Gigabyte Radeon X800 Pro 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). At that, the memory (PC3200 Corsair TwinX) was running in the asynchronous mode at 180MHz with the latency timings 2-3-6-3. Such a system allowed us to load the video card to the full and estimate its true potentials.
We compared performance of the card relative to the previous-generation video card - GeXCube Radeon 9800XT. We ran tests at nominal frequencies, in the overclocked mode, and in the maximum quality mode (4x FSAA and 16x AF).
We used the following set of benchmarks:
- MadOnionFutureMark 3DMark2001 SE;
- MadOnionFutureMark 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)
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3D Mark 2001 is already outdated, and we used it simply as a tribute to tradition :).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.
Performance at Comanche game is in strong dependence on the processor's clock speed. Besides, the type of the processor is very important - for example, the clock speed of Pentium4 (Prescott) was approximately by 15% slower than Northwood, similar at the core speed. Therefore, we can see the difference in speed (1600x1200: ~55%) between 9800XT and X800 Pro only with the FSAA and AA enabled.
In the CodeCreatures benchmark, the speed of the platform does not play any part. So the difference in speed is seen in all the modes and resolutions (1600x1200: ~72%).
The "spice of the show" is FarCry. Again, the card based on the X800 Pro chip shows higher performance (1600x1200: ~53.3%). What is more important, it's just due to X800 Pro the minimum fps level has gone up, which allows playing comfortably even in complex scenes.
At the GunMetal benchmark, the performance boost is even higher - up to 63% at 1600x1200. However, the totals index of speed is still below the desired 60 fps despite the use of a 3.6 GHz processor.
At Halo2, the performance boost is about 51% at 1600x1200.
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 Wolfenstein which, albeit based on the Q3 engine, offers a higher quality graphics. At Return to Castle Wolfenstein the performance boost is minimum - 18% (at 1600x1200). This once again shows that high-end cards should be tested with the most recent and advanced hi-tech games.
The SeriousSam SE game is a bit more complex than RtCW, but anyway the fps counter exceeds 100 at all the applications. The performance boost at 1600x1200 is ~25%.
Another, very demanding and hard for video cards benchmark that makes intense use of DirectX 9.0. That's where X800 Pro shows its full strength: the performance boost is 45-55% at 1600x1200. Remarkably, nVidia products lose seriously at this benchmark to ATI chips. The lag is so serious that programmers at nVidia were unable to eliminate it even through the use of proprietary "optimizations/cheats". As a result, pressed by nVidia, the game developers had to disable the benchmark in the latest patch (game "Tomb Rider: Angel of Darkness" takes part in nVidia's initiative "The way it's meant to be played").
 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.
In Unreal Tournaments 2004, the boost is even higher - around 53%.
Half-Life2 is its alpha version is another benchmark with active use of shaders. The result is that X800 Pro demonstrates a 20-70% superiority depending on the demo-recording used.
The last, fairly hard test, albeit not using DirectX 9.0 to the full, but is able putting a serious load upon your video card. At that, X800 Pro surpasses 9800XT by 23.5% at 1600x1200.
In terms of performance on the whole, we can say that Radeon X800 Pro is 1.5 times (or 50%) more powerful than high-end cards of the previous generation (Radeon 9800XT).
As regards the board's performance in the overclocking mode, the boost is about ~20% on the average. This is without regard for the fact that the card hasn't undergone hardware modifications (i.e., only 12 of 16 pipelines were activated). The cooling system has not undergone essential changes either. We only added an additional fan and replaced the nominal thermal paste with Zalman paste. That provided further overclocking margin.
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
Summing it up, we say that at performance, the main factor, Radeon X800 Pro is 1.5 times more powerful than the previous-generation high-end model (Radeon 9800 ProXT). However, at the "price/performance" ratio it loses to 9800Pro. I presume the reasoning of "price/performance" ratio are somehow inappropriate when we talk about new products or a game like Doom3 at the maximum image quality.
Clearly, for Doom3 the X800 XT version is even better (at its 600$ price). But X800 Pro offers one attractive feature - the possibility to enable 4 pipelines and turn it into a full-featured X800 XT. This will definitely of appeal to overclockers. As a result, the X800 Pro card is the most optimum choice between the slowest and outdated 9800ProXT series on the one hand, and the very expensive X800 XT, on the other.
Specifically, regarding the Gigabyte GV-R80P256D model I can say it is a superbly made product based on the reference design. The board offers a good package bundle and a quite low-noise cooler. The board also demonstrated perfect overclocking results, albeit through immense heat emission.
Read more on this topic:
 ATI Radeon X800 XT
ASUS Radeon 9800 XT
GeXcube Radeon 9800XT
GIGABYTE GV-N595U-GT (NVIDIA FX 5950 Ultra)
MSI GeForce FX 5950 Ultra
ASUS V9980 Ultra (NVIDIA FX5950 Ultra)
 |
Top Stories: |
 |
 |
|
MoBo:
| |
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
