nV News Deals Shop Archive Search Files Forum Feed Articles IRC Chat GeForce.com


Search Site
Ads by Google
Links To NVIDIA
Drivers
Products
Communities
Support
NVIDIA Blog
News Room
About NVIDIA
GeForce Technology
CUDA
DirectX 11
Optimus
PhysX
SLI
3D Vision
3D Vision Surround
Articles
GeForce GTX 580
GeForce GTX 570
GeForce GTX 560 Ti
GeForce GTX 480
GeForce GTX 465
GeForce GTX 460
GeForce GTS 450
GeForce GTX 295
GeForce GTX 280
GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GT 240
GeForce 9800 GTX
GeForce 9800 GX2
GeForce 9600 GT
GeForce 8800 Ultra
GeForce 8800 GTX
GeForce 8800 GTS
GeForce 8800 GT
GeForce 8600 GTS
GeForce 8500 GT
GeForce 7950 GX2
GeForce 7950 GT
GeForce 7900 GTX
GeForce 7900 GS
GeForce 7800 GTX
Watercooling Project
My Book 500GB
Raptor Hard Drive
Guide To Doom 3
EVGA Stuff
EVGA E-LEET
EVGA Precision
GPU Voltage Tuner
OC Scanner
SLI Enhancement
EVGA Bot
EVGA Gear
Reviews and Awards
Associates
Benchmark Reviews
Fraps
GeForce Italia
GPU Review
Hardware Pacers
LaptopVideo2Go
MVKTECH
News3D (NVITALIA)
OutoftheBoxMods
OSNN.net
Overclocker Cafe
PC Extreme
PC Gaming Standards
PhysX Links & Info
TestSeek
3DChip (German)
8Dimensional
Sapphire Radeon 9700 Atlantis Pro Review - Page 5 of 6

CHAMELEONMARK PERFORMANCE

Using the ChameleonMark utility from NVIDIA, we can gauge the pixel shader performance for a variety of shaders. In each case, the Atlantis Pro exhibits excellent scores and indicates the focus placed upon this area by the manufacturer. In this case, the card’s programmable shaders and 96-bit floating point precision certainly give it an advantage in this benchmark.

As game engine become more complex and realistic, developers turn to shaders to provide them with a means to create effects which will mimic the real world. Any features which can exploit the flexibility and power of these shaders will surely result in a more immersive gaming experience.

ChameleonMark

ChameleonMark - Average Frame Rate

Resolution Real Glass Shiny
No Antialiasing / No Anisotropic Filtering
1024x768 255 255 255
1280x1024 188 204 201
1600x1200 146 159 157

NO ONE LIVES FOREVER 2 PERFORMANCE

Easily one of my favorite new games this year, No One Lives Forever 2 proved to be an absolute monster of a benchmark for this review. Although the results seem to indicate the same processor bottleneck seen in previous benchmarks, a quick look at the scores reveals something more. As high quality image settings are introduced, the average frame-rate is an unplayable 6.41fps while minimum frame-rate drops to an obscene 1fps!

NOLF 2

NOLF 2 - Average / Minimum Frame Rate

Resolution No AA
No Aniso
6X AA
No Aniso
6X AA
16X Aniso
High Quality Graphics
1024x768 73 / 47 67 / 36 62 / 28
1280x1024 73 / 47 52 / 28 49 / 19
1600x1200 73 / 47 12 / 4 6 / 1

In order to give the reader a greater understanding of the benchmark results, a visual recording of the gameplay was taken. Note that Quicktime is required to view the movie clips. Click here to view the 3.1MB default quality (no antialiasing, no anisotropic filtering) movie clip and here to view the 2.9MB high quality (6X antialiasing, 16X anisotropic filtering) movie clip.

With the image quality settings set to default values, the game plays exceptionally well at 1600x1200. However, once we enable high quality image settings as seen in the second movie, the game becomes choppy and borders on being unplayable.

UNREAL TOURNAMENT 2003 PERFORMANCE

Perhaps the most anticipated game of the year, Unreal Tournament 2003, has already become a standard benchmark of choice. Although the characters still lack enough detail in my opinion, the environments are stunning and provide a challenge to even the best systems.

With high detail settings disabled, the demo proves to run extremely well at every resolution. Looking at the results, we do find a strange scenario with the performance. Specifically looking at the results for 1280x1024, we find that there is an enormous range of frame rates throughout each benchmark. In the case of Antalus, the average managed to reach an impressive 110fps. However, the minimum frame rate is dramatically lower at 13fps. At this time, I am looking into this scenario and will post my findings in a future review.

Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo

[H]ard OCP UT2003 Utility - Average / Minimum Frame Rate

Resolution Antalus Asbestos Citadel
No Antialiasing - No Anisotropic Filtering
1024x768 117 / 30 139 / 54 101 / 32
1280x1024 110 / 13 134 / 38 100 / 22
1600x1200 90 / 16 119 / 22 97 / 16
6X Antialiasing - 16X Anisotropic Filtering
1024x768 68 / 7 83 / 16 73 / 9
1280x1024 47 / 7 58 / 10 54 / 7
1600x1200 16 / 2 10 / 1 8 / 1

As with NOLF2, I've provided two video clips that illustrate gameplay performance. Click here to view the 4.7MB high quality (6X antialiasing, 16X anisotropic filtering) 1024x768 move clip and here to view the 4.7MB default quality (no antialiasing, no anisotropic filtering) 1600x1200 movie clip.

Viewing each file, we see that this system exhibits higher performance when using a maximum resolution without any image quality enhancements. After playing the demo for a number of weeks, I certainly prefer to run at high resolutions than to drop the resolution and enable anisotropic filtering and antialiasing. In my opinion, the benefits do not outweigh the consequences in that case and the frame rate is too low for my preferences.

Next Page - Issues / Conclusion / Acknowledgements


Table of Contents

Last Updated on October 28, 2002

Copyright © 1998-2004. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in any form or medium without written permission of the site's owners is prohibited.

Privacy Policy


FastCounter by bCentral

 Visitors Are Online
Powered by Perlonline.com
Shopping.com
What Are You Shopping For?



Categories
Graphics Utilities
Add-In Cards