Menu
Asus V8440 TD and V8460 ultra TD in the test: Two 'Ti' tans among themselves

Asus V8440 TD and V8460 ultra TD in the test: Two 'Ti' tans among themselves

Synthetic benchmarks

3DMark 2000

The 3DMark 2000 by MadOnion is a popular but purely synthetic DirectX 7.0 benchmark and says little about it actual game performance. It has now found a successor in 3DMark2001, but it still isa benchmark in terms of performance for graphics cards. Meanwhile the classic among the synthetic benchmarks, the 3DMark2000 is slowly but surely showing its age. While at the approximate time of its appearance, the range was between 3000 and 5000 points, graphics cards that are reasonably priced are now able to overcome the 10,000 hurdle at least in lower resolutions or under 16-bit color depth.

3DMark 2000 v1.1
Unit: points
  • 1024x768:
    • Asus V8460 ultra
      10.951
    • Asus V8440
      10,685
    • GF4 Ti4200 (225/250MHz)
      10,599
    • GF4 Ti4200 (250/222MHz)
      10.409
    • GeForce3
      9.490
    • GeForce3 Ti200
      8.802
    • GeForce4 MX440
      7.785
  • 1152x864:
    • Asus V8460 ultra
      10.455
    • Asus V8440
      10.113
    • GF4 Ti4200 (225/250MHz)
      9.630
    • GF4 Ti4200 (250/222MHz)
      9.201
    • GeForce3
      8.390
    • GeForce3 Ti200
      7.640
    • GeForce4 MX440
      6.655
  • 1280x1024:
    • Asus V8460 ultra
      9,700
    • Asus V8440
      9,018
    • GF4 Ti4200 (225/250MHz)
      8.235
    • GF4 Ti4200(250/222MHz)
      7.819
    • GeForce3
      6,978
    • GeForce3 Ti200
      6,307
    • GeForce4 MX440
      5.434
  • 1600x1200:
    • Asus V8460 ultra
      7.787
    • Asus V8440
      6,983
    • GF4 Ti4200 (225/250MHz)
      6.182
    • GF4 Ti4200 ( 250/222MHz)
      5,841
    • GeForce3
      5.256
    • GeForce3 Ti200
      4.611
    • GeForce4 MX440
      3.934

This benchmark is in the upper point regions clear CPU-limited and not only on our test system, as can be seen quite clearly when comparing the detailed results of the high-detail adventure test. Between the Asus V8460 ultra (73.1fps) and a GeForce3 Ti200 (67.8fps), which is only clocked a little more than half as high, there are only a meager 5 frames. Only in high and highest resolutions are there clearer differences. Nonetheless, the Asus V84xx cards can score a double victory across the board.

3DMark 2001 SE

Since 3DMark 2001, like 3DMark 2000, is a purely synthetic benchmark, it also says relative Not much about the expected game performance, but it is a good starting point for future games, as it is based entirely on DirectX 8. Among other things, due to the Nature test, which makes intensive use of pixel shader effects, the 3DMark2001 SE is not only dependent on the CPU and graphics card RAM, but also very much on the chip clock of the graphics card. Totake into account that the GeForce4 MX440 representative has to contest its progress without the points from the Nature test.

3DMark 2001 SE
Unit: Points
  • 1024x768:
    • Asus V8460 ultra
      9.541
    • Asus V8440
      9.090
    • GF4 Ti4200 (250/222MHz)
      8.667
    • GF4 Ti4200 ( 225/250MHz)
      8.548
    • GeForce3
      7.215
    • GeForce3 Ti200
      6.644
    • GeForce4 MX440
      5,433
  • 1152x864:
    • Asus V8460 ultra
      8,896
    • Asus V8440
      8.555
    • GF4 Ti4200 (225/250MHz)
      7.821
    • GF4 Ti4200 (250/222MHz)
      7.716
    • GeForce3
      6.625
    • GeForce3 Ti200
      6.064
    • GeForce4 MX440
      4,947
  • 1280x1024:
    • Asus V8460 ultra
      8.132
    • Asus V8440
      7.639
    • GF4 Ti4200 (225/250MHz )
      6.901
    • GF4 Ti4200 (250/222MHz)
      6.677
    • GeForce3
      5.686
    • GeForce3 Ti200
      5.303
    • GeForce4 MX440
      4.207
  • 1600x1200:
    • Asus V8460 ultra
      6.777
    • Asus V8440
      6.166
    • GF4 Ti4200 (225/250MHz)
      5.462
    • GF4 Ti4200 (250/222MHz)
      5.159
    • GeForce3
      4.659
    • GeForce3 Ti200
      4,140
    • GeForce4 MX440
      3.151

Also here again the expected double victory for the Asus cards. What is interesting here, however, is the cutting off of the two Ti4200 variants. In 1024x768 the higher chip clock plays a bigger role than the larger memory bandwidth, so that one can assume that the future 64MB version with 250/250MHz clock will be a little faster than the slower clocked 128MB variant.

On the next page: Templemark D3D

Comments