ELSA Erazor X and X2 - Page 6

Benchmarks #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?

Also 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.

Test System

  • Intel Celeron 300A @ 527MHz
  • ABIT BX6R2
  • LGS 128MB PC100 SDRAM
  • 10.1Gb IBM Deskstar 10 ATA/33, 8.4Gb IBM Deskstar 8 ATA/33
  • Sony 6X DVD-ROM Drive
  • ASUS 40X CD-ROM Drive
  • Creative SoundBlaster Live!
  • Efficient Network ENI-25P ATM card
  • D-Link DFE910TX network card
  • ABIT HotRod ATA/66 controller card
  • Philips Brilliance 17A (connected via BNC)
  • Video cards used:
    • Creative Annihilator SDR
    • Creative Annihilator PRO DDR
    • ELSA Erazor X SDR
    • ELSA Erazor X2 DDR
  • Drivers used for all cards: nVidia reference v4.12.01.353 Detonator drivers.

3DMark 2000

800x600 Resolution

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.

1024x768 Resolution

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.

Ziff-Davis 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.

< Previous

Next >

 

Content