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
Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour
The recently released expansion to the very popular Real-Time Strategy (RTS) game Command & Conquer Generals seems to do a good job of living up to the standards set by its prestigious ancestry. RTS games usually get overlooked in GPU roundups and comparisons as they aren’t considered graphically intense. However, smoothness is very important to gameplay; goodness knows I’ve blamed plenty of lost armies on ill timed drops in framerate. For this benchmark, we created a multiplayer game consisting of 6 hard armies on one team with us, and one easy army. We then used the replay feature in conjunction with FRAPS to measure performance. This was done with and without 4xAA/8xAF.
In this first test we can see that all the ATI cards are huddled together at the top while the nvidia cards lag behind. Clearly this game favors the ATI architecture. One of NVIDIAs strong points, memory bandwidth, doesn't get a chance to shine in this game as its mostly small textures and low poly objects with some pretty cool particle effects. That kind of setup just doesn't tilt in NVIDIAs favor.
Even with AA and AF enabled neither camp is severely hampered; and the only card that really drops off significantly is the 9600 Pro. The fact that the FX 5900 and NV38 are neck and neck suggests that the reason for NVIDIAs performance in this benchmark has something to do with an aspect of the architecture that isn't directly (or significantly?) affected by GPU core clock or memory bus bandwidth/speed; more than likely we're talking about driver issues here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
263 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#19, did you even read this review at all? You look more idiotic by the second; Anand DID INCLUDE NV38.And if you are honestly that whiny to suggest that you can't wait for Part 2 for a free service such as Anandtech...then just get a life.
And no, SM2.0 cannot single handedly predict future game titles, that's just ignorance on your part. If you knew anything about programming you'd know that there are so many different variables that affect a game that it would take multiple code testing programs (like SM2.0) to even get a relatively accurate picture of future game title performance. Unfortunately, no web site in the world is going to spend their whole day doing that crap, they wouldn’t be able to get other games benchmarked.
(Btw, if you mistyped your comment about NV38, since your next comment seemed to imply that AT is somehow biased because they got NV38 and no one else did, you are simply a paranoid dope with nothing better to do than bash a big web site. Christ, you don't even know how dumb you sound; just today I was told by an editor through pms that AT's 9800XT review was delayed because they received NV38 at the last minute. Yeah, that clearly shows that NVIDIA had planned all along to have this AT review by their biased leash.
Haha, I just noticed over at Beyond3D that you're Natoma, yes? Haha, no wonder, you're one of the least knowledgeable guys there. Lol
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#19 cont.: Look what NVidia needs is not NV38 but NV40. And NV40 should better be better than R420 in ALL terms.And I'd love to see NVidia back on track.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Doom 3 is an OPENGL game, not DirectX. And Carmack himself said they had to write specific code paths for Nvidia (to use lower precision), so you can't really compare ATI and Nvidia in Doom 3 directly.Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Perhaps YOU are clueless. I don't need to wait for complete reviews on other sides. And yes, they might have had more time as they did not benchmark NV38. However that they did not get NV38 makes this review even more suspicious.AND: You should also want Shadermark 2.0 crap if you are interested in playing some games already on the horizon and most games that will be released over the next year. Some of these games may be fillrate intensive like Aquamark3 but they are not that Pixel Shader 2.0 intensive.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
prescott..naa...but then again why not?Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#11 you're an idiot. What loser who wants to buy a 9800XT or NV38 wants to see Shadermark 2.0 crap? Jesus, I certainly don't, and I'm one of many people that wants to buy a high-end video card. Tomb Raider sure, but he included 15 total games you idiot. And if you actually READ the review, you would have noticed Anand say he will do IQ testing in Part 2 of this review.Jesus, are there really this many clueless Anandtech readers? lol
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
@ 15: I was once an NVidia stockholder and gladly sold them early. With Doom 3 being DirectX 8 i mean that it does not use much of the new Shader capabilities that DirectX 9.0 cards have.I saw that Anand uses AF/AA in some games. Too bad that the most demanding games Aquamark3 and Halo were not also benched this way...
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Yes Anand really is using a 2.8GHz Prescott. =)#11 Doom3 is OpenGL. I dont know where you got this directx 8 business. Are you bashing AT because NVIDIA scored poorly, or because ATI scored well?
Kristopher
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
@ 12: Because Raven Software uses far more polygons and newer shader extensions in JK3. It is not really comparable to Quake 3.Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Concerning #11: I did not mean that all games are CPU limited. But Anandtech complained about not having enough time for AA/AF. So possibly they should have excluded games like FS 2004.