Menu
3x GeForce4 Ti from Inno3D in the test: Cheaper range of models

3x GeForce4 Ti from Inno3D in the test: Cheaper range of models

Templemark D3D

The Templemark, like the following Villagemark, was originally a demonstration program by PowerVR. However, as it supports a lot of current features, such as hardware TnL, bump mapping and up to 6 texture layers in one pass, it is also well suited as an independent benchmark that guaranteesis not optimized for nVidia chips.

Templemark D3D
  • 1024x768:
    • GF4 Ti 4400
      130.2
    • GF4 Ti 4200-64
      119,4
    • GF4 TI 4200-128
      116.1
    • GF3 classic
      88,9

Unfortunately, the benchmark does not run in other resolutions, so in this case a single value must be sufficient. Without large numbers of polygons, the memory controller and the generally available bandwidth, as well as the removal of invisible surfaces (HSR; Hidden Surface Removal) mainly affect the frame rate achieved. However, this depends on the chip clock, and this also explains why the two Tornado GeForce4 Ti 4200 cards hardly differ, but the 4400 variant can clearly set itself apart, which has both a higher memory and a higher chip clock. The gap between the GeForce3 and the GeForce3 is also very respectable in this benchmark, which demands a lot from the memory management and the HSR of the card. LMA-II seems to be doing well.

Villagemark D3D

This benchmark was developed by PowerVR and is used to illustrate the advantages of the Kyro2, as the VillageMark has one overdraw factor of up to 10 is particularly large. Most graphics cards also calculate the objects that are hidden by others and therefore actually only mean wasted bandwidth.

Villagemark D3D
  • 1024x768:
    • GF4 Ti 4400
      108
    • GF4 Ti4200-64
      98
    • GF4 TI 4200-128
      96
    • GF3 classic
      63
  • 1152x864:
    • GF4 Ti 4400
      88
    • GF4 Ti 4200-64
      79
    • GF4 TI 4200-128
      77
    • GF3 classic
      53
  • 1280x1024:
    • GF4 Ti 4400
      69
    • GF4 Ti 4200-64
      62
    • GF4 TI 4200-128
      60
    • GF3 classic
      42
  • 1600x1200:
    • GF4 Ti 4400
      49
    • GF4 Ti 4200-64
      44
    • GF4 TI 4200-128
      42
    • GF3 classic
      30

Who attentively our old review of the Asus cards will notice that the newer drivers straighten things out. As a reminder, with the 28.32 drivers, the 96 fps of a GF4 Ti4200 were only achieved with a Ti4600 in 1024x768.

Also interesting how the two Ti4200 cards differ from each other up to 2fps due to the now identical chip clock and not, as with the emulated Ti4200 (with 225/250MHz), amounted to up to 6 fps. In this purely overdraw-limited scenario, the GeForce3 is downright outclassed by its heirs, even if it can still keep up to some extent in some games, in the future this gap will widen even more.

On the next page: GL Excess