GPU Cheatsheet - A History of Modern Consumer Graphics Processors

DirectX 9 Performance

Below you can see our plot of the DirectX9 components.

9600 Pro	400	600	4	1	2	128	1600	200	9155	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
DirectX 9
GF 6800UE	450	1200	16	1	6	256	7200	675	36621	450.0%	400.0%	337.5%	475.0%
X800 XT PE	520	1120	16	1	6	256	8320	780	34180	520.0%	373.3%	390.0%	470.6%
X800 XT PE	520	1120	16	1	6	256	8320	780	34180	520.0%	373.3%	390.0%	470.6%
X800 XT	500	1000	16	1	6	256	8000	750	30518	500.0%	333.3%	375.0%	443.1%
GF 6800U	400	1100	16	1	6	256	6400	600	33569	400.0%	366.7%	300.0%	426.7%
X800 GT?	425	900	16	1	6	256	6800	638	27466	425.0%	300.0%	318.8%	382.7%
GF 6800GT	350	1000	16	1	6	256	5600	525	30518	350.0%	333.3%	262.5%	378.3%
X800 Pro	475	900	12	1	6	256	5700	713	27466	356.3%	300.0%	356.3%	371.3%
X800 Pro	475	900	12	1	6	256	5700	713	27466	356.3%	300.0%	356.3%	371.3%
X800 SE?	425	800	8	1	6	256	3400	638	24414	212.5%	266.7%	318.8%	292.6%
X700 XT?	500	1000	8	1	6	128	4000	750	15259	250.0%	166.7%	375.0%	290.3%
GF 6800	325	700	12	1	5	256	3900	406	21362	243.8%	233.3%	203.1%	272.1%
GF 6800	325	700	12	1	5	256	3900	406	21362	243.8%	233.3%	203.1%	272.1%
GF 6600GT	500	1000	8	1	3	128	4000	375	15259	250.0%	166.7%	187.5%	241.7%
GF 6800LE	320	700	8	1	5	256	2560	400	21362	160.0%	233.3%	200.0%	237.3%
GF 6800LE	320	700	8	1	5	256	2560	400	21362	160.0%	233.3%	200.0%	237.3%
9800 XT	412	730	8	1	4	256	3296	412	22278	206.0%	243.3%	206.0%	218.4%
GFFX 5950U	475	950	4	2	3	256	3800	356	28992	237.5%	316.7%	178.1%	207.5%
9800 Pro 256	380	700	8	1	4	256	3040	380	21362	190.0%	233.3%	190.0%	204.4%
9800 Pro 128	380	680	8	1	4	256	3040	380	20752	190.0%	226.7%	190.0%	202.2%
GFFX 5900U	450	850	4	2	3	256	3600	338	25940	225.0%	283.3%	168.8%	191.8%
GFFX 5900	400	850	4	2	3	256	3200	300	25940	200.0%	283.3%	150.0%	179.4%
9700 Pro	325	620	8	1	4	256	2600	325	18921	162.5%	206.7%	162.5%	177.2%
9800	325	600	8	1	4	256	2600	325	18311	162.5%	200.0%	162.5%	175.0%
9800 SE 256	380	680	4	1	4	256	1520	380	20752	95.0%	226.7%	190.0%	170.6%
GFFX 5900XT/SE	400	700	4	2	3	256	3200	300	21362	200.0%	233.3%	150.0%	165.3%
9800 "Pro"	380	680	8	1	4	128	3040	380	10376	190.0%	113.3%	190.0%	164.4%
GFFX 5800U	500	1000	4	2	2	128	4000	250	15259	250.0%	166.7%	125.0%	153.5%
9700	275	540	8	1	4	256	2200	275	16479	137.5%	180.0%	137.5%	151.7%
GF 6600	300	550	8	1	3	128	2400	225	8392	150.0%	91.7%	112.5%	141.7%
9800 SE 128	325	580	8	1	4	128	2600	325	8850	162.5%	96.7%	162.5%	140.6%
GFFX 5700U GDDR3	475	950	4	1	3	128	1900	356	14496	118.8%	158.3%	178.1%	129.0%
GFFX 5700U	475	900	4	1	3	128	1900	356	13733	118.8%	150.0%	178.1%	126.6%
X600 XT	500	740	4	1	2	128	2000	250	11292	125.0%	123.3%	125.0%	124.4%
GFFX 5800	400	800	4	2	2	128	3200	200	12207	200.0%	133.3%	100.0%	122.8%
9500 Pro	275	540	8	1	4	128	2200	275	8240	137.5%	90.0%	137.5%	121.7%
9600 XT	500	600	4	1	2	128	2000	250	9155	125.0%	100.0%	125.0%	116.7%
9600 Pro	400	600	4	1	2	128	1600	200	9155	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
X600 Pro	400	600	4	1	2	128	1600	200	9155	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
GFFX 5700	425	500	4	1	3	128	1700	319	7629	106.3%	83.3%	159.4%	98.9%
9500	275	540	4	1	4	128	1100	275	8240	68.8%	90.0%	137.5%	98.8%
GFFX 5600U FC	400	800	4	1	1	128	1600	100	12207	100.0%	133.3%	50.0%	80.3%
9600	325	400	4	1	2	128	1300	163	6104	81.3%	66.7%	81.3%	76.4%
X300	325	400	4	1	2	128	1300	163	6104	81.3%	66.7%	81.3%	76.4%
GFFX 5600U	350	700	4	1	1	128	1400	88	10681	87.5%	116.7%	43.8%	70.2%
9600 SE	325	400	4	1	2	64	1300	163	3052	81.3%	33.3%	81.3%	65.3%
X300 SE	325	400	4	1	2	64	1300	163	3052	81.3%	33.3%	81.3%	65.3%
GFFX 5200U	325	650	4	1	1	128	1300	81	9918	81.3%	108.3%	40.6%	65.2%
9550	250	400	4	1	2	128	1000	125	6104	62.5%	66.7%	62.5%	63.9%
GFFX 5700LE	250	400	4	1	3	128	1000	188	6104	62.5%	66.7%	93.8%	63.2%
GFFX 5600	325	500	4	1	1	128	1300	81	7629	81.3%	83.3%	40.6%	58.1%
9550 SE	250	400	4	1	2	64	1000	125	3052	62.5%	33.3%	62.5%	52.8%
GFFX 5500	270	400	4	1	1	128	1080	68	6104	67.5%	66.7%	33.8%	47.6%
GFFX 5200	250	400	4	1	1	128	1000	63	6104	62.5%	66.7%	31.3%	45.5%
GFFX 5600XT	235	400	4	1	1	128	940	59	6104	58.8%	66.7%	29.4%	43.9%
GFFX 5200LE	250	400	4	1	1	64	1000	63	3052	62.5%	33.3%	31.3%	36.0%
* RAM clock is the effective clock speed, so 250 MHz DDR is listed as 500 MHz.
** Textures/Pipeline is the maximum number of texture lookups per pipeline.
*** NVIDIA says their GFFX cards have a "vertex array", but in practice it generally functions as indicated.
**** Single-texturing fill rate = core speed * pixel pipelines
+ Multi-texturing fill rate = core speed * maximum textures per pipe * pixel pipelines
++ Vertex rates can vary by implementation. The listed values reflect the manufacturers' advertised rates.
+++ Bandwidth is expressed in actual MB/s, where 1 MB = 1024 KB = 1048576 Bytes.
++++ Relative performance is normalized to the Radeon 9600 pro, but these values are at best a rough estimate.

There are numerous footnotes that are worth pointing out, just in case some people missed them. For starters, the memory bandwidth is something that many people may not like. Normally, all companies list MB/s and GB/s calculating MB as one million bytes and GB as one billion bytes. That's incorrect, but since everyone does it, it begins to not matter. However, in this chart, real MB/s values are listed, so they will all be lower than what the graphics card makers advertise.

Fill rate can also be calculated in various ways, and for ATI's older Radeon cards (the DX7 models), they could apply three textures per pipeline per pass, or so they claimed. Two of the texture lookups, however, had to use the same texture, which made it a little less useful. Anyway, these are all purely theoretical numbers, and it is almost impossible to say how accurate they are in the real world without some specialized tools. To date, no one has created "real world" tools that measure these values, and they probably never will, so we are stuck with synthetic benchmarks at best. Basically, don't take the fill rate scores too seriously.

You can read the remaining footnotes above, and they should be self-explanatory. We just wanted to clarify those two points up front, and they apply to all of the performance charts. Now, on to the comments specifically related to DirectX 9.

The most important thing to point out first is that this chart has an additional weighting. This is due to the discrepancies in features and performance that exist among the various models of DirectX 9 hardware. The biggest concern is the theoretical performance of the GeForce FX cards. Most people should know this by now, but simply put the FX cards do not manage to live up to expectations at all when running DirectX 9 code. In DirectX 8.1 and earlier, the theoretical performance is a relatively accurate reflection of the real world, but overall the cards are far from perfect. We felt that the initial sorting was so unrealistic that a further weighting of the scores was in order, however you can view the unweighted chart if you wish. Newer features help improve performance at the same clock speed for cards as well, for example the optimizations to the memory controller in the GF6 line make the 6800 vanilla a faster card in almost all cases compared to the FX5950U and 9800 Pro cards. In fact, the GF6 cards are really only beaten by the X800 cards, and that's still not always the case.

The weighting used was relatively simple (and arbitrary). After averaging the fill rate, bandwidth and vertex rate scores, we multiply the result by a weighting factor.