Erazor X and X2
- Page 6
#1: 3DMark 2000 & 3D WinBench 2000
It is good to know how far you get to push your luck, and in
this case, we want to see if the risks involved actually
translate into better performance. Really, how much does
it affect real world gaming?
you might like to know
how a GeForce (namely the DDRs) can assist in extending the
lifespan of your aging game system. You don't necessary have
to possess a
state-of-the-art Athlon or Pentium III.
Celeron 300A @ 527MHz
128MB PC100 SDRAM
IBM Deskstar 10 ATA/33, 8.4Gb IBM Deskstar 8 ATA/33
6X DVD-ROM Drive
40X CD-ROM Drive
Network ENI-25P ATM card
DFE910TX network card
HotRod ATA/66 controller card
Brilliance 17A (connected via BNC)
Annihilator PRO DDR
Erazor X SDR
Erazor X2 DDR
used for all cards: nVidia reference v4.12.01.353
The first of the synthetic
tests to be ran was MadOnion's 3DMark 2000. No surprises here
as the cards ran comfortably alongside their counterparts at
both default and overclocked speeds. The DDRs in this test
lead the SDRs by over 500 3DMarks in 32-bit tests.
Even at 1024x768, the Erazors
and Annihilators didn't let each other out of sight. However, the DDRs
were seen pulling ahead of the memory bandwidth
limited SDRs by almost a 1000 3DMarks in 32-bit tests.
3D WinBench 2000
The above table clearly shows
the fastest and slowest cards in the race. However, examining
the numbers closely reveals the negligible speed differences
amongst the counterparts.