Menu
Connect3D Radeon 9700 Pro in the test: performance leap at high resolutions

Connect3D Radeon 9700 Pro in the test: performance leap at high resolutions

Table of contents
  1. 1 Introduction
  2. 2 The card
  3. Scope of delivery
  4. 3 Drivers
  5. 4 Specs and technology
    1. 5 FSAA and AF
  6. 6 Benchmarks
  7. Test system
  8. 7 Synthetic tests
    1. 3DMark2001 SE
    2. 8 3DMark Detail
    3. 9 Villagemark D3D
    4. 10 Villagemark Detail
    5. 11 TempleMark D3D
    6. TempleMark D3D detail
    7. 12 Codecreatures Bench
    8. 13 Codecreatures Detail
    9. 14 Aquamark D3D
    10. 15 Aquamark D3D detail
  9. 16 Game benchmarks
    1. Ultima IX D3D
    2. 17 Ultim a IX D3D Detail
    3. 18 Comanche4 D3D
    4. 19 Comanche4 D3D Detail
    5. 20 Dungeon Siege
    6. 21 Dungeon Siege Detail
    7. 22 Aquanox
    8. 23 Aquanox in detail
    9. 24 Jedi Knight II
    10. 25 Jedi Knight II Detail
    11. 26 Max Payne
    12. 27 Max Payne detail
    13. 28 Serious Sam SE D3D
    14. 29 SeSam SE D3D Detail
    15. 30 Serious Sam SE OGL
    16. 31 SeSam SE OGL Detail
    17. 32 UT2003 Demo FlyBy
    18. UT2003 Demo Botmatch
    19. 33 UT2003 FlyBy Detail
    20. UT2003 Botmatch Detail
    21. 34 Alice
    22. 35 Alice Detail
  10. 36 Conclusion

3DMark Detail

Considered separately from the The respective FSAA and AF 'mechanisms' are better able to take a picture than just concluding, Card A does not collapse, Card B very strongly.

First of all, the FSAA values ​​of the two opponents.

3DMark2001 SE D3D v330 -FSAA
Unit: points
  • 1024x768x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      13,590
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      12.191
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      11,536
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      10,347
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      9.392
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      8.557
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA )
      6.049
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      5.695
  • 1280x1024x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      11,736
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      9.914
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      9.368
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      8,000
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      6,811
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      6,420
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      3.505
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      3,307
  • 1600x1200x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      10.064
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      8,609
    • GF4 Ti4600(default)
      7.540
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      6.122
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      4.660
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      4,308
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      2.225
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      2.111

As you can see here, the Connect3D card seems to offer 2xFSAA for free. Not in comparison to its own raw performance, but it is able to put the GeForce4 Ti4600, which was still the measure of all things in the spring, even if it competes without FSAA. The raw power values ​​of a Ti4600 are only undercut with 4xFSAA. The Rotated Grid FSAA of this Radeon card provides significantly better anti-aliasing than the GeForce4 with 2xFSAA (here also with Rotated Grid), whose performance is far exceeded in the lower FSAA mode, even the absolute edge killer, 6xFSAA, falls only slightly behind the 2xFSAA values ​​of the GeForce4 and remains consistently in the smooth range.

Now we come to the AF. As we have already seen, in contrast to the FSAA, the comparison is not that easy in terms of image quality. The following diagram shows that this hardly plays a role.

3DMark2001 SE D3D v330 -AF
Unit: points
  • 1024x768x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      13,590
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      12,395
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      12.219
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      11.618
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      11,536
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      11.211
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      10.900
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      9.362
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      8.070
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      7.248
  • 1280x1024x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      11,736
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      10.127
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      10,058
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      9.534
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      9.368
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      9.024
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      8.763
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      6,455
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      5,344
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      4.733
  • 1600x1200x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      10.064
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      8.539
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      8.191
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      7.891
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      7.540
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      7.410
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      7.108
    • GF4 Ti4600 ( 2xAF trilinear)
      5.092
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      4.040
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      3.556

So here we have our performance killer in the Quality settings: The Radeon9700pro can clearly show the GeForce4 on 2xAF in the 16x Quality AF mode, which is not entirely free. The reason for this lies on the one hand in the strange behavior (halving of the fill rate) which the GeForce4 has when AF is switched on, now that nothing has changed even after several driver revisions, can be classified as a hardware bug Tag lays on the fact that the Radeon still does not use anisotropic filtering to the same extent as the GeForce4.

The myth that anisotropic filtering on Radeon cards is virtually free, that is without a drop in performance, can be safely denied. What already costs between 20.5% and 29.5% performance in partially CPU-limited benchmarks such as 3DMark2001 cannot be called '4 free' with the best will in the world. The fact is, however, that the loss of performance remains within tolerable limits and can even be used very well in current games in combination with FSAA.

On the next page: Villagemark D3D