Hardware Features and Test Setup

We're talking about features and tests today because we are going to be trying something a bit different this time around. In addition to our standard noAA/4xAA tests (both of which always have 8xAF enabled), we are including a performance test at maximal image quality on each architecture. This won't give us directly comparable numbers in terms of performance, but it will give us an idea of playability at maximum quality.

These days, we are running out of ways to push our performance tests. Plenty of games out there are CPU limited, and for what purpose is a card as powerful as an X1900XTX or 7800 GTX 512 purchased except to be pushed to its limit and beyond? Certainly, a very interesting route to go would be for us to purchase a few apple cinema displays and possibly an old IBM T221 and go insane with resolution. And maybe we will at some point. But for now, most people don't have 30" displays (though the increasing power of today's graphics cards is certainly a compelling argument for such an investment). For now, people can push their high end cards by enabling insane features and getting the absolute maximum eye candy possible out of all their games. Flight and space sim nuts now have angle independent anisotropic filtering on ATI hardware, adaptive antialiasing for textured surfaces helps in games with lots of fences and wires and tiny detail work, and 6xAA combined with 16xAF means you'll almost never have to look at a blurry texture with jagged edges again. It all comes at a price, or course, but is it worth it?

In our max quality tests, we will compare ATI parts with 16xAF, 6xAA, adaptive AA, high quality AF and as little catalyst AI as possible enabled to NVIDIA parts with 16xAF, 4x or 8xS AA (depending on reasonable support in the application), transparency AA, and no optimizations (high quality) enabled. In all cases, ATI will have the image quality advantage with angle independent AF and 6x MSAA. Some games with in game AA settings didn't have an option for 8xAA and didn't play well when we forced it in the driver, so we opted to go with the highest in game AA setting most of the time (which is reflected by the highest MSAA level supported in hardware - again most of the time). We tend to like NVIDIA's transparency SSAA a little better than ATI's adaptive AA, but that may just come down to opinion and it still doesn't make up for the quality advantages the X1900 holds over the 7800 GTX lineup.

Our standard tests should look pretty familiar, and here is all the test hardware we used. Multiple systems were required in order to test both CrossFire and SLI, but all single card tests were performed in the ATI reference RD480 board.

ATI Radeon Express 200 based system
NVIDIA nForce 4 based system
AMD Athlon 64 FX-57
2x 1GB DDR400 2:3:2:8
120 GB Seagate 7200.7 HD
600 W OCZ PowerStream PSU

First up is our apples to apples testing with NVIDIA and ATI setup to produce comparable image quality with 8xAF and either no AA or 4xAA. The resolutions we will look at are 1280x960 (or 1024) through 2048x1536.

Not Quite Ready: The Ultimate Gamer Platform, RD580 The Performance Breakdown
Comments Locked

120 Comments

View All Comments

  • Harkonnen - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Almost $900 CDN for the XTX and it only has a 1 year warranty?

    Main reason I would never buy an expensive ATi card is that right there.
  • smitty3268 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    The people who buy a card this expensive the first day it comes out won't keep it for a whole year, so the warranty doesn't matter. In 6 months another card will be out that makes this one look slow and they'll be spending even more money.
  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Due to popular demand, we have added more percent increase performance comparison graphs to the performance breakdown that shows the performance relatoinships at lower resolutions.

    Let us know if there is anything else you'd like to see. Thanks!
  • Live - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    The performance breakdown looks very good now! I would go so far as to say that this should be standard in future reviews.
  • piroroadkill - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Using a lossy image format (JPEG) for image quality comparison screenshots seems kind of... pointless.

    But I guess you have to worry about bandwidth.
  • Josh Venning - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Thanks for the input all. Just to let you know we are dealing with some problems regarding our power numbers, but they should be up shortly. Thanks for being patient.
  • Josh Venning - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    One more thing.. We also caught a mistype on the graphs that we are in the process of correcting. The two crossfire systems we tested are the X1900 XTX Crossfire and the X1800 XT Crossfire. (we miss-labeled the latter "X1900 XT Crossfire") Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
  • smitty3268 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Ah... That makes much more sense now. I was wondering why the XTX crossfire was doing so much better than the XT crossfire when the specs were so similar.
  • SpaceRanger - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Just to let you know we are dealing with some problems regarding our power numbers


    Problems with the publishing of them, or problems in the sense that it requires a direct link into a nuclear reactor to power properly??
  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    our local nuclear plant ran us an extention cord just for this event :-)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now