System setup and notes
Hardware
| Graphics cards | ECS N8600GTS 256MX+ | Inno3D iChiLL 7900GS Arctic Cooling Silencer 6 | XFX Fatal1ty 7600GT | ASUS EAX1950PRO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPU Clock Speed (MHz) | 720 | 550 | 650 | 580 |
| Shader Clock Speed (MHz) | 1450 | 550 | 650 | 580 |
| Memory Clock Speed (MHz) | 2200 | 1500 | 1600 | 1404 |
| Memory Bus Width (Bits) | 128 | 256 | 128 | 256 |
| CPU | Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2.40GHz, 4MiB L2 cache, 1066MHz FSB, LGA775) | |||
| Motherboard | EVGA NF68 (NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI) | ASUS PW5-DH Deluxe (Intel i975X) | ||
| BIOS revision | 691N0P20 | 1305 | ||
| Memory | 1GByte (2 x 512MByte) OCZ26671024ELDCGE-K PC5400 | |||
| Memory timings and speed | 4-4-4-8 @ DDR2-667 | |||
| Disk drive(s) | 160GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 (3Gb/s mode) | |||
| Mainboard software | NVIDIA platform driver 9.53 | Intel Inf Update 8.0.1.1002 | ||
| Graphics driver | ForceWare 158.16 | ForceWare 93.71 | CATALYST 7.1 | |
| Operating System | Windows XP Professional, w/ SP2, 32-bit | |||
Software
| 3D Benchmarks |
Far Cry v1.33 Quake 4 v1.30 Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory v1.05 |
|---|
Notes
We're comparing this £145 graphics card to three consummate DX9-based performers. Having already taken a look at the excellent Inno3D Inno3D iChiLL 7900GS ACS6 and the equally impressive ASUS EAX1950Pro, both featuring 256-bit memory buses, the ECS 8600 GTS has its work cut out. Further, we've added in results from a heavily overclocked GeForce 7600GT card, to see how the previous generation's midrange card stacks up against an 8-series offering.It's intrinsically difficult to speculate on performance when comparing GPUs featuring unified scalar processing (ECS) to non-unified vector-based throughput (the rest). Further, the current lack of DX10 titles inhibits just how good and fast the ECS N8600GTS 256MX+ can be. Our testing suite is rather long in the tooth and favours pure pixel-pushing grunt than efficient use of shaders.
Benchmarks were conducted at 1280x1024 4xAA 8xAF and 1600x1200 no AA 8xAF. These are likely resolutions and image quality settings for midrange cards, and we've run the cards through three popular games.
As always, we ran each benchmark a trio of times and then calculated the arithmetic mean. If any of the three results looked erroneous, we threw all three away until we could collect three within a margin of statistical error. We report any major attempts needed to get three reliable results, of course. Apart from that, things are as noted on the graphs and in the graph commentary. Want to know more? Head for the HEXUS.community.
