FX5900 vs Radeon9800Pro
3DMark2003 ver230
This is a synthetic benchmark offering full support for DX9 To start with, the overall score:
Don't get confused by the low overall score points attained because 4xAA/8xAF is a serious trial. As we see, NV35 takes a lead at low resolutions and a little bit lags behind R350 at 1600x1200. But Catalyst 3.4 easily left 9800Pro behind at 2048x1536x32, while neither Detonator 44.03 nor Detonator 44.45 coped with that resolution - three attempts to pass 3DMark2003 at 2048x1536x32 for NV35 ended up in system failure. It's just the driver to blame for that - there is nothing else to explain it by, then both the 128 MB version of Gigabyte 9800Pro also ran the test smoothly as its 256 MB make.
Having summed up the benchmark results, we get a more evident picture:
Unlike all the other cards that took part in the tests, the Ti4800-8x (NV28) chip does not support DX9, so its serious failure was caused by that it simply skipped the fourth benchmark (Mother Nature) in 3DMark2003. and it's just this benchmarks that adds maximum score points.
3DMark2001 SE Pro
NV35 demonstrates a very strange curve - the drops in the low and high resolutions combined with absolute identity of results for the middle resolutions as compared to R350. In the end, ATI is a leader in the total graph.
In the equitable conditions of 3DMark2001 SE Pro where the advantages of DX9 don't count, the Ti4800-8x chips doesn't look so terribly outdated. And that's absolutely right! Until mass quantities of new games supporting DX9 appear - it's just 3DMark2001 that reflects a more realistic difference of the used cards. By the way, the widespread fears in that DX9 games will require mandatory migration to new cards to suffice the start-up have no grounds. No one has yet abolished the software rendering although it is less productive and results in serious torture of a load for the CPU.
Comanche 4 Bench 4xAA/8xAF
This test can be regarded as outdated and simple (but there aren't any new, aren't there?), but it is made on a real engine based on the super-popular game.
What to say about that? Only one thing - with the high quality settings enabled, all the new video cards remain usable for games up to 1600x1200! At the same time, Ti4800 (a performance favorite of the last year) stays playable at no more than 800x600.
Codecreatures Benchmark Pro
It offers a next-generation engine. Gives a real torture of a load, even the AA had to be disabled. At this test, none of the last-year cards was able to show decent gaming FPS rate, while for modern cards getting to the incredibly high resolutions is a piece of cake! ATI 9800Pro at this test left the competitor well behind.
Village Mark
The nice thing about this test is that it was made by a third-party competitor - PowerVR, manufacturer of graphic chips :-)
That's where the only pleasant thing is over ... the test is terribly primitive - the doors and windows look as if drawn on cardboard walls of shabby village cottages rather than "exist".
As is the case with the Codecreatures Benchmark Pro, the performance of NV35 is right between R350 and R300.
Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo
That's a popular graphics test based on the Unreal Engine built on DirectX7 with speckles of some DirectX8 functions.
For more details of the test and the UT2K3 utility, read the review "Unreal Tournament 2003 as a benchmark"
The test is anyway a bit old-fashioned for today's video cards albeit looks good. It's completely evident that at low resolutions the cards come up against the performance of the engine itself. R350 rules as usual at high resolutions - 58 fps vs. 42 fps for NV35. At more standard 1280x1024, the cards demonstrate approximately the same and even very game-able results. And that under 4xAA/8xAF!
Note that Ti4800 at these quality settings remains gameable at only 640x480.
It makes a big sense for UT fans to buy something modern, set all the options to the maximum and enjoy the thrilling graphics with the gameplay dynamics preserved.
That is only in the Direct3D mode, and in using OpenGL we see a serious failure for nVidia cards.
The same picture is seen in all the other built-in demos. A fight between R350 and NV35 on par in the Direct3D mode, with a complete fiasco for nVidia cards in the OpenGL. It's a mystery what's behind that.
The results for NV28 in OpenGL do not lag much behind those for NV35. Seems like Detonator developers are still unable to fully optimize the driver for the new FX architecture in the OpenGL mode and have thrown in all efforts to polishing the Direct3D. But then, using FX in professional packages appears to be quite problematic.
RightMark Video Analyzer
RightMark Video Analyzer is a fancier of ATI cards :) That's a complete fiasco for FX5900 which hardly copes with shader operations. On the other hand, there aren't any games using shaders so far, so - it's not that awful anyway.
 |
Top Stories: |
 |
 |
|
MoBo:
| |
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
