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
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
I think I remember that Tron 2.0 asked me to install DX9 so it probably uses some DX9 functions and it's an existing game so why not try to build a benchmark on it? Anyway since we're dealing with unreleased Det50 drivers here... (I rather prefer the THG way of dealing with that)BTW, I think there's a massive misunderstanding on whether a game is DX8/8.1/9; it can be all at the same time. You can use DX8 pixel shaders and DX9 pixel shaders at the same time.
It's just that as soon as you start using DX9 functions you lose compatibility with DX8/8.1 compatible cards. It's up to the developer to replace these convenient DX9 specifics by DX8/8.1 compatible pixel shaders for instance. So DX9 is really an extension to DX8.1 and DX8.1 is an extension to DX8 and so on
Oh and Doom III is OpenGL for God's sake!!!!!!!!!
appu - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
It would be a good idea to include at least FIFA2003 (and if possible, NFS HP2 or PU) mainly for
the same reason why C&C was benched. These are
really popular games and people would like to know
how they "feel" running with these new cards and
drivers. Also, FIFA 2004 is reportedly coming up
with even more impressive graphic quality and AI
(the latter could be a reason to CPU bench it,
perhaps?).
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#59 - halflife2 will be a very important benchmark, but its not out yet.. although a benchmarking tool was promised around this timeAnonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Well done guys, defintely going down the right track, testing cards with REAL games that people actually play.Still needs a little refining - HL2 can't be ignored as a valid benchmark!
Keep up the good work.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
im in the same boat as you here #57, very excited about the 9600XT although i think that its more a case of not available than lack of want for a review on AT's part.Can't wait to see how they go =)
zxyth - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
I'm was hoping to see benchmarks for the 9600XT. $500 for a new card is rather high for someone on a budget. I've been interested in the 9600 Pro cards for a while and I'm disappointed none of the 9600's were shown. Not everyone can afford the high end cards and I for one would like to see more coverage of the cards that many more people are like to have or buy. It's great to see the flagship cards and what they can do, but don't forget some of us just can't go that route. And we'd like to see benchmarks for the cards that we have or want to purchase.Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#52 I guess we are both whiners then. I keep whining about Anandtechs review and you about my comments. Peace, I'm getting tired.Evan Lieb - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
A 2.8GHz Prescott CPU was used. Anand probably didn't say anything just to tease you. ;)Take care,
Evan
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Prescott will come out at 3.2 and 3.4 GHz later this year.Lower versions 3.0/2.8...will follow afterwards.
So its for sure no Prescott here.
And if, I wonder why there is no test/word at all about it.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Correction, I meant #41.