Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup Part I - ATI's Radeon 9800 XT
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on October 1, 2003 3:02 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
AquaMark 3
Despite what some people would like everyone to think, Aquamark3 is really a test of how people developing software now envision DirectX 9 pixel and vertex shaders will be used in the future. The situation is very reminiscent of the first Sony PlayStation: the first games that used the technology were limited by the hardware until developers really learned to work with the hardware rather than on the hardware. As time progressed, we went from what were essentially ports of 16bit console games to amazingly complex and beautiful games like Gran Turismo 2. The same thing will happen with shader technology, and no amount of guessing and throwing functions at a gpu will tell you how its performance will really be in the future. Essentially, my advice is that any piece of software that claims it is a valid predictor of future performance should be taken lightly. We based our decision to include Aquamark3 on its popularity in the community. Aquamark3 is a cool piece of software, with some pretty neat tests, and a high score in any benchmark can still earn bragging rights in the forums. The only Aquamark3 test we ran was the publicly available 1024x768 4xAF noAA in order to maximize the usefulness of these numbers to the community. Our drivers were set to allow application control of AF and AA.
We can see almost a pairing off of the cards in direct competition with one another from each camp. ATI pulls ahead by an insignificant margin in the case of the top cards, but the 5600 Ultra falls way behind in this test. Image quality appears to have improved for NVIDIA in this benchmark over what has been reported of previous drivers, and the NV38 handled the massive overdraw portion of the test the smoothest of all the cards. We will be taking a much closer look at image quality very soon, but until then, it looks like ATI and NVIDIA have equal footing in the Aquamark3 arena and we are left to find more useful information about their differences elsewhere. We would also like to point out that the 9700 Pro held its own in this test inching out the standard 9800.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
263 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#81 and anyone who thinks it isnt important to benchmark dx9 performance:When you have 2 of the most highly anticipated games due for release over the next few months (halflife2 and doom3 for those who are asleep at the wheel) which both include dx9 features, Why in gods name would you buy a $500 card that _doesn't_ support dx9 features effectively? You would obviously have to be someone who isnt interested in having the best quality visuals you can get, and that is the exact opposite to the reason anyone would spend that amount of money on a video card in the first place. People want to see the best quality with the best performance! I simply cannot understand why someone would buy one of these expensive cards expecting that they would need to buy another equally or more expensive card as soon as such new dx9 titles appear... the simple truth is that you would have to be a fool with money to burn if you are prepared to pay $500 for a card that cannot perform well in new games that arrive after a couple of months
It's not a matter of whether dx9 features should be benchmarked, it's a matter of how.. I will avoid the whole benchmarking fiasco going on with regard to cheats, but why do you think people put such weight in programs which are designed to predict the performance of hardware on future games? People want cards that will perform well with _future_ games! It is just a pity there arent more tools available that can provide a RELIABLE prediction of how hardware will perform with these future games.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#90If you're serious enough to inquire about BF1942...why not test it using TFC? I personally enjoy the soles of my Air Nikes, but come on, Reebok? I think I'd rather buy a pair of New Balance at my local shoe wharehouse. ATi has proven itself to be capable of running today's graphically intense games, just as smooth as STEAM is running HL. Thx for the tests, ATech.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
How about benchmarking the game with Battlefield 1942? I know it isn't one of the most graphically intensive games out there, but it is one of the most popular.Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Any chance of benchmarking Soldier of Fortune 2, it may be old but still very popular online.Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
No discussion of image quality for each game?Other sites now do this as a matter of course as it is clear that Nvidia is taking shortcuts on quality to maximize speed. Hey I own a 4600 Gold Sample so I am not an ATI zealot, but I know where my next card purchase this year is going, that is clear from all the reviews I have seen.
I think its time you look beyond raw frame rates.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
id like to see doom 3 when availableAnonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
thanks #65\#77, that is very interestingit doesnt make a lot of sense as to why such scores would increase... unless it was some sort of driver 'bug'...
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#73, who in their right mind would use the PCI slot next to the AGP slot? That's a surefire way to give you graphics card trouble.Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
I would suggest adding a few sports games to the mix; I myself would prefer Madden 2004. Thank you :)Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
ADDD HL2