Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup - Part 2: High End Shootout
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on October 7, 2003 5:30 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
An even more updated Test Suite
In Part 1 we introduced our new test suite; this edition brings some refinements and four additions, but (believe it or not) it is still not complete. It isn't our goal to simply throw numbers into space and see what happens, so we are really focusing on honing our benchmarks to make them as robust and accurate as possible. As such, we have had to forgo a few additions that we really wanted to make, and we've had to drop one of the titles we had included in Part 1. This is how the new suite looks as things stand for this article:
Aquamark3
C&C Generals: Zero Hour
EVE: The Second Genesis
F1 Challenge '99-'02
Final Fantasy XI
GunMetal
Halo
Homeworld 2
Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
Neverwinter Nights: Shadow of Undrendtide
SimCity 4
Splinter Cell
Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness
Tron 2.0
Unreal Tournament 2003
Warcraft III: Frozen Throne
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
X2: The Threat
Our previous Flight Simulator benchmark just didn't push the game far enough, and we are hard at work trying to find a benchmark that better reflects gameplay and is completely repeatable. We have really appreciated your feedback, and we ask that you continue to suggest games for possible inclusion in the suite. Just so you'll know what we already have slated to make it in "When their done" (to borrow from 3DRealms), these games will be added either as we finalize a benchmarking procedure for them or as they are released:
Doom3
MS Flight Simulator 2004
Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII
Halflife 2
FIFA Soccer 2004
We wanted to include Battlefield in this review unfortunately we were still unable to come up with a repeatable test to include. We have looked at other tests on the net and would rather use something a bit more scientific if possible but it's going to take some more time. If anyone from the Battlefield community has any suggestions on how to reliably benchmark the game, we're all ears.
As we received some criticism that the CPU we used in Part 1 wasn't fast enough, we upgraded our testbed for Part 2; the test system we used is as follows:
AMD Athlon64 FX51
1GB DDR400 (2x512MB)
nForce3 motherboard
With all of that out of the way, it's time to get to the benchmarks…
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
117 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
#67 I think the lightsaber glow is horrible on the Nvidia cards. They glow shines THROUGH the players head. Looks to me like a bug. I like the ATI saber much better.(Most peoples heads aren't empty, so light does not shine trough. Maybe your experience is different? ;-)))
#76 Couldn't agree more. The blurry AA in aquamark is crystal clear even in those tiny images. So how could the authors possible miss that and proclaim that there is no IQ issues? Especially since they have looked at the fullscreen images and spend days on the article?
Also you can immediately see in all the small images that in general AA is better on the ATI card. This is nothing new, and not considered cheating by Nvidia. It's just that most know that there is a quality difference.
But shouldn't that at least be mentioned in an article that is focused on image quality?
Why no screenshots on splinter cell? We should just believe the authors on that? With the aquamark pictures they have shown that we can't take their word for it. So I'd really like to see those screenshots too. Same for EVE.
And I was really suprised that they didn't know that the water issue in NWN was NOT Ati's fault. They claim that they have surfed forums on NWN issues. In that case they should have known that. (one look at rage3d would have been enough)
And on top of this the TRAOD part. It seems they typed more text on TROAD then they did in the entire rest of the article. No wonder that people frown at the TROAD part.
All in all, I can see that much work went into the article, but I feel that it could have been much better.
As it is now it is left to the reader to find the image issues in the small pictures. But I would expect the author to point me to the image issues.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
#74, conclusions are one thing, objective journalism is another.There are clear differences in even the small and relatively badly chosen images posted with the article, yet all we get to read is "there are no IQ issues".
Thus, either the authors of the article are not competent enough (maybe they were simply too tired after the testing...) , or they are intentionally ignoring the differences.
Iger - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
I just can't stay aside and not to thank the authors. The job they've done in this article is amazing, and the site was and will be my all-time favourite! Thank you! :)Malichite - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
I am extremely confused with the posts here. Many ATI guys seem to think AT unfairly favored the nVidia cards. Did we read the same article? In the end I came away with the opinion that while the new Det 52.xx help, things may get better for nVidia, the ATI is still a better choice today. Did I miss something?Additionally for all the guys claiming TR:AOD is a great game. Yeah, we all know only the truely *great* games pull a %51 rating over on www.gamerankings.com (based on 21 media reviews).
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
Just what kind of world do we live in before a guy has to say why he's not a fanboy before they express their opinion, anyway? The worst part is, you people who do this, you're completely justified in your actions, because if you don't explain why you're not an ATi/nVidia fanboy then people call you one.God.. can't we argue without calling others fanboys for once?
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
i forgot to add the j/k part... i dont want you taking my poor attempt at humor the wrong way... ;)anyways, i dont know what all the commotion is about.. shouldnt u (ATI-folk) be happy that nvidia is making vast improvements?
i would feel sympathetic for people who THOUGHT they wasted $400+ dollars on a card that didn't seem to deliver the performance it promised...
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
What kind of biased crappy unproffesional review shows percentage drops for enabeling ps 2.0 without showing framerates? if fps are around 30 to begin with the % of fps drop makes no difference cause the game is rendered unplayable! and who benchmarks beta drivers not available to the public on hardware not yet anounced?this reeks with $ payoff and seems like anadtech have thrown thier integrity to waste.I wish that on the 10th when nvidia anounces the nv38 they also release these drivers to the public than some seious review site can actually test the hardware(and software, forgive my skeptisicm but nVidia sure earned it this past year) and show us what nVidia is bringing to the graphic's field.
Disapointed by nVidia and now by Anandtech
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
sure u do... ;)Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
Not everyone talking about IQ differences here is a fanboy.Look at the images at the bottom of the Aquamark 3 IQ page (highest quality AA, 8xAF). The nVidia 52.14 image is blurred, much detail is lost especially around the explosion. The Catalyst 3.7 image is way sharper, yet its AA is smoother (look at the car body above the wheels), and it loses much less detail around the explosion. The differences are much more than "barely noticeable".
The tiny images don't give much credit to the article, though.
(Before anyone calls me az ATI fanboy: I have a GeForce FX 5600 dual DVI.)
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
TR: AOD is a terrible game, most people just like it because it's such a hot spot for all this benchmarking shite.At times like this, I'm glad I use a Matrox Millenium II! .. okay, kidding, but still.