Graphics Performance and Encoding

The 3DMark benchmarks, published by FutureMark, are probably the most widely quoted gaming performance benchmarks available. While the benchmarks are based on game sequences written by FutureMark to reveal subtle differences in gaming performance, they still have to be considered synthetic benchmarks. They are useful for broad Graphics comparisons, but they are no substitute for benchmarks with real gaming engines that are currently being played.

3DMark06 was recently introduced and you can find more in-depth information about this new 3DMark at in the AnandTech article Futuremark's Latest Attempt: 3DMark06 Tested.

3DMark03 Performance

3DMark05 Performance

3DMark06 Performance

You would expect the most recent and most feature-rich cards to distance themselves from the competition in the most recent updates of 3DMark. That is exactly what happens. The latest, greatest X1900XT is only about 1500 points ahead in 3DMark03, but it grows to a 30% lead (10657 vs. 7698) in 3DMark05 and a similar 30% lead in the latest 3Dmark06. However, comparing apples to apples (the A8R32MVP running an MSI 7800GTX to NVIDIA boards running a 7800GTX), results were too close to call an advantage for the NVIDIA or ATI chipset boards.

MPEG-4 Encoding Performance - 'Sum of All Fears' Ch. 9

Encoding results should not be affected by the graphics card used during the encoding benchmarks. This is demonstrated again by the archive test results for AutoGK using an AMD 4000+ processor with a wide assortment of video cards. The performance range of those encoding tests is just 48.1 to 48.9 - a difference form high to low of just 0.8 frames. Clearly, the biggest influence on this encoding benchmark is the CPU used for testing.

General Performance Standard Gaming Performance
Comments Locked

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • superkdogg - Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - link

    If you had been working for half the time you have been whining on every forum you can find, you could have bought two SLI-Experts or whatever motherboard you think has no problems.

    Dude, get over it. The A8R was not exactly as reviewed here. Is that disappointing? Yep. Unfair? Maybe. Fact is, anybody who bought it for the "serious overclocking" that you're referencing would do a vMod and get on with it. I have two A8R's. One is dead because I was stupid and tried a vMod. My soldering needs work. I bought a second one on refurb for $75 because I realized that in the best case, that vMod might get me another 150 MHz. You know what else would get me 150 MHz? Dusting off a Pentium Pro in my basement. I could also get the 2% benefit that 1T timing would give me from chance, since most 'marks are + or - 2-3%.

    I was burned by the same problem you were. I have learned to live with it and am currently happily running 300x9 with ram @ 2.5-4-4-9, 2T (166/200). That's not bad for standard blue heatspreader Patriot that runs about $80 per gig.
  • DigitalFreak - Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - link

    Omid, is that you?
  • yacoub - Sunday, February 19, 2006 - link

    Should have run the 3DMark benches with the 7800GTX like all the other boards so at least we could see if the board itself (the object of review) offered any particular performance gain or loss. :[
  • yacoub - Sunday, February 19, 2006 - link

    oic now, thanks. :)

    green bars. tricksy hobbitses!
  • Missing Ghost - Sunday, February 19, 2006 - link

    I am unhappy with the pictures of the board included in this review. I can't see anything on them because they are too dark. I couldn't even tell if they were a firewire port on the back.
  • Wesley Fink - Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - link

    The pictures are not overly dark on several monitors we tried in reading the review. I'm sorry I don't have advice in that area.

    As stated in the review, both Firewire ports are on an accesory bracket included with the motherboard. The bracket will fit in an empty slot or can be routed to case firewire ports.
  • Googer - Sunday, February 19, 2006 - link

    What Phase Power is this motherboard using? 2,3,4,8,24?
  • Beenthere - Sunday, February 19, 2006 - link

    Any properly designed 3-phase or greater CPU vcore circuit that complies with AMD's VRM64/T specs will work just fine. If however a mfg. delivers a poor circuit design or uses inferior MOSFETS, caps, etc., then you experience Vcore instability which causes all kinds of operational Hell. More phases just lowers the ripple and spreads the load across more MOSFETS.
  • Beenthere - Sunday, February 19, 2006 - link

    BTW, if you check the A8R-MVP, the A8N series and the Asus P5GL-MX you'll see that all of these mobos have been confirmed to have vcore instability problems when tested at the mobo with a DVM or scope. Asus seems to have some significant mobo engineering issues they can't resolve... and that are not present on other brands of mobos using the same chipsets.
  • Ecmaster76 - Sunday, February 19, 2006 - link

    Do you work for DFI or Abit or something? This is the third site where I have ran into you flaming Asus constantly!


    (where did I put that troll repellant)

    Seriously, link some proof of said Vcore instability. Show me scope printouts of the Vcore lines (and the 12v rails that were used to drive it)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now