3DMark06 Benchmark Results

3DMark is a computer benchmark by Futuremark (formerly named Mad Onion) to determine the DirectX 9 performance of 3D game performance with graphics cards. 3DMark06 uses advanced real-time 3D game workloads to measure PC performance using a suite of DirectX 9 3D graphics tests, CPU tests, and 3D feature tests.

3DMark06 tests include all new HDR/SM3.0 graphics tests, SM2.0 graphics tests, AI and physics driven single and multiple cores or processor CPU tests and a collection of comprehensive feature tests to reliably measure next generation gaming performance today. Some enthusiasts may note that Benchmark Reviews does not include CPU-bound tests in our benchmark battery, and that only graphic-bound tests are included.

Here at Benchmark Reviews, we believe that synthetic benchmark tools are just as valuable as video games, but only so long as you're comparing apples to apples. Since the same test is applied in the same controlled method with each test run, I believe 3DMark is a very reliable tool for comparing graphic cards against one-another.

More visitors to Benchmark Reviews operate at 1280x1024 resolution than any other, as it represents the native resolution of 19" LCD monitors. Using this resolution as a starting point, the maximum settings were applied to 3dMark06 which for these tests include 8x Anti-Aliasing and 16x Anisotropic Filtering. Low-resolution testing allows the graphics processor to plateau maximum output performance, which thereby shifts demand onto the system components to keep up. At the lower resolutions 3DMark will reflect the GPU's top-end speed in the composite score, indicating full-throttle performance with little load. This makes for a less GPU-dependant test environment, and is helpful in measuring the maximum output performance in the test results.

To start things off, I like to run 3DMark06 at the default settings. The defaults set by Futuremark ensure that results can be compared across systems with some degree of accuracy. In this particular test, the results are exactly as expected. The HD 4830 lands between the HD 4670 and the HD 4850, leaning slightly closer to the latter.

Here we ran the same tests and resolution, but added some anti-aliasing and texture filtering to the mix. These options tax the graphics card, by requiring additional processing power and memory. The HD 4670 clearly has a hard time with this test with its limited 128-bit memory interface. The EAH4830, however, stays close to the 4850.

After increasing the resolution, we see another drop in performance, but not nearly as drastic. The move from 1280x1024 to 1680x1050 results in roughly a 10% drop in performance for the HD 4830 and about 9.5% for the 4850.

This final test represents a worst case scenario for all but those running on the highest resolution WQXGA monitors. At 1920x1200, the HD 4850 offers about 10% better performance than the 4830, while the 4830 offers 33% better performance than the 4670.

<< Previous Page - Next Page >>