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
Aquamark3 Performance
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 4X AF no-AA in order to maximize the usefulness of these numbers to the community. Our drivers were set to allow application control of AF and AA.
The 9600 XT makes some good gains over the 9600 Pro in Aquamark. For a 25% increase in clock speed, we get more than a 17% increase in frame rate. We still aren't close to the 9700 Pro, but those kinds of numbers are not bad by any stretch.
We can attribute the solid increase in frame rate under Aquamark to its extensive use of shaders which make performance more defendant on core clock speed than any thing else.
All the other cards in this benchmark fall where we would expect them.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
PrinceGaz - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
You can infer how a 9500pro would do by considering it a bit like a slightly faster 9600xt in core speed, but with slower memory. That isn't as daft as it sounds.The 9600xt is a 4-pipeline 500mhz core while the 9500pro was an 8-pipeline 275mhz core, so the older 9500pro at default core-speed could be thought of as being a 550mhz 9600xt, before the improvements in the RV350 core over the R300 are considered. I doubt a 9600xt is gonna reach 550mhz easily so the 9500pro should have a slight edge in core-horsepower.
Memory-wise, the 9600xt should be in front both in memory-speed and efficiency which would suggest, so at least in theory the 9600xt should be somewhat faster than the 9500pro in DX8 titles but not so far ahead when DX9 shaders are used intensively.
I still think including the 9800se in the benchmarks is essential thanks to its high memory-bandwidth, especially when its over $50 cheaper than a 9700non-pro, let alone the even more expensive 9700pro.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
hmm...so why wasnt the 9500pro used in the review?was there any reason that was given ?
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
good review, good conclusion...i totally agree in almost everything. only overclocking performance wouldve been an interesting additionAnonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
On a side track, can anyone tell me a decent cooler for the ATi brand of cards? Seems like there is a serious lack of good heatsinks and fan combos for these parts. All I have seen are two different heatpipe applications that seem like a step in the wrong direction. Why can't someone produce a good chunk of copper with a good fan for my 9600 Pro???Wiley
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
damm i though that 9600 XT would be great. but all i can see is another product from ati that steals your money. i prefer to buy a 9500 proAnonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
Beyond3D benchmarked the 9600XT against the 9500 Pro as well as the 9600 ProAnonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
#25: $216 at GameVE. Considering the 9600 XT is $199 though, i think Anand has a point.http://www.gameve.com/store/gameve_viewitem.asp?id...
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
It would have been great if Anand and Derek had put a 9500 Pro to the review. I'm curious how it stacks up against 9600 Pro/XT and 5600 Ultra in all these benchmarks. Does anybody know?Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
I was really hoping to see the 9600XT do better, but the scores are still great for the price range. It's amazing that my 9700-pro, which I bought almost a year ago for $300, still keeps up so well.I agree with #26 in regards to anonymous posting. I like it, but if it bothers everybody else, please lift the 'no free e-mail address' requirement, or I, the single greatest poster ever, would no longer be able to post, and Anandtech would lose at least 50% of it's reader base. :) Besides, I really don't mind trolls. It shakes things up.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - link
#29, you and me both wish =(But remember, why use logic when you can use Flash?