PDA

View Full Version : Summary of GeForce FX vs Radeon 9700 Pro benchmarks


Nv40
01-29-03, 12:21 PM
XBitlabs have done an overview of the reviews posted on monday .. the article is usefull for future reference and comparisons of possible better scores , with more polished Nvidia drivers...

its is good for comparison of the Geforcefx performance in
diferent systems . i think ->Uttar will find usefull the table
in that site for his future estimates and investigations . :cool:


http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/story.html?id=1043721260



Interesting things to learn about the GeForce FX VPU:

-NVIDIA has implemented adaptive-anisotropic filtering techniques in the GeForce FX chip. Now drivers offer “Balanced Performance” and “Aggressive Performance” options. The former matches ATI’s “Quality” setting, while the latter offers something that resembles ATI’s “Performance” option. In “Performance” mode the RADEON 9700 PRO simply kills the rival, while in quality modes there is a battle between the two.

-ATI used to offer better Anti-Aliasing in terms of quality and still does it. The GeForce FX 5800 Ultra has no chances here, at least, until the 8X mode is selected.

-Due to higher core-clock, the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra can work more effectively in VillageMark compared to the GeForce4 Ti4600 and RADEON 9700 PRO.

-GeForce FX 5800 Ultra cannot beat the RADEON 9700 PRO in vertex shaders speed.

-GeForce FX 5800 Ultra does pixel shader operations faster than the main rival due to higher clock-speed.

-The GeForce FX 5800 graphics cards will be the first solutions of their kind we will hear. Forget about the 6000rpm monster on your CPU and listen to the sound of NVIDIA’s proprietary flow here. Well, I hope those vendors who prefer their customers to hear something better than the sound of NVIDIA’s flow will install something less aggressive on their products.


All in all, the GeForce FX cannot be called a “winner” or a “loser” at this point. It is faster just a bit and it came 5 months later than the rival. That explains a lot and should make you understand that it will stay among the graphics cards to hold “a powerful” title months longer than the RADEON 9700 PRO when NVIDIA finally improves their drivers. Currently the GeForce FX cannot bring you anything special, unless you are a game developer, as I think.




any comments ?

my opinion is that cards like the Radeon9700pro and the Geforcefx-ultra should be compared in benchmarks that
will represent the scenario we are going to see in
2003-2004 future games ...

unrealT2003 is a good benchmark , because many games will ship in 2003 using that engine .. because right now both cards
ATI and NVidia have enough faster cards to handle almost all today popular games at maximun settings possible..

hopefully there will be a couple directx9 titles somewhere in this year..

Jethro
01-29-03, 12:56 PM
Good stuff, very unbiased rational look at whats coming

Looks to me like (albeit late) the FX offers a comparable alternative to ati's top offering with future developments making it possibly a more attractive buy to those who currently own g3's and g4's etc. Not a card to be considered by a current 9700 owner tho for sure.

I cant wait to see what the volt modding super cooling guys do with this card when it does finally make it to market.

MuFu
01-29-03, 02:31 PM
Interesting things to learn about the GeForce FX VPU:

-NVIDIA has implemented adaptive-anisotropic filtering techniques in the GeForce FX chip. Now drivers offer “Balanced Performance” and “Aggressive Performance” options. The former matches ATI’s “Quality” setting, while the latter offers something that resembles ATI’s “Performance” option. In “Performance” mode the RADEON 9700 PRO simply kills the rival, while in quality modes there is a battle between the two.

Didn't Anand conclude and backup with extensive screenshot usage that nVidia's Balanced implementation is comparable to ATi's Performance option in terms of quality?

MuFu.

Uttar
01-29-03, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by MuFu
Didn't Anand conclude and backup with extensive screenshot usage that nVidia's Balanced implementation is comparable to ATi's Performance option in terms of quality?

MuFu.

Correct. And his performance numbers clearly show a very small performance hit for "Aggressive", but lower IQ.
So I really don't understand that part of the conclusion...

Uttar

jbirney
01-29-03, 02:41 PM
NV40,

I think looking forward is ok. But truth be told, people are buying these kinds of cards today and playing older games. CS is still one of the most popular games out there, how many games are still being played off the Q3 engine (Q3, RtCW, SOF2, JK2:Outcast, ect). Until these new games come out people are going to play old games and thats why I think old games should be benched as well.

YeuEmMaiMai
01-29-03, 03:53 PM
heretic 2 anyone? or how about heretic? or better yet SOPWITH eheheh can it play those games?



Originally posted by jbirney
NV40,

I think looking forward is ok. But truth be told, people are buying these kinds of cards today and playing older games. CS is still one of the most popular games out there, how many games are still being played off the Q3 engine (Q3, RtCW, SOF2, JK2:Outcast, ect). Until these new games come out people are going to play old games and thats why I think old games should be benched as well.

Nv40
01-29-03, 04:24 PM
well ,im not against benchmarks of clasic games like quake3 engines games.. serious sam2 and so on..
the more benchmarks the better...

what i mean is that we cannot conclude which
directx9 card is better for what they were primarily
designed pixel shaders/vertex shaders games by
benchmarking directx 7 games...!! see?

by looking the benchmarks of the geforcefx in
complex pixel/vertex shader test.. like aquanox, codecreatures and a coupple of 3dmark tests with heavy use of Polygons and lights.. where the Geforcefx scored up to 2x times! the numbers
of ATI.. i think there are many possiblities to see a geforcefx
winning most of the benchmarks in directx9 games .

sintetic test like codecreatures where simply nothing less than
impressive for nvidia , the geforceFX (non-ultra)
defeated there ATi in the radeon9700pro even in very unfair comparisons like high quality AA+AF in nvidia
versus AA+AF in performance settings ati...

so what all benchmarks suggest about the performance of the geforcefx ?

that it should look a much much better in directx9 titles..

with early drivers is close in performance to the Radeon9700pro in today popular games .

but that will probably will be marginally FASter than the radeon9700pro ,in a close future in complex pixel shaders/vertex shaders games.. and probably even faster than the r350
(that if the card is only a speed bumbed R300 ).

so im afraid that by the time we see the first directx9
games ,to make more justice to the Nv30 ,there will be
an R400 with support for more powerfull
shaders engine. :afraid:

but anyway 3dmark2003 will be released soon (i hope)
and it will give us a better idea of the strong and weak points
of each card.. in Directx9 games..