PDA

View Full Version : OpenGL: Ti4400 vs 9800Pro@420/370


walterman
05-26-04, 09:42 PM
Hello,

i got my new 9800 Pro 128MB one week ago, & i've been benchmarking & comparing it with my old & loved Ti4400.

In DirectX games, the 9800 is usually 2x, 3x faster than my old 4400, but, i got a big surprise in openGL games.

I used to play COD on my 4400 @ 1280x1024 with everything to the max. The fps were always above 30fps & the framerate was usually fixed at 60fps.

But i got a big surprise when playing COD with same settings on my new 9800, on the Stalingrad map.

The framerate is usually fixed at 60fps, but, if i look to the docks, the framerate drops below 10fps, & in those areas, my old 4400 was able to keep at least 30fps.

I also tested Serious Sam 2. The framerate in this game is usually huge. Great engine. In spite of, on same maps, my Ti 4400 was able to draw 170fps & my new 9800 only 110fps.

On Jedi Knight Academy, i found the same effect. The 4400 gives me more fps than my 9800 when playing, but, the 9800 wins on the popular benchmarks.

So, my 9800 is better than my 4400, in all the popular openGL benchmarks. (Quake III 270fps vs 180fps). But, if i start to play games, & not benchmarking them, i've found than my old 4400 gives me more fps than my new 9800, in special on high load scenes.

I'm on Catalyst 4.5 & Detonator 45.20 & both cards have been tested on my:
Athlon XP @ 2.4GHz (12x200)
Abit NF7-S 2.0
1GB DDR 400 (512x2)

I've read that ATI's openGL driver is a bit broken, or something like that, & i also have read that people is getting better openGL results with cat3.3 or so. But, i'm playing on a card with 23GB/s vs 8GB/s. So, the fps should be at least 2x times better.

In spite of, i'm happy with my new card, cause now i'm enjoying Far Cry :)
But, i'm also thinking about DooM III. What will happen ? :(

anzak
05-26-04, 10:18 PM
The framerate is usually fixed at 60fps, but, if i look to the docks, the framerate drops below 10fps, & in those areas, my old 4400 was able to keep at least 30fps.

I had no trouble playing through CoD with my 9600XT at 1280x960 with 2xAA and 8xAF. I was using the Catalyst 4.2, maybe the latest drivers are having performance issues.

Edge
05-26-04, 10:39 PM
It is widely known that Nvidia cards are in general far superior to ATI cards in OpenGL applications, although I didn't think the gap was this wide (otherwise, wouldn't the fx5900 be getting 2-3 times the FPS in OGL games compared to the 9800?). Although I have certainly seen a few OpenGL benchmarks that show the 9800 coming in behind a ti4x00 card in OpenGL games, especially Neverwinter Nights. And yes, whatever performance you're seeing out of other OpenGL games will be replicated in Doom 3, but I wouldn't be suprised if there were some driver issues with the most recent implimentation of ATI's OpenGL code. I guess you could try rolling back to the Cat 3.4s and see if that helps, or wait a while for ATI to release updated OpenGL code (chances are they'll be concentrating on this issue for the release of Doom 3, kinda like Nvidia did with their FX series shader recompiler for the...ahem..."release" of Half-life 2 :D)

CaptNKILL
05-26-04, 10:49 PM
How about anti-aliasing and anisotripic filtering settings? Have you checked those? Maybe the OpenGL settings are set to some crazy level by accident...

Other than that, i dont know. I have a 9600 Pro and I havent noticed any slow downs like those in any OGL games (tho i dont have many).

pat777
05-27-04, 12:44 AM
Hello,

i got my new 9800 Pro 128MB one week ago, & i've been benchmarking & comparing it with my old & loved Ti4400.

In DirectX games, the 9800 is usually 2x, 3x faster than my old 4400, but, i got a big surprise in openGL games.

I used to play COD on my 4400 @ 1280x1024 with everything to the max. The fps were always above 30fps & the framerate was usually fixed at 60fps.

But i got a big surprise when playing COD with same settings on my new 9800, on the Stalingrad map.

The framerate is usually fixed at 60fps, but, if i look to the docks, the framerate drops below 10fps, & in those areas, my old 4400 was able to keep at least 30fps.

I also tested Serious Sam 2. The framerate in this game is usually huge. Great engine. In spite of, on same maps, my Ti 4400 was able to draw 170fps & my new 9800 only 110fps.

On Jedi Knight Academy, i found the same effect. The 4400 gives me more fps than my 9800 when playing, but, the 9800 wins on the popular benchmarks.

So, my 9800 is better than my 4400, in all the popular openGL benchmarks. (Quake III 270fps vs 180fps). But, if i start to play games, & not benchmarking them, i've found than my old 4400 gives me more fps than my new 9800, in special on high load scenes.

I'm on Catalyst 4.5 & Detonator 45.20 & both cards have been tested on my:
Athlon XP @ 2.4GHz (12x200)
Abit NF7-S 2.0
1GB DDR 400 (512x2)

I've read that ATI's openGL driver is a bit broken, or something like that, & i also have read that people is getting better openGL results with cat3.3 or so. But, i'm playing on a card with 23GB/s vs 8GB/s. So, the fps should be at least 2x times better.

In spite of, i'm happy with my new card, cause now i'm enjoying Far Cry :)
But, i'm also thinking about DooM III. What will happen ? :(
I sure hope you didn't get the 128-bit memory interface 9800 Pro.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba/hotline/20040522/image/wsap4.jpg

walterman
05-27-04, 02:37 AM
I sure hope you didn't get the 128-bit memory interface 9800 Pro.

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba/hotline/20040522/image/wsap4.jpg

I'm pretty sure that i got the 256bit (which is priced more expensive), & as i said, the DirectX performance is around 2-3 times my old 4400 (6100 3D Marks 2003) & my ATI Tray Tools reports (Memory Size 128MB, type DDR, width 256bit, pipes 8) & i haven't bought my card in east Asia :)

Also, I'm playing without AF or FSAA.

hordaktheman
05-27-04, 04:35 PM
It *could* be a case of AGP settings being a bit off. Run smartgart through the "run" command in the Start menu, and check to see if all the settings are set to "on". Smartgart in the ATi control panel gives a different dialogue box than this one, so check this too.

wures7
05-27-04, 05:14 PM
I'm pretty sure that i got the 256bit (which is priced more expensive), & as i said, the DirectX performance is around 2-3 times my old 4400 (6100 3D Marks 2003) & my ATI Tray Tools reports (Memory Size 128MB, type DDR, width 256bit, pipes 8) & i haven't bought my card in east Asia :)

Also, I'm playing without AF or FSAA.

I assume you already know that ti4400 is not a DX9 card and that it isn't meant to be benched with 3DMARK03.

Lfctony
05-27-04, 05:17 PM
You should be scoring around 17k to 18k in 3DM2k1 and 5500+ in 3DM03. Check there to make sure you got a proper 256bit card. Also, it could be a faulty PSU, I had a customer that had a problem due to a weak PSU. All was well after he replaced it with a 350W generic one.

**Edit** Just saw your 6100 score, so you got a normal 256bit card.

walterman
05-27-04, 06:23 PM
I'm on a quality brand 450W power supply.

I've checked the AGP settings, & all seems ok (AGP 8x mode working fine).

Of course, i know that my 4400 was a DX8 class card & it scored around 1500 points in 3d mark 2003. My overclocked 9800Pro scores +6100 3D Marks 2003.

The Direct3D performance is excellent ! Even better than my expectations.
Also the 9800 wins all openGL benchs over my old 4400.

I'm just telling that if i start to play games, & not benchmarking them, i've found than my old 4400 gives me more fps than my new 9800, in special on high load scenes.

I also have found a post @ beyond3d & rage3d with people having same performance problem on COD & other openGL titles. People say, that ATi's openGL driver is like a mix between software & hardware paths.

Today i've read that DooM III will be released on June 14th, i hope that ATI release a stronger openGL driver, cause, i want to enjoy it to the max :)

Kamel
05-27-04, 06:52 PM
lmao, opengl... ati... that's funny.

lets just say that ati slightly "lacks" in the field of opengl; and linux to be specific.

if you want opengl speed, you're going to want an nvidia card, even with their older drivers, the cards just suck at opengl.

XanderF
05-27-04, 07:37 PM
I'm just telling that if i start to play games, & not benchmarking them, i've found than my old 4400 gives me more fps than my new 9800, in special on high load scenes.

This is, of course, exactly what I'm talking about when I noted that ATI's drivers have....issues.

I mean, all the games with odd performance issues, Catalyst drivers breaking some games on new releases (*cough*Il-2*cough*), not properly supporting FSAA on many older games, etc...

Yes, ATI has come VERY FAR with their drivers. I owned the original Radeon 64 DDR and it was NOTHING but nightmares. I tried playing Falcon 4, Tribes 2, Deus Ex....it was all a game of 'find the right driver'. NO early Catalyst releases would work in every game I had. No matter which release it was, about half of them were broke.

Needless to say, that's changed. A LOT. The 9500, 9600, and 9800s I had with the Catalyst 3.1b and up drivers were much, MUCH better....but.....still....

When it comes down to it.....

nVidia's drivers ARE just better. The question is merely whether you will notice in the games you play or not. Some will (like you) and many won't.