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

Codecreatures Detail

Is the poor performance of both in the Quality settings rather on FSAA, i.e. insufficient memory bandwidth, or on AF and thus in the pixel area of ​​the rendering pipeline? The following graphs provide information:

Codecreatures Bench -FSAA
  • 1024x768x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      38.0
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      31,8
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      28,6
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      24.5
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      24,4
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      18.3
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      18.3
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      16.4
  • 1280x1024x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      30.1
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      24.5
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      22,6
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      16.4
    • GF4 Ti4600 ( 4xAA)
      12.5
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      11.0
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      10.4
      Image errors
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      8,4
      Image errors
  • 1600x1200x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      23.5
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      18,1
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      13,3
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      12.9
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      8,1
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      7.3
      Image errors
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      7.0
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      0.0
      switched back to 2xFSAA

Also Here again the familiar picture: Due to the superior, i.e. almost twice as high maximum memory bandwidth, the Radeon9700pro gives you an FSAA level in direct comparison to the Ti4600, even if the percentage drop of 4x and 6xFSAA reaches significantly higher dimensions, than we've seen in the other tests so far. The problems in the two higher resolutions are, as already noted in the quality settings, no longer present in future driver revisions.

Codecreatures Bench -AF
  • 1024x768x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      38,0
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      34.2
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      29.8
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      28,6
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      26.7
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      25.6
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      25.4
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      21,6
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF triline ar)
      17,1
    • GF4Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      15.6
  • 1280x1024x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      30,1
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      26,8
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      22,9
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      22,6
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      20,4
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      19, 6
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      19.4
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      16,3
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      12,8
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      11.7
  • 1 600x1200x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      23.5
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      20,8
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      18,1
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      17,5
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      15.5
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      15.0
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      14.8
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      12,9
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      10.0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      9,0

Two phenomena clearly come to light: Firstbeats ATi even with 16xAF nVidia with only 2xAF and secondly, that's not quite true. Explanation: As we saw earlier, ATi's Radeon9700pro only filters at relatively narrow angles at which the textures are to the viewer, and at a higher AF level with more texture samples than are required for 2xAF. These angular ranges become narrower with increasing AF, which means that between 8xAF and 16xAF you can only really see a difference between an estimated angle of around 5 ° and multiples of 45 °.

Codecreatures with his Very detailed geometry offers very few, at least of flat surfaces that are horizontal or perpendicular to the viewer. So the Radeon9700pro only really needs the maximum level of anisotropy for a very small percentage of the image pixels. This also explains why bilinear 16xAF is exceptionally faster than trilinear 2xAF, as well as the hardly existing difference between the higher AF levels of the Radeon, in stark contrast to the AF test at Villagemark.

On the next one Page: Aquamark D3D