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

Jedi Knight II Detail

What the break-in with Quality -Settings is primarily, hopefully the following graphs tell us.

Jedi Knight II OGL -FSAA
  • 1024x768x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      123 , 0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      121.7
    • R9700pro (default)
      119,0
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      118,9
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      118.2
    • R9700pro (6xAA)
      116.6
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      113,2
  • 1280x1024x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      121,3
    • R9700pro (default)
      117,7
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      117,5
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      109.5
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      103,5
    • R9700pro ( 6xAA)
      90.7
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      64,5
  • 1600x1200x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      118.2
    • R9700pro (default)
      116.8
    • R9700pro (2xAA)
      115.7
    • R9700pro (4xAA)
      73.9
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAA)
      55.9
    • R9700pro(6xAA)
      53.1
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAA)
      39,6

In 1024, despite up to 6xFSAA for the Radeon and 4xFSAA for the GeForce, there is still enough power, in this case memory bandwidth, to maintain the high level of performance. In the next higher resolution, we can already see a clearer reaction to the increased requirements. With 4xFSAA, the GeForce4 achieves a good two thirds of the performance of the Radeon9700pro with a good half of the memory bandwidth. In the highest resolution it is really very questionable for frame rate fetishists whether FSAA can be used with the GeForce, the Radeon masters at least 4xFSAA without any problems.

Jedi Knight II OGL -AF
  • 1024x768x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      123,0
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      122,6
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      121,1
    • R9700pro (default)
      119.0
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      118.8
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      118.8
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      118.2
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      117,5
  • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
    117, 5
  • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
    117.1
  • 1280x1024x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      121,3
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAFtrilinear)
      119,1
    • R9700pro (default)
      117.7
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      117,3
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      117,3
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      117.1
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      117.0
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      116.9
    • GF4 Ti4600 ( 4xAF trilinear)
      101.8
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      87.9
  • 1600x1200x32:
    • GF4 Ti4600 (default)
      118,2
    • R9700pro (16xAF bilinear)
      117,1
    • R9700pro (default)
      116.8
    • R9700pro (2xAF trilinear)
      116.7
    • R9700pro (4xAF trilinear)
      116.4
    • R9700pro (8xAF trilinear)
      115.2
    • R9700pro (16xAF trilinear)
      114,1
    • GF4 Ti4600 (2xAF trilinear)
      98,1
    • GF4 Ti4600 (4xAF trilinear)
      74,9
    • GF4 Ti4600 (8xAF trilinear)
      63,5
  • The almost unexpected results in 1024 with anistropic filtering are due to the CPU limitation and also to the fact that the GeForce generally performs better under OpenGL with active AF than under Direct3D. Here a performance optimization is used on the driver side, in which not allTexture layers are filtered with the maximum level.

    The Radeon is almost boringly predictable: Even in 1600 with 16xAF shows it has almost no movement on the FPS meter and stoically does its laps above what the GeForce4 is capable of even with optimized AF. Apparently only the combination of FSAA and AF can really challenge the Radeon. But then also correct, so that, as seen under 1600 with quality settings, there is not much left of the FPS gloss, because with memory that is already heavily used by high FSAA levels, the breakdown is of course due to the additional texture bandwidth, the AF also on the Radeon devours, double and triple weight.

    On the next page: Max Payne