The movement of performance between cards is much smoother here. We can see a faster decline in frame rates when AA and AF are enabled as we would expect. The separation of these cards is almost startling though. We can see that the 9600 and 5700 cards are the slowest, followed by the 9800 cards (which is odd), and then the 5700 Ultra cards, leaving the 59xx cards on top of the pile.
Again, we see some distinct categories of cards, but this time, the 9800 cards pile in second to the 59xx cards. This shows a stronger resilience to AA/AF than the lower end cards.
Nice article. A passively cooled 9600XT?!...I've found my next video card. There is one thing that I am unclear about - the Seagate hard drive used in the test setup - is it an SATA drive?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
View All Comments
Icewind - Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - link
Were are the comparison charts between the overclocked and stock speed 9800pro's? I must be blind, because I can't see them.par - Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - link
Where can I find the passively cooled 9600XT by sapphire? Newegg shows sapphires 9600xt with a fan.DerekWilson - Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - link
The Seagate HD: Barracuda 7200.7 PATA ... I'll add that to the tablemostlyprudent - Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - link
Nice article. A passively cooled 9600XT?!...I've found my next video card. There is one thing that I am unclear about - the Seagate hard drive used in the test setup - is it an SATA drive?