iXBT Labs - Computer Hardware in Detail

Platform

Video

Multimedia

Mobile

Other

December 2003 3Digest

January 22, 2004



Monthly drivers report and popular 3D
accelerators comparison

Monthly 3D Digest is the project of iXBT.com devoted to releases of new Windows XP (monthly) and Windows 9x/ME (once in 4 months) drivers for popular videocards (released from the 10th of November 2003 to the 10th of December 2003). As usual, there are many diagrams containing the information on changes in operation of videocards at change to last version drivers, and also summary diagrams of popular modern videocards performance. Traditionally we provide the best price/performance information for our 3Digest. Quality aspects are reviewed in the section dedicated to Windows XP.

Year 2003 Summary




 

Let's remember the beginning of 2003...

It was the time of the first NVIDIA lag related to the volume release of long-anticipated GeForce FX 5800 GPU announced as far back as late in 2002. Yes, real cards appeared only in March-April. ATI, in its turn, used the effort of the Summer 2002 to further boost sales and R300-based products (RADEON 9500, RADEON 9700) popularity. Right by the end of 2002 the shelves were hit by some cheaper DX9 solutions based on the software-pared R300.

Other graphics card makers were keeping silence: neither Matrox, nor SIS, or S3 didn't introduce anything worthy. Yes, there were pared-down Parhelias from Matrox, but they were of little interest and totally hopeless in 3D, considering their prices and intention for 2D market.

 




But then GeForce FX 5800 Ultra finally hit the shelves.




The cooling system was very noisy and the card was literally hot, DDR-2 in particular. Card's advantages didn't last long and in Spring we saw the RADEON 9800 PRO being actually the overclocked RADEON 9700 PRO.

Well, the long-anticipated and already annoying GeForce FX 5800 died before it could get a grip on the market. Of course, you can occasionally find such cards that are in stock since Spring, but who actually needs them when there are more powerful 5900XT with 256-bit buses for sometimes lower price.

So this was the almost only card in our 3Digest that was archived just after several months of testing. Besides, such cards were very fragile breaking down easily. One of them occupied a respective place in our Hardware Museum:




Meanwhile Californian fanfares were sounding about the soon release of the improved NV30 - NV35! But before this happened it May, we had seen RADEON 9800 PRO, which just finished NV30 off. Yes, it was just an improved RADEON 9700 PRO, nothing more. But this turned out to be enough to become the performance leader.




So, until May 14 ATI was the technological leader. Of course, prices for High-End cards are so high that it's just not about any volume sales, but about the symbol of ATI's power. Then in May we witnessed GeForce FX 5900 Ultra (NV35).




Our further reviews indicated that NV35 tried to grab the palm of supremacy, but performed very clumsily. From this moment on, both NVIDIA and ATI became technologically even, except for NVIDIA's Shaders 2.0 performance knock-down. It was exactly NVIDIA who advanced DirectX 9.0 innovations claiming that NV3x had more features than DX9 required, and exactly its solutions were devastated in this field. So, considering the aforesaid, RADEON 9800 PRO was more interesting early in the Summer 2003 than GeForce FX 5900 Ultra.

The disorder related to SARS in South Eastern Asia delivered a serious blow to Taiwanese Computex pushing it to September. At the event we were shown the new products from XGI (created by SIS that separated its graphics business) and S3 Graphics. But since then, i.e. until the year-end no volume sales were launched, just XGI Volari were samples to some countries and S3 delivered its first samples to a number of test labs. So, everything related to these products was almost automatically moved to 2004. I'll just add that a number of companies, including C.P.Technologies, Club3D, etc. announced the intention to support the new solutions from XGI and S3 and release graphics cards on their GPUs.




Then it was the Autumn 2003. The late September was marked by two bright events: the release of ATI's overclocked RADEON 9800 XT,




RADEON 9600 XT,




and ASUSTeK's announcement of its new partnership with ATI. From that moment on this very popular Taiwanese company started to release products on both ATI and NVIDIA GPUs.




NVIDIA didn't want to lag and overclocked NV35 to NV38, i.e. GeForce FX 5950 Ultra. at the same time, to spite ASUSTeK, Gigabyte restored the partnership with NVIDIA, so we can see its first product on the aforementioned NV38.




So in general companies became even again in the High-End segment (excluding Shaders 2.0 where ATI obviously ruled).

But that was not all. ATI also released R9600XT, so GeForce FX 5700 Ultra (NV36) was announced to spite the former.




This card was not just an overclocked GeForce FX 5600 Ultra, but, unlike RADEON 9600 XT, a completely new product. First of all, the GPU inherited the Vertex Shaders block of NV35. Second, its clock speed was increased to 475MHz, and third, it was a try-out of DDR-II in Middle-End solutions.




Meanwhile the FX 5900 series began growing rapidly. There were lots of cards with reduced clock speed, but the same FX 5900 GPU. These solutions were given rather various names like 5900LX or CP. And only later NVIDIA released FX5900XT that officially consolidated the new products. If you remember, it differed from the original FX5900s only by the reduced memory clocks. But what was more important - the price that dropped so low that there was almost no sense in purchasing cards on FX5700 Ultra.

In other words, the market was very overcrowded! The High-End segment was full of older products of Spring-Summer already pressed by the Autumn novelties. It was just grotty to bang away all these overclocked, but half-finished solutions! The Middle-End segment suffered almost the same: RADEON 9600 PRO, 9600 XT, FX 5600 Ultra, FX 5700... Messed up prices caused difficulties in choosing yourself a card to buy, and no reviews helped.

But the worst mess was in the Low-End: older MXs, newer FX5200s, pressing RADEON 9200, fresh RADEON 9200SE, and even FX 5600XT... I don't even consider the older generations that might be in demand. Again, the market was overcrowded... But still nVIDIA released its MX4000. It would seem that everyone had forgotten DX7 already! NVIDIA itself popularized moving the newest innovations into the Low-End, so why release such a peculiarity again? I just don't understand this.

And what about our 3Digest? Well, we are still watching all the market changes, test about 38-40 monthly adding the newest solutions that are in relative demand. Of course, some cards are archived due to the absence of drivers changes (and therefore functionality) and the (naturally relative!) obsoleteness. Sometimes we have to return cards from the archive, if the demand restores.

At the moment we support about 40 graphics cards providing monthly updates of their test results.

Summarizing the year 2003, I'd like to underline a number of important things.

First, it's the scandal around 3DMark03 and FutureMark itself. It was actually initiated by NVIDIA, programmers of which tried to abruptly boost NV3x performance with various quality-spoiling "optimizations". It's been about a year since that time, but FutureMark and nVIDIA occasionally quarrel and make it up. Now there's a patch removing all nVIDIA optimizations, now we see the NVIDIA's drivers that restores them again. Due to all this mess both companies lost some prestige amongst the understanding audience. And testers naturally became the hostages of this situation not knowing how to test cards fairly, because you can blame them for anything if you wish (wrong test methods / versions / patches used). This is all very sad. If you can still slip out of this in games by creating your own benchmarking demos, you can't get rid of the optimizations in the pure 3D benchmarks. Besides, there's no need in patching drivers to remove the application identification procedures, as drivers might actually have useful optimizations fixing game bugs.

Second, the year 2003 didn't bring any worthy technological innovations. Everyone waited for DirectX 9.0 games, but their weak spring wasn't impressive. Actually the hardware is so far ahead, that software just lags behind and even round the corner...

Third, we witnessed a very unpleasant trend of High-End prices growth even despite the savage competition. Somewhere even RADEON 9700 PRO is in demand, and there are already tons of new cards with incredibly high prices.

So, the year ended. We are still together with NVIDIA and ATI, while all others must first prove their worthiness, because we are already tired of quarterly announcements of the same, but overclocked cards.

And we continue to test cards determining the benefits of RADEON 9600 that has index higher than 9500. Even ATI can't answer this... The same with FX 5600XT 64bit and FX 5200 128bit... While we remember to look for bits on the card box, we might still purchase a 5600XT (which index is higher) that turns out to be slower than 5200...

It's our 43th issue of 3Digest.

CONTENTS

  1. Testbed configurations and test software
  2. Tested videocards list
  3. What's new in 3Digest
  4. Test summary diagrams and digest bottom line
  5. 3D accelerator rating calculations for the end of the month
  6. Anisotropic filtering examination
  7. Examination of different antialiasing modes
  8. Screenshot gallery
  9. Games quality section



1. Testbed configuration



1.1. Pentium 4 3.2GHz-based system:

  • Intel Pentium 4 3.2 GHz (L2=512K) CPU, Hyper-Threading enabled;
  • DFI LANParty Pro875 motherboard on i875P chipset
  • 1 GB DDR SDRAM PC3200;
  • Seagate Barracuda IV 40GB HDD.
  • Quantum FB AS 20GB HDD.

The testbed also features Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1, DirectX 9.0b, and is coupled with ViewSonic P810 (21"), ViewSonic P817-E (21") monitors.

The list of testing software is here

2. Videocard list

Below is the list of graphics cards that we tested. Each corresponding page contains the brief card description. Besides, some pages are dedicated to the latest drivers for cards on given GPUs. In the summary diagrams you can also see the performance results obtained on overclocked graphics cards.

Drivers released by videocard manufacturers are not taken into account (unless written by GPU manufacturers) because there are very many of them and it's impossible to test them all.

You can find comments about reviewed drivers in the corresponding sections:

3D graphics quality screenshots are provided in our monthly updated Screenshot Gallery.

Cards list:

  1. NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8x 128MB DDR 4ns (250/513 MHz) *
  2. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR 64bit 6ns (250/333 MHz)
  3. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR 6ns (250/300 MHz)
  4. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR 5ns (250/400 MHz)
  5. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR 4ns (275/500 MHz)
  6. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 128MB DDR 2.8ns (325/650 MHz)
  7. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 128MB DDR 3.6ns (325/550 MHz)
  8. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB 64bit DDR 4ns (235/400 MHz)
  9. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB 128bit DDR 4ns (235/400 MHz)
  10. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 128MB DDR 2.2ns (400/800 MHz)
  11. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR 5ns (325/400 MHz)
  12. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR 3.6ns (325/500 MHz)
  13. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR 3.3ns (350/600 MHz)
  14. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 128MB DDR 3.6ns (425/550 MHz)
  15. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 128MB DDR2 2.2ns (475/900 MHz)
  16. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900CP 128MB DDR 2.8ns (400/700 MHz)
  17. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900EPV 128MB DDR 2.5ns (405/810 MHz)
  18. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 128MB DDR 2.2ns (400/850 MHz)
  19. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Turbo 256MB DDR 2.2ns (410/850 MHz)
  20. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 256MB DDR 2.2ns (450/850 MHz)
  21. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB DDR 2.0ns (475/950 MHz)
  22. ATI RADEON 9000 Pro 128MB DDR 3.6ns (275/550 MHz)
  23. ATI RADEON 9200 128MB DDR 4ns (250/400 MHz)
  24. ATI RADEON 9200 64MB 64bit DDR 5ns (250/400 MHz)
  25. ATI RADEON 9200SE 128MB 64bit DDR 6ns (200/333 MHz)
  26. ATI RADEON 9500 128MB 128bit DDR 3.6ns (275/540 MHz)
  27. ATI RADEON 9600 128MB DDR 4ns (325/400 MHz)
  28. ATI RADEON 9600SE 128MB 64bit DDR 4ns (325/400 MHz)
  29. ATI RADEON 9600 Pro 128MB DDR 2.8ns (400/600 MHz)
  30. ATI RADEON 9600 256MB DDR 5ns (325/400 MHz)
  31. ATI RADEON 9600 Pro 256MB DDR 5ns (400/400 MHz)
  32. ATI RADEON 9600XT 128MB DDR 3.3ns (500/600 MHz)
  33. ATI RADEON 9600XT 128MB DDR 2.8ns (525/650 MHz)
  34. ATI RADEON 9700 Pro 128MB DDR 2.8ns (325/620 MHz) *
  35. ATI RADEON 9800SE 128MB 128bit DDR 3.3ns (325/540 MHz)
  36. ATI RADEON 9800SE 128MB DDR 2.8ns (360/680 MHz)
  37. ATI RADEON 9800 128MB DDR 3.3ns (325/580 MHz)
  38. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB DDR 2.8ns (380/680 MHz)
  39. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB DDR 3.3ns (400/680 MHz)
  40. ATI RADEON 9800XT 256MB DDR 2.5ns (412/730 MHz)

(*) - temporarily returned from the archive.

Archive (videocards, which info is no longer updated)

3. December 2003 news and current business

  • 3.1. The following drivers were released from November 10, 2003 to December 10, 2003:

    • NVIDIA ForceWare for all NVIDIA cards:

      • Windows XP: 53.03;


    • ATI Catalyst for all ATI cards:

      • Windows XP: 6.396; 6.404;


    These and other drivers are available for download at drivers.ixbt.com, riva.ixbt.com as well as on unofficial support websites: NVWORLD and RADEON2.RU. We've excluded 3DMark from our testing, however as many like these tests, we recommend you to visit 3DMark.ru (now it's Guide3D.ru) that contains much useful information.

  • 3.2. In this issue we used 53.03 drivers for NVIDIA cards summaries; 6.396 drivers for ATI cards summaries (because the final release of 6.404 or CATALYST 3.10 was issued later than our tests started).

  • 3.3. In September we tested cards in Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness (v.49). It's the first game based completely on DirectX9. It has a built-in benchmark for testing DirectX9 compatible cards. We performed our tests in the maximum available quality with only Depth of Fields (both) and PS20 Shadows disabled. Of course, these settings were the SAME for all cards tested.

  • 3.4. In October we tested cards in the leaked Half-Life 2 beta at max. detail level, DirectX 9 (of course, DirectX 8 was automatically selected for DirectX 8 cards), best anisotropy available.

  • 3.5. Last time we conducted testing in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell (v.1.2b) - Direct3D, Vertex/Pixel Shaders 1.1/2.0, Hardware T&L, Very High quality.
    Note that antialiasing didn't work in this game. Therefore we didn't test AA + anisotropy in it.

  • 3.6. This time we conducted testing in Call of Duty - OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt1203demo, best detail settings, S3TC ON. Tests were conducted at 1024x768 with AA + aniso.

Overclocked videocards are marked red. Clock rates follow the 'o/c' sign.

5. 3D accelerator ratings calculations for the end of the month


Anyone who wants to conduct his own rating calculations with his own values may download this Excel table (Office'3-'0) in RAR 3.0 and ZIP format.

The method of rating calculation is described here.

Calculations were conducted considering the following assumptions:

  1. Windows XP is used;
  2. Percentage of performance and quality demand ratio:
    • Performance priority - 60%
    • Quality priority - 40%

  3. ONLY 1600x1200@32bpp resolution was used for the prospect rating;
  4. Usability ratings are separated into the three sections: High-End, Middle-End, and Low-End. Each rating features its own expenses for system upgrade. All this is considered in APG parameter that is 100 for Low-End, 250 for Middle-End, and 151 for High-End. We believe that if a user wants to purchase a very expensive and powerful accelerator, he understands the inanity of installing it into a Low-End PC. So we separated the usability rating for different PC levels.

Usability rating graphs

Usability rating (rating from the previous 3Digest is in parentheses):

Usability rating: card price + $500

  1. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB DDR (380/680 MHz) (1)
  2. ATI RADEON 9800 128MB DDR (325/580 MHz) (2)
  3. ATI RADEON 9700 Pro 128MB DDR (325/620 MHz) (--)
  4. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB DDR (400/680 MHz) (3)
  5. ATI RADEON 9600XT 128 MB DDR (525/650 MHz) (--)
  6. ATI RADEON 9800XT 256MB DDR (412/730 MHz) (4)
  7. ATI RADEON 9600XT 128MB DDR (500/600 MHz) (6)
  8. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 256MB DDR2 (380/700 MHz) (5)
  9. ATI RADEON 9600 Pro 128MB DDR (400/600 MHz) (8)
  10. ATI RADEON 9800SE 128MB 256bit DDR (380/680 MHz) (7)
  11. ATI RADEON 9600 128MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (9)
  12. ATI RADEON 9600 256MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (10)
  13. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900CP 128MB DDR (400/700 MHz) (13)
  14. ATI RADEON 9600 Pro 256MB DDR (400/400 MHz) (11)
  15. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 128MB DDR (400/850 MHz) (12)
  16. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Turbo 256MB DDR (410/850 MHz) (14)
  17. ATI RADEON 9800SE 128MB 128bit DDR (325/540 MHz) (16)
  18. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900EPV 128MB DDR (405/810 MHz) (15)
  19. ATI RADEON 9500 128MB 128bit DDR (275/540 MHz) (18)
  20. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 256MB DDR (450/850 MHz) (17)
  21. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB DDR (475/950 MHz) (19)
  22. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 128MB DDR2 (475/900 MHz) (21)
  23. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 128MB DDR (400/800 MHz) (20)
  24. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (350/600 MHz) (22)
  25. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 128MB DDR (325/550 MHz) (24)
  26. ATI RADEON 9600SE 128MB 64bit DDR (325/400 MHz) (25)
  27. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (325/500 MHz) (28)
  28. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 128MB DDR (425/550 MHz) (27)
  29. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 128MB DDR (325/650 MHz) (29)
  30. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (30)
  31. NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti4200 with AGP8X 128MB DDR (250/513 MHz) (--)
  32. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB 128bit DDR (235/400 MHz) (31)
  33. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (275/500 MHz) (32)
  34. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (250/400 MHz) (33)
  35. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (250/300 MHz) (34)
  36. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB 64bit DDR (235/400 MHz) (--)
  37. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB 64bit DDR (250/333 MHz) (35)
  38. ATI RADEON 9000 Pro 128MB DDR (275/550 MHz) (36)
  39. ATI RADEON 9200 128MB DDR (250/400 MHz) (37)
  40. ATI RADEON 9200 64MB 64bit DDR (250/400 MHz) (38)
  41. ATI RADEON 9200SE 128MB 64bit DDR (200/333 MHz) (39)

Usability rating: card price + $250

  1. ATI RADEON 9800 128MB DDR (325/580 MHz) (1)
  2. ATI RADEON 9600XT 128 MB DDR (525/650 MHz) (--)
  3. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB DDR (380/680 MHz) (2)
  4. ATI RADEON 9700 Pro 128MB DDR (325/620 MHz) (--)
  5. ATI RADEON 9600XT 128MB DDR (500/600 MHz) (5)
  6. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB DDR (400/680 MHz) (3)
  7. ATI RADEON 9600 128MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (7)
  8. ATI RADEON 9800XT 256MB DDR (412/730 MHz) (6)
  9. ATI RADEON 9600 Pro 128MB DDR (400/600 MHz) (8)
  10. ATI RADEON 9600 256MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (9)
  11. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 256MB DDR2 (380/700 MHz) (4)
  12. ATI RADEON 9600 Pro 256MB DDR (400/400 MHz) (11)
  13. ATI RADEON 9800SE 128MB 256bit DDR (360/680 MHz) (10)
  14. ATI RADEON 9500 128MB 128bit DDR (275/540 MHz) (12)
  15. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900CP 128MB DDR (400/700 MHz) (14)
  16. ATI RADEON 9800SE 128MB 128bit DDR (325/540 MHz) (13)
  17. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 128MB DDR (400/850 MHz) (15)
  18. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900EPV 128MB DDR (405/810 MHz) (16)
  19. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 128MB DDR (325/550 MHz) (22)
  20. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Turbo 256MB DDR (410/850 MHz) (17)
  21. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (350/600 MHz) (19)
  22. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 128MB DDR2 (475/900 MHz) (25)
  23. ATI RADEON 9600SE 128MB 64bit DDR (325/400 MHz) (23)
  24. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 128MB DDR (400/800 MHz) (21)
  25. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 256MB DDR (450/850 MHz) (18)
  26. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 128MB DDR (325/650 MHz) (29)
  27. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB DDR (475/950 MHz) (20)
  28. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (325/500 MHz) (28)
  29. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (275/500 MHz) (30)
  30. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 128MB DDR (425/550 MHz) (27)
  31. NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti4200 with AGP8X 128MB DDR (250/513 MHz) (--)
  32. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB 128bit DDR (235/400 MHz) (32)
  33. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (31)
  34. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (250/400 MHz) (33)
  35. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (250/300 MHz) (34)
  36. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB 64bit DDR (250/333 MHz) (35)
  37. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB 64bit DDR (235/400 MHz) (--)
  38. ATI RADEON 9000 Pro 128MB DDR (275/550 MHz) (36)
  39. ATI RADEON 9200 128MB DDR (250/400 MHz) (37)
  40. ATI RADEON 9200 64MB 64bit DDR (250/400 MHz) (38)
  41. ATI RADEON 9200SE 128MB 64bit DDR (200/333 MHz) (39)

Usability rating: card price + $100

  1. ATI RADEON 9600XT 128 MB DDR (525/650 MHz) (--)
  2. ATI RADEON 9600XT 128MB DDR (500/600 MHz) (5)
  3. ATI RADEON 9600 128MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (3)
  4. ATI RADEON 9800 128MB DDR (325/580 MHz) (1)
  5. ATI RADEON 9700 Pro 128MB DDR (325/620 MHz) (--)
  6. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB DDR (380/680 MHz) (2)
  7. ATI RADEON 9600 256MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (6)
  8. ATI RADEON 9600 Pro 128MB DDR (400/600 MHz) (7)
  9. ATI RADEON 9600 Pro 256MB DDR (400/400 MHz) (8)
  10. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB DDR (400/680 MHz) (4)
  11. ATI RADEON 9500 128MB 128bit DDR (275/540 MHz) (9)
  12. ATI RADEON 9600SE 128MB 64bit DDR (325/400 MHz) (16)
  13. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 128MB DDR (325/550 MHz) (17)
  14. ATI RADEON 9800SE 128MB 128bit DDR (325/540 MHz) (13)
  15. ATI RADEON 9800SE 128MB 256bit DDR (360/680 MHz) (12)
  16. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (350/600 MHz) (15)
  17. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (275/500 MHz) (20)
  18. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900CP 128MB DDR (400/700 MHz) (14)
  19. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 128MB DDR (325/650 MHz) (21)
  20. ATI RADEON 9800XT 256MB DDR (412/730 MHz) (11)
  21. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (250/400 MHz) (30)
  22. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 256MB DDR2 (380/700 MHz) (10)
  23. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 128MB DDR (400/850 MHz)(18)
  24. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 128MB DDR2 (475/900 MHz) (29)
  25. NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti4200 with AGP8X 128MB DDR (250/513 MHz) (--)
  26. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (250/300 MHz) (34)
  27. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB 128bit DDR (235/400 MHz) (32)
  28. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 128MB DDR (400/800 MHz) (23)
  29. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (325/500 MHz) (25)
  30. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900EPV 128MB DDR (405/810 MHz) (19)
  31. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (31)
  32. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB 64bit DDR (250/333 MHz) (35)
  33. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Turbo 256MB DDR (410/850 MHz) (22)
  34. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 128MB DDR (425/550 MHz) (27)
  35. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB 64bit DDR (235/400 MHz) (--)
  36. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 256MB DDR (450/850 MHz) (28)
  37. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB DDR (475/950 MHz) (33)
  38. ATI RADEON 9000 Pro 128MB DDR (275/550 MHz) (36)
  39. ATI RADEON 9200 128MB DDR (250/400 MHz) (37)
  40. ATI RADEON 9200SE 128MB 64bit DDR (200/333 MHz) (39)
  41. ATI RADEON 9200 64MB 64bit DDR (250/400 MHz) (38)

Prospect rating (previous rating is in parenthesis):

  1. ATI RADEON 9800XT 256MB DDR (412/730 MHz) (1)
  2. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra 256MB DDR (475/950 MHz) (6)
  3. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB DDR (400/680 MHz) (2)
  4. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 256MB DDR2 (380/700 MHz) (3)
  5. ATI RADEON 9800 Pro 128MB DDR (380/680 MHz) (4)
  6. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra 256MB DDR (450/850 MHz) (7)
  7. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Turbo 256MB DDR (410/850 MHz) (8)
  8. ATI RADEON 9800 128MB DDR (325/580 MHz) (5)
  9. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 128MB DDR (400/850 MHz) (9)
  10. ATI RADEON 9700 Pro 128MB DDR (325/620 MHz) (--)
  11. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900EPV 128MB DDR (405/810 MHz) (10)
  12. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900CP 128MB DDR (400/700 MHz) (13)
  13. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 128MB DDR2 (475/900 MHz) (16)
  14. ATI RADEON 9600XT 128 MB DDR (525/650 MHz) (--)
  15. ATI RADEON 9600XT 128MB DDR (500/600 MHz) (11)
  16. ATI RADEON 9800SE 128MB 256bit DDR (360/680 MHz) (12)
  17. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra 128MB DDR (400/800 MHz) (21)
  18. ATI RADEON 9600 Pro 128MB DDR (400/600 MHz) (14)
  19. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (350/600 MHz) (23)
  20. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 128MB DDR (425/550 MHz) (25)
  21. ATI RADEON 9800SE 128MB 128bit DDR (325/540 MHz) (15)
  22. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 128MB DDR (325/550 MHz) (27)
  23. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (325/500 MHz) (29)
  24. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra 128MB DDR (325/650 MHz) (28)
  25. ATI RADEON 9600 256MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (17)
  26. ATI RADEON 9600 Pro 256MB DDR (400/400 MHz) (18)
  27. ATI RADEON 9600 128MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (20)
  28. ATI RADEON 9500 128MB 128bit DDR (275/540 MHz) (19)
  29. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR (325/400 MHz) (30)
  30. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB 128bit DDR (235/400 MHz) (32)
  31. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (275/500 MHz) (31)
  32. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (250/400 MHz) (33)
  33. ATI RADEON 9600SE 128MB 64bit DDR (325/400 MHz) (24)
  34. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR (250/300 MHz) (35)
  35. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB 64bit DDR (235/400 MHz) (--)
  36. NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti4200 with AGP8X 128MB DDR (250/513 MHz) (--)
  37. NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB DDR 64bit (250/333 MHz)(37)
  38. ATI RADEON 9000 Pro 128MB DDR (275/550 MHz) (34)
  39. ATI RADEON 9200 128MB DDR (250/400 MHz) (36)
  40. ATI RADEON 9200 64MB 64bit DDR (250/400 MHz) (38)
  41. ATI RADEON 9200SE 128MB 64bit DDR (200/333 MHz) (39)



Games quality section



6. Anisotropic filtering examination

Anisotropic filtering examination on the example of Serious Sam:TSE (OpenGL) and Unreal 2: The Awakening (Direct3D), (Windows XP)

7. Antialiasing examination

Antialiasing examination in Serious Sam:The Second Encounter (OpenGL), and Unreal 2: The Awakening (Direct3D), (Windows XP)

8. Games screenshot gallery

All test screenshots are compiled into a gallery where you can qualify the work of a chosen videocard and compare it to the reference images taken on ATI Radeon 9500. All shots were taken at the same 1024x768 resolution at the maximum quality. Screenshot gallery

9. Games artefacts gallery

Games quality section

 

All authors:

Kirill Budankov (budankov@ixbt.com)




Danil Gridasov (degust@ixbt.com)




and Andrew Vorobyev (anvakams@ixbt.com)




Article navigation:



blog comments powered by Disqus

  Most Popular Reviews More    RSS  

AMD Phenom II X4 955, Phenom II X4 960T, Phenom II X6 1075T, and Intel Pentium G2120, Core i3-3220, Core i5-3330 Processors

Comparing old, cheap solutions from AMD with new, budget offerings from Intel.
February 1, 2013 · Processor Roundups

Inno3D GeForce GTX 670 iChill, Inno3D GeForce GTX 660 Ti Graphics Cards

A couple of mid-range adapters with original cooling systems.
January 30, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1

An external X-Fi solution in tests.
September 9, 2008 · Sound Cards

AMD FX-8350 Processor

The first worthwhile Piledriver CPU.
September 11, 2012 · Processors: AMD

Consumed Power, Energy Consumption: Ivy Bridge vs. Sandy Bridge

Trying out the new method.
September 18, 2012 · Processors: Intel
  Latest Reviews More    RSS  

i3DSpeed, September 2013

Retested all graphics cards with the new drivers.
Oct 18, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, August 2013

Added new benchmarks: BioShock Infinite and Metro: Last Light.
Sep 06, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, July 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 and AMD Radeon HD 7730.
Aug 05, 2013 · 3Digests

Gainward GeForce GTX 650 Ti BOOST 2GB Golden Sample Graphics Card

An excellent hybrid of GeForce GTX 650 Ti and GeForce GTX 660.
Jun 24, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

i3DSpeed, May 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770/780.
Jun 03, 2013 · 3Digests
  Latest News More    RSS  

Platform  ·  Video  ·  Multimedia  ·  Mobile  ·  Other  ||  About us & Privacy policy  ·  Twitter  ·  Facebook


Copyright © Byrds Research & Publishing, Ltd., 1997–2011. All rights reserved.