An even more updated Test Suite

In Part 1 we introduced our new test suite; this edition brings some refinements and four additions, but (believe it or not) it is still not complete. It isn't our goal to simply throw numbers into space and see what happens, so we are really focusing on honing our benchmarks to make them as robust and accurate as possible. As such, we have had to forgo a few additions that we really wanted to make, and we've had to drop one of the titles we had included in Part 1. This is how the new suite looks as things stand for this article:

Aquamark3

C&C Generals: Zero Hour

EVE: The Second Genesis

F1 Challenge '99-'02

Final Fantasy XI

GunMetal

Halo

Homeworld 2

Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

Neverwinter Nights: Shadow of Undrendtide

SimCity 4

Splinter Cell

Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness

Tron 2.0

Unreal Tournament 2003

Warcraft III: Frozen Throne

Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory

X2: The Threat

Our previous Flight Simulator benchmark just didn't push the game far enough, and we are hard at work trying to find a benchmark that better reflects gameplay and is completely repeatable. We have really appreciated your feedback, and we ask that you continue to suggest games for possible inclusion in the suite. Just so you'll know what we already have slated to make it in "When their done" (to borrow from 3DRealms), these games will be added either as we finalize a benchmarking procedure for them or as they are released:

Doom3

MS Flight Simulator 2004

Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII

Halflife 2

FIFA Soccer 2004

We wanted to include Battlefield in this review unfortunately we were still unable to come up with a repeatable test to include. We have looked at other tests on the net and would rather use something a bit more scientific if possible but it's going to take some more time. If anyone from the Battlefield community has any suggestions on how to reliably benchmark the game, we're all ears.

 

As we received some criticism that the CPU we used in Part 1 wasn't fast enough, we upgraded our testbed for Part 2; the test system we used is as follows:

AMD Athlon64 FX51

1GB DDR400 (2x512MB)

nForce3 motherboard

With all of that out of the way, it's time to get to the benchmarks…

Index Aquamark3 IQ
Comments Locked

117 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    Wasn't Anand allowed to use ShaderMark v2.0 for det. the pixel shader performace?
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    lol read this article take me a 1/2 hour. this article is great but it can be improved
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    why anand didnt review bf1942 :(
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    why is anand bashing Tomb raider
    and whats up with PS 2.0 graph
    why not just post the fps, makes it seem
    like nvidia is beating Ati. Also why are beta drivers being tested with nvidia. Should have used
    cat 3.8 for Radeon.
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    im still waiting that a site post a review for an 9600 XT
  • Pete - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    Overall, a good read. Thanks, Derek and Anand.
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    im not biased towards either card. i myself own a 9800pro. what concerns me is the immaturity shown by other ATI card owners. you guys act like nvidia can never measure up to ATI (which is so untrue). there was none/little difference in the IQ and benchmark results (with few exceptions, but explanations were given for the most part). also keep in mind that the 9800xt specs are higher than the 5900/5950 and it still managed to get beat in some of the tests. anyway, good job nvidia. you guys are certainly headed in the right direction. i was a bit sad to see my card excluded though :( ... they said they'll benchmark the value cards soon...i hope to see mine there ;)

    ps: i could be wrong about the specs, but i do remember anand saying the XT had higher memory bandwidth (which could've accounted for some performance differences).

    all in all, a good review, ill be waiting for more updates.
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    18, he says he saw it saw it, he doesnt know why it was there, there is no reason to exclude regular fps graphs, especially since people want to know the fps of this game, since it is the ONLY truly dx9 game in the entire suite
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    Hey Anand did nvidias check arrive yet
  • Anonymous User - Tuesday, October 7, 2003 - link

    Haha, yet again, we see fanATIcs (#10, #14) coming out of the woodworks to claim that Anandtech's review is either biased or NVIDIA is still cheating. lmao, losers!

    And by the way #14, you're plain dumb if you couldn't figure out that the TR:AOD graphs were showing a percentage difference. Christ, read the review.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now