Monitor Testing Methodology

The purpose of this section is to illustrate frame rate changes between monitor resolutions, so that users will be prepared for the difference in video game performance. Some users are unaware of how upgrading their monitor may impact game performance, as the larger resolution results in decreased frame rate.

A combination of synthetic and video game benchmark tests have been used in this article to illustrate relative performance among graphics solutions. Please do not interpret our benchmark frame rate results to represent real-world graphics performance, as this level changes based on supporting hardware installed.

The Microsoft DirectX-11 graphics API is available on the Microsoft Windows 7 and Vista Operating Systems, and will be the primary O/S for our test platform. The majority of benchmark tests used in this article are comparative to DX11 performance, however some high-demand DX10 tests have also been included.

Intel X58-Express Test System

• Motherboard: ASUS P6X58D-E (Intel X58/ICH10R/Marvell SE9128)
• Processor: Intel Core i7-920 Nehalem 2.66 GHz (BX80601920)
• System Memory: Kingston HyperX DDR3 KHX2000C8D3T1K3 (3x2GB @ 1333 CL6-6-6-18)
• Graphics: ASUS GeForce GTX 480 (701 MHz GPU/1401 MHz Shader/924 MHz vRAM - Forceware 260.63)

Resolution Scaling Results

DirectX-10 3DMark Vantage: New Calico

• 3DMark Vantage v1.02
  • Extreme Settings: (Extreme Quality, 8x Multisample Anti-Aliasing, 16x Anisotropic Filtering, 1:2 Scale)

DirectX-11 Battlefield Bad Company 2

• BattleField: Bad Company 2
  • Extreme Settings: (Highest Quality, HBAO, 8x AA, 16x AF, 180s Fraps Single-Player Intro Scene)

Unigine Heaven 2.1 Benchmark

• Unigine Heaven Benchmark 2.1
  • Extreme Settings: (High Quality, Normal Tessellation, 16x AF, 4x AA

3D Vision Test Results

Back in early 2009 when Benchmark Reviews first tested NVIDIA's 3D Vision technology on PC video games, nearly all of the performance results demonstrated a 50% frame rate drop with stereoscopic effects turned on. This made sense, because two staggered versions of each frame were being displayed. Almost two years later, and the newest titles are beginning to overcome this trend.

Aliens vs Predator, Unigine Heaven 2.1, and Lost Planet 2 all keep to tradition, and lose 50% of the frame rate performance with 3D Vision enabled. For this reason alone, the technology is best suited for gamers capable of providing high-end graphical power. In our tests, this power came from either a single GeForce GTX 480 or two cards in SLI.

Notice that in the Lost Planet 2 tests that frame rate was reduced by only 38%, and not the 51% or more exhibited by older game engines. Mafia II proves this point, primarily because it's the most recent game of the group, and loses only 30% with 3D Vision enabled and a mere 11% when tested using an SLI set. This is proof evident that it's the game that determines the FPS loss, and not the hardware.

3D Vision Surround Tests

Very few people can afford the luxury of NVIDIA 3D Vision Surround technology, as it requires expensive amounts of hardware that becomes cost-prohibitive for most people. In our 3D Vision Surround tests, Aliens vs Predator would not run with 4x AA, and the frame rates were very poor at 2x AA. Heaven 2.1 retained the traditional 50% loss, while Lost Planet 2 gave away only 42%. Mafia II was again the most efficient game in terms of 3D Vision Surround performance, and lost only 22% performance when stereoscopic effects were enabled.

On a side note, Lost Planet2 and Mafia 2 is absolutely phenomenal with 3D-Vision and 3D Vision Surround. Both games offer built-in multi-monitor profiles, likely a benefit of being 3D Vision Ready titles. Combining two GeForce GTX 480's into SLI allowed this game to play at 5760 x 1080 resolution across three monitors using the highest settings with APEX PhysX enabled, delivering a thoroughly impressive experience.

<< Previous Page - Next Page >>