ForceWare 52.16: NVIDIA's retaliation
Benchmarking
Test configuration:
| Motherboard: |
JetWay S446 (SiS 645) |
| Processor: |
P4 Northwood 1.6A@2.13A Ghz (133x16) |
| Memory: |
256 MB Hynix PC2100 DDR SDRAM (CL=2) |
| HDD: |
Maxtor Diamond Plus 8 40 Gb |
| Video cards: |
ASUS V9950 128 Mb (NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900)
Sapphire Atlantis Radeon 9800 128 Mb (ATI Radeon 9800) |
| OS |
Microsoft Windows XP SP1 ENG, DirectX 9.0b |
| Driver: |
Detonator 45.23 WHQL and ForceWare 52.16
Catalyst 3.9 |
We remove all the decorative "niceties" out of the Windows GUI and set the operating system to maximum performance.
Disable the Vsync forcedly via the drivers both in OpenGL and in Direct3D applications. The S3TC texture compression was also disabled.
Test software:
- 3DMark2003 v330 and (!) v340;
- ShaderMark v2.0 (a DirectX 9 HLSL benchmark for testing the pixel shader performance - for more details of the specific features of the software, read below);
- D3D RightMark 1.0.2.7. (Public Beta 1) (a comprehensive DirectX 9.0 synthetic benchmark);
- 3DMark2001SE;
- Codecreatures v1.0.0 (a DirectX 8.1 application, shaders on, Hardware T&L);
- Return to Castle Wolfenstein v1.0 (OpenGL, multitexturing. The image quality was set to the maximum. Demo Checkpoint was used);
- Unreal Tournament 2003 (Direct3D, Hardware T&L, vertex shaders, Dot3, cube texturing. "Antalus Flyby" demo);
- Gun Metal Benchmark 2 v1.20s (a DirectX 9.0 benchmark, Vertex Shaders 2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1, Hardware T&L);
- X2: The Threat Demo (Direct3D, multitexturing, Dot3, running in the benchmark mode embedded in the demo version);
- Final Fantasy XI Official Benchmark 2 (a benchmark for assessing the performance in the future game Final Fantasy XI. Unfortunately, the developers haven't presented any data on the gaming engine);
- HALO: Combat Evolved 1.2 (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Hardware T&L, quality set to the maximum possible);
- AquaMark 3 (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Pixel Shaders 1.1/1.4/2.0, Hardware T&L, AquaMark3 Triscore mode);
- Half-life 2 leaked beta (DirectX 9.0, Vertex Shaders 2.0, Pixel Shaders 2.0, default quality);
- Unreal II: The Awakening (Direct3D, vertex shaders, Hardware T&L, Dot3, cube texturing, quality offered by the BenchemAll suite).
Benchmarking Results: Synthetic benchmarks
Since the time of our previous test, we have radically revised the composition of our test synthetic packages. We have given up using the already outdated DirectX 8.1 package MadOnion 3DMark2001SE, and instead of it to assess the operation speed of DirectX 8.1 shader programs (shaders of versions 1.1 and 1.4) we left the already customary Codecreatures benchmark. The focus in selecting the DirectX 9.0 synthetic benchmarks was made on synthetic programs, so we have got 2 new kids:
• ShaderMark v2.0 (DirectX 9 HLSL, a benchmark for pixel shaders);
• D3D RightMark 1.0.2.7. (Public Beta 1) (a comprehensive DirectX 9.0 synthetic benchmark).
You can read a detailed analysis of data produced for the benchmarking packages directly in the review as we proceed with the tests of video cards.
ShaderMark v2.0
All the video cards were run in the benchmark in the "Anti-Detect Mode". Note also that NVIDIA's GeForce FX 5900 was unable to pass all the tests in this mode, of which the benchmark honestly reported. On the other hand, with ATI Radeon 9800 board there were no problems - all the whatever shader versions offered by ShaderMark v2.0 started up on that ATI's board without issues.
 So what can be said regarding the results? Here we can observe that the NVIDIA chip was literally crushed by ATI Radeon 9800. The graphs which point to ATI's 2-3-fold leadership over NVIDIA's chip are self-explanatory - none of the shaders (!) offered by the program was executed on NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 faster than on ATI Radeon 9800. That's what the pure HLSV means for NVIDIA chips. To NVIDIA's credit it's worth noting that the new NVIDIA ForceWare 52.16 driver shows increased performance as compared to its predecessor Detonator 45.23, but it is scanty and does not affect the alignment of forces if we look at the results produced by ATI Radeon 9800. But what we need is something different: it is indicative that ForceWare 52.16 does offer a performance boost in HLSV, namely in the HLSV code. This suggests that the optimizations applied in the new NVIDIA's driver work in the code for real and give results. Albeit not so significant as we would want, but nevertheless they are there.
D3D RightMark
This is also a new benchmark in our set of synthetic applications, which in our view allow to assess the performance of the accelerator's subsystem in a most effective and impartial way, which matters. All the tests were conducted under the 1024x768 resolution. We didn't carry out all the tests under all possible settings - such a huge number of tests is unlikely to give our readers more information. It's more likely to confuse in the heap of diagrams =).
Geometry Processing Speed
This test allows to assess the speed at which the geometry is processed by the accelerator. We used the most advanced mode with three diffuse-specular light sources in combination with three different operating modes: the traditional TCL (Fixed-Function Pipeline), vertex shaders 1.1 and pixel shaders 1.1, vertex shaders 2.0 and pixel shaders 2.0.
As we see, in the case of the traditional TCL the NVIDIA card leaves ATI Radeon 9800 well behind. What is remarkable is that a substantial gain due to using the new ForceWare 52.16 driver has been achieved - evidently, the shader responsible for the TCL emulation was optimized. But things turn really sad if shaders of version 1.1 and 2.0 are used. The performance of NVIDIA chip drops sharply, and nothing of the gain produced by the new driver is seen in the case of shaders 2.0 at all. On the other hand, ATI's card keeps a stiff upper lip and demonstrates an identical performance in using pixel and shader programs of both versions 1.1 and 2.0.
Pixel Filling
This test performs a number of various tasks, but we were mostly interested in the possibility of measuring the performance of frame buffer filling.
As we see, the performance is higher in ATI's chip. The new NVIDIA's ForceWare driver fixes the situation and does that quite substantially, but it anyway fails to catch up with the level attained by ATI Radeon 9800
Pixel Shading
This test in the D3D RightMark benchmarking package allows to estimate the performance of executing various pixel shaders of the second version. In this test, the geometry has been substantially simplified to minimize the dependence of results of the test on the geometric performance of the chip and verify the operation of pixel pipelines only.
As we see, the ATI Radeon 9800 chips beats NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900, and at three-fold benefit. The re-worked compiler of NVIDIA's new driver gives a gain, but it anyway does not allow the NVIDIA chip to come closer to Radeon 9800. Shaders written with HLSV are really a hard nut to crack for the NVIDIA chip - this seems to be an axiom which seems to stay imperturbable.
Point Sprites
This test is aimed at revealing the accelerator speed at displaying point sprites. In the test settings, we used 2 diffuse light sources.
ATI chip takes a lead again, although the alignment of forces is closer to the situation in the filling and geometric performance tests than in the tests of pixel shader 2.0 performance, which is logical since the test depends directly on these two parameters.
Hidden Surface Removal
This test allows to estimate the efficiency of removal of hidden points and primitives by the accelerator.
Cutting off hidden points works faster with ATI Radeon 9800 chip than with NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 and quite substantially, which should affect the real-world applications.
3DMark 2001SE
3DMark2001SE benchmark is already old enough, but it's there in all our roundup as an honorable veteran =). Moreover, DirectX 8.1 games are very popular these days, which allows the user partly target the results of this benchmark for estimating the potential performance of boards in modern gaming applications.
.
As regards directly the test results, the winner in the long run is the Sapphire board built on the ATI Radeon 9800 chip at all the resolutions. We stopped using detailed results of this test in favor of the above results of other synthetic benchmarks which, in our opinion, give a more impartial view of the real performance level for the boards.
3DMark 2003
At version 330 of 3DMark 2003, NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 beats ATI Radeon 9800 in all the resolutions. A bit strange though, considering that NVIDIA failed all the shader tests of other synthetic benchmarks. But they at NVIDIA can make the "right" results, can't they? =)
At that, indicative are results produced with the latest patch to FutureMark version 340 which along with the company's new concept of producing and interpreting test results should revive the cracked (softly speaking =) ) credibility of 3DMark 2003. Why "should"? We'll explain that in what follows.
Install the new patch and run the tests: ATI Radeon 9800 is a leader with practically the same scoring of the 2003 version, and NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 with ForceWare 52.16 is already a loser (the data for Detonator version 45.23, unfortunately, were not produced due to technical reasons, and there wasn't much sense in getting them, actually) who lost many score points as compared to the version 330 patch. A very amusing, but a regular situation. Soon after that, an unofficial release of the ForceWare drivers goes online, which "fixes" just the persistency of 3DMark 2003 in showing the right result with the new FutureMark patch. This driver hasn't yet acquired the "officially approved" status from FutureMark, but we are more than confident that WHQL0certification is at hand, followed by the "approval".
Codecreatures
In this quite outdated Codecreatures benchmark, NVIDIA beats ATI Radeon 9800 at all the resolutions. Almost no performance boost achieved through using the new NVIDIA's ForceWare 52.16 driver was noticed.
 |
Top Stories: |
 |
 |
|
MoBo:
| |
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
