neil43 Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 Significant GL Performance Issue I own two GeForce GT 240 video cards by differnent manufacuters (XFX and EVGA) and with different memory (DDR3 vs DDR5). Running Cinebench v11.5, the XFX tests at 26+ FPS while the EVGA tests at 12+ FPS. Why is there this difference in performance? And is there any thing that can be done to get the EVGA to perform as well as the XFX card? Details: Test Bed GigaByte P55M-UD2, CPU i7-875, not OC'd, 8GB memory, 80GB HDD, OS X 10.6.5, Chameleon V2.0-RC5 r594, EnableGraphics-Yes. Have tried various combinations of EnalbelGrpahics=Yes/No with and without NVenabler_64. Cards: EVGA GeForce GT240 1GB DDR5 PN: 01G-P3-1246-LR XFX GeForce GT 240 1GB DDR3 PN: GT-240X-ZNFC neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pirloui Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 As you know; this problem interests me as well. I have a XFX with 512MB DDR5; and it is slow. Maybe it could be worth flashing it will some other bios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Vermelho Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 EnableGraphics-Yes.EnalbelGrpahics=Yes/No If that's how you spell it, no wonder it's not working. it's GraphicsEnabler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pirloui Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 Read the post, you will understand that the spelling of "GraphicsEnabler" isn't the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Vermelho Posted November 14, 2010 Share Posted November 14, 2010 Read the post, you will understand that the spelling of "GraphicsEnabler" isn't the issue. If I hadn't read the post I would not have noticed the spelling errors in it. Did you see this line? "Have tried various combinations of EnalbelGrpahics=Yes/No with and without NVenabler_64." If he's using NVEnabler and "EnalbelGrpahics=Yes" at the same time, then only NVEnabler will be working. If he's using NVEnabler and GraphicsEnabler=Yes at the same time, then there's going to be some sort of conflict happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil43 Posted November 15, 2010 Author Share Posted November 15, 2010 If I hadn't read the post I would not have noticed the spelling errors in it. Did you see this line? "Have tried various combinations of EnalbelGrpahics=Yes/No with and without NVenabler_64." If he's using NVEnabler and "EnalbelGrpahics=Yes" at the same time, then only NVEnabler will be working. If he's using NVEnabler and GraphicsEnabler=Yes at the same time, then there's going to be some sort of conflict happening. I understand your points. The question is do you know any reason for the two very similar cards to provide such a difference in performance? neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Vermelho Posted November 15, 2010 Share Posted November 15, 2010 The ROM revision is different. Try looking for BIOS updates/downgrades at mvktech.net and make the ROM versions match. You can also try dumping the ROM from the faster card and have the bootloader inject it when booting with the slower card. You need Chameleon 2.0 RC5. I posted here how to load a video ROM: http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php...t&p=1583696 I suppose the cards are identically clocked? Are you aware that the speed difference is very very small and that there will not be any noticeable performance difference between the two cards anywhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil43 Posted November 15, 2010 Author Share Posted November 15, 2010 Are you aware that the speed difference is very very small and that there will not be any noticeable performance difference between the two cards anywhere? I will spend some more time on this in the next few days following your pointers. I do not understand your last statement. My observation is based upon Cinebench v11.5 where the two cards preformance is 26 vs 12 FPS. neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Vermelho Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Oh, snap.. I was just looking at the pretty pics. Still, I think a ~14 FPS difference in Cinebench is not much. The faster card has the faster RAM, right? It's not 100% clear from your first post. If so, maybe that's why. What about the clocks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAIMOG Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Oh, snap.. I was just looking at the pretty pics. Still, I think a ~14 FPS difference in Cinebench is not much. The faster card has the faster RAM, right? It's not 100% clear from your first post. If so, maybe that's why. What about the clocks? Hello and sorry for my english, I have tried two types of gt240 and this is the conclusions: XFX GT 240 512 DDR5 model GT-240X-YHFC cinebench 13,25 Graphic enabler= yes Vga=ok Dual display extend =ok Clone display= wiht problems XFX GT 240 512 DDR3 model GT-240X-YAFC cinebench 18,00 Graphic enabler= yes Vga=ok Dual display= problems with black screen in the dvi connector, i have to fix this. I have tried this two models in two diferents mother boards with the same results. I'm sure the problem is the memory DDR5. I don't know why but the cheaper is better than the other. I've playing in Left4dead and the difference great i the ddr5 model i have to put low all the preference video and until go slowly i can't play correctly. But in the ddr3 model i can put the preference video in great levels and go very well i can play the game correctly, not as good as in XP but is enouthg. In XP the result of cinebench is better but the same in the two graphic cards is about 28 fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sstyle Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Today I bought GT240 1024Mb GDDR3. And also I have slower OpenGL rusults. My old 9800GT 512Mb: New GT240: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts