GeXcube Radeon 9800XT Review
Performance
To test the performance, we assembled the most powerful system using available components. In particular, it is the Abit IC7-MAX3 (Intel 875P) motherboard. Then, we installed a Prescott Pentium4 processor and set the clock speed = 3.6GHz (225õ16). In so doing, the memory (PC3200 Corsair TwinX) was set to run in the asynchronous mode at 180 MHz with the memory latency timings set to 2-3-6-3.
Clearly, the more powerful the system is, the better. This allows us to maximize the load upon the video card and estimate its true potential.
Now regarding the tests. The first what interests us is the operating speed of the GeXCube Radeon9800XT relative to the similar product of a different manufacturer (we chose the Asus Radeon 9800XT video card). Then we were interested in performance drop upon the maximum increase of 3D image quality (antialiasing and anisotropy). And lastly, we looked at the video card's performance at increased frequencies.
We used the following set of benchmarks:
- MadOnion\FutureMark 3DMark2001 SE;
- MadOnion\FutureMark 3DMark2003 v340;
- CodeCult Codecreatures v1.0.0 (DirectX 8.1 application, shaders, Hardware T&L);
- Digital Extreme/Epic Games Unreal Tournament 2004 Demo (Direct3D, Hardware T&L, vertex shaders, Dot3, cube texturing. We use the "DM-RANKIN" demo);
- Yeti studious Gun Metal Benchmark 2 v1.20s (DirectX 9.0 benchmark , Vertex Shaders 2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1, Hardware T&L);
- Egosoft X2: The Threat (Direct3D, multitexturing, Dot3);
- Microsoft HALO: Combat Evolved (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Hardware T&L);
- Massive Development AquaMark 3 (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Hardware T&L,);
- Legend Ent./Epic Games Unreal II: The Awakening v1403 (Direct3D, vertex shaders, Hardware T&L, Dot3, cube texturing, the quality set to that suggested by BenchemAll).
- Core Design / Eidos Interactive Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness v49 (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 2.0,Pixel Shaders 2.0, quality set to default, demo reels - "Paris5_4", "Paris3");
- Demo Crytek / UbiSoft FarCry (DirectX 9.0, Pixel Shaders 2.0);
- ID Software Return to Castle Wolfenstein (OpenGL).
| Processor |
Intel Pentium4 (Prescott-C0); 16x225=3.6 GHz; |
| Motherboard |
Abit IC7-MAX3 (Intel 875P)
|
| Cooler |
Zalman 7000Cu
|
| Sound card |
Creative Live 5.1 (disable) |
| HDD |
IBM DTLA 307030 30Gb |
| Memory |
2x256 MB PC3200 DDR SDRAM Corsair TwinX |
| Case |
Inwin506 with PowerMan 300W power supply unit |
| Software |
Windows XP SP1
Catalyst 4.3
Unwinder's RivaTuner v12.2
Render's BenchemAll v2.55
Overdrive - disabled. |
Let's first take a look at the results of synthetic benchmarks.
3D Mark 2001 is already outdated, and we used it simply as a tribute to tradition :). The performance in the first three tests ("terminator", "dragotic" and "matrix" :) is already much more than enough (the fps rate exceeds 300-400), so we restricted to only the last test - "Mother Nature".
And the last synthetic (or semi-synthetic :) benchmark. We will be using real-world gaming applications.
A special comment is regarding the Comanche game: this application puts more load to the processor, rather than the video card. In particular, the use of the Northwood processor gives an essential performance boost (the average fps goes over 70 !) For details, read our review about the Prescott core.
But at CodeCreatures, the speed of the platform does not play any part. The performance at this test depends solely on the video card used.
And - "the spice of the show" - here goes FarCry. As we can see, at the maximum settings the speed of the game is definitely not high. Even with this powerful platform where a Pentium4 3.6 GHz processor is used. Do not flatter yourself with the >60 fps figure. This result is "averaged", which in its turn means a possible performance drop during hot battle scenes (or "gore" :)).
Since in the GunMetal test the AA mode is enabled by default (AA2x), we decided to run the tests at AA 4x from the start.
Now look at the performance in the OpenGL application. While the classical Quake3 is an ideal testing environment for processors, memory and motherboards, it does not work for testing video cards because the graphics is too simplified. That is why we used Return to Castle which, albeit based on the Q3 engine, offers a higher quality graphics.
Another, demanding and hard for video cards, benchmark using DirectX 9.0. Remarkably, nVidia products lose seriously at this benchmark to ATI chips. The lag is so substantial that programmers at nVidia were unable to eliminate it even through the use "cheats". As a result, pressed by nVidia, the game developers had to disable the benchmark feature in the latest patch.
There is one more interesting benchmark, indicative in terms of nVidia vs. ATI opposition. Since the game offers no integrated benchmark, programmers at nVidia did not do any cheats for that (like, e.g., for Unreal Tournament). However, Alexandr Kondratyuk, a developer of the BenchemAll, found a way to enable the benchmarking feature (for which he deserves special respects :), and the program showed that nVidia's new drivers absolutely don't raise performance in this game.
The last, fairly hard test, albeit not using DirectX 9.0 to the full, is able putting a serious load upon your video card. Especially once the antialiasing is enabled.
As regards the board's performance in the overclocking mode, the boost is about ~10% on the average. But it is important to note here that operation at 450/400 without artifacts is possible only after serious revamping of the cooling system. But if you don't touch the cooler (thus preserve the guarantee for this very expensive card), then the maximum possible frequencies attained are 429-432 MHz for the chip and 380MHz for the memory. In this case, the performance boost will be a bit more than 5%.
The only what I can say regarding the maximum quality mode (antialiasing and anisotropy) is that it makes sense to enable it only with games whose speed exceeds 100 fps. In this case, the speed will definitely drop (by 30-50%), but this change will not affect the gameplay quality.
Final Words
To date, video cards based on the Radeon 9800XT chip are among the fastest video accelerators. They are practically free of any serious shortcomings, except the price which is over $450. It's just the price which is a serious obstacle for their wide spread occurrence.
However, in the nearest future the situation may radically change. First of all, the price may quickly drop because of the active introduction of the new PCI Express bus. Reminding it, that early this summer the new Intel platform - Socket LGA775 - will be released, for which the i915 and i925 chipsets are meant and which offer no support for the AGP bus. Therefore, it makes sense to give up the idea of buying Radeon 9800XT boards until the price drops to $300. Only in this case, video cards of this type may be serious rivals to boards built on the Radeon 9800 and Radeon 9800Pro chips which to date offer the best "price/performance" ratio.
The same advice I would give to the overclocker: be patient and wait a bit. Since Radeon 9800XT (R360) appears to be an extremely overclocked version of the R350 core (and thus the R300 core), then the overclocking potentials are not very high. So the owners of revamped (i.e. enabled pipelines) Radeon9500 and Radeon 9800SE video cards can calm down for the time being: at speed, their video cards are not much inferior to Radeon9800XT. The same applies to owners of overclocked Radeon 9800 (Pro :) video cards.
Now, specific findings regarding the GeXCube Radeon 9800XT video card. This video cards is a very well made product built on the reference design. As a result, it is at least on par with other boards built on the Radeon 9800XT chip at both performance and the overclocking potentials. In fact, for hardcore overclocking you would have to improve the cooling system which proved to be a joy due its practically noiseless operation in the nominal modes. Nor there were any issues regarding the package bundle. As regards the price, to date it is about $462 (i.e. one of the cheapest among Radeon 9800XT boards). So if you have firmly decided to buy just this board based on the Radeon 9800XT chip, then GeXCube could be regarded as one of the possible candidates.
Read more on this topic
 |
Top Stories: |
 |
 |
|
MoBo:
| |
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
