Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup Part I - ATI's Radeon 9800 XT
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on October 1, 2003 3:02 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
AquaMark 3
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 4xAF noAA in order to maximize the usefulness of these numbers to the community. Our drivers were set to allow application control of AF and AA.
We can see almost a pairing off of the cards in direct competition with one another from each camp. ATI pulls ahead by an insignificant margin in the case of the top cards, but the 5600 Ultra falls way behind in this test. Image quality appears to have improved for NVIDIA in this benchmark over what has been reported of previous drivers, and the NV38 handled the massive overdraw portion of the test the smoothest of all the cards. We will be taking a much closer look at image quality very soon, but until then, it looks like ATI and NVIDIA have equal footing in the Aquamark3 arena and we are left to find more useful information about their differences elsewhere. We would also like to point out that the 9700 Pro held its own in this test inching out the standard 9800.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
263 Comments
View All Comments
Malichite - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
I don't intend to join into a flame war, but I would like a few points cleared up. First of all I have a GF4 4600 and I am looking to upgrade, but I still have concerns with ATIs drivers. In this review I noticed a few discrepancies on both sides. Unless something has changed, ATI's 9x00 series has serious problem fps with both SimCity 4 and Neverwinter Nights w/shadows (not to mention problems in Morrowind). Just pop over to Rage3d's forums if you want to find out more. Additionally I believe the current 3.7 catalyst have flickering menu issues in FS2004, not show stoppers but definitely irritating. Lastly, I wish someone would mention the R3x0 series slow frame buffers, since they are of major concern for people that use PSX emulators.On the nVidia side, I am fairly confident that the NV38 isn't giving AA in Homeworld 2 unless they are using 4xS in OpenGL (not offered in current drivers). Just check the forums at Relic and you will find that none of the GF3+ cards work with AA in OpenGL unless you use QuinCunx/8XS.
I realize that you can't expect everything in a review, but I wish just a few review sites would mention/research the known bugs for the games they test.
Please don't respond with replies about how you don't play these games, thus you don't care if they work well. The point of a new GFX card is an upgrade for all software, not just to get 200+ fps in UT2003.
Just a view from someone that loves the IQ from ATI's R3x0 series, but dreads the driver issues. Guess I am either waiting for the NV40 or the magic Catalyst 3.8.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Be nice to see benchmarks using Battlefield 1942.As BF1942 has an expansion, and a new title Battlefield: Vietnam coming out next year.
Competition is good.. I've always liked ATi and never had any problems with them.. Nice job ATi.. keep it up.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
For the guys worried about which is the best way to blow $500 on games that haven't been released yet, get a life.There's no need for Anand to go over what everyone already knows about DX9 - NVidia blows bigtime with its current chips. Do the ATi fanboyz just want to grind the NVidia fanboyz faces in the dirt about this again?
The question is not whether to buy an ATi or an NVidia card, but whether it's worth upgrading your current card to a 9800XT when there's a next generation card only 6 months away. IMO only guys that reply to the "make your penis bigger" spams would think it's worth shelling out $500 at this point in time...
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Please include NASCAR Racing 2003 Season in the tests!Just set it up for the maximum number of players, enable all details and start a single race without qualifying. That leaves you behind a full field of cars and gives a realistic impression of frame rate. Hit "F" to display frame rate or use another tool to record frame rate.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Halo sucks. Why won't that computer chick ever shut up! Hello, I'm fighting like 10 guys, stop talking to me you stupid broad! God is there like 5 hours of speech of her in this game?Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
BATTLEFIELD1942 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BATTLEFIELD1942!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Homeworld BenchmarkFX56u.... AA -> Frame UP????????
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#154 here, just wanted to add that people shouldn't flip out just because their favorite company won/lost a benchmark. Just play the damn game, who cares if you're looking at 3fps less, seriously.Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#153: The XT is supposed to have a more powerful GPU (VPU? Damn companies using special names), so in theory the 9600XT could compete with the 9700 Pro if the VPU/RAM speeds were high enough. Of course, communism works too, in theory.Oh, and I run all my games in 1024x768 at 32-bit depth with 4xAA and 8xAF (64-tap) using a PNY Ti4200, slightly overclocked (read, to the limit of the card at 265/545); it runs everything but DX9 fine (a whopping 425 marks in 3dMark2003 with AA/AF on, looked pretty as hell chugging at 3fps). I like seeing a benchmark that uses a resolution I'm actually using, instead of these pin-sized 1600x1200+ resolutions that only the $500 21" CRT freaks can use without going blind. Yes, it taxes a card, but I don't plan on taxing my overclocked card so hard it fries the GPU; particularly a $500 one, thanks.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Is this a misprint? Did he mean to say 9500pro instead of 9700pro?“According to ATI, the Radeon 9600 XT should be the first mainstream part to outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro in all situations – not bad for a $199 card.”
That doesn’t sound like it’s possible according to specs and the 9600pro.