ATI Radeon X800 Pro and XT Platinum Edition: R420 Arrives
by Derek Wilson on May 4, 2004 10:28 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
95 Comments
View All Comments
NullSubroutine - Thursday, May 6, 2004 - link
Trog I agree with you for the most part, but there are some people who can use upgrades. I myself have bought expensive video cards in the past. I got the Geforce3 right when it came out (in top of the line alienware system for 1400 bucks), and it lasted me for 2-3 years. Now if someone spends 400-500 bucks on a video card that lasts them that long (2-3 years) its no different than if someone buys a 200 buck video card every year. I am one of those people who likes to buy new compoents when computing speed doubles and if I have the money I'll get what I can that will last me the longest. If I cant afford top of the line Ill get something that will get me by (9500pro last card I bought for 170 over a year ago).However I do agree with you that people who upgrade to the best every generation is silly.
TrogdorJW - Thursday, May 6, 2004 - link
I'm sorry, but I simply have to laugh at anyone going on and on about how they're going to run out and buy the latest graphics cards from ATI or Nvidia right now. $400 to $500 for a graphics card is simply too much (and it's too much for a CPU as well). Besides, unless you have some dementia that requires you to run all games at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF, there's very little need for either the 6800 Ultra or the X800 XT right now. Relax, take a deep breath, save some money, and forget about the pissing contest.So, is it just me, or is there an inverse relationship between a person's cost of computer hardware and their actual knowledge of computers? I have a coworker that is always spending money on upgrading his PC, and he really has no idea what he's doing. He went from an Athlon XP 2800+ (OC'ed to 2.4 GHz) to a P4 2.8 OC'ed to 3.7 GHz. He also went from a 9800 Pro 256 to a 9800 XT. In the past, he also had a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra. He tries to overclock all of his systems, they sound like a jet engine, and none of them are actually fully stable. In the last year, he has spent roughly $5000 on computer parts (although he has sold off some of the "old" parts like the 5900 Ultra). Performance of his system has probably improved by about 25% over the course of the year.
Sorry for the rant, but behavior like that from *anybody* is just plain stupid. He's gone from 120 FPS in some games up to 150 FPS. Anyone here actually think he can tell the difference? I suppose it goes without saying that he's constantly crowing about his 3DMark scores. Now he's all hot to go out and buy the X800 XT cards, and he's been asking me when they'll be in stores. Like I care. They're nice cards, I'm sure, but why buy them before you actually have a game that needs the added performance?
His current games du joir? Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield Vietnam. Yeah... those really need a high performance DX9 card. The 80+ FPS of the 9800 XT he has just isn't cutting it.
So, if you read my description of this guy and think I'm way off base, go get your head examined. Save your money, because some day down the road you will be glad that you didn't spend everything you earned on computer parts. Enjoy life, sure, but having a faster car, faster computer, bigger house, etc. than someone else is worth pretty much jack and shit when it all comes down to it.
/Rant. :D
a2y - Thursday, May 6, 2004 - link
If a card is going to come up every few weeks then how do you guys choose which to buy?ATI have the trade-up section for old cards, is that any good?
gxshockwav - Thursday, May 6, 2004 - link
Um...what happened to the posting of new Ge6 6850 benchmark numbers?NullSubroutine - Thursday, May 6, 2004 - link
Trog, its good to hear you were being nice, but I wasnt bashing THG, I love that site (besides this one) and I get alot of my tech info from there.What I normally do though is I take benchmarks from different sites then put them in Excel, make a little graph and see the % point differences between the tests. If you plan on buying a new vid card its important to find out if the Nvida or ATi card is faster on your type of system.
And from what I found is that the AMD system from Atech performed better with Nvidia, and Intel system peformed better with ATi from THG (for Farcry and Unreal2004 only ones to be somewhat similar tests).
#61 How much money did ATi spend when developing the R3xx line? I would venture to say a decent amount...somtimes companies invest more money in a design then refine it several times (at less cost) before starting from scratch again. ATi and Nvidia has done this for quite awhile. Also from what Ive heard the r3xx had the possibilty of 16 pipes to begin with..this true anyone?
Texture memory about 256 doesnt really matter now b/c of the insane bandwidth the 8x apg has to offer, however one might see that 512 may come in handy after Doom3 comes out since they use shitloads of high res textures instead of high polygons for alot of detail. I dont see 512 coming out for a little while, espescially with ram prices.
NullSubroutine - Thursday, May 6, 2004 - link
Trog, its good to hear you were being nice, but I wasnt bashing THG, I love that site (besides this one) and I get alot of my tech info from there.What I normally do though is I take benchmarks from different sites then put them in Excel, make a little graph and see the % point differences between the tests. If you plan on buying a new vid card its important to find out if the Nvida or ATi card is faster on your type of system.
And from what I found is that the AMD system from Atech performed better with Nvidia, and Intel system peformed better with ATi from THG (for Farcry and Unreal2004 only ones to be somewhat similar tests).
#61 How much money did ATi spend when developing the R3xx line? I would venture to say a decent amount...somtimes companies invest more money in a design then refine it several times (at less cost) before starting from scratch again. ATi and Nvidia has done this for quite awhile. Also from what Ive heard the r3xx had the possibilty of 16 pipes to begin with..this true anyone?
Texture memory about 256 doesnt really matter now b/c of the insane bandwidth the 8x apg has to offer, however one might see that 512 may come in handy after Doom3 comes out since they use shitloads of high res textures instead of high polygons for alot of detail. I dont see 512 coming out for a little while, espescially with ram prices.
deathwalker - Thursday, May 6, 2004 - link
Well...once again..someone is lying thru there teeth. What happen to the $399 entry price of the Pro model? Cheapest price on pricewatch it $478. Someone trying to cash in on the new buyer hysteria? I am impressed though with ATI's ability to step up to the plate and steal Nvidia's thunder.a2y - Thursday, May 6, 2004 - link
OMG OMG!! I almost gone to buy and build a new system with latest specs and graphics card! and was going for the nVidia 6800Ultra ! until just now i decided to see any news from ATI and discovered their new card!Man if ATI and nVidia are going to bring up a card every 2/3 weeks then i'll never be able to build this system!!!
Being a (Pre)fan of half-life 2, I guess im going to wait until its released to buy a graphics card (meaning when we all die and go to hell).
remy - Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - link
For the OpenGL vs D3D performance argument don't forget to take a look at Homeworld2 as it is an OpenGL game. ATI's hardware certainly seems to have come a long way since the 9700 Pro in that game!TrogdorJW - Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - link
NullSubroutine - It was meant as nice sarcasm, more or less. No offense intended. (I was also trying to head off this thread becoming a "THG sucks blah blah blah" tangent, as many in the past have done when someone mentions their reviews.)My basic point (without doing a ton of research) is that pretty much every hardware site has their own demos that they use for benchmarking. Given that the performance difference between the ATI and Nvidia cards was relatively constant (I think), it's generally safe to assume that the levels, setup, bots, etc. are not the same when you see differing scores. Now if you see to places using the same demo and the same system setup, and there's a big difference, then you can worry. I usually don't bother comparing benchmark numbers from two different sites since they are almost never the same configuration.