C&C Generals: Zero Hour Performance no AA/AF

The 5700 Ultra shows a bit of a performance edge over the other two NVIDIA cards we tested here, but still falls short of anything ATI. Oddly though, it looks to me like there is an issue with the different ways these cards are handling timing the frames. The ATI cards all have instantaneous maximum frame rates into the hundreds, while the 5700 Ultra only reaches 76. The 5600 and 4200 don't even make it over 60.

All of the cards have the same minimum frame rate at 15 frames per second.

C&C Generals: Zero Hour Performance 4xAA/8xAF

We see a similar trend with ATI cards coming out ahead of the NVIDIA solutions, but the 5700 Ultra does a good job of approaching the 9600 Pro in this benchmark. With the exception of the 4200 card, the min frame rates were again at 15.

Aquamark3 Performance EVE: The Second Genesis Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Saturday, October 25, 2003 - link

    The irregularities ATi's drivers allegedly display in AquaMark 3 and UT2003 require further investigation. Factors such as image quality, driver reliability, and compatibility are hard to convey in a review anyway.
    this is from tom
    so to al the ati lovers here go #"&' yourself
    a few weeks/months ago you guys said that nvidia cheated
    and now ati does you still have a big mouth
    no i am not an nvidia lover
    i am de performance lover ( for me ati maybe change with the nv 40) but you guys AAAARRRGGGGHHHH
    btw i havent read page 4 and 5 too busy
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link

    Speaking of the Hardocp review. I did notice on the intial review at nvnews that their screen shot of Halo shows the blinking lights in the hallways that Hardocp said were not there. They are using the 5950 and the latest drivers, so it would seem one of the two sites made a booboo.
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link

    Excuse me, but if a review without an IQ comparions is ok, why even care about video cards at all? If image quality isn't important because yu cant really notice it in games, go buy yourself a geforce3 and knock yourself out, since it will play everything fine and you dont have to worry about image quality because you can even turn it up, how about that?

    And you dont need to zoom in anything to see Nvidia's new filtering method which is now, worse than ATI's. The bilinear filtering is ESPECIALLY noticeable in motion and causes the same kind of effect that aliasing does. Go look in the hardocp for yourself, especially in nascar and flight sim
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link

    Wow. Anyone who whines about people demanding actual image quality comparisons is certainly NOT a gamer, or at least not one with decent hardware and eyes.

    I'll school all of your asses at UT and I'm damn sure not going to do it with dynamic detail reduction(TM), not for $200 or more.

    If the IQ differences between the cards are so minimal, why is it readily obvious when playing FS2004 and TR:AOD and UT2003 which card you're playing on? I'll tell you why:
    Because the ground textures on FS2004 look like crap, and trilinear filtering DOES NOT WORK AT ALL AFTER THE FIRST STAGE, REGARDLESS OF APPLICATION OR DRIVER CONTROL SETTINGS in D3D with the FX family.
    Instead, we get slightly improved bilinear that looks visually inferior to trilinear by a mile.

    And you know what?
    It's a lot EASIER to see WHEN YOU"RE PLAYING THE GAME, because the texture 'horizon' is always moving.
    Not that anyone who's fawning over AT would know. An FX5200 ain't gonna show you son.
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link

    watchu' talkin'bout willis?!

    watchu' talkin'bout willis?!

    watchu' talkin'bout willis?!

  • WooDaddy - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link

    #62, Live, I agree.

    Derek, thanks for the review. I really liked the fact that the Ti4200 was included. REALLY helpful. I think I can hold out for a while. If not, the ATI 9700PRO will be considered.
  • Jeff7181 - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link

    Ok... I checked out the other reviews... and HardOCP's results differ from AT's... but Tom's look pretty much the same.
    AT did come up with a different conclusion though, saying the FX5700 is a better buy than the 9600XT. And I agree. I know many of you will get your shorts in a knot about this, but ATI's driver quality still isn't up to par with nVidia's. A friend of mine has had nothing but trouble getting his 9800 Pro to work correctly.
    In my opinion, ATI will have to take a hefty lead in the performance area to make up for the driver problems to get their card into my rig.
  • Jeff7181 - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link

    I'll have to take a look at the reviews by other sites... but personally, on my Aopen FX5900 @ 490/950, everything looks great. The quality is better than the 45.23's in my opinion. Taking a look at a still picture that is blown up 400X to compare individual pixels is stupid. What might look worse pixel per pixel may look better at normal size, frame by frame.
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link

    ok..5700ultra seems fine... but i bought 5600ultra 1-2 months ago... what will happen to me... ????
  • Anonymous User - Friday, October 24, 2003 - link

    i think we need a butt pirate joke right about now

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now