ATI's X1000 Series: Extended Performance Testing
by Derek Wilson on October 7, 2005 10:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Doom 3 Performance
NVIDIA hardware just runs Doom 3 better than ATI hardware, and as we saw before, the case hasn't changed with the new R/RV5xx GPUs from ATI. The light and shadows in Doom 3's engine play a huge role in the game, and the algorithms and API (OpenGL) just tend to favor NVIDIA's architecture and drivers.
The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT both out-perform the X1800 XT across the board without AA enabled. The 6800 GT manages to run faster than the X1800 XL, and the 6600 GT leads the X1600 XT by huge margins. The X1300 Pro stops being playable after 1024x768, which really doesn't bode well for a $150 card.
Performance falls off faster with AA enabled, but that is to be expected. The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT just increase their ability to out-perform the X1800 series here, but the X1600 XT becomes more competitive with the 6600 GT this time around. Of course, neither one really does that well at 1024x768 with 4xAA - 44 FPS is playable, but just barely.
Enabling AA drops performance by a similar proportion on the X1800 and 7800 series parts at high resolutions, with low resolutions favoring NVIDIA hardware. In another twist that spits in the face of the trends that we have seen, the X1600 XT handles AA much better than the 6600 GT and shows a lower percent impact than most of the other cards in the test.
NVIDIA hardware just runs Doom 3 better than ATI hardware, and as we saw before, the case hasn't changed with the new R/RV5xx GPUs from ATI. The light and shadows in Doom 3's engine play a huge role in the game, and the algorithms and API (OpenGL) just tend to favor NVIDIA's architecture and drivers.
The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT both out-perform the X1800 XT across the board without AA enabled. The 6800 GT manages to run faster than the X1800 XL, and the 6600 GT leads the X1600 XT by huge margins. The X1300 Pro stops being playable after 1024x768, which really doesn't bode well for a $150 card.
Performance falls off faster with AA enabled, but that is to be expected. The 7800 GTX and 7800 GT just increase their ability to out-perform the X1800 series here, but the X1600 XT becomes more competitive with the 6600 GT this time around. Of course, neither one really does that well at 1024x768 with 4xAA - 44 FPS is playable, but just barely.
Enabling AA drops performance by a similar proportion on the X1800 and 7800 series parts at high resolutions, with low resolutions favoring NVIDIA hardware. In another twist that spits in the face of the trends that we have seen, the X1600 XT handles AA much better than the 6600 GT and shows a lower percent impact than most of the other cards in the test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
flexy - Saturday, October 8, 2005 - link
there is an interesting article (in german, sorry) where they compare the old cards' (X850) performance with the new adaptive antialiasing turned on.You can see that some games do pretty well with minor performance loss - eg. but FarCry gets a HUGE hit by enabling adaptive antialiasing. I also did some tests on my own (X850XT) and the hit is as big as 50% in FarCry benchmark.
My question would be how the new cards handle this and how big the performance hit would be eg. with a 1800XL/XT in certain engines.
Also, i think the 6xAntiAliasing modi are a bit under-represented - i for my part am used to play HL2 1280x1024 with 6xAA and 16xAF....and i am not that interested in 4xAA 8xAF since i ASSUME that a high-end card like the 1800XT should be pre-destined to run the higher AA/AF modi PLUS adaptive antialiasing. Maybe also please note that a big number (?) of people might not even be able to run monster resolutions like 2048x but MIGHT certainly be interested in resolutions upto 1600x but with max AA/AF/adaptive modi on.
flexy - Saturday, October 8, 2005 - link
here the link, sorry forgot above:http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/2005/10-04_b.php">http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/2005/10-04_b.php
cryptonomicon - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I want to see ATI release a product that takes back the performance crown.. only then they can sit on the high price premiums for their cards again because they own the highest performance. Until then they can get busy slashing prices...ElFenix - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
you guys fail to realize that, at retail prices for nvidia cards, the ati cards slot quite nicely. best buy and compusa still sell 6600GTs for nearly $200, and 6800GTs for nearly $300. so, comparing those prices to the ATi prices reveals that ATi is quite price competitive. of course, no one who reads this site buys at retail (unless it's a hot deal), but there isn't any reason to think that ATi cards can't come down in price as quickly as the nvidia cards.bob661 - Saturday, October 8, 2005 - link
Ummm yeah. We, the geeks, don't shop at CompUSA or Best Buy. Therefore, ATI's new hardware is NOT price competitive. Also, if Nvidia 6600GT's are $200 and 6800GT's are $300 at said stores, how would the ATI cards magically not get a price gouging too?ElFenix - Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - link
did you even bother to read my post before shooting off your idiotic post? i said that no one here shops at best buy. and you don't know if ati's hardware is price competitive or not because, at the moment, you can't buy it. once it gets out into the channel maybe newegg and zzf and monarch will stock them at competitive prices as the nvidia parts. maybe not. but you don't know that yet, so making blanket statements like 'ati is not price competitive' is stupid!i'm not really sure what this 'price gouging' is you're referring to, but because you've already demonstrated your inability to comprehend the english language i'm going to assume its because you think best buy and compusa are selling for more than msrp. they're not. they are selling at msrp. and at best buy and compusa ati cards will sell at msrp. and ati cards at msrp are quite price competitive with nvidia cards at msrp.
shabby - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Lets see some hdr+aa benchmarks.DerekWilson - Saturday, October 8, 2005 - link
There are no games where we can test this feature yetTinyTeeth - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
You make up for the flaws of the last review and show that you still are the best hardware site out there. Keep it up!jojo4u - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
The graphs give a nice overview, good work.Please consider to include the information what AF level was used into the graphs. This is something all recent reviews here have have been lacking.
About the image quality: The shimmering was greatly reduced with the fixed driver (78.03). So it's down to NV40 level now. But 3dCenter.de[1] and Computerbase.de conclude that only enabling "high quality" in the Forceware brings comparable image quality to "A.I. low". Perhaps you find the time to explore this issue in the image quality tests.
[1] http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/g70_flimmern/index_...">http://www.3dcenter.de/artikel/g70_flimmern/index_...
This article is about the unfixed quality. But to judge the G70 today, have a look at the 6800U videos.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=1549&am...">http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=1549&am...
This article shows the performance hit of enabling "high quality"