Notebookcheck Logo

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLI vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLI

► remove from comparison NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLI

The Nvidia GeForce GTX 260M SLI is a combination of two Nvidia GeForce GTX 260M graphics cards for laptops linked together in SLI mode. The combination can be up to 40% faster than a single GTX 260M if given the proper game or driver support. In fact,some games may even run slower under SLI than with a single 260M if driver support is poor. Regardless, current consumption is twice as high as a single 260M. Notably, Nvidia drivers support the deactivation of SLI to save power. This is in contrast to the Catalyst drivers of the 4870 X2 at the time of our review.

The graphics memory of both cards can't be added and compared to single cards, as each card stores the same information. Therefore, a GTX 260M SLI with 2x512 graphics memory only counts as 512 MB for games.

As all SLI combinations, the GeForce 260M SLI may suffer from noticeable micro stuttering at frame rates between 20 to 30 fps. This is due to the inconsistent delays between subsequent frames being rendered and shown onscreen. As a result, an SLI combination may need higher frame rates for fluent gameplay.

Similar to other cards with DirectX 10 capabilities, the GeForce GTX 260M SLI combination renders 3D images using "Unified Shaders". Dedicated pixel shaders and vertex shaders have been dropped in favor of 2x112 stream processors for rendering graphic work that would have normally been done by specialized pixel and vertex shaders. Furthermore, the shader units are higher clocked than the chip at 1375 MHz.

The performance of the GTX 260M SLI is in the region of a single GTX 260M, but can be about 40 percent higher depending on application and driver support. A single GTX 260M is only a bit faster than a 9800M GTX due to the higher clock speed. For current DirectX 10 games like Crysis, World in Conflict, Bioshock or Age of Conan, the performance of this graphics card is sufficient with medium and high details. Older games and less demanding ones run fluently with high resolutions and full details. The memory component is up to 2x1024 MB GDDR3 with speeds up to 950MHz in MXM 3.0 boards or up to 800 MHz in MXM 2.0 boards.

An advantage of the GeForce GTX 260M SLI is the integrated PureVideo HD video processor. As a result, it is able to decode/encode H.264-, VC-1-, MPEG2- and WMV9 video material that would have otherwise been processed by the CPU. This ultimately allows the CPU to concentrate more on other tasks and programs simultaneously.

Both chips also support PhysX and CUDA applications. A single GTX 260M can also be used to calculate PhysX effects if supported by the game or application.

HybridPower is a technique to choose between the integrated (if available) and dedicated graphics core for power-saving purposes. So far, this works only in Windows Vista. Up to now, the user had to use a tool to switch between the GPUs. In the near future, Nvidia intends to be able to switch GPUs automatically in the drivers (now known as Optimus Technology, which is not supported by the GTX 260M SLI). GeForceBoost is not supported with this card as there would be no performance gain if one were to combine the integrated GPU with the dedicated 460M SLI.

The current consumption of up to 2x75 = 150 Watts (including the MXM board and VRAM) allows the use of the SLI cards only in laptops with a strong cooling system. Therefore, the GTX 260M SLI can be found only in heavier and larger desktop replacement (DTR) notebooks.

Compared with desktop graphics cards, the performance of the GTX 260M SLI is about on par with the GeForce 9800 GT SLI (600/1500/900).

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M

► remove from comparison NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M is a high-end graphic card of the 200M series based on the G92b core and most similar to the Desktop GeForce 9800 GTX+. Therefore the 285M cannot be directly compared to the Desktop GTX 285. The chip is produced in a 55nm fabrication process, which is a step up from the 65nm process of the GTX 9800M. Its 128 pipelines are all enabled as well, as opposed to only 112 pipelines of the GTX 9800M. Compared to the GTX 280M, the GTX 285M features a slightly higher clock speed and is therefore only marginally faster (3-6% on average).

An innovation in the 200M series is the much accelerated switch times if using Hybrid Power (lower than 1 second compared to 7 seconds at the 9800M GTX).

Similar to all other cards with native DirectX 10 capabilities, the GeForce GTX 285M renders 3D images using "Unified Shaders". In other words, there are no longer any more dedicated pixel shaders or vertex shaders. Instead, new stream processors (128 of them in the 285M) now process most of the heavy graphics loading that would have otherwise been done by dedicated pixel and vertex shaders. In fact, the shader units are clocked higher than the core chip itself.

As previously mentioned, the GTX 285M is about 3-6% faster than the GTX280M due to slightly higher clock speeds. This means that notebooks equipped with the GTX 285M should run all modern and demanding games (as of 2009) in high details and resolutions. Only very demanding games, like Crysis Warhead or Metro 2033, may become unplayable if at maximum graphical settings.

Games with PhysX support (e.g., Mirror's Edge) may benefit from improved performance out of the 285M. Still, the Mobility Radeon HD 5870 is arguably a faster and better value single core GPU for laptops.

An advantage of the GeForce GTX 285M is the integrated PureVideo HD video processor (VP2). With this software feature, the 285M can assist the CPU in the decoding of H.264-, VC-1-, MPEG2- or WMV9 videos. 

HybridPower is an Nvidia power-saving technology for Windows Vista used for switching between integrated and dedicated graphics cards. In the future, Nvidia wants this switch to occur automatically with drivers (now known as Optimus). GeForceBoost is not supported with the 285M, as there would be no performance gain in combining the integrated GPU with the dedicated video card.  

The power consumption can be up to 75 Watts (if including the MXM board and VRAM). As a result, the 285M is usually reserved for larger desktop replacement (DTR) laptops with powerful cooling solutions.

In June 2010, the GeForce GTX 480M (mobile Fermi) was announced with a revamped architecture compared to the GTX 285M. Compared to the 285M, the Fermi core will support DirectX 11 and offer better performance at the cost of higher power consumption levels and possibly higher heat output. 

If compared to desktop graphics cards, the performance of the 285M can be considered somewhere in between the 9800 GT and the 9800 GTX, the latter of which is clocked considerably higher (675/1675/1100 MHz) in comparison.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI

► remove from comparison NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI

The Nvidia GeForce GTX 280M SLI is a graphics solution that combines two Nvidia GeForce GTX 280M cards in an SLI setup. As not every game supports SLI efficiently, the performance increase compared to a single card is only about 0-40%. The most frequently used technique is Alternate Frame Rendering (AFR), where one card renders every odd frame while the second card renders every even frame. Due to the SLI setup, users may experience micro stuttering due to the irregular delays between sequential frames.

Each of the two GeForce GTX 280M is based on the G92b core and is produced in 55nm. It features the full 128 pipelines of the G92b and is therefore more comparable to the desktop 9800M GTX+ than the desktop GTX 280.

The Nvidia GeForce GTX 280M SLI is bundled with the GeForce 9400M G chipset (for laptops based on the Core 2 Duo) and therefore supports HybridPower if supported by the manufacturer. With HybridPower, both GTX cards can be disabled and only the chipset graphics core can run, leading to longer battery life (and possibly less fan noise). Modern Core i7 laptops use an Intel chipset and do not support HybridPower.

Since there are two GTX 280 cards active in SLI, the electric current consumption and exhumed heat are about twice as much as what a single GTX 280M can produce. Due to the large power and cooling requirements, this SLI combination is usually reserved for large desktop replacement (DTR) laptops (like the Alienware M17x).

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLINVIDIA GeForce GTX 285MNVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI
GeForce GTX 200M Series
GeForce GTX 285M SLI 256 @ 0.58 GHz256 Bit @ 1020 MHz
GeForce GTX 280M SLI 256 @ 0.59 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 260M SLI 224 @ 0.55 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 285M 128 @ 0.58 GHz256 Bit @ 1020 MHz
GeForce GTX 280M 128 @ 0.59 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 260M 112 @ 0.55 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 285M SLI 256 @ 0.58 GHz256 Bit @ 1020 MHz
GeForce GTX 280M SLI 256 @ 0.59 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 260M SLI 224 @ 0.55 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 285M 128 @ 0.58 GHz256 Bit @ 1020 MHz
GeForce GTX 280M 128 @ 0.59 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 260M 112 @ 0.55 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 285M SLI 256 @ 0.58 GHz256 Bit @ 1020 MHz
GeForce GTX 280M SLI 256 @ 0.59 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 260M SLI 224 @ 0.55 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 285M 128 @ 0.58 GHz256 Bit @ 1020 MHz
GeForce GTX 280M 128 @ 0.59 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
GeForce GTX 260M 112 @ 0.55 GHz256 Bit @ 950 MHz
CodenameNB9E-GTXN10E-GTX1N10E-GTX
ArchitectureG9xG9xG9x
Pipelines224 - unified128 - unified256 - unified
Core Speed550 MHz576 MHz585 MHz
Shader Speed1375 MHz1500 MHz1463 MHz
Memory Speed950 MHz1020 MHz950 MHz
Memory Bus Width256 Bit256 Bit256 Bit
Memory TypeGDDR3GDDR3GDDR3
Max. Amount of Memory2048 MB1024 MB2048 MB
Shared Memorynonono
APIDirectX 10, Shader 4.0DirectX 10, Shader 4.0DirectX 10, Shader 4.0
Power Consumption150 Watt150 Watt
Transistors1.5 Billion754 Million1.5 Billion
technology55 nm55 nm55 nm
FeaturesHybridPower, PureVideo HD, CUDA, PhysX readyHybridPower, PureVideo HD (VP2), CUDA, PhysX readyHybridPower, PureVideo HD, CUDA, PhysX ready
Notebook Sizelargelargelarge
Date of Announcement02.03.2009 02.03.2009 02.03.2009
InformationMXM 3MXM 3MXM 3
Link to Manufacturer Pagehttp://www.nvidia.com/object/product_gef...http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_gef...http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_gef...

Benchmarks

3DMark Vantage
3DM Vant. Perf. total + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLI
3DMark Vantage - 3DM Vant. Perf. total
8959 Points (3%)
3DM Vant. Perf. total + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
min: 6438     avg: 6521     median: 6498 (2%)     max: 6628 Points
3DM Vant. Perf. total + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI
min: 8728     avg: 9435     median: 9435 (3%)     max: 10142 Points
3DM Vant. Perf. GPU no PhysX + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLI
3DMark Vantage - 3DM Vant. Perf. GPU no PhysX
8764 Points (7%)
3DM Vant. Perf. GPU no PhysX + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
min: 5501     avg: 5631     median: 5631 (4%)     max: 5761 Points
3DM Vant. Perf. GPU no PhysX + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI
min: 9649     avg: 9947     median: 9946.5 (8%)     max: 10244 Points
3DMark 2001SE - 3DMark 2001 - Standard
30910 Points (32%)
min: 37453     avg: 38453     median: 38453 (40%)     max: 39453 Points
3DMark 03 - 3DMark 03 - Standard
min: 47633     avg: 49182     median: 49181.5 (26%)     max: 50730 Points
37372 Points (20%)
min: 57010     avg: 57553     median: 57552.5 (30%)     max: 58095 Points
3DMark 05 - 3DMark 05 - Standard
min: 12820     avg: 14510     median: 14509.5 (20%)     max: 16199 Points
min: 18935     avg: 18965     median: 18964.5 (26%)     max: 18994 Points
min: 19180     avg: 19268     median: 19267.5 (27%)     max: 19355 Points
3DMark 06 3DMark 06 - Standard 1280x1024 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLI
3DMark 06
min: 10794     avg: 11989     median: 11989 (18%)     max: 13184 Points
3DMark 06 - Standard 1280x1024 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
min: 12840     avg: 12989     median: 12988.5 (20%)     max: 13137 Points
3DMark 06 - Standard 1280x1024 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI
min: 14340     avg: 15019     median: 15000 (23%)     max: 15717 Points
3DMark 06 - Standard 1280x800 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
3DMark 06
13729 Points (21%)
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - 3dsmax
10.2 Points (21%)
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - Catia
12.3 Points (26%)
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - EnSight
15.5 Points (33%)
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - Maya
20.9 Points (11%)
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - Pro/Engeneer
10 Points (20%)
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SolidWorks
11 Points (16%)
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - UGS Teamcenter
3.4 Points (9%)
SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - SPEC Viewperf 10.0 - UGS NX
5 Points (10%)
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 Gaming graphics
min: 6.8     avg: 7.1     median: 7.1 (89%)     max: 7.3 Points
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 Graphics
min: 6.8     avg: 7.1     median: 7.1 (89%)     max: 7.3 Points
Windows Vista Experience Index - Windows Vista Leistungsindex - Grafik (Spiele)
5.9 Points (87%)
Windows Vista Experience Index - Windows Vista Leistungsindex - Grafik
5.9 Points (87%)
Cinebench R10 Cinebench R10 Shading (32bit) + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLI
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Shading (32bit)
3995 Points (17%)
Cinebench R10 Shading (32bit) + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
4941 Points (21%)
Cinebench R10 Shading (32bit) + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI
min: 4835     avg: 5197     median: 5197 (22%)     max: 5559 Points
Cinebench R11.5 Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64 Bit + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
Cinebench R11.5 - Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 64 Bit
min: 30.82     avg: 31.4     median: 31.4 (11%)     max: 32.01 fps

Average Benchmarks NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLI → 100% n=6

Average Benchmarks NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M → 96% n=6

Average Benchmarks NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI → 121% n=6

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

Game Benchmarks

The following benchmarks stem from our benchmarks of review laptops. The performance depends on the used graphics memory, clock rate, processor, system settings, drivers, and operating systems. So the results don't have to be representative for all laptops with this GPU. For detailed information on the benchmark results, click on the fps number.

Mafia 2

Mafia 2

2010
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 285M:
54.9 fps  fps
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
53.8 fps  fps
high 1360x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
52.2 fps  fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
36.9 fps  fps
low 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
184 fps  fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
32.8 fps  fps
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 285M:
66.3 fps  fps
med. 1360x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
40.8 fps  fps
high 1600x900
GeForce GTX 285M:
21.4 fps  fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
13.7 fps  fps
high 1366x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
47.2  fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
26  fps
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
70  fps
high 1366x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
61.2  fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
43.3  fps
Risen

Risen

2009
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
59.2  fps
high 1366x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
43.4  fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
30.3  fps
Need for Speed Shift

Need for Speed Shift

2009
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
75.8  fps
high 1366x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
65.3  fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
38.6  fps
Colin McRae: DIRT 2

Colin McRae: DIRT 2

2009
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
99.3  fps
high 1360x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
66.2  fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
32.9  fps
Anno 1404

Anno 1404

2009
low 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
105  fps
ultra 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 285M:
46.7  fps
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
37.6  fps
Sims 3

Sims 3

2009
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
312  fps
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
145  fps
high 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
120  fps
F.E.A.R. 2

F.E.A.R. 2

2009
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
180 208.8 ~ 194 fps
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
127.5  fps
high 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 285M:
89.2  fps
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
116.9 123.1 ~ 120 fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
47.6  fps
GTA IV - Grand Theft Auto

GTA IV - Grand Theft Auto

2008
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
46.1 65.4 ~ 56 fps
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
44.6 45.2 ~ 45 fps
high 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
35.5 62.2 ~ 49 fps
Left 4 Dead

Left 4 Dead

2008
low 640x480
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
165  fps
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
104  fps
Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2

2008
low 640x480
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
91.6  fps
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
50.8  fps
Crysis Warhead

Crysis Warhead

2008
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
73  fps
ultra 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
35  fps
Racedriver: GRID

Racedriver: GRID

2008
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
122 208.8 ~ 165 fps
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
81 127.5 ~ 104 fps
high 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
77 116.9 ~ 97 fps
Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare

Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare

2007
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
237.2  fps
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
175.3  fps
high 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
105.9 119 ~ 112 fps
Supreme Commander - FA Bench

Supreme Commander - FA Bench

2007
low 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
77.2  fps
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
67.2  fps
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
64.6  fps
Crysis - GPU Benchmark

Crysis - GPU Benchmark

2007
low 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
102  fps
104%
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
102.6 108.5 ~ 106 fps
med. 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
64  fps
100%
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
64.1  fps
high 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
51  fps
99%
GeForce GTX 285M:
50.3  fps
104%
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
52 53.2 ~ 53 fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
13.9  fps
Crysis - CPU Benchmark

Crysis - CPU Benchmark

2007
low 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
132  fps
94%
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
123.5 124.8 ~ 124 fps
med. 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
65  fps
101%
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
65.4  fps
high 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
52  fps
89%
GeForce GTX 285M:
46.4  fps
90%
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
41.3 53.2 ~ 47 fps
ultra 1920x1080
GeForce GTX 285M:
13  fps
World in Conflict - Benchmark

World in Conflict - Benchmark

2007
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 285M:
126 fps  fps
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
84 fps  fps
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
47  fps
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
53 fps  fps
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
74  fps
Call of Juarez Benchmark

Call of Juarez Benchmark

2006
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
36.5 fps  fps
Half Life 2 - Lost Coast Benchmark

Half Life 2 - Lost Coast Benchmark

2005
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
130.8  fps
World of Warcraft

World of Warcraft

2005
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
267  fps
high 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
52  fps
Doom 3

Doom 3

2004
low 640x480
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
217.1  fps
ultra 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M SLI:
215.7  fps

Average Gaming NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLI → 100%

Average Gaming 30-70 fps → 100%

Average Gaming NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M → 94%

Average Gaming 30-70 fps → 94%

Average Gaming NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M SLI → 99%

Average Gaming 30-70 fps → 99%

For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List

v1.17
log 07. 19:08:19

#0 checking url part for id 1229 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 1582 +0s ... 0s

#2 checking url part for id 1122 +0s ... 0s

#3 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#4 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Mon, 04 Jul 2022 17:25:59 +0200 +0s ... 0s

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.051s ... 0.051s

#6 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.051s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.051s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.051s

#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.053s

#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.053s

#11 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.053s

#12 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.053s

#13 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.053s

#14 composed specs +0s ... 0.053s

#15 did output specs +0s ... 0.053s

#16 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s ... 0.053s

#17 getting avg benchmarks for device 1229 +0.041s ... 0.094s

#18 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.095s

#19 got single benchmarks 1229 +0.005s ... 0.099s

#20 getting avg benchmarks for device 1582 +0s ... 0.099s

#21 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.1s

#22 got single benchmarks 1582 +0.009s ... 0.109s

#23 getting avg benchmarks for device 1122 +0s ... 0.11s

#24 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.11s

#25 got single benchmarks 1122 +0.007s ... 0.117s

#26 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.117s

#27 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.117s

#28 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.117s

#29 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.117s

#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.118s

#31 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.118s

#32 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.118s

#33 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.118s

#34 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.118s

#35 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.119s

#36 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.119s

#37 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.119s

#38 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.12s

#39 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.12s

#40 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.12s

#41 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.12s

#42 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.12s

#43 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.12s

#44 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.12s

#45 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.12s

#46 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.12s

#47 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.121s

#48 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.121s

#49 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.121s

#50 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.121s

#51 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.121s

#52 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.121s

#53 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.121s

#54 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.121s

#55 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.121s

#56 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.122s

#57 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.122s

#58 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.122s

#59 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.123s

#60 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.123s

#61 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.124s

#62 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.124s

#63 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.125s

#64 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.125s

#65 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.126s

#66 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.126s

#67 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.127s

#68 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.127s

#69 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.127s

#70 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.128s

#71 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.128s

#72 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.128s

#73 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.128s

#74 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.128s

#75 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.129s

#76 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.129s

#77 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 0.129s

#78 before gaming benchmark output +0s ... 0.129s

#79 Got 93 rows for game benchmarks. +0.006s ... 0.135s

#80 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s ... 0.135s

#81 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.135s

#82 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.135s

#83 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.135s

#84 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.135s

#85 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.135s

#86 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.135s

#87 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.135s

#88 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.135s

#89 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.135s

#90 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.136s

#91 got data and put it in $dataArray +0.004s ... 0.14s

#92 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.141s

#93 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.141s

#94 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.141s

#95 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.141s

#96 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.142s

#97 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.142s

#98 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.143s

#99 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.143s

#100 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.143s

#101 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.144s

#102 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.145s

#103 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.145s

#104 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.146s

#105 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.146s

#106 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.146s

#107 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.147s

#108 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.147s

#109 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.147s

#110 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.148s

#111 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.148s

#112 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.148s

#113 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.149s

#114 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.149s

#115 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.149s

#116 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.15s

#117 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.15s

#118 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.15s

#119 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.151s

#120 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.152s

#121 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.152s

#122 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.153s

#123 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.153s

#124 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.153s

#125 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.153s

#126 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.153s

#127 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.153s

#128 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.153s

#129 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.154s

#130 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.154s

#131 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.154s

#132 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.154s

#133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.154s

#134 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.154s

#135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.155s

#136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.155s

#137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.156s

#138 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.156s

#139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.157s

#140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.157s

#141 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.158s

#142 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.158s

#143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.158s

#144 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.158s

#145 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.158s

#146 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.158s

#147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.159s

#148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.159s

#149 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.159s

#150 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.159s

#151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.16s

#152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.16s

#153 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.16s

#154 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.161s

#155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.161s

#156 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.161s

#157 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.161s

#158 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.161s

#159 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.161s

#160 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.161s

#161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.162s

#162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.162s

#163 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.162s

#164 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.162s

#165 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.162s

#166 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.162s

#167 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.162s

#168 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.163s

#169 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.163s

#170 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.163s

#171 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.163s

#172 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.163s

#173 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.165s

#174 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.166s

#175 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.167s

#176 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.167s

#177 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.168s

#178 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.168s

#179 benchmarks composed for output. +0s ... 0.168s

#180 calculated avg scores. +0s ... 0.168s

#181 return log +0.001s ... 0.169s

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Benchmarks / Tech > Graphics Card Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2017-09-11)