- Shading=High
- PostProcessing=VeryHigh
- GameEffects=Medium
Resolution: 1024x768
AntiAliasing: No
Demo Level:
benchmark_cpu @ 7a.m.
Average FPS Results: 15.96 FPS
Screenshot:

The result #1 shows that there is an increase of 1.05 FPS from Pentium 4 524, well it's not quite an improvement though. However, the second test shows a better result, 3.02 FPS difference from my old Pentium 4 524 or roughly 39% better performance!

II.
Pentium D 940 overclocked speed (3.60 GHz)
Now let's see how Pentium D 940 performs when it is overclocked.

Test Run #1
Settings: High (Global settings to High)
Resolution: 1024x768
AntiAliasing: No
Demo Level: benchmark_cpu @ 7a.m.
Average FPS Results: 13.08 FPS

Test Run #2
Settings: Custom
- VolumetricEffects=Medium
- Texture=High
- ObjectDetail=Medium
- Sound=Medium
- Shadows=Medium
- Water=High
- Physics=Medium
- Particles=Medium
- Shading=High
- PostProcessing=VeryHigh
- GameEffects=Medium
Resolution: 1024x768
AntiAliasing: No
Demo Level:
benchmark_cpu @ 7a.m.
Average FPS Results: 16.39 FPS

Now with overclocked speed. Test run #1 shows that there's only a little improvement at 13.08 FPS from 11.90 FPS at Pentium 4 524 and 12.95 FPS at original speed. And the second test show 16.39 FPS, which is only 0.43 FPS difference from the original speed.

The results conclusion is that overclocking Pentium D shows not much effect in 3D games performance. Especially Crysis, the performance depends more on video card power rather than CPU. However, a transformation from a single core processor (my old Pentium 4) to a dual core processor (Pentium D) indeed shows a significant performance. Perhaps the performance difference between these two processors is more significantly visible in general computing tasks (such as office programs, image editing, rendering image from 3D applications, etc).


19 February 2008

Crysis Benchmark Part 1

Hi! This is my first post in my blog. Today I'm going to benchmark my beloved PC to run Crysis, A new game from Crytek that boasts breathtaking visual graphics with realistic physics you never seen before.
Now before judging about anythi
ng, let's see if the visual effects are indeed stunning or killing.. if your PC cannot handle it.

First, I will show you my current PC specifications:
- CPU: Intel Pentium 4 524 3.06GHz with 533Mhz FSB (Prescott LGA775 32-bit 1MB L2 Cache)
- Mainboard: Gigabyte GA-8I945PLGE-RH with Intel 945PL Express chipset
- Video card: EVGA GeForce 8600GT 256MB (Standard version with 169.25 Forceware driver)
- Memory: 2GB PC-4200 DDR2 533MHz

- Hard disk: 3 7200rpm hard drives (1 SATA II, 1 IDE ATA 133) with the total of 360GB
- Sound card: RealTek Azalia on-board

- OS: Windows Vista Home Basic Edition SP1 v6.0.6001.18000 RTM (Yeah, I don't like the Ultimate one, I tried that one and I am really dissapointed with its performance!!)

For testing purpose, I use Crysis Benchmark Tool v1.0.0.5. The Crysis game itself is patched to v1.1.

Here are the test results!
Test Run #1
Settings: High (Global settings to High)
Resolution: 1024x768
AntiAliasing: No
Demo Level: benchmark_cpu @ 7a.m.
Average FPS Results: 11.90 FPS
Screenshot:


Test Run #2
Settings: Custom (This is the settings that I used to play the game)
- VolumetricEffects=Medium
- Texture=High
- ObjectDetail=Medium
- Sound=Medium
- Shadows=Medium
- Water=High
- Physics=Medium
- Particles=Medium
- Shading=High
- PostProcessing=VeryHigh
- GameEffects=Medium
Resolution: 1024x768
AntiAliasing: No
Demo Level:
benchmark_cpu @ 7a.m.
Average FPS Results: 12.94 FPS
Screenshot:

Conclusion:
I didn't turn the settings lower than that because there will be huge noticeable differences in terms of visual quality which will make the gameplay somewhat unsatisfying (apart from the better FPS). So in this case, I think I have four options:
1. Upgrade my CPU to Pentium D
2. Upgrade my video card to 8800GTS (Which is quite impossible as my fund is limited and I just recently upgrade to 8600GT!!)
3. Upgrade the whole system (This one is ridiculous!!)
4. Throw away Crysis (This even more ridiculous, because I really like it!!)

So.. it seems that the reasonable option is to upgrade my CPU. Alright, next time I'll return with my new benchmark using Pentium D 940 3.20GHz 4MB L2 Cache. I think it should improve the FPS to 4-7 FPS.

If you have performance problem for Crysis but don't want to upgrade your PC, the Crysis guide from TweakGuides.com may prove useful. With some text editing, your PC may be able to run Crysis quite smoothly with a lot of visual effects compensation (Still, better than heavy lag..).

Links:
www.ea.com/crysis/ - Official Crysis website
downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=1791 - Crysis benchmark tool
www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_1.html
- TweakGuide for Crysis