Test System Setup
Processor(s): Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3GHz (333MHz x 9)
Motherboard(s): ASUS P5K3 Deluxe (Supplied by ASUS)
Memory: 2 X 1GB Corsair XMS3 DDR-3 1066MHz 7-7-7-21 (Supplied by Corsair)
Hard Disk(s): Hitachi 80GB 7200RPM SATA-2
Operating System: Windows XP Professional SP2
Drivers: ATI Catalyst 7.8 and DX9c
As we mentioned in the intro our main focus today is to see what's better; do we want more memory or more speed? Does the extra memory help pick up the slack when compared to the overclocked model? The speeds that the HD 2600 XT Super carries is 800MHz on the core and 1400MHz DDR on the memory while the Sonic version comes with the same core speed but a nice 200MHz DDR jump on the memory to offer 1600MHz DDR.
What we had hoped to do was overclock the HD 2600 XT Super 512MB card up to the same speeds on offer as the Sonic 256MB variant and see if the 512MB would boost the performance even further, but it wasn't meant to be. Clocking the card to 1600MHz on the memory resulted in an instant crash.
Using our upgraded test bed packing a Q6600 G0 quad-core at 3GHz we're ready to rock and roll. We'll be following the standard layout while using these two cards only. Two cards shall enter and….well…two cards will leave but at least we can settle this age old debate once and for all.
Version and / or Patch Used: Build 130
Developer Homepage: http://www.futuremark.com
Product Homepage: http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark05/
3DMark05 is now the second latest version in the popular 3DMark "Gamers Benchmark" series. It includes a complete set of DX9 benchmarks which tests Shader Model 2.0 and above.
For more information on the 3DMark05 benchmark, we recommend you read our preview here.
Straight away we can see that the extra speed on offer from the Sonic version beats out the 512MB offering from the Super.