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
How come cards likes the new XT can only get 50fps en jediknight3 ( old Q3 engine ) and reach for the 215 for UT 2k3? ( witch have way better graphic )Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
I really wonder what happened to Anandtech. I once liked and trusted their reviews so much that I did not read any other ones.Now I see the first review of the NV38 and do not see it benchmarked in any way that would interest me. No Tomb Raider: AOD, no Shadermark, no AA/AF, no image quality comparisons and no Half-Life 2 (okay, this might not be Anandtechs fault).
This means no DX9.0 title that is demanding when it comes to Pixel Shader 2.0 power (no, Aquamark isn't). So please not not bench a ton of CPU/Memory limited games even without AA/AF.
"The performance crown under Doom3 is still in NVIDIA’s camp apparently". Doom3 is mainly DirecX8. Period.
"ATI is still ahead in Half Life 2. The numbers we’ve seen indicate that in most tests ATI only holds single digit percentage leads (< 5%), although in some cases ATI manages to pull ahead by double digits." What does that mean? Is this only with the NV30 optimised (degraded IQ) code path. If so, too bad for them.
Finally what I liked to know is if NVidia required Anandtech to benchmark this way...
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
How can Anand use det. 52, It's well know to cheat with lower IQ in Aquamark etc!Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Are you really using:2.8GHz Intel Processor Prescott
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
It was great to see so many games represented, not the least of which is one of my favorites: Neverwinter Nights.One game that I would be thrilled to see is Star Trek Armada II. The game is a blast to play, and under situations with many ships (ESPECIALLY multiplayer) the game can slow to a crawl even on high-end systems. I would hazard to guess that this game is more CPU bound, but a graphics analysis wouldn't hurt anything.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
I thought it was a little ridiculous that almost every benchmark had the stipulation that "AA didn't seem to be applied. We'll investigate later." or "Image Quality wasn't up to snuff. We'll investigate later." and yet you still included the results for the Nvidia cards.After the article from Lars Wienand from THG where he states that if the driver reduces image quality to gain Framerate they gray it out, I expect the same thing from Anandtech. Especially since the drivers you used are unreleased for public consumption and may never even reach the public.
At this point image quality is indeed king. Who wants to spend $500 on a video card that will not provide top notch image quality? I know I don't.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
the only thing i would have like to have seen though, was an indication on the performance graphs as to whether the game being used was a dx8 game, or dx9 game...i think most of those games were dx8...but i cant be certain, so it would have been nice to have known for sure...
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
i cant wait for part 2 !:)
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Would be Cool if Anandtech could start to use Shadermark 2.0 :)Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
The sleepless are rewarded once more!