Notebookcheck Logo

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

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

► remove from comparison NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M

The NVidia GeForce GTX 280M is a high-end graphics card as part of the 200M series and is based on the G92b core (Desktop GeForce 9800 GTX+). Therefore, it is actually more related to the GeForce 9800 GTX+, both performance-wise and architecturally, than to the GTX 280. The chip is produced in 55nm with all 128 pipelines enabled, as opposed to the GT 9800M with only 112 pipelines produced in a 65nm process.

Hybrid Power makes an appearance on the GTX 280M as well, but with much improved performance. Switch times on the graphics card now completes in just a fraction of a second, compared to a full 7 seconds on the 9800M GTX,

As with all DirectX 10 graphics cards, the GeForce GTX 280M renders 3D images using "Unified Shaders". Dedicated pixel and vertex shaders of yesteryear are gone in favor of 128 stream processors running at 1250MHz on the GTX 280M.  The stream processors handle all of the workload that would have otherwise been processed by pixel or vertex shaders. VRAM can be up to 1024 MB GDDR3 clocked at either 800MHz (on MXM2 boards) or 950MHz (on MXM3 boards).

Due to the full 128 shader cores, the GTX 280M is about 10-25% faster than the older 9800M GTX and slightly faster than the 260M. Compared to the performance of the Mobility Radeon HD 4870, the GTX 280M is about equal in synthetic benchmarks, if not slightly lower. The Nvidia card, however, has proven to be slightly faster in games, so the GTX 280M can therefore be rated more highly in terms of real-life performance. Specifically, games with PhysX support (e.g., Mirrors Edge) can have significant performance advantages if PhysX effects are enabled. 

Another feature of the GeForce GTX 280M is the integrated PureVideo HD video processor. The card is able to assist the CPU in decoding of H.264-, VC-1-, MPEG2- and WMV9 video material.

HybridPower is a Windows Vista-only technique used to switch between the integrated (only with Nvidia chipset) and dedicated graphics cores for power-saving purposes. Eventually, Nvidia will have its future chips switch automatically between dedicated or integrated through drivers (now known as Optimus Technology). GeForceBoost is not supported with this card, as there would be no performance gain from combining the integrated GPU with the discrete video card.

A high power consumption of up to 75 Watts (including the VRAM and MXM board) means that only large notebooks with powerful (and possibly loud) cooling systems can run the GTX 280M.

The newer GTX 285M is based on the same core as the GTX 280M, but with only slightly altered clock rates. As a result, the performance of the GeForce GTX285M is very similar to the GTX 280M.

Compared with Desktop graphic cards, the performance can be considered somewhere in between the 9800 GT and the 9800 GTX, the latter of which has considerably higher clock rates at 675/1675/1100MHz.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M SLINVIDIA GeForce GTX 285MNVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M
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 - unified128 - 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 MB1024 MB
Shared Memorynonono
APIDirectX 10, Shader 4.0DirectX 10, Shader 4.0DirectX 10, Shader 4.0
Power Consumption150 Watt
Transistors1.5 Billion754 Million754 Million
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
min: 5314     avg: 6328     median: 6672 (2%)     max: 6779 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
min: 5071     avg: 5243     median: 5257.5 (4%)     max: 5319 Points
3DMark 2001SE - 3DMark 2001 - Standard
30910 Points (32%)
min: 36607     avg: 38714     median: 38780 (40%)     max: 40754 Points
3DMark 03 - 3DMark 03 - Standard
min: 47633     avg: 49182     median: 49181.5 (26%)     max: 50730 Points
37372 Points (20%)
min: 34632     avg: 35749     median: 35748.5 (19%)     max: 36865 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: 16800     avg: 18414     median: 18669 (26%)     max: 20713 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
min: 11767     avg: 12569     median: 12551 (19%)     max: 13652 Points
3DMark 06 - Standard 1280x800 + NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285M
3DMark 06
13729 Points (21%)
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
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
min: 4111     avg: 5505     median: 5276.5 (22%)     max: 7845 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 → 95% 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:
100  fps
ultra 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 285M:
46.7  fps
GeForce GTX 280M:
40 51.5 52.7 ~ 48 fps
F.E.A.R. 2

F.E.A.R. 2

2009
high 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 285M:
89.2  fps
GeForce GTX 280M:
82.5 86.1 91 ~ 87 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:
48 55.7 63.9 65.3 ~ 58 fps
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M:
47 53.9 55.7 56.3 ~ 53 fps
high 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 280M:
33 38.4 39.3 41.5 ~ 38 fps
Left 4 Dead

Left 4 Dead

2008
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M:
104 121.2 131.5 ~ 119 fps
Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2

2008
low 640x480
GeForce GTX 280M:
98  fps
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M:
62  fps
Crysis Warhead

Crysis Warhead

2008
low 800x600
GeForce GTX 280M:
76  fps
ultra 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M:
17  fps
Racedriver: GRID

Racedriver: GRID

2008
high 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 280M:
72.8  fps
Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare

Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare

2007
high 1280x1024
GeForce GTX 280M:
75 78.8 117.5 ~ 90 fps
Supreme Commander - FA Bench

Supreme Commander - FA Bench

2007
med. 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M:
54.6 54.9 56 ~ 55 fps
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M:
45 45.9 46.1 47.3 ~ 46 fps
Crysis - GPU Benchmark

Crysis - GPU Benchmark

2007
low 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
102  fps
120%
GeForce GTX 280M:
106 115.4 128.6 138.9 ~ 122 fps
med. 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
64  fps
102%
GeForce GTX 280M:
60.9 65.9 66 67 ~ 65 fps
high 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
51  fps
99%
GeForce GTX 285M:
50.3  fps
88%
GeForce GTX 280M:
43.1 44 45 45.1 48.6 ~ 45 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
80%
GeForce GTX 280M:
95.2 102.1 117.1 ~ 105 fps
med. 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
65  fps
103%
GeForce GTX 280M:
61.2 66.2 72.4 ~ 67 fps
high 1024x768
100%
GeForce GTX 260M SLI:
52  fps
89%
GeForce GTX 285M:
46.4  fps
87%
GeForce GTX 280M:
41.2 43.8 47.3 49.5 ~ 45 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:
77  fps
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
53 fps  fps
GeForce GTX 280M:
46  fps
Call of Juarez Benchmark

Call of Juarez Benchmark

2006
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 285M:
36.5 fps  fps
GeForce GTX 280M:
29.3 33 33.1 ~ 32 fps
Half Life 2 - Lost Coast Benchmark

Half Life 2 - Lost Coast Benchmark

2005
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M:
144  fps
Counter-Strike Source

Counter-Strike Source

2004
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M:
265  fps
Doom 3

Doom 3

2004
low 640x480
GeForce GTX 280M:
161  fps
ultra 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M:
160  fps
Quake 3 Arena - Timedemo

Quake 3 Arena - Timedemo

1999
high 1024x768
GeForce GTX 280M:
695  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 → 96%

Average Gaming 30-70 fps → 95%

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

v1.17
log 07. 18:01:35

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

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

#2 checking url part for id 1110 +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 ... 0.001s

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.048s ... 0.049s

#6 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.049s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.049s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.049s

#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s ... 0.05s

#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.05s

#11 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.05s

#12 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.05s

#13 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.05s

#14 composed specs +0s ... 0.05s

#15 did output specs +0s ... 0.05s

#16 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s ... 0.05s

#17 getting avg benchmarks for device 1229 +0.041s ... 0.091s

#18 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.092s

#19 got single benchmarks 1229 +0.004s ... 0.096s

#20 getting avg benchmarks for device 1582 +0s ... 0.096s

#21 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.097s

#22 got single benchmarks 1582 +0.008s ... 0.105s

#23 getting avg benchmarks for device 1110 +0s ... 0.105s

#24 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.106s

#25 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s ... 0.107s

#26 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.108s

#27 got single benchmarks 1110 +0.011s ... 0.119s

#28 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.119s

#29 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.119s

#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.119s

#31 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.119s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#47 linkCache_getLink no uid found +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 using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.121s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#70 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.123s

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

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

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

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

#75 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.123s

#76 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.123s

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

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

#79 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.123s

#80 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.124s

#81 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.124s

#82 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.125s

#83 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.125s

#84 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.125s

#85 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.126s

#86 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.126s

#87 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.126s

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

#89 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.126s

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

#91 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.126s

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

#93 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.126s

#94 min, max, avg, median took s +0s ... 0.126s

#95 before gaming benchmark output +0s ... 0.126s

#96 Got 111 rows for game benchmarks. +0.006s ... 0.133s

#97 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s ... 0.133s

#98 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.133s

#99 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.133s

#100 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.133s

#101 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.133s

#102 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.133s

#103 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.133s

#104 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.133s

#105 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.133s

#106 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.133s

#107 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.133s

#108 got data and put it in $dataArray +0.005s ... 0.138s

#109 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.139s

#110 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.139s

#111 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.139s

#112 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.139s

#113 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.14s

#114 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.14s

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

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

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

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

#119 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.142s

#120 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.142s

#121 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.143s

#122 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.143s

#123 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.143s

#124 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.144s

#125 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.144s

#126 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.144s

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

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

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

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

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

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

#133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.147s

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

#135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.147s

#136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.147s

#137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.147s

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

#139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.148s

#140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.148s

#141 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.148s

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

#143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.149s

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

#145 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.149s

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

#147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.149s

#148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.149s

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

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

#151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.149s

#152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.149s

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

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

#155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.149s

#156 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.149s

#157 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.149s

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

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

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

#161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s ... 0.151s

#162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s ... 0.152s

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

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

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

#166 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s ... 0.154s

#167 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.154s

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

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

#170 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.154s

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

#172 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.154s

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

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

#175 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.155s

#176 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.155s

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

#178 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.155s

#179 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.155s

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

#181 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.155s

#182 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.155s

#183 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.155s

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

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

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

#187 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.155s

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

#189 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.156s

#190 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.156s

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

#192 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.156s

#193 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.156s

#194 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.156s

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

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

#197 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.156s

#198 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.156s

#199 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s ... 0.156s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#210 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s ... 0.161s

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

#212 benchmarks composed for output. +0.001s ... 0.162s

#213 calculated avg scores. +0s ... 0.162s

#214 return log +0.001s ... 0.162s

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)