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

Comanche4 D3D detail

Through the one on the previous page As already mentioned, Comanche4's CPU limitation, we actually expect relatively little movement when using FSAA and AF separately, since even both together only push the graphics cards to the limit in very high resolutions.

Comanche4 D3D -FSAA
  • 1024x768x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      48.15
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      46,60
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      46,41
    • R9700pro (default)
      46,40
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      45,85
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      44.87
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA )
      38,69
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      36,87
  • 1280x1024x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      46,43
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      46.29
    • R9700pro (default)
      46,24
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      43.97
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      40.55
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      35,40
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      25.30
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      23.82
  • 1600x1200x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      45.63
    • R9700pro(2xAA)
      44,46
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      42,64
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      30.09
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      29.60
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      16.92
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      15.97
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      13.51
  • 1920x1440x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      36.12
    • R9700pro (default)
      33,43
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      21.03
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      19.63
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      8,42
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      0.00
      only 2xFSAA is done
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      0.00
      no FSAA is carried out
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xS-AA)
      0.00
      only 2xFSAA is done

And indeed all FSAA modes of the Radeon up to 1280x1024 can be used very well and only with a few jerks, the 2xFSAA of the GeForce4 can also keep up in terms of playability, even if not in terms of image quality. Even in 1600x1200, the Radeon9700pro's performance is sufficient for 2xFSAA, while the GeForce should no longer be operated with FSAA here. From a purely academic point of view, the surprising results in 1920x1440, where the GeForce4 can overtake the Radeon soagr, without actually delivering anything playable. Most likely, this is due to a bug thatwill be fixed in one of the next driver releases.

Comanche4 D3D -AF
  • 1024x768x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      48.15
    • R9700pro (default)
      46,40
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      46.20
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      46,18
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear )
      45.35
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      44.66
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      44,42
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      43,72
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      39.65
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      35,44
  • 1280x1024x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      46,43
    • R9700pro (default)
      46,24
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      44,16
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      44,12
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      42,12
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      38.98
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      38,18
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      35,93
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      29.70
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      25,01
  • 1600x1200x32:
    • R9700pro (default)
      45,63
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      42,64
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      39.42
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      37.87
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      34, 93
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      30.63
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      29.57
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      27,48
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      21,37
    • GF4 Ti4600 ( 8xAF trilinear)
      17.73
  • 1920x1440x32 :
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      36,12
    • R9700pro (default)
      33,43
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      25.08
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      23.00
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      22, 19
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      21.63
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      18.91
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      17.03
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      15.60
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      12.87
  • Amazingly, the anisotropic filter seems to consume a lot of power here, despite the relatively low optical effect, and that also on the Radeon, which otherwise has little powerloses. This is possibly due to the many water surfaces polished up with pixel shaders, which the TMUs of the cards quite demanding even without AF, so that AF cannot implement idle performance here, but has a 1: 1 effect on the performance.

    On the next page: Dungeon Siege