Gearing Up For 64bit: Beta Graphics Driver Comparison
by Derek Wilson on June 16, 2004 8:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Halo
While the performance of the NVIDIA part drops almost 25% when running under their 64bit drivers, ATI's performance doesn't budge. Again, these are beta numbers, and neither one is what we expect to see from final shipping products. Both ATI and NVIDIA should have increased performance in the 64bit environment.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
21 Comments
View All Comments
kcbaltz - Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - link
Pardon my ignorance, but what's "WoW"?Pumpkinierre - Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - link
I wonder if the nVidia architecture with its 16bit/32bit FPU lends itself better to 64bit computation than ATI's 24bit FP. The nVidias certainly show the sort of performance improvements we were expecting.ZobarStyl - Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - link
Beta or not the point is seeing if actual current hardware will benefit from the increased efficiency of a 64 bit OS...I think it's a perfectly reasonable article and I liked it, if WoW emulation can post any benefits and not hinder any programs then it will be a godsend to A64 owners.araczynski - Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - link
#6: I think only the fanboi community is interested in data that is mostly based on Beta sources. The geek community would be interested in actual release data, not this stuff. You might as well start comparing the 5.0ghz offerings from AMD and Intel at this point.Pjotr - Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - link
BTW, UT2004 64 bit:http://www.fileshack.com/browse.x?cat=2226
RyanVM - Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - link
RE: NV40. "If there's demand" - HAH! Like you even have to say that :-)I think the entire geek community is interested in seeing how well the latest and greatest hardware performs in a 64bit environment. Do it up!
Stuke - Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - link
On your test platform, under dxdiag, did it show that it had AGP support? Whenever I install the via 4in1 on my system and the video drivers, I get no AGP texture acceleration. Maybe thats a cause for lower performance too.DerekWilson - Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - link
I appologize for messing up the graphs. It really should be the 5950 in the graphs.The latest versions of the drivers when the tests were performed didn't support X800 and 6800 yet.
I'll correct the error ASAP. Sorry for any confusion.
Illissius - Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - link
You put 6800 Ultra instead of 5959 Ultra on all the graphs :/OTOH it's odd that the 5950U is faster at Halo, which is DX9. Is it using a special codepath (one sans any actual DX9 stuff :) ) or something?
And yeah, NV40 vs. R420 would be nice, but other things are prob. more important. (Such as the Far Cry SM 3.0 patch and whether or not NV40 gets a performance boost on nForce3 as nVidia says it does.)
Pjotr - Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - link
UT2004 is available in 64 bit server and client versions now, although beta. Any chance of adding these to the test?