PDA

View Full Version : Tomshardware: PS3, PS2, HDR benchmarks


Pages : [1] 2

deimos47ca
12-02-05, 07:54 AM
Dunno if already posted, but I found an AMAZING benchmark roundup at tomshardware neatly tucked in behind tons of hoopla.

I especially like the first few pages where they show the difference between different graphics settings (determined by hardware capability). For all the SM3/PS3 is "not-needed" and just a "performance feature", the screenshots are worth a thousand words. (ex: AOE3 water reflection, and soft shadow on the ship)

Although it took them long enough, I'm happy ATI has finally caught up with the SM3 bandwagon. All those poor X800 saps missing out all the "very high" and "ultra high" detail in games -_- Kinda glad I have that 6800 afterall(rudolf)


Oh, and confirmation that X1800's seem to be very good at HDR.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-11.html
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-18.html

Salamandar
12-02-05, 08:04 AM
Good read

adpr 02
12-02-05, 08:22 AM
Look how the x800xl 512mb leaves the 256mb x850xtpe in the dust. I think that game is just verry demanding of video ram... The x1800 has 512, while the 7800 has 256. It would be nice if they updated their review to add the 512mb 7800gtx....

weeds
12-02-05, 09:58 AM
Nevermind. I misread the thread.

deimos47ca
12-02-05, 10:18 AM
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-06.html

See the graph at the bottom... I expect to see this at www.rage3d.com anyday now, showcasing how even a meagre X850XTPE is better than 2x7800GTX.
-_-

Better yet,
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-09.html
a non-existent X700XT nearly beats a 7800GTX.. yeah, I'm sure this is pure gold by rage3d standards. Just everybody please shut-up and dont tell them the dirty little secret why.. I wanna see how long they can maintain their suspension of disbelief on their own.

weeds
12-02-05, 10:28 AM
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-11.html[/url]
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-18.html

Why does the title of this thread say PS2, PS3 benchmarks? Anyway you do realize the x1xxx series isnt doing FP16 HDR correctly in SS2?

http://www.behardware.com/articles/599-6/the-geforce-7800-gtx-512-mb-the-new-king-of-3d.html

In HDR, here in FP16 format, ATI displays very good performances. The X1800 XT finishes in front of the 7800 GTX 512, whereas the XL is ahead of the 7800 GTX. It’s important to point out here that during the game’s developement, developers only based their code on the GeForce 6 and 7 and wrote a shader using NVIDIA´s native FP16 filtering. Once applied for ATI, it results in non-filtered elements, which produce “blooming” pixels. Nothing indicates, however, that these elements have to be in FP16 format and if they don´t developers could solve the problem by processing the filter directly in the shader. This would result in a performance drop for the Radeon X1K. By how much? It’s hard to tell, and we will have to wait for the release of a possible patch to know.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/r520-part4-g.html

Serious Sam 2 allows to enable HDR in GF6x00/7x00 video cards. And we were not slow to take advantage of this opportunity to see how it works on the RX1800. Especially as SS2 Demo settings allow to activate HDR together with MSAA! Unfortunately, the result was negative again: we got a black screen with HUD icons, when we activated HDR with AA; having disabled AA — a surprisingly strong artifact in the form of bright yellow horizontal stripe periodically appearing on screen, instead of HDR bloom. Well, not this time, not in this version.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODc1LDU=

There is a rendering problem with HDR enabled on the ATI Radeon X1800 XT. There appears to be a blocky pattern around areas that have HDR lighting applied.

Heres what the underfiltering looks like.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4797/untitled24hj.th.jpg (http://img210.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled24hj.jpg) http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/3227/sam2x1300hdron2rd1ri.th.jpg (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sam2x1300hdron2rd1ri.jpg) http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/3654/untitled51fv.th.jpg (http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled51fv.jpg)

Its hard to believe Toms got SS2 HDR To work properly on the x1xxx series when no other reviewers could. Toms should really be more thorough.
And Behardware never should have posted their SS2 HDR benchmarks with such a flaw that affects perfomance.:thumbdwn: So if you see any benches with SS2 and HDR take them with a grain of salt, for now anyway.

deimos47ca
12-02-05, 10:31 AM
Oh, I also like this one:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-15.html

after a certain questionable website posted FEAR beta/demo benchmarks showing X1800's with double the performance of 7800's (with 7800's down in the 30's even at 1024x768), every ATI lunatic was ignoring all rational thinking, putting on the clappers and proclaiming the 2nd coming or something.

Ofcourse even as we speak, supposedly some ATI optimization gone awry lowers performance. Renaming the fear.exe thus improves performance to the tune of 30% (or so I hear). Ofcourse no-ATI fan will admit that ATI used *whisper* "optimizations", or such a hienous act as .exe detection. Thats sheer blasphemy!

nevertheless, let me do the simple estimate for you:
X1800XT 52 x 1.3 = 67.6fps
X1800XL 40 x 1.3 = 52fps
whereas (oddly) 6800U = 74, 7800GT=87, etc

So ofcourse, scrutinizing these results as un-biased as possible, I trust most folks at nvnews wont make any exagerations about nVidia's performance, where there indeed seems to be something wrong (you can tell all latest drivers/patches/hotfix were used since Quake4 results are so good)


http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-16.html
PS: It must have taken them hours and hours to get all the results. Some of the charts show <5fps on the lower end cards. They definetly merit kudos for keeping an eye open on things like soft-shadows being automatically disabled. Too many times some review sites have overlooked things like 4AA, shadows altogether, lighting anomalies, wrong textures.. tons of problems... making many such results totally useless.

deimos47ca
12-02-05, 10:37 AM
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-18.html

X1800XT
105.7 (no HDR) -> 90.5 (with HDR)

well, if its not doing FP16 HDR it certainly is doing something, at since the crew there were keen to quickly spot other things, I'm sure whatever its rendering must indeed be very similar to others (7800/6800).

weeds:
yes, I get your point. And as always, I take ALL benchmarks with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, it is possible that tomshardware got the HDR rendering working properly... I'm sure there will be an update either way. I hope to see similar reviews from other sites... Too often 7800/6800/X1800 AND X800's get all lumped together in a mixed bag of what's what.

Lfctony
12-02-05, 10:40 AM
I don't know that the hell is going on, but it's very likely this guy was drunk when he wrote this article. In the FEAR benchmarks, first its ATI with Soft Shadows, then it's ATI without Soft Shadows because they're not supported. Well, decide already, do ATI cards support SS or not?

fivefeet8
12-02-05, 10:59 AM
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-18.html

X1800XT
105.7 (no HDR) -> 90.5 (with HDR)

well, if its not doing FP16 HDR it certainly is doing something, at since the crew there were keen to quickly spot other things, I'm sure whatever its rendering must indeed be very similar to others (7800/6800).


The x1800 cards support FP16 blending, but not filtering. Nvidia cards support both.

fivefeet8
12-02-05, 11:07 AM
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-06.html

See the graph at the bottom... I expect to see this at www.rage3d.com anyday now, showcasing how even a meagre X850XTPE is better than 2x7800GTX.
-_-

That's because they are using the SM2 mode for the x850xtpe which does away with HDR, soft shadows, shadow ripples in water, more smoke, HDR reflective water.. ect..ect...


Better yet,
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-09.html
a non-existent X700XT nearly beats a 7800GTX.. yeah, I'm sure this is pure gold by rage3d standards. Just everybody please shut-up and dont tell them the dirty little secret why.. I wanna see how long they can maintain their suspension of disbelief on their own.

I wouldn't worry about that chart. Even ATi's own x1800xt isn't doing so good in it.

Blacklash
12-02-05, 11:12 AM
Anyone that believes a X850XT is stronger graphics solution than a 7800GT or two, gets what they deserve. I have seen plenty of reviews including both cards(And the X1800XT for that matter) at 1600x with AA|AF in many games. That is precisely where you get the most meaningful benches of graphic card muscle. Others have already pointed out what is going on at THG.


There's one of many charts I have seen that didn't come off of THG :p

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3762/98375ck.png

There's SS2 from X-Bit:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce7800gtx512_19.html

jAkUp
12-02-05, 11:36 AM
Yea I remember when ATI said that "SM3.0 wasn't needed yet" When the x800 Pro was launched.

Well, now we have some games, and alot of people still have x800 cards.

Now ATI says the 7800GTX's 512 are failing.
Yea, we'll see how that one holds up :rofl

zoomy942
12-02-05, 11:37 AM
I don't know that the hell is going on, but it's very likely this guy was drunk when he wrote this article. In the FEAR benchmarks, first its ATI with Soft Shadows, then it's ATI without Soft Shadows because they're not supported. Well, decide already, do ATI cards support SS or not?


i noticed that too

Nv40
12-02-05, 11:40 AM
His own shots of HDR between ATI and NVidia shows clearly that ATI HDR is broken there. (the first shot)
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-18.html
albeit he didnt noticed the diferences.. :)

Notice also that the 1800Xt here

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-11.html

lose only 1fps!!! from 1024x768 "pureHDR" to 1024x768 2xAA/4xAF.

and

3fps from 2xAA/4xAF to 4xAA to 8xAF.

conclusion.. HDR is not enabled at all..and looks like SLI is not supported in the game or not propertly enabled .. all others reviews shows that HDR have a bigger impact in ATI than in NV hardware in the latest XT is barely playable at 1024x768 with no AA SS2. [H] review used latest catalyst drivers. by the way. THe drop in performance in the benchmarks comes only from resolutions and AA/AF. seems he rushed the review somewhat or that it was really good the party and he reviewed the hardware right before it finished. acouple of extra beers always help to see things in a better light. (xmasgrin)

zoomy942
12-02-05, 11:41 AM
this is why i dont use tomshardware for info anymore.

Blacklash
12-02-05, 12:48 PM
Here's a story for amusement.

Let's say I review a game. The game applies 4xAA by default. nVidia cards can not properly do the AA in this game. I bench with nVidia cards then ATi. I combine the results in a chart named, "Game X (4xAA|No AA)."

Fanbois read the charts and start screaming about how nVidia owns ATi in the game, particularly with the auto AA it applies. Obviously you can switch ATi and nVidia in this story and the point remains the same.

Fathertime36
12-02-05, 03:17 PM
I don't understand why their bench results are SO drastically lower then what I can get on a $1200 pc, they show only being able to score 6700 on the default 3dmarks05 for the 7800gt, when I easily break 8000, and that is at the default clocks of 460/1100......and their base pc platform is way more ubber then mine is, what ATI is doing is no different then what nvidia did back in the nv30 era, they are juicing their drivers at the exspense of features or lack there of, this kind of crap isn't exclusive to ATI though, both of these companies have employed some underhanded tactics at one point or another amd mistakeningly though we wouldn't notice.

zoomy942
12-02-05, 03:47 PM
again, why i dont use their info

deimos47ca
12-02-05, 05:11 PM
Somebody please give this guy a prize.. he figured it out! he figured it out! After everyone in the room laughs at jokes, please proceed to explain why they are funny. -_-

(hence the reference to www.rage3d.com)

That's because they are using the SM2 mode for the x850xtpe which does away with HDR, soft shadows, shadow ripples in water, more smoke, HDR reflective water.. ect..ect...



I wouldn't worry about that chart. Even ATi's own x1800xt isn't doing so good in it.

fivefeet8
12-02-05, 05:13 PM
Would've been nice to see how the x1600xt fairs.

deimos47ca
12-02-05, 05:13 PM
i noticed that too

Yes, you both noticed how to forget to read the whole article. Several times they mention that the X1xxx support soft shadows but they found that they were being automatically disabled over 1280x960 (or thereabout).. probably CAT AI prob.

deimos47ca
12-02-05, 05:17 PM
You have a 7800GT and you EASILY break 8000 in 3dmark05...

are you really really sure?

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce7800gtx512_29.html

Even the GTX can't even get to 8000. Even some OC version of GTX can't do it. And here you somehow manage to beat it with "just" a 7800GT. WOW

BTW: Tomshardware used a Athlon64 FX57 (2.8Ghz 1MB cache) and 2GB of RAM. Tomshardware score of 6785 compared to 6552 at xbitlabs, is actually slightly high. Reference 7800GT hits about 6600.


I don't understand why their bench results are SO drastically lower then what I can get on a $1200 pc, they show only being able to score 6700 on the default 3dmarks05 for the 7800gt, when I easily break 8000, and that is at the default clocks of 460/1100......and their base pc platform is way more ubber then mine is, what ATI is doing is no different then what nvidia did back in the nv30 era, they are juicing their drivers at the exspense of features or lack there of, this kind of crap isn't exclusive to ATI though, both of these companies have employed some underhanded tactics at one point or another amd mistakeningly though we wouldn't notice.

MikeC
12-02-05, 05:31 PM
Yes, you both noticed how to forget to read the whole article. Several times they mention that the X1xxx support soft shadows but they found that they were being automatically disabled over 1280x960 (or thereabout).. probably CAT AI prob.

Deimo47ca you are beginning to stick out to me. Do not make another negative remark towards Rage3D.

deimos47ca
12-02-05, 05:34 PM
His own shots of HDR between ATI and NVidia shows clearly that ATI HDR is broken there. (the first shot)
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-18.html
albeit he didnt noticed the diferences.. :)

Notice also that the 1800Xt here

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-11.html

lose only 1fps!!! from 1024x768 "pureHDR" to 1024x768 2xAA/4xAF.

and

3fps from 2xAA/4xAF to 4xAA to 8xAF.

conclusion.. HDR is not enabled at all..and looks like SLI is not supported in the game or not propertly enabled .. all others reviews shows that HDR have a bigger impact in ATI than in NV hardware in the latest XT is barely playable at 1024x768 with no AA SS2. [H] review used latest catalyst drivers. by the way. THe drop in performance in the benchmarks comes only from resolutions and AA/AF. seems he rushed the review somewhat or that it was really good the party and he reviewed the hardware right before it finished. acouple of extra beers always help to see things in a better light. (xmasgrin)

first of all, I totally fail to follow your argument. You are comparing HDR scores at 1024x768 with 2AA vs 4AA and because the difference is small that means that HDR isnt working? WTF. They both had HDR on.

Here is the only place where they show the difference with HDR off and on. And you can clearly see there is a significant difference... now before you rush wah wah crying that there is something wrong with such high numbers compared to the ones previous, they obviously used different game settings.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051202/vga_charts_viii-18.html