Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup - Part 3: ATI's Radeon 9600 XT
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on October 15, 2003 10:26 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Test
We used the exact same test bed and settings as our Catalyst 3.8 review, the only difference here was that we benchmarked at 1024x768 given the power and target market of the Radeon 9600 XT. We also used the "almost final" version of the 52 series Detonators from NVIDIA (52.16) which have been submitted for WHQL certification.
As a refresher, here are the games we benchmarked with:
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 testbed remained the same:
AMD Athlon64 FX51
1GB DDR400 (2x512MB)
ASUS nForce3 motherboard
The only issues we encountered were as follows:
1) Homeworld 2 would not run on either the Radeon 9600 Pro or the Radeon 9600 XT. This is the same issue we ran into the first time we tried to run this benchmark on ATI hardware. Interestingly enough, it works on all of ATI’s high end cards – just not their midrange hardware.
2) Tomb Raider would not run on the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra with the latest 52.16 drivers at 1024x768. The game kept on returning an out of memory error at any resolution higher than 1024x768. Given that we tested with a 128MB card and none of the other cards had a problem, this seems like more of a driver issue or a game issue than anything else.
3) Since the GeForce4 Ti 4200 only supports PS1.1, we could not include this card in the Tomb Raider tests either. Performance under PS1.1 is much higher than performance under PS2.0, so the comparison would not be fair to ATI if we ran all of their hardware using PS2.0 and ran the Ti 4200 in PS1.1 mode.
We have not had time to go back and figure out a benchmark for BF1942 yet nor work out the issues with Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. We haven’t received much feedback in terms of any ideas for benchmarking under these two games, but we’re still open to suggestions.
For image quality comparisons refer back to our Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup - Part 2.
With that out of the way, let’s get to the games.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Friday, October 17, 2003 - link
As an owner of a GeForce2 Ultra (a card that continues to hold its own!), just about *any* card today is going to be a noticeable performance gain. Based on the fact that I can get the 9600 XT for $200 with Half Life 2, and I could get the 9600 Pro for $150 (w/o HL2), I'm gonna run out and grab me an XT.btw: I ran the FF XI benchmark last night and scored 1650 on high resolution and 2444 on low resolution (on an Athlon 1.4GHz, 512MB PC2100 DDR RAM, and a GeForce 2 Ultra)... heh, a far cry from the 5000+ generated from the 9600 XT.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link
It's stupid not to test ALL video cards using the best system possible, otherwise you can't isolate performance differences, in fillrate, etc.Duh!
rms - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link
Inquirer says a newer considerably faster 9600XT is coming out:http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12161
rms
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link
The packaged benchmark in Halo? I sure wish I could find it....Any help would be appreciated.
AlteX - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link
#52, I didn't say AT should test the cards on all the possible systems or on the exact system I intend to buy. I just said that it seems more appropriate to me if they test the mainstream cards on a typical mainstream system and the high-end cards on a typical high-end system.It seems weird to me that a dude would shell out say almsot $800 for an Athlon 64 FX just to get crippled by a $200 video card. I think that most "real-world" systems have components that all belong to a similar price/performance range (low-end/mainstream/high-end), and testing a mainstream video card with a high-end CPU won't really show "real-world" performance, even though real games are used.
What interests me personally (and maybe many other mainstream gamers ;)) is what is the cheapest mainstream gfx card with which I can still get playable framerates at nice IQ settings in the tested games rather than how all these GPUs compare to one another, which is more of an "academic research" than "practical information"... but that's just my very humble opinion... :)
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link
Hey, just curious, I need a PCI only video card. What's reccomended for this type of application?IE: A good cheap well rounded video card with PCI?
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link
#51 It is not my monitor. A Radeon 9000 Pro does not show this problem and neither does a GeoForce2 MX or Matrox G200. Another monitor showed the same problem with those two Radeon 9600 Pro cards.The moire effect is caused by the monitor, but I was not referring to that.
Revolutionary - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link
Update for 9500 Pro lovers:I just checked out HotHarware's review of the 9600XT.
On Unreal Tournament 2003 Citadel FlyBy, at 1024x 768, "maximized graphical (sic) settings", and no AA/AF, the 9600XT scored 111.38 average FPS.
On my 9500 Pro, at the same resolution, using HardOCP's High Quality settings (which I am assuming are similar to HotHardware's "maximized" custom INI settings) I get 119.44.
Its not a lot, and its not as scientific a comparison as I'd like to make, but in UT2K3, anyway, the 9500 Pro seems to still top the 9600 line.
Revolutionary - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link
#37The Zalman heatpipes are the way to go. I've got one on my 9500 Pro and its passive (no fan). The fan bracket that comes with it can be used to attach an 80 or 90mm fan easily.
#48
I don't think its practical a handful of dudes to try to scale all their tests to a variety of different platforms. They aren't interested in telling you exactly how well it is going to perform in your system based on your systems' specs, and I'm not interested in reading it. They are going to tell you how well it performs objectively, by isolating the GPU and keeping the rest of the system as advanced as possible-- the constant. Any variation is the result of the variable: the GPU. If you want to know precisely the performance you can expect on your system, buy the system and run the tests. AT's methodology is intended to show you what you might expect, not what you should experience.
#50
They stated that they couldn't test the OverDrive OC feature because it isn't supported for the 9600XT in the current drivers.
As for comments, I too wanted to see the 9500 Pro in there. It typically outperforms the 9600 Pro, and for my money, that's where the real challenge for ATI's mainstream products lies: not in besting the 9700 Pro, but in actually besting the previous generation mainstream product. The 9600P didn't do it. Can the 9600XT? Guess I'll have ot buy one to find out.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link
#47 ... any card will do that, and the higher the res, the worse the problem -- its your monitor.Along with the problem you mentioned, it is also very easy to see the moire effect in your line of crap. that's not vid card eithre.
your welcome, have a nice day