ATI Radeon X800 Pro and XT Platinum Edition: R420 Arrives

Name: ATI Radeon X800 Pro and XT Platinum Edition: R420 Arrives
Item: ATI Radeon X800 Pro and XT Platinum Edition: R420 Arrives
Author: Derek Wilson

by Derek Wilson on May 4, 2004 10:28 AM EST

Posted in
GPUs

95 Comments | Add A Comment

95 Comments

Pixel Shader Performance Tests

ShaderMark v2.0 is a program designed to stress test the shader performance of modern DX9 graphics hardware with Shader Model 2.0 programs written in HLSL running on a couple shapes in a scene.

We haven't used ShaderMark in the past because we don't advocate the idea of trying to predict the performance of real world game code using a synthetic set of tests designed to push the hardware. Honestly, as we've said before, the only way to determine performance of a certain program on specific hardware is to run that program on that hardware. As both software and hardware get more complex, results of any given test become less and less generalize able, and games, graphics hardware, and modern computer systems are some of the most complex entities on earth.

So why are we using ShaderMark you may ask. There are a couple reasons. First this is only a kind of ball park test. ATI and NVIDIA both have architectures that should be able to push a lot of shader operations through. It is a fact that NV3x had a bit of a handicap when it came to shader performance. A cursory glance at ShaderMark should tell us enough to know if that handicap carries over to the current generation of cards, and whether or not R420 and NV40 are on the same playing field. We don't want to make a direct comparison, we just want to get a feel for the situation. With that in mind, here are the benchmarks.

	Radeon X800 XT PE	Radeon X800 Pro	GeForce 6800 Ultra	GeForce 6800 GT	GeForce FX 5950 U
2	310	217	355	314	65
3	244	170	213	188	43
4	238	165
5	211	146	162	143	34
6	244	169	211	187	43
7	277	160	205	182	36
8	176	121
9	157	107	124	110	20
10	352	249	448	410	72
11	291	206	276	248	54
12	220	153	188	167	34
13	134	89	133	118	20
14	140	106	141	129	29
15	195	134	145	128	29
16	163	113	149	133	27
17	18	13	15	13	3
18	159	111	99	89	17
19	49	34
20	78	56
21	85	61
22	47	33
23	49	43	49	46

These benchmarks are run with fp32 on NVIDIA hardware and fp24 on ATI hardware. It isn't really an apples to apples comparison, but with some of the shaders used in shadermark, partial precision floating point causes error accumulation (since this is a benchmark designed to stress shader performance, this is not surprising).

ShaderMark v2.0 clearly shows huge increase in pixel shader performance from NV38 to either flavor of NV40. Even though the results can't really be compared apples to apples (because of the difference in precision), NVIDIA manages to keep up with the ATI hardware fairly well. In fact, under the diffuse lighting and environment mapping, shadowed bump mapping and water color shaders don't show ATI wiping the floor with NVIDIA.

In looking at data collected on the 60.72 version of the NVIDIA driver, no frame rates changed and a visual inspection of the images output by each driver yielded no red flags.

We would like to stress again that these numbers are not apples to apples numbers, but the relative performance of each GPU indicates that the ATI and NVIDIA architectures are very close to comparable from a pixel shader standpoint (with each architecture having different favored types of shader or operation).

In addition to getting a small idea of performance, we can also look deep into the hearts of NV40 and see what happens when we enable partial precision rendering mode in terms of performance gains. As we have stated before, there were a few image quality issues with the types of shaders ShaderMark runs, but this bit of analysis will stick only to how much work is getting done in the same amount of time without regard to the relative quality of the work.

	GeForce 6800 U PP	GeForce 6800 GT PP	GeForce 6800 U	GeForce 6800 GT
2	413	369	355	314
3	320	283	213	188
5	250	221	162	143
6	300	268	211	187
7	285	255	205	182
9	159	142	124	110
10	432	389	448	410
11	288	259	276	248
12	258	225	188	167
13	175	150	133	118
14	167	150	141	129
15	195	173	145	128
16	180	161	149	133
17	21	19	15	13
18	155	139	99	89
23	49	46	49	46

The most obvious thing to notice is that, overall, partial precision mode rendering increases shader rendering speed. Shader 2 through 8 are lighting shaders (with 2 being a simple diffuse lighting shader). These lighting shaders (especially the point and spot light shaders) will make heavy use of vector normalization. As we are running in partial precision mode, this should translate to a partial precision normalize, which is a "free" operation on NV40. Almost any time a partial precision normalize is needed, NV40 will be able to schedule the instruction immediately. This is not the case when dealing with full precision normalization, so the many 50% performance gains coming out of those lighting shaders is probably due to the partial precision normalization hardware built into each shader unit in NV40. The smaller performance gains (which, interestingly, occur on the shaders that have image quality issues) are most likely the result of decreased bandwidth requirements, and decreased register pressure: a single internal fp32 register can handle two fp16 values making scheduling and managing resources much less of a task for the hardware.

As we work on our image quality analysis of NV40 and R420, we will be paying heavy attention to shader performance in both full and partial precision modes (as we want to look at what gamers will actually be seeing in the real world). We will likely bring shadermark back for these tests as well. This is a new benchmark for us, so please bear with us as we get used to its ins and outs.

NVIDIA's Last Minute Effort and The Test Aquamark 3 Performance

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Post Your Comment
Please log in or sign up to comment.

Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

rms - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
"the near-to-be-released goodlooking PS 3.0 Far Cry update "

When is that patch scheduled for? I recall seeing some rumour it was due in September...

rms
Fr0zeN - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
Yeah I agree, the GT looks like it's gonna give the x800P a run for its money. On a side note, the differences between P and XT versions seem to be greater than r9800's, hmm.

In the end it's the most overclockable $200 card that'll end up in my comp. There's no way I'm paying $500 for something that I can compensate for by turning the rez down to 10x7... Raw benchmarks mean nothing if it doesn't oc well!
Doop - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
The cards seem very close, I tend to favor nVidia now since they have superior multi monitor and professional 3D drivers and I regret buying my Fire GL X1.

It's strange ATi didn't announce a 16 pipeline card orginally, it will be interesting to see in a month or two who actually ends up delivering cards.

I mean if they're being made in significant quantities they'll be at your local store with a reduced 'street' price but if it's just a paper launch they'll just be at Alienware, Dell (with a new PC only) or $500 if you can find one.
jensend - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
#17, the Serious Engine has nothing to do with the Q3 engine; Nvidia's superior OpenGL performance is not dependent on any handful of engines' particular quirks.

Zobar is right; contra Jibbo, the increased flexibility of PS3 means that for many 2.0 shader programs a PS3 version can achieve equivalent results with a lesser performance hit.

As far as power goes, I'm surprised NV made such a big deal out of PSU requirements, as its new cards (except the 6800U Extremely Short Production Run Edition/6850U/Whatever they end up calling that part) compare favorably wattage-wise to the 5950U and don't pull all that much more power than the 9800XT. Both companies have made a big performance per watt leap, and it'll be interesting to see how the mid-range and value cards compare in this respect.
blitz - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
"Of course, we will have to wait and see what happens in that area, but depending on what the test results for our 6850 Ultra end up looking like, we may end up recommending that NVIDIA push their prices down slightly (or shift around a few specs) in order to keep the market balanced."

It sounds as if you would be giving nvidia advice on their pricing strategy, somehow I don't think they would listen nor be influenced by your opinion. It could be better phrased that you would advise consumers to wait for prices to drop or look elsewhere for better price\performance ratio.
Cygni - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
Hmmmm, interesting. I really dont see where anyone can draw the conclusion that the x800 Pro is CLEARLY the winner. The 6800 GT and x800 Pro traded game wins back and forth. There doesnt seem to be any clear cut winner to me. Wolf, JediA, X2, F1C, and AQ3 all went clearly to the GT... this isnt open and shut. Alot of the other tests were split depending on resolution/AA. On the other hand, I dont think you can say that the GT is clearly better than the x800 Pro either.

Personally, I will buy whichever one hits a reasonable price point first. $150-200. Both seem to be pretty equal, and to me, price matters far more.
kherman - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
BRING ON DOOM 3!!!!!!

We all know inside that this is what ID was waiting for!
Diesel - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
------------------
I think it is strange that the tested X800XT is clocked at 520 Mhz, while the 6800U, that is manufactured by the same taiwanese company and also has 16 pipelines, is set at 400 Mhz.
------------------

This could be because NV40 has 222M transistors vs. R420 at 160M transistors. I think the amount of power required and heat generated is proportional to transistor count and clock speed.
edub82 - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
I know this is an ATI article but that 6800 GT is looking very attractive. It beats the x800Pro on a fairly regular basis is a single slot and molex connector card and is starting at 400 and hopefully will go down a few dollars ;) in 6 months when i want to upgrade.
Slaanesh - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link
"Clearly a developer can have much nicer quality and exotic effects if he/she exploits these, but how many gamers will have a PS3.0 card that will run these extremely complex shaders at high resolutions and AA/AF without crawling to single-digit fps? It's my guess that it will be *at least* a year until games show serious quality differentiation between PS2.0 and PS3.0. But I have been wrong in the past..."
--------

I dunnow.. When Morrowind got released, only he few GF3 cards on the market were able to show the cool pixel shader water effects and they did it well; at that time I was really pissed I went for the cheaper Geforce2 Ultra although it had some better benchmarks at a much lower price. I don't think I want make that mistake again and pay the same amount of money for a card that doesnt support the latest technology..

ATI Radeon X800 Pro and XT Platinum Edition: R420 Arrives

Pixel Shader Performance Tests

Post Your Comment

95 Comments

View All Comments

rms - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link

Fr0zeN - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link

Doop - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link

jensend - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link

blitz - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link

Cygni - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link

kherman - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link

Diesel - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link

edub82 - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link

Slaanesh - Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - link

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now

	Radeon X800 XT PE	Radeon X800 Pro	GeForce 6800 Ultra	GeForce 6800 GT	GeForce FX 5950 U
2	310	217	355	314	65
3	244	170	213	188	43
4	238	165
5	211	146	162	143	34
6	244	169	211	187	43
7	277	160	205	182	36
8	176	121
9	157	107	124	110	20
10	352	249	448	410	72
11	291	206	276	248	54
12	220	153	188	167	34
13	134	89	133	118	20
14	140	106	141	129	29
15	195	134	145	128	29
16	163	113	149	133	27
17	18	13	15	13	3
18	159	111	99	89	17
19	49	34
20	78	56
21	85	61
22	47	33
23	49	43	49	46

	GeForce 6800 U PP	GeForce 6800 GT PP	GeForce 6800 U	GeForce 6800 GT
2	413	369	355	314
3	320	283	213	188
5	250	221	162	143
6	300	268	211	187
7	285	255	205	182
9	159	142	124	110
10	432	389	448	410
11	288	259	276	248
12	258	225	188	167
13	175	150	133	118
14	167	150	141	129
15	195	173	145	128
16	180	161	149	133
17	21	19	15	13
18	155	139	99	89
23	49	46	49	46

	Radeon X800 XT PE	Radeon X800 Pro	GeForce 6800 Ultra	GeForce 6800 GT	GeForce FX 5950 U
2	310	217	355	314	65
3	244	170	213	188	43
4	238	165
5	211	146	162	143	34
6	244	169	211	187	43
7	277	160	205	182	36
8	176	121
9	157	107	124	110	20
10	352	249	448	410	72
11	291	206	276	248	54
12	220	153	188	167	34
13	134	89	133	118	20
14	140	106	141	129	29
15	195	134	145	128	29
16	163	113	149	133	27
17	18	13	15	13	3
18	159	111	99	89	17
19	49	34
20	78	56
21	85	61
22	47	33
23	49	43	49	46

	GeForce 6800 U PP	GeForce 6800 GT PP	GeForce 6800 U	GeForce 6800 GT
2	413	369	355	314
3	320	283	213	188
5	250	221	162	143
6	300	268	211	187
7	285	255	205	182
9	159	142	124	110
10	432	389	448	410
11	288	259	276	248
12	258	225	188	167
13	175	150	133	118
14	167	150	141	129
15	195	173	145	128
16	180	161	149	133
17	21	19	15	13
18	155	139	99	89
23	49	46	49	46

	Radeon X800 XT PE	Radeon X800 Pro	GeForce 6800 Ultra	GeForce 6800 GT	GeForce FX 5950 U
2	310	217	355	314	65
3	244	170	213	188	43
4	238	165
5	211	146	162	143	34
6	244	169	211	187	43
7	277	160	205	182	36
8	176	121
9	157	107	124	110	20
10	352	249	448	410	72
11	291	206	276	248	54
12	220	153	188	167	34
13	134	89	133	118	20
14	140	106	141	129	29
15	195	134	145	128	29
16	163	113	149	133	27
17	18	13	15	13	3
18	159	111	99	89	17
19	49	34
20	78	56
21	85	61
22	47	33
23	49	43	49	46

	GeForce 6800 U PP	GeForce 6800 GT PP	GeForce 6800 U	GeForce 6800 GT
2	413	369	355	314
3	320	283	213	188
5	250	221	162	143
6	300	268	211	187
7	285	255	205	182
9	159	142	124	110
10	432	389	448	410
11	288	259	276	248
12	258	225	188	167
13	175	150	133	118
14	167	150	141	129
15	195	173	145	128
16	180	161	149	133
17	21	19	15	13
18	155	139	99	89
23	49	46	49	46