ATI's X1000 Series: Extended Performance Testing
by Derek Wilson on October 7, 2005 10:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battlefield 2 Performance
The most requested game that we didn't include in our initial coverage is Battlefield 2. This highly popular game is quite important in comparing performance, as it does an excellent job of setting the standard for first-person shooter quality. The numbers that we attained came from running our custom BF2 demo on the highest quality settings. This means that anisotropic filtering was enabled both with and without AA (as Doom 3's high quality mode also enables AF).
Our "no AA" performance numbers show the X1800 XT performing on par with the 7800 GTX until we move beyond 1600x1200. The 7800 GT has an advantage over the X1800 XL as well. The most important thing to note is that this is the only test that we have run to show the X1600 XT performing on the level of the GeForce 6800 GT. While it is good to see the new mid-range part performing in its price class, one title is not enough to make it worth the $250. The "budget" X1300 doesn't quite perform as well as the 6600 GT, which looks to sell at about the same price.
After enabling 4xAA on Battlefield 2, the X1800 XT really stretches its legs. Likewise, the X1800 XL jumps ahead of the 7800 GT. When we move to the X1600 XT, the numbers show it falling further behind the 6800 GT.
The X1800 XT bearly breaks a sweat when AA is enabled dropping at most 18.3 percent. In fact, at every resolution, the X1800 XT drops about half the percent decrease in performance as seen on the 7800 GTX explaining the change in leadership between our two tests. Dropping more than the 6800 GT and less than the 6600 GT (percentage-wise), the X1600 XT shows different characteristics than its heavier hitting siblings.
Next up is Day of Defeat: Source. We already had a peak at this game's performance earlier this week. Now, let's see if our extended data supports what we saw then.
The most requested game that we didn't include in our initial coverage is Battlefield 2. This highly popular game is quite important in comparing performance, as it does an excellent job of setting the standard for first-person shooter quality. The numbers that we attained came from running our custom BF2 demo on the highest quality settings. This means that anisotropic filtering was enabled both with and without AA (as Doom 3's high quality mode also enables AF).
Our "no AA" performance numbers show the X1800 XT performing on par with the 7800 GTX until we move beyond 1600x1200. The 7800 GT has an advantage over the X1800 XL as well. The most important thing to note is that this is the only test that we have run to show the X1600 XT performing on the level of the GeForce 6800 GT. While it is good to see the new mid-range part performing in its price class, one title is not enough to make it worth the $250. The "budget" X1300 doesn't quite perform as well as the 6600 GT, which looks to sell at about the same price.
After enabling 4xAA on Battlefield 2, the X1800 XT really stretches its legs. Likewise, the X1800 XL jumps ahead of the 7800 GT. When we move to the X1600 XT, the numbers show it falling further behind the 6800 GT.
The X1800 XT bearly breaks a sweat when AA is enabled dropping at most 18.3 percent. In fact, at every resolution, the X1800 XT drops about half the percent decrease in performance as seen on the 7800 GTX explaining the change in leadership between our two tests. Dropping more than the 6800 GT and less than the 6600 GT (percentage-wise), the X1600 XT shows different characteristics than its heavier hitting siblings.
Next up is Day of Defeat: Source. We already had a peak at this game's performance earlier this week. Now, let's see if our extended data supports what we saw then.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
waldo - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I have been one that has been critical of the video card reviews, and am pleasantly suprised with this review! Thanks for the work Derek, and I am sure the overtime it took to punch this together...I can only imagine the hours you had to pull to put this together. That is why I love AnandTech! Great site, and responsive to the readers! Cheers!DerekWilson - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Anything we can do to help :-)I am glad that this article was satisfactory, and I regret that we were unable to provide this ammount of coverage in our initial article.
Keep letting us know what you want and we will keep doing our best to deliver.
Thanks,
Derek Wilson
supafly - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Maybe I missed it, but what system are these tests being done on?The tests from "ATI's Late Response to G70 - Radeon X1800, X1600 and X1300" were using:
ATI Radeon Express 200 based system
AMD Athlon 64 FX-55
1GB DDR400 2:2:2:8
120 GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
600 W OCZ PowerStreams PSU
Is this one the same? I would be interested to see the same tests run on a NF4 motherboard.
supafly - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Ahh, I skipped over that last part.. " The test system that we employed is the one used for our initial tests of the hardware."I would still like to see it on a NF4 mobo.
photoguy99 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Vista will have DirectX 10, which adds geometry shaders and other bits.The ATI cards will run vista of course, but do everything DX10 hardware is capable of.
photoguy99 - Saturday, October 8, 2005 - link
Sorry, I meant the new ATI cards will *not* be DX10 compatible.The biggest difference is DX10 will introduce geometry shaders which is a whole new architectural concept.
This is a big difference that will make the X1800XT seem out of date.
The question is when will it seem out of date. Another year for Vista to be released with DX10, and then how long before a game not only has a DX10 rendering path, but has it do something interesting?
Hard to say - it could be the games with a DX10 rendering path show little difference, it could be you see a lot more geometry detail in UT2007.
Make your predications, spend your money, good luck.
Chadder007 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Sooo...the new ATI's are pre-DX10 compliant? If so, what about the new Nvidia parts?DerekWilson - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
This is not true -- DX10 will specific functions will not be compatible with either new ATI or NVIDIA hardware.Games written for Vista will be required to support DX9 initially and DX10 will be the advanced featureset. This will be to support hardware from the Radeon 9700 and GeFroce FX series through the Radeon X1K and 7800 series.
There is currently no hardware that is DX10 capable.
Xenoterranos - Saturday, October 8, 2005 - link
Im just hoping NVIDIA doesn't go braindead again ont he DX compliance. I'm still stuck with a non-fully compatible 5900 card. It runs HL2 very well even at high settings, but I know Im missing all the pretty DX9 stuff. I probably won't get another card untill DX10 hits, and then buy the first card that fully supports it.JarredWalton - Saturday, October 8, 2005 - link
Well, part of that is marketing. DX9 graphics are better than DX8.1, but it's not a massive difference on many games. Far Cry is almost entirely DX8.1, and other than a slight change to the water, you're missing nothing but performance.It's like the SM2.0 vs. SM3.0 debate. SM3.0 does allow for more complex coding, but mostly it just makes it so that the developers don't have to unroll loops. HDR, instancing, displacement mapping, etc. can all be done with SM2.0; it's just more difficult to accomplish and may not perform quite as fast.
Okay, I haven't ever coded SM2.0 or 3.0 (advanced graphics programming is beyond my skill level), but that's how I understand things to be. The SM3.0 brouhaha was courtesy of NVIDIA marketing, just like the full DX9 hubub was from ATI marketing. Anyway, MS and Intel have proven repeatedly that marketing is at least as important as technology.