Tech-Hounds.com

Because gamers play games, not benchmarks






Quake 4, Data Processing Terminal, 1024 x 768
Leadtek PX8800GTS TDH 320
ASUS EN8800GTS 320
Gigabyte NX8800GTS 320
MSI NX8800GTS 320 OC Edition
145
249.42
312
106 (4x AA 16x AF)
181.74 (4x AA 16x AF)
247 (4x AA 16x AF)
.
149
246.17
298
97 (4x AA 16x AF)
175.89 (4x AA 16x AF)
243 (4x AA 16x AF)
.
150
245.46
298
97 (4x AA 16x AF)
175.96 (4x AA 16x AF)
271 (4x AA 16x AF)
.
151
253.18
322
101 (4x AA 16x AF)
190.6 (4x AA 16x AF)
299 (4x AA 16x AF)
Minimum fps
Average fps
Maximum fps
Quake 4, Data Processing Terminal, 1280 x 1024
Leadtek PX8800GTS TDH 320
ASUS EN8800GTS 320
Gigabyte NX8800GTS 320
MSI NX8800GTS 320 OC Edition
129
213.67
267
63 (4x AA 16x AF)
118.81 (4x AA 16x AF)
187 (4x AA 16x AF)
.
125
210.31
269
57 (4x AA 16x AF)
116.31 (4x AA 16x AF)
186 (4x AA 16x AF)
.
124
209.26
304
58 (4x AA 16x AF)
117.08 (4x AA 16x AF)
196 (4x AA 16x AF)
.
138
220.95
311
61 (4x AA 16x AF)
124.18 (4x AA 16x AF)
218 (4x AA 16x AF)
Minimum fps
Average fps
Maximum fps
Quake 4, Data Processing Terminal, 1600 x 1200
Leadtek PX8800GTS TDH 320
ASUS EN8800GTS 320
Gigabyte NX8800GTS 320
MSI NX8800GTS 320 OC Edition
98
170.53
234
44 (4x AA 16x AF)
86.98 (4x AA 16x AF)
153 (4x AA 16x AF)
.
93
169.78
238
45 (4x AA 16x AF)
87.7 (4x AA 16x AF)
157 (4x AA 16x AF)
.
95
170.7
236
43 (4x AA 16x AF)
88.38 (4x AA 16x AF)
161 (4x AA 16x AF)
.
104
185.72
288
45 (4x AA 16x AF)
93.14 (4x AA 16x AF)
174 (4x AA 16x AF)
Minimum fps
Average fps
Maximum fps

In Quake 4, we see a slightly less difference between the MSI NX8800GTS OC Edition and the other cards - about 5 percent faster overall - certainly not noticeable. On a side note, here we're seeing the Leadtek PX8800GTS TDH offer slightly higher performance than the ASUS EN8800GTS and Gigabyte NX8800GTS, quite a reversal of F.E.A.R results.

[Previous Page]
[Go to top]
[Next Page]
Disclaimer and Privacy policy.