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

Villagemark Detail

How much of their almost identical multi Texturing fill rate can the Radeon9700pro and the GeForce4 Ti4600 still implement when using FSAA? The result is shown in the following diagram.

Villagemark D3D v1.19 -FSAA
  • 1024x768x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      176.0
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      137.0
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      122.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      119.0
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      104.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      83.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      62, 0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      42.0
  • 1280x1024x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      110.0
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      85.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      76.0
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      74.0
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      64.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA )
      52.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      38.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      26.0
  • 1600x1200x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      76.0
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      61,0
    • GF4 Ti4600(default)
      53.0
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      52.0
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      45.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      34.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      25.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      18.0

Even with 4xFSAA, the Radeon is still able to stand up to the raw performance of the Ti4600 and beat it. On the one hand, the Radeon benefits from its significantly higher memory bandwidth, because multisampling FSAA, as it is now also carried out by the Radeon, hardly costs a fill rate with the appropriate hardware design (and with the Radeon9700pro also available), and on the other hand, of course, from the further improved HyperZ III as well as its 8 rendering pipelines, which let you divide your 2.6GTex/s fill rate more effectively.

What about anisotropic filtering?

Villagemark D3D v1.19 -AF
  • 1024x768x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      176.0
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      122.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      119.0
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      107,0
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      95,0
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      86, 0
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      79.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      58.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      37.0
    • GF4Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      29.0
  • 1280x1024x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      110.0
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      79.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      76.0
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      73.0
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      66.0
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      61, 0
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      56.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      35.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      24.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      19.0
  • 1600x1200x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      76.0
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      56.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      53.0
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      53,0
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      50.0
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      46.0
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      42.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      24.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      17.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      13.0

In this extremely fill rate intensive test, thealso has an unrealistically high proportion of textures, for which the Radeon9700pro with its economical implementation of the AF has to go to the max, i.e. it really filters 16-fold anisotropically, trilinear anisotropically filtered textures a lot of power, but quite so extreme Like the GeForce4, the Radeon doesn't do it, so that the highest AF level can be executed faster than even the lowest of the Ti4600.

The use of bilinear AF, i.e. that of the Radeon8500/9000 available 'performance setting' alone, also saves an immense amount of power if you are prepared to accept the associated loss of quality, but this is not absolutely necessary.

On the next page: TempleMark D3D