Das Online-Magazin xbit-labs hat einen interessanten Artikel online gestellt. Er beleuchtet den Einfluß der Prozessor-Leistung auf die Performance der Grafikkarte. Auch in der Zeit der Hochleistungs-Grafikkarten mit eigener GPU und T&L-Einheit sind die Systeme nach wie vor auf einen schnellen Prozessor angewiesen. Doch offenbar gibt es hier derzeit auch noch einige Diskrepanzen in der Treiber-Optimierung für den Athlon XP, etwa bei ATI:
But in lower resolutions, when the graphics card workload is rather low, it's the CPU that determines the overall system performance. And here we see that the system with NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti4600 outperforms the system with ATI RADEON 9700 PRO. The most disappointing situation takes place with AMD Athlon in games that use OpenGL: GeForce4 Ti4600 is much better here than RADEON 9700 PRO.
There can be only one inference: the OpenGL part of the ATI's driver is poorly optimized for Athlon XPs compared with the polished-off drivers from NVIDIA.
In the DirectX Unreal Tournament Demo 2003, things are more favorable to ATI: RADEON 9700 PRO only loses to GeForce4 in the 800x600 resolution. The reason seems to be the same: poor driver optimization.
As the result, ATI RADEON 9700 PRO can be called more CPU-dependent compared with NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti4600. That is, on increasing the CPU clock-rate, the results of RADEON 9700 PRO in certain resolutions grow faster than the results of NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti4600 in the same resolution.
Our advice is simple: when buying a graphics card based on ATI RADEON 9700 PRO, stop and think if you need to "secure your rear" by a new CPU and more RAM. Because if you install such a graphics card in a slow system, the performance in games may prove lower than expected.
Wie es zu diesem Fazit kommen konnte, lest am besten selbst in aller Ruhe im Artikel nach... THX @Thomas für den Hinweis :)
Diesen Artikel bookmarken oder senden an ...
