a question about two reviews

[avatar_of_might]

ok
i was looking at the visiotek x800pro review and then the bfgtech 6800gt oc review to compare which one to get and i have one overall question.

1. in the x800pro review, in farcry 1.1 test, the 6800 ultra gets (22,129,45.5) and (27,71,39.6) running at 1024x768 2xaa/8xaf. in the GT review, the ultra get (26,117,44.8) running at 1280x1024 2xaa/8xaf. im just a little confused what happened that the card could run faster. was it the new driver set you were using?

2. Same with Painkiller, the x800 review had all cards running at 1280x1024 4xaa/8xaf while in the nvidia review the x800 is at 1280x960 4xaa/8xaf and the 6800ultra is at 1600x1200 2xaa/8xaf? did the beta drivers you were using allow that to happen and why did the x800 go down?

3. In Flight Sim, the x800 review had all three cards at 1280x1024 4xaa/16xaf and in the bfg review the 6800ultra was running at 1600x1200 2xaa/8xaf and the x800pro at 1280x1024 2xaa/8xaf.

with these two reviews so close i was just wondering what caused the changes. these are three examples i found. i was asking because if nvidia's new drivers are going to have this kind of increase in performance, i would look more at the 6800gt. as i said, just a little confused in what changed the performance, if anybody could clarify that would be great. thanks!

 

[maxxo]

everything from 61.34 and up seemed to have a big performance increase from the first beta drivers. that explains some performance increases.

as to why the x800pro was bumped down a resolution, i dont know.

 

[101998]

in fs2004 they changed the way the benchmark is done, read the spot before the benchmark and it explains what exactly they do. As for painkiller, I don't know, mabey the latest patch changed the texture size for a couple of the models, I know they are doing custom run throughs so it could bring back a little difference each time.