Gigabyte Maya II R9500 Video Card Review
Overclocking
This is a large topic as related to video cards based on the chip, since that kind of overclocking was effected not only about frequencies but also about unlocking the pipelines within R300. As I mentioned earlier, most ATI's video cards based on R300 are made on practically identical design, except for the ATI 9500 Pro whose PCB design differs from the generic, but this time we are not talking about this card. Since our card is an ATI 9500, has 64 MB memory onboard, we won't be able to push the bit-rate up to 256 bit because of the PCB organization and chip structure, where the 128 bit is arranged due to reduction of memory chips from 8 to 4; there's wiring for the remaining chips on board, but they are simply not welded. The first PCB remake of 9500 into 9700 implied hardware intrusion, or in simpler terms, using a soldering iron. We won't consider this option since it is quite faulty, e.g. loss of guarantee servicing upon unsuccessful attempt. The second option is about software-driven remake. The idea behind it is that some lines of the assembly code inside the drivers are changed, which results in that a 9500 chip becomes detected as a 9700 and the system therefore turns on using it to the full. I must express my deep gratitude to Unwinder who in his RivaTuner utility created and included the Soft9700 patch-script which turns the risky recasting R9500 video cards into an easy and revocable task. Unfortunately, far not all R9500 video cards are able easily turning to 9700 from 9500. This is related to that the R300 assembly line does not yield 100% fully functional chips, - screen-out specimens come into producing cheaper models of the card. This resembles production of CPUs where the processor is marked by the frequency it is able running at. This seems to be a similar case, - on R9500 cards they sometimes mount R300 chips having either faulty HyperZ unit, not used in original R9500 cards, or unusable pipelines. In the case of a faulty HyperZ, you will anyway be able running the video card albeit with the "chessboard" on the background, but the card won't start and hang upon loading the driver if the pipelines are unusable. You will easily see if the HyperZ module is faulty already in the 2D by the chessboard cells displayed around all the icons.
 By the way, if there arises an incredible situation when the bugs are seen in the 2D only while all is fine in the 3D, simply reduce the "hardware acceleration" property in "Monitor" -> "Diagnostics" by two units. Currently, the statistics of overclocks shows approximately 70% success versus 30% failures. Unfortunately, for now there hasn't been a technology that allows disabling the unusable HyperZ module without affecting the pipelines. Nevertheless, we can't rule out such functionality and in the nearest future the RivaTuner utility will feature an undo-able software-driven recasting of 9700 cards into 9500 :) as well as software-driven recasting of amateur 9700 cards into professional FireGL cards.
It's a pity out tested card has fallen just within those 30% of failed overclocks. The unusable HyperZ module appeared to be quite a nice-looking bug because all the games started in the overclocked mode looked as if viewed through Robocop's eye at his most fierce times ... occasional ripples, jittering letters and all cells around the screen... Nevertheless, there is also one good old type of frequency overclocking left, which showed the following results. I was able setting the chip to the boundarily stable 385 MHz frequency, with all the other frequencies above that limit being easily set, but upon starting any 3D application all simply fell off to the operating system. The memory started running stably at 337 MHz. But we'll dwell on that a bit later on.
Benchmarks
To test the performance of the Gigabyte R9500 video card based on the R300 chip, we assembled these two testing systems:
Testing system No. 1 (Hi-End):
- Processor Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz;
- Motherboard - Intel 850EMV (i850E, 512 Mb RDRAM PC800), AGP 4x);
- Sound card Creative Sound Blaster Audigy;
- HDD Seagate Barracuda ATA IV 7200 rpm.
Testing system No 2 (Mid-Range):
We tested the performance in the following benchmarks and applications:
- Return to Castle Wolfenstein - Checkpoint demo (OpenGL, Quake 3 core);
- Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo (Direct3D stress test benchmark);
- DooM III E3 Demo (extremely resource-hungry overkill benchmark with shaders, bump-mapping, OpenGL and lots of other stuff to be topical by the end of 2003);
- Codecreatures demo (complex DirectX 8 benchmark);
- 3DMark 2001SE (synthetic Direct3D benchmark).
The only remark as to the installation of third-party devices for memory cooling is the presence of electric cells amid the chips, so coupled radiators won't do - only individual cooling of each separate chip matters. We are trying to give an all-out estimation of the card performance when used in various applications on different platforms.
3DMark 2001 SE
This benchmark is the most impartial since the accelerator is tested throughout the whole range of 3D applications, and the results are made up of data received from an aggregate of various sub-benchmarks. Unfortunately, you can't test the cutting-edge features of the new accelerators with this benchmark, but this is not yet topical since other accelerators don't support them either yet, and to date there are still no games made especially for DirectX9 and ATi Radeon 9700 features. Those cool new benchmarks standing on par with these won't appear earlier than new state-of-the-art accelerators matching these functionalities hit the market. We are expecting the release of Unreal 2 and 3DMark 2003 especially for testing the performance of both state-of-the-art chips and Microsoft's new API DirectX 9.
 I must admit though, using the 128-bit memory bus instead of 256-bit with 4 pixel pipelines disabled has not affected the performance positively at all. Frankly, although that was expected originally, such a performance drop is slightly shocking indeed. At low resolutions, the performance stays in the middle between GeForce 4 Ti4200 and GeForce 3, which is not bad at all. There was no processor dependence detected since the graph exhibits an absolutely linear behavior. But starting from the 1280x1024 resolutions, the situation has changed sharply and at the highest resolutions the R9500 card demonstrated a complete failure. This can be explained by two merely two things, with the first being the presence of 64 MB memory onboard, which is certainly not enough. Another thing is that the AGP operation is either poorly optimized or inadequate. To understand that, let's look at the following graph, since the second testing system demonstrates full functioning of the AGP8X.
 As you can see from the graph, the general situation with performance is much better than in the previous testing system. In the low resolutions, the performance of the card is closer to GeForce 4 Ti4200 and this trend remains preserved while diminishing completely upon reaching the top. The first idea that comes into my head is that in this situation it was using the AGP8x that played the decisive part. It's also possible that ATI drivers are optimized for technologies used on AMD platforms *3DNow)... We'll clarify this aspect in our further reviews.
Well, I've rarely seen such graphs. It is evident that using the R9500 on the AMD platform with support for AGP8x results in an essential performance !increase! in higher resolutions. The gap at higher resolutions is in fact equal to the reverse gap at the low resolutions.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein
This benchmark can be freely regarded as a processor dependence test. This benchmark is most frequently used for testing weak video cards since its requirements to the graphics accelerator can't be regarded as high enough, because the Quake3 engine is quite an easy task for modern accelerators.
Once again, the 9500 performed poorly and stayed on its former position. I wish I saw identical results up to 1280x1024 resolution, but no miracle occurred and the card demonstrated a result a bit similar to that in the previous 3DMark benchmark except the drop at higher resolutions. That is no wonder, - there shouldn't have been any drop since this game uses rather small textures as per today's standards which easily fit within the 64 MB of local memory.
But on that platform at low resolutions the processor power proved insufficient anyway, and the result is practically identical up to 1600x1200. At 1600x1200, the result becomes similar to that for GeForce 4 MX400. It's worth noting that the only result higher than MX400 was produced at 1280x1024 since low resolutions strongly depend on the processor, while the higher depend much on the card itself. Judging by the produced results, we can assume that higher resolutions are not a strong part of R9500 cards.
In this benchmark, as I already mentioned, it was the processor that played the leading part, which is confirmed by the graph. If there were much more geometry and textures, the result would have been in fact identical. So if you are up to playing old games, the powerful processor is a must.
Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo
This benchmark is completely reverse to the previous. All they have in common is that they are all in the group of gaming tests. This benchmark exhibits powerful geometry in the frame and large textures, is absolutely not processor-dependent, and all depends on the card itself.
As always, the low resolution is practically identical in all of the video cards (which is really encouraging), so the outsiders, GeForceMX 400 and SiS Xabre 600, are immediately visible. In this benchmark the tested card stays on par with GeForce 3, slightly taking a lead over it at 800x600 and a bit lagging behind it at 1600x1200. Just want to note that the performance drop as compared to the flagship 9700Pro is quite substantial, and at high resolutions the difference becomes greater than two times.
And again the R9500 in this benchmark has performed quite well. The performance of R9500 is undoubtedly higher than that of GeForce MX and is slightly lower than GeForce Ti 4200. The ratio of performance levels does resemble that on the first sting system, and hence we arrive at some interim conclusion. Unlike 3DMark, there is practically no difference made by using AGP8x.
The graph here is self-evident, which says if you intend to play Unreal Tournament at resolutions higher than 1024x768 it doesn't matter what processor you are using, of course within reasonable limits. At low resolutions, there does exist processor dependence, but that is a regularity. Nevertheless, Unreal Tournament is a game, and requirements to the hardware resources have got to be reasonable, therefore it is unable loading a modern accelerator to the full.
Codecult Codecreatures demo
This benchmark is a real torture for the video subsystem but it shows no processor dependence, since the processor is not a bottleneck. It outputs up to 500000 polygons per frame and makes use of the vertex and pixel shaders of version 1.1, that is why it does not run on Nvidia MX-Series video cards.
In this benchmark, like in many others, the operation speed of ATI R9500 is on par with GeForce 3 and much lower than the higher-end card based on the identical R300 core, - ATI R9700Pro. It means that in complex game scenes which are likely to come across quite often in new games there will be a lack of speed even with the hardware support for DirectX9.
On this graph, the situation is very similar to the previous. But the gap between the 64 MB GeForce 4 Ti4200 and the card in question has turned much narrower at 1600x1200.
There is practically no processor dependence, that is, using this card with a relatively weak processor in games of ultra-heavy graphics won't demonstrate any essential performance difference.
DooM III E3 Demo
And lastly, here comes a gaming benchmark of super-heavy graphics :). This is in fact a benchmark, not a game; and it can be called a test with a great reserve, since the final version will demonstrate considerable performance differences on specific types of video cards thanks to the effected optimization. Nevertheless, we believe the situation will change radically, so we are using this test version as a full-featured performance benchmark. Reminding it again that we are not using the second testing platform to verify the performance in this benchmark, since 256 MB of RAM is required to produce correct results.
 At this benchmark, the ATI's card performed quite well. On the whole, the situation is very similar to Unreal Tournament 2003, but at low resolutions it's a long way to go to the processor dependence. The ratio of speed characteristics is practically identical in all the resolutions, however, it's worth mentioning that the tested card demonstrated a considerable advance over GeForce 3 at low resolutions which then became matched as the resolutions were going up, while at 1600x1200 the loss proved minimized.
Overclock
 Regular frequency overclocking produced a pretty good performance boost and approached the level of GeForce 4 Ti4200-4600. It was found out during the tests that the chip speed has less effect on the performance as compared to the memory speed. There was an impression that the chip wouldn't overclock at all - only the figures changed on the screen. Only when we reduced the values to the extreme minimum we were able to find out that the performance did change, but after setting the maximum speed to 415 MHz all hung up (which was really expected). As was already mentioned, 384 MHz on the chip proved to be stable, which is simply fantastic frequency, almost 100 MHz higher than the pre-set values. Provided the R300 chip is used reasonably, the level of overclocking is likely to be lower, since more units will be activated and thus more heat will be emitted. As for the memory, the operating frequency 337 MHz is also not bad for this type of memory, and much depends on its frequency. This means the main restricting factor is the bus cut down to 128 bit.
Findings
If you are a fancier of exotic hardware, this card will appeal to you... it's hard to call it middling. On the one hand, it offers full-featured functionality which will be in demand in the nearest future, plus a change of recasting the card into a slightly cut-down version of the 9700 card. On the other hand, it features low performance, still buggy drivers, unstable operation in some applications, plus a high chance of getting a complete bunch of ATI's hardware bugs like stripes stretching over the screen or elevated skirting on the chip which deteriorates the cooling. It turns out to be a real lottery in which all depends on a particular specimen of the card. You have a chance of wining a 9700 card, but you may also win stripes and overheating or, worse than that, you can either win it all or win nothing at all.. What makes the card a bit more attractive is the price which is also not so low for a card of such performance index. With a great reserve, this card can be used in the not yet released games, since its functionality it compensated by low speed characteristics solvable through overclocking, if any :). The disconnection of 4 pipelines together with the HyperZ module, plus cutting the bit-rate down to 128 bit from 256 has resulted in serious performance losses, to which the benchmarks point. We intentionally accentuated the processor dependence during the tests since the card is positioned on the market as aimed at the mid-range sector. The main conclusion is that the most justified option would be installing an ATI 9500Pro on the processor of the AMD XP 2000+ line, since with such performance level the processor is no longer a bottleneck and won't restrict the video system. As for the implementation of the card, Gigabyte has got nothing to claim about, moreover, the package bundle really deserves a praise. What was really poor is the adapter cable to plug in TV-Out, but that is solvable through purchasing regular video extension cables. And one more advice - but the video cards at sales places where they provide a MoneyBack guarantee or have well-established guarantee servicing in order to have a good reason for having your card replaced in case stripes are seen on the screen.
Pros:
- Full-featured hardware support for DirectX 9.
- Random possibility to turn the card into a 9700 analog.
- Good frequency overclocking.
- Good package bundle.
Cons:
- Low 3D performance.
- Possible hardware flaws (on-screen waves in 2D, etc).
- Slightly buggy drivers.
- High price.
 |
Top Stories: |
 |
 |
|
MoBo:
| |
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
