ATI's X1000 Series: Extended Performance Testing
by Derek Wilson on October 7, 2005 10:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Doom 3 Performance
NVIDIA hardware just runs Doom 3 better than ATI hardware, and as we saw before, the case hasn't changed with the new R/RV5xx GPUs from ATI. The light and shadows in Doom 3's engine play a huge role in the game, and the algorithms and API (OpenGL) just tend to favor NVIDIA's architecture and drivers.
The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT both out-perform the X1800 XT across the board without AA enabled. The 6800 GT manages to run faster than the X1800 XL, and the 6600 GT leads the X1600 XT by huge margins. The X1300 Pro stops being playable after 1024x768, which really doesn't bode well for a $150 card.
Performance falls off faster with AA enabled, but that is to be expected. The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT just increase their ability to out-perform the X1800 series here, but the X1600 XT becomes more competitive with the 6600 GT this time around. Of course, neither one really does that well at 1024x768 with 4xAA - 44 FPS is playable, but just barely.
Enabling AA drops performance by a similar proportion on the X1800 and 7800 series parts at high resolutions, with low resolutions favoring NVIDIA hardware. In another twist that spits in the face of the trends that we have seen, the X1600 XT handles AA much better than the 6600 GT and shows a lower percent impact than most of the other cards in the test.
NVIDIA hardware just runs Doom 3 better than ATI hardware, and as we saw before, the case hasn't changed with the new R/RV5xx GPUs from ATI. The light and shadows in Doom 3's engine play a huge role in the game, and the algorithms and API (OpenGL) just tend to favor NVIDIA's architecture and drivers.
The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT both out-perform the X1800 XT across the board without AA enabled. The 6800 GT manages to run faster than the X1800 XL, and the 6600 GT leads the X1600 XT by huge margins. The X1300 Pro stops being playable after 1024x768, which really doesn't bode well for a $150 card.
Performance falls off faster with AA enabled, but that is to be expected. The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT just increase their ability to out-perform the X1800 series here, but the X1600 XT becomes more competitive with the 6600 GT this time around. Of course, neither one really does that well at 1024x768 with 4xAA - 44 FPS is playable, but just barely.
Enabling AA drops performance by a similar proportion on the X1800 and 7800 series parts at high resolutions, with low resolutions favoring NVIDIA hardware. In another twist that spits in the face of the trends that we have seen, the X1600 XT handles AA much better than the 6600 GT and shows a lower percent impact than most of the other cards in the test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
If AT is going to cover that in a later article, then the observations ARE NOT short sighted. Since we're picking nits, if the other sites are giving you ALL the information you require, why do you insist on bagging on AT? Just go to get your info, make your decision, and STFU.tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Because, unlike you, I like to compare the results between all my favorite sites. Maybe you're not mature enough to understand the reasons for that, so I'll fill you in: Humans make mistakes, so trusting one persons judgement or methodology is not an intelligent decision in the real world.Also, it makes no mention in the article that near-term games are to be tested in a future update of this sort. Yes, I expect they'll be around once retail boards are reviewed, but if they plan on continuing tests on IQ, shader abilities, etc then what sense does it make to pass judgement until those tests are complete?
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Did you not read tfranzese's post that you replied to? Scroll up about 1/2 inch. That quote is from the article. Your quote, , says you like to sample different websites to get whole picture yet you bag on one site (AT) that doesn't give you enough info. If you go to different sites to get the whole picture, why bag on any of them? You're still getting all of the info you need.bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
LOL...oops..you made that quote yourself. I can't believe you quoted but yet you still imply that AT isn't going to do any furthur testing in the areas you would like to see tested. I quit..lol!tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
The further testing I am referring to are with near-term titles, not SM3.0 analysis. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying or I'm not being clear enough.I also do believe it's short-sighted to judge an architecture before all the tests are complete. Right now I know IQ and SM3.0 examinations are coming up, but it looks like they're done with the game benchmarks until the suite is updated and retail boards are available.
Anyway...
Sure, I can get the majority of my data from a collection of sites, but if I voice my criticism I could hope that someday I may only have to visit three sites instead of ten to confirm and compare results and analysis. Not that I didn't enjoy reading all those articles during my downtime at work.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Naw, we're not done. And while it's true that http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=x1800&p...">you can purchase an X1800XL, we're still missing the X1800 XT. $440 or so for the XL http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=7800%20gtx&...">isn't much cheaper than a 7800 GTX, and while the X1800 XT might be faster overall, the 7800 GTX beats the XL in nearly every test.
Also, one big question mark that still remains is SLI vs. Crossfire performance. SLI is here now and working for the 7800 cards. X1800 XT is still a month out, and Crossfire X1800 XT... who knows? Three months, maybe more? After the delays of the X800 Crossfire parts, I'm not even ready to venture a guess on X1800 CF. :|
DerekWilson - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
We will test the near term games along with SM3.0 as many people have asked us for this. Let us know if you need anything else.DigitalFreak - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
What about running EQ2 with AA turned on via the setting in EQ2.ini? I would assume that the results would be similar to the other tests though.Benching the Call of Duty 2 demo would be cool as well. A couple of sites have seen a performance increase when using a 512MB card vs a 256MB one. May actually be the first game where 512MB is worth having.
tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Donka!phaxmohdem - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I know all my "gaming" monitors at home run at 1280x1024 What gives with the benchmarks of this uncommon? resolution? Thats 81,920 extra pixels unaccounted for in the graphs for many of us running 17 and 19 inch LCD's.