Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup Part I - ATI's Radeon 9800 XT
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on October 1, 2003 3:02 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
AquaMark 3
Despite what some people would like everyone to think, Aquamark3 is really a test of how people developing software now envision DirectX 9 pixel and vertex shaders will be used in the future. The situation is very reminiscent of the first Sony PlayStation: the first games that used the technology were limited by the hardware until developers really learned to work with the hardware rather than on the hardware. As time progressed, we went from what were essentially ports of 16bit console games to amazingly complex and beautiful games like Gran Turismo 2. The same thing will happen with shader technology, and no amount of guessing and throwing functions at a gpu will tell you how its performance will really be in the future. Essentially, my advice is that any piece of software that claims it is a valid predictor of future performance should be taken lightly. We based our decision to include Aquamark3 on its popularity in the community. Aquamark3 is a cool piece of software, with some pretty neat tests, and a high score in any benchmark can still earn bragging rights in the forums. The only Aquamark3 test we ran was the publicly available 1024x768 4xAF noAA in order to maximize the usefulness of these numbers to the community. Our drivers were set to allow application control of AF and AA.
We can see almost a pairing off of the cards in direct competition with one another from each camp. ATI pulls ahead by an insignificant margin in the case of the top cards, but the 5600 Ultra falls way behind in this test. Image quality appears to have improved for NVIDIA in this benchmark over what has been reported of previous drivers, and the NV38 handled the massive overdraw portion of the test the smoothest of all the cards. We will be taking a much closer look at image quality very soon, but until then, it looks like ATI and NVIDIA have equal footing in the Aquamark3 arena and we are left to find more useful information about their differences elsewhere. We would also like to point out that the 9700 Pro held its own in this test inching out the standard 9800.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
263 Comments
View All Comments
Jeff7181 - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
I think Anand is too worried about creating benchmarks that compare to benchmarks done by other review sites. Which is why they had "trouble" benchmarking certain games.I agree, Morrowind would be a good game to benchmark with... I've used it recently to show the differences of AA and AF along with FS2004.
I think what needs to be done in some games like Morrowind is just play the game for 15 minutes... then tell us what the minimum frame rate was, the average, and the high. Who cares if it's not replicated EXACTLY each time... after 15 minutes, the average along with the lows and highs should paint a pretty accurate picture.
Also, in my opinion, FS2004 is THE BEST software to use in comparing the differences between AA and AF between video cards. All you have to do is disable weather and ATC, and save a flight, then load the flight every time you want to take a screen shot. Also pressing Shift+Z twice puts your frame rates on the screen, so there's no need to use FRAPS.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
How about testing old games up to 2048x1536?Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
I suggest adding Tiger Woods 2004 to the suite. Turning up the eye candy is more demanding than one may think, so it would be a good test. But my main motivation is that there appear to be serious driver-related image quality issues with ATI (!) cards (e.g. water reflections).Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
What I would also like to see, is the test results from ATI and Nvidia against DCC packages, such as 3DStudioMax and Maya. I would like to know if these high end gaming cards can also handle some animation rendering too. Maybe they can't, but its one man's dream...Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Good job.You should benchmark it with MORROWIND as well, or maybe under GOTHIC 2.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
And I have a voodoo2 and it sucks on Dx9, what's your point.?Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Sony PS2 and X box Never have a graphics card issue (coz they purley game consoles idiot) yeah I know that, but also the game programers write the games for that particular game console.My question is why does Nvidia or Ati have to constantly adapt their drivers to PC games instead of the Games be compatible with the Graphics cards?
yours sincerly...
Noise
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
I have ATI 9000 card and I can say that ATI sucks in OpenGL.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
#163, I believe that FarCry/64-bit/improved graphics is 100% marketing BS.Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
It's a good suite for testing, but one game that I'd really like to see is Far Cry performance on an Athlon 64...From what I've read the game will use the 64-bit architecture for something graphics-related, and it would be interesting to see how the graphics cards handle this.
If it can't be done now, it may be one to remember for the future...
Also, how well do the 64-bit drivers of both companies perform?