Passmark scores for GT420,435,445 what do they mean?

What can we actually make of Passmark scores?

These scores are at the time of writing this and may change slightly.

GT 420 scores.......587
GT 435.................695
GT 445.................1015

Can we take from this that there isn't much difference between the 420 and 435 and that the 445 stands out as a far superior card?

Please only comment if you really know your stuff its not a competition about who has the best card and I would prefer facts than personal opinion.

Thanks.

 

It's pretty simple- Passmark is a benchmarking utility that takes what it believes are important aspects of GPUs (in this case) and tests them.

Don't be confused by the seemingly small difference in marks between the 420 and 435. That's an 18% difference. In theory, the 435m will be 18% faster than the 420m.

"Real-world" applications (i.e. games) also confirm the approximately 18% average difference.

You can do the math for the 445m as well.

 

Thats why I ask about what these marks mean when comparing these cards. "In theory" is good but it doesn't actually tell us a lot. I guess its too early to compare unless anyone knows where we can find some comparisons properly tested.

 

But the thing is- the 435m IS actually 18% faster than the 420m.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 435M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

Notebookcheck does "real world" applications (games) and does some estimates and averages.

Random idea:
I guess it would be fair to call the Passmark mark number the card's potential difference. Passmark says the 435m is 18% faster than the 420m. Since the 420m is technologically identical to the 435m (the difference between the two is just a clock rate), it results in the full 18% potential. Since the 445m is technologically different (more/different pipelines, ect.), it results in an average (from notebookcheck) of 37% faster, and not the full 46% difference in Passmarks. Perhaps "real-world" applications aren't designed well enough to get all of the potential power.

 

Thanks, i've read a bit more since my last comment and now i can make more sense of it. I went for the 445 and i7 instead of the 1080 screen as i wanted the most performance i could get for the money and 1080 doesn't matter to me as i have external screens both monitors and tv's already in 1080.. I guess its just a case of finding out what it's now capable of when using it myself.