ATI Radeon Xpress 200: Performance, PCI Express & DX9 for Athlon 64
by Wesley Fink on November 8, 2004 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
ATI X800 XT PCIe: nVidia nForce4 vs. ATI Bullhead
nVidia introduced nForce4 several weeks ago as their PCI Express updated version of the nForce chipset for Athlon 64. In nForce4: PCI Express and SLI for Athlon 64, we concluded the performance of nForce 4 and nForce3 Ultra was basically the same. However, with nForce4 sporting PCI Express graphics, we have the opportunity to compare the same PCIe video card directly on both systems. We first compared performance of the ATI X800 XT PCIe on both the ATI Bullhead Reference board and the nVidia nForce4 Reference board.| ATI X800 XT (PCIe), nVidia nForce4 vs. ATI Bullhead FX55, 2X512MB, 2-2-2-10 DDR |
|||
| Benchmark | nVidia nForce4 | ATI Bullhead ATI RX480 |
% Change nF4 to ATI |
| Halo | 106.6 | 121.9 | +14.4% |
| UT2004 - High Quality | 74.0 | 74.4 | +0.5% |
| Doom3 - High Quality | 102.5 | 97.9 | -4.5% |
| Far Cry 1.1 | 158.9 | 168.6 | +6.1% |
| RTCW - Enemy Territory Radar | 114.0 | 115.3 | +1.1% |
There are some very interesting results comparing ATI PCIe video on both systems. First, we see that Far Cry is still slower on nVidia, even with the ATI PCIe video card. This leads us to conclude that at least part of the performance hit that we see with Far Cry is a result of nVidia chipset or driver code. We see a similar anomaly in Doom 3 being slower with the ATI card on the ATI than it is with ATI on nVidia. Since everything else is the same in both setups, we again would look to ATI drivers or chipset code as the likely issue.
Halo is a significant 14.4% slower on nVidia/ATI than on ATI/ATI, but you will see in later benchmarks that nVidia PCIe on nVidia is roughly equivalent in performance to ATI PCIe on ATI. In the larger picture, this is a driver/code issue worth a look by manufacturers, but it doesn't reflect any real performance differences in these chipsets. Overall, the ATI Bullhead can be considered equivalent to a bit faster in performance than nForce 4 with both running an ATI PCIe video card. This is a remarkable accomplishment for the new ATI RX480/RS480 chipset compared to the more mature nVidia nForce4.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Sahrin - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
I'm really excited to see another performance player in the AMD chipset market. Ironically, despite the fact that Intel is considered to have the best quality chipsets, the AMD segment has the most players and the most options. This chipset looks very good to me, especially as an overclocker, but I'm kind of left hanging in the feature set, which traditionally has been the determinant in the A64 market. Sure, 6 SATA ports is nice...etc. etc. but where's my dual integrated GigE LAN? I will take a long hard look at this chipset if SB450 comes out in time, but I think I will likely be going nForce one more generation.SLIM - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
#6, of course you use an FX with the best gfx card available, he's trying to highlight small differences between chipsets. If you want P4 vs A64 look at a recent cpu review.However one large set of differences were the specviewperf benches? Huge differences when using ati/ati (some good and some bad) but no comments as to wtf is going on. Are those differences related to DX vs opengl, other driver issues, anybody know??
ipoh - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
Onboard graphics use to be not good but changed since ATi comes out with RS350...and with this RS480 DX9 VGA will be definitely goodCurrently using my RS350 playing Doom3 and still looks good :)
I will spend my money for more HDD :)
Ivo - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
With DX9 included, the integrated graphics (IG) of RS480 is good. First of all, with guaranteed future OS compatibility, it's very good for the OEM - for both business machines and home-office PCs. Secondly, as stated it the review, it is good enough for high-end 2D users because of the Surround View option. Third, it is a reasonable option for gamers too, as it could serve in emergency cases, when your high-end overclocked graphic card is tired ;-(The IG could be even more interesting for occasional gamers and even business users if, in a thinkable upcoming chipset, the IG is involved in a SLI scheme with one graphic card. In that case the IG will add it's modest 10% to 20% to the overall gaming performance (small, but from heart). This 10%-20% could be interesting for the real gamers too, if the IG is involved in a triple SLI scheme with two additional graphic cards.
My questions to this great article are:
1. What about the Cool 'N Quiet operation - does it work properly on the reference board with all (DIMM etc.) configurations used?
2. What is ATI suggesting about the SidePort - why it is limited to 32 bit and 16MB only?
byvis - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
It's very impressive. But I have one minor question about the benchmarking. Why didn't you test Nforce4 + X800XT in Winstone and other benchmarks? I see, that you DID test RX480 + GF6800U and RX480 + X800XT. Maybe the margins are very small, but I'd like to see them, I think other people would like that too.deathwalker - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
ATI might be right in the thick of it based on performance..however...from a marketing standpoint I think they will have a tough road to plow.bearxor - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
SoldJalf - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
Onboard graphics makes perfect sense for non-gamers.If they can cram in something that works for normal desktop use, *and* can claim to support DirectX 9 as well, then it's a pretty good deal. It'll serve your needs under normal use, and it'll at least be able to run games, even if they might get an unplayable framerate.
DrDisconnect - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
I'm surprised that any of you are wondering why they are producing an integrated graphics versio. Haven't you taken a walk through any of the computer superstores lately? Entry level machines from HP etc. are using integrated graphics to hold prices down yet allow users to beef up their machines when they ahve some coin later on.ranger203 - Monday, November 8, 2004 - link
-1st of all, why does anandtech keep benchmarking AMD FX chips, sure they are the fastest hands down, but none of us are buying they. I.e. they are comparing apples to oranges, (FX vs. P4). They need to bench regular A64s!!!!-2nd, Onboard video still really sucks for gaming, but atleast they are making an effort, they should relize that $30 gaming cards are better quality than their onboard video and stop integrating it into their full size atx boards!!! Unless this was just a "show" board of ati's capability, then i could understand....