iXBT Labs - Computer Hardware in Detail

Platform

Video

Multimedia

Mobile

Other

ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB, ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB, ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128MB, ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB

October 15, 2003






CONTENTS

  1. Video cards features
  2. Testbed, test tools, 2D quality
  3. Test results: Quake3 ARENA (speed & quality)
  4. Test results: Serious Sam: The Second Encounter (speed & quality)
  5. Test results: Return to Castle Wolfenstein (speed & quality)
  6. Test results: Code Creatures DEMO (speed & quality)
  7. Test results: Unreal Tournament 2003 (speed & quality)
  8. Test results: Unreal II: The Awakening (speed & quality)
  9. Test results: RightMark 3D (speed & quality)
  10. Test results: TRAOD: Benchmarking in paris5_4
  11. Test results: TRAOD: Benchmarking in paris1c
  12. Test results: TRAOD: Benchmarking in paris2g
  13. Test results: HALO: Combat Evolved (speed & quality)
  14. Test results: AquaMark3 (speed & quality)
  15. Conclusion

ASUSTeK Computer's plans about ATI's processors were rumored long ago. One of the facts that added fuel to the fire was that MSI, old NVIDIA's partner, concluded a contract for using ATI's GPUs in its cards. That was written about even in the central mass media like Yahoo. 

If MSI stepped on this way, why wouldn't ASUSTeK do the same? Although they were just rumors until the official announcement we got one interesting video card: 




That was RADEON 9000 based card from ASUSTeK. As it was manufactured before the agreement ws concluded, that card sold as a noname card. 

It's not the first agreement between this companies. You might remember the V264 series produced by the Taiwanese company in 1997 with ATI RAGE, RAGE II+, RAGE II+DVD, and RAGE PRO GPUs onboard. 




We've got a sample in our museum. In fact, only with the release of the RAGE 128 the Canadian company broke off collaboration with the third manufacturers and focused on its own card production. 

After such events the Taiwanese electronic King (this is how the guys at ASUSTeK jokingly interpret "TeK" in the company's name) produced everything that was popular (there were even 3dfx Banshee based cards), and then it focused on NVIDIA's cards and remained faithful to it until October 1st this year. 

3dfx Interactive's bankrupt helped ATI realize its mistake: 3dfx refused to collaborate with card makers and decided to make its cards itself using the facilities of STB Systems; soon it realized its mistake but it was late. 

So, ATI started looking for new partners. The brook was very tiny at the beginning but thanks to the clear-sighted top management and improving drivers the gentle murmur turned into a roaring river. Meanwhile, NVIDIA made a mistake with its NV30, and it took it a lot of time to recover. Then ATI released its R300 that conquered users' hearts (ATI even fell onto its knees before TSMC begging to increase the lots but the Taiwanese semiconductor giant had very tight schedule). 
 

Theoretical materials and reviews of video cards which concern functional properties of the GPU ATI RADEON 9500/9700/9800

It's obvious that ATI Technologies managed to grasp the technological leadership, though its sales volumes are not the greatest, - it just offers the leading performance of top products. 

The new race has started. The companies even resort to overclocking and promote overclocked solutions as completely new (the marketers at both companies must have huge wages). 

Probably, the fact that none of them (ATI or NVIDIA) can be unconditionally considered a leader made ASUSTeK reconsider its faithfulness. The time will show how the marketers at ASUSTeK will divide products of the same class into niches. 

Right after the release of the RADEON 9800 XT, 9600 XT the Canadian company announced ASUSTeK Partner No1. Does such partnership mean unequal conditions for the its other partners? - We don't know. Taking into account ASUS' facilities and potential, the deliveries to other companies could fell down as it's impossible to increase the volumes with TSMC that fast. 

So, ASUS got the following products:

  • RADEON 9800 XT;
  • RADEON 9600 XT;
  • RADEON 9600 SE;
  • RADEON 9200 SE.

I'm not aware if ASUSTeK will use any other processors as well. Such models were chosen probably to prevent the inner competition with NVIDIA based cards. Maybe there are some other reasons. 

Today we will test the whole line. Note that it's the first time we deal with a card based on the RADEON 9600 XT.

Cards

The cards have AGP x8/x4 interface ((9200SE has AGP x8/x4/x2), 128 MB DDR SDRAM memory (ASUS RADEON 9800 XT has 256MB) in 8 chips on both PCB sides  (ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB has only 4 chips).

ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB
Samsung 5ns memory chips (corresponds to 200 (400) MHz), memory clocked at 166 (333) MHz, GPU at 200 MHz. 64bit memory interface.


ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB
Samsung 5ns memory chips (corresponds to 200 (400) MHz), memory clocked at 200 (400)  MHz, GPU at 325 MHz. SE implies the 64-bit memory interface.


ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128MB
Samsung (BGA) 2.8ns memory chips (corresponds to 350 (700) MHz), memory clocked at 300 (600) MHz, GPU at 500 MHz. 128bit memory interface.


ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB
Hynix 2.5ns memory chips (corresponds to 400 (800) MHz), memory clocked at 365 (730) MHz, GPU at 412 MHz.



 
Comparison with the reference design, front view
ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB Reference card ATI RADEON 9200 SE









ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB  Reference card ATI RADEON 9600









ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128MB Reference card ATI RADEON 9600 PRO









ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 128MB Reference card ATI RADEON 9800 XT










Comparison with the reference design, back view
ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB Reference card ATI RADEON 9200 SE






ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB  Reference card ATI RADEON 9600






ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128MB Reference card ATI RADEON 9600 PRO






ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 128MB Reference card ATI RADEON 9800 XT










All the cards are based on the reference design which was a bit altered in each case. Unfortunately, we didn't receive yet a reference card on the 9600 XT, that is why I compared it with the RADEON 9600 PRO. The ASUS card differs in the VIVO support. The most powerful card - 9800 XT - follows the reference design, though the RAGE Theater is old, 




while the reference card is designed for the RAGE Theater 200 (new). The card also supports  hardware monitoring. 

The whole line is painted bright orange. I never saw such cards before.




Two cards (9600 XT and 9800 XT) support VIVO thanks to the Rage Theater. I must say that you can find main video operation functions written right on the packages; here's how the box of the 9800 XT looks like:




Alexey Samsonov will soon tell you about RAGE Theater (both versions) and its video capturing functions. That is why I'll omit it here.

Here is how the RADEON 9800 XT based card looks when inserted into the mainboard:




The cooler is pretty low and doesn't prevent installation of cards into the first PCI slot.

As to the coolers, the RADEON 9200SE has an ordinary pin heatsink.
 

ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB
A simple cooler with a fan.


ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128MB
This cooler is more powerful. The fan is installed on a big sink that covers both the core and the memory chips. But it's just decoration as the memory chips are not cooled underneath. But it's a nice decration as the sink is logo-shaped. 





ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB

In contrast to the reference cooler that has one huge fan, ASUS uses two fans (such coolers were installed on GeForce FX 5900 based cards), that is why the sink made of copper alloy is very massive.

The cooler is fastened with spring screws. Both fans have a single power supply source. Also, the fans are equipped with tachometers as the card supports hardware monitoring.














Have a look at the GPUs:
 

ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB




ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB




ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128MB




ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB






Accessory packs: 

ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB
User manual and software CD.


ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB
User manual, software CD, S-Video-to-RCA and DVI-to-d-Sub adapters.


ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128MB
User manual, software CD, ASUSDVD, games (shown on the right), VIVO adapter/splitter, DVI-to-d-Sub adapter and TV extension cord. All CDs are packed into a proprietary CD box.





ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB
User manual, software CD, ASUSDVD, games (shown on the right), VIVO adapter/splitter, DVI-to-d-Sub adapter and TV extension cord. All CDs are packed into a proprietary CD box.






All the cards ship in retail packages.

ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB 
All the boxes have a single style.


ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB 
They differ in the size and the list of features written on the box.


ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128MB
This card is packed in a separate cardboard box which is wrapped into a glossy shell. Its upper layer nicely plays with colors. And what I want to say is that the boxes are finally deprived of monsters! 


ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB
The top-level model has the biggest box which displays the card itself behind the plastic window under the cover. The cover has the shape of the girl's silhouette.









The RADEON 9800 XT supports hardware monitoring via the ASUS SmartDoctor utility:



















This program doesn't just monitor temperatures and fan speeds, it also allows overclocking the card. The SmartDoctor protects it from burning by controlling the frequencies. The SmartDoctor sets a bit lower core clock - 405 instead of 412 MHz. You can switch to 412 MHz by pressing the Default button.

Testbed and drivers

Testbed: 

  • Pentium 4 3200 MHz based computer:
    • Intel Pentium 4 3200 MHz CPU;
    • DFI LANParty Pro875 (i875P) mainboard; 
    • 1024 MB DDR SDRAM; 
    • Seagate Barracuda IV 40GB HDD; 
    • Windows XP SP1; DirectX 9.0a;
    • ViewSonic P810 (21") and ViewSonic P817 (21") monitors.
    • ATI drivers v6.378 (CATALYST 3.8).

VSync off, S3TC off in applications. 

The latest CATALYST 3.8 drivers have several new features including the dynamic overclocking called OVERDRIVE. 
















The 3D settings are put into one panel where they are split into D3D and OpenGL branches: 













The SmartShader effects will be examined next time. 

The card is failure protected - the VPU Recover returns the default settings if the card starts working unstably. The most interesting feature is OVERDRIVE. 

This panel appears only on the reference card; when we installed the same drivers on the ASUS card that tab disappeared. But this function worked by default. Let's use the graphics monitoring of the RivaTuner (by Aleksei Nikolaichuk AKA Unwinder): 




The OVERDRIVE lifts the clock speed to 419 MHz at the beginning. If the GPU gets too warm it cuts down the clock speed to the default values. Actually, at the core temperature up to 52 degrees the card can speed up to 432 MHz; if the temperature is from 52 to 65 degrees, the clock speed is maintained at 419 MHz. Over 65 degrees the clock speed falls down to the default values. 

Let's try overclocking:




I forcedly set the core clock to 470 MHz leaving the OVERDRIVE enabled. A short time later the clock speed fell down to the default settings because of the failure protection.

That's a real progress as the guys at ATI used to assert that end-users didn't need to know such stuff :-).

Test results

Before we start examining 2D quality, I should say there are no complete techniques for objective 2D quality estimation because: 

  1. 2D quality much depends on certain samples for almost all modern 3D accelerators; 
  2. Besides videocards, 2D quality depends on monitors and cables; 
  3. Moreover, certain monitors might not work properly with certain video cards. 

With the ViewSonic P817 monitor and BNC Bargo cable the cards showed excellent quality at the following resolutions and clock speeds: 

ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB 1600x1200x75Hz, 1280x1024x120Hz, 1024x768x120Hz
ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB  1600x1200x85Hz, 1280x1024x120Hz, 1024x768x120Hz
ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128MB  1600x1200x85Hz, 1280x1024x120Hz, 1024x768x160Hz
ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB 1600x1200x85Hz, 1280x1024x120Hz, 1024x768x120Hz

Test results: performance

The RADEON 9800 XT is compared with the GeForce FX 5900 Ultra based card OVERCLOCKED up to the NV38 clock speed

Conventional signs: ANISO 8xP - Anisotropic 8x Performance (earlier it was called Balanced), ANISO 8xQ - Anisotropic 8x Quality, ANISO 16xQ - Anisotropic 16x Quality. 

Some time ago we decided not to compare ATI's maximum anisotropic quality of 16X to two NVIDIA's modes anymore. The ANISO 8x Quality mode provided the real maximum quality with both trilinear filtering and anisotropy working to their full capacity. The ATI 16x Quality showed sharper images due to the 16th degree but on some surfaces the filtering quality was lower. That's the way ATI's anisotropy works. That is why we thought it was more correct to compare this ATI's mode with NVIDIA's Performance and Quality. 

But NVIDIA's optimization policy changes the things and we do not know anymore if there are applications where NVIDIA's anisotropy works to its full capacity. That is why we consider that it's correct to compare ANISO 16xQ (ATI) to ANISO 8xQ (NV). Both have their strong and weak points, but in general they compensate each other. 

Also remember that we compare visual quality, i.e. what we really see. There's no per-pixel comparison as you won't notice difference in quality if it touches just several pixels. 

Test applications: 

Return to Castle Wolfenstein (MultiPlayer) (id Software/Activision) - OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt0703-demo, test settings - maximum, S3TC OFF, the configurations can be downloaded from here 

Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v.1.05 (Croteam/GodGames) - OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt0703 demo, test settings: quality, S3TC OFF 

Quake3 Arena v.1.17 (id Software/Activision) - OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt0703 demo, test settings - maximum: detailing level - High, texture detailing level - #4, S3TC OFF, smoothness of curves is much increased through variables r_subdivisions "1" and r_lodCurveError "30000" (at default r_lodCurveError is 250 !), the configurations can be downloaded from here 

Unreal Tournament 2003 v.2225 (Digital Extreme/Epic Games) - Direct3D, Vertex Shaders, Hardware T&L, Dot3, cube texturing, default quality 

Code Creatures Benchmark Pro (CodeCult) - the game that demonstrates card's operation in DirectX 8.1, Shaders, HW T&L. 

Unreal II: The Awakening (Legend Ent./Epic Games) - Direct3D, Vertex Shaders, Hardware T&L, Dot3, cube texturing, default quality 

RightMark 3D v.0.4 (one of the test scenes) - DirectX 8.1, Dot3, cube texturing, shadow buffers, vertex and pixel shaders (1.1, 1.4). 

Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness v.49 (Core Design/Eldos Software) - DirectX 9.0, three demo scenes, maximum quality, Depth of Fields PS20 off. The settings are equal for all the cards tested.







If you need patch 49 which is not easy to find and the demo benchmarks let me know by email. 
 

  • HALO: Combat Evolved (Microsoft) - Direct3D, Vertex/Pixel Shaders 1.1/2.0, Hardware T&L, high quality

  •  
  • AquaMark3 (Massive Development) - Direct3D, Vertex/Pixel Shaders 2.0, Hardware T&L, high quality

  •  

    Quake3 Arena

     













    No AA, no anisotropy: the RADEON 9800 XT loses to its competitor. In contrast, the 9600XT wins the battle. This card is also well ahead of the 9600 PRO, though the only difference in the increased core clock. The 9600SE loses to the more expensive FX 5600 (the memory bus is only 64 bits) and loses a little to the FX 5200 (the narrow memory bus makes a fatal effect). The 9200SE easily wins over the FX 5200 64bit. 

    AA enabled: the RADEON 9600/9800 XT is generally ahead. 

    Anisotropy enabled: The 9800 XT loses the battle, while the 9600 XT is a real success. 

    AA & anisotropy enabled: as the resolution grows up the 9800 XT performs better (NV38 loses because of the too narrow memory bandwidth), the competition of the 9600 XT and FX 5600U looks entirely different.

    So:

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB - victory!
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - depends on its price
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B - victory!
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB - arguable
    RADEON 9800, driver 6.387 FX 5900, driver 52.xx
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    No complaints about the quality.

    Serious Sam: The Second Encounter

     













    No AA, no anisotropy: the RADEON 9800 XT loses to its competitor. The 9600XT also loses in high resolutions, though the competition is more of less equal. This card is limited by the memory bus, that is why it doesn't increase the scores compared to the 9600 PRO. The 9200SE easily wins the battle, while the 9600 SE has no chance to win here. 

    AA enabled: the RADEON 9800 XT falls behind, the 9600 XT also loses in high resolutions because of the memory bus. 

    Anisotropy enabled: the cards fall back. 

    AA & anisotropy enabled: it's only the 9600 XT among all the RADEONs that takes a lead in low resolutions.

    So:

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB - victory!
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - bad defeat!
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B - defeat!
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB - defeat!
    RADEON 9800, driver 6.387 FX 5900, driver 52.xx
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    No complaints about the quality.

    Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Multiplayer)

     













    No AA, no anisotropy: the RADEON 9800 XT falls a little behind its competitor, but all GeForce FX cards have bugs on the driver versions 5x.xx (52.xx inclusive). That's why it's hard to judge. I just want to say that the 9600 SE has no chance to win, and the 9600 XT is again limited by its memory bus and doesn't look better than the 9600 PRO. The 9200SE still wins the battle. 

    AA & anisotropy enabled one by one and together: the RADEONs take the lead.

    So:

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB - perfect
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - defeat
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B - more or less good
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB - the same

    RADEON 9800, driver 6.387 FX 5900, driver 52.xx
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    The bugs in the NVIDIA drivers are not corrected yet.

    Code Creatures

     













    No AA, no anisotropy: the RADEON 9800 XT loses to its competitor. The 9600XT goes on a par with its counterpart. In this test the shader speed makes a greater effect, that its why its crippled memory bus doesn't affect so much, and the card runs faster than its predecessor 9600 PRO. The 9600SE, as well as the 9200 SE (its shader speed is much lower than that of the FX 5200) work bad. 

    AA enabled: no good news from the RADEON camp.

    Anisotropy enabled: the 9800/9600 cards win this time.

    AA & anisotropy enabled: 9800 XT catches up with its competitor while the 9600 XP falls back.

    So:

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB - defeat
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - defeat
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B - arguable
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB - parity with the competitor.

    RADEON 9800, driver 6.387 FX 5900, driver 52.xx
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    There's some difference in the images shown by the RADEON and GeForce based cards, but we can't consider one or the other better or worse. Tastes differ. NVIDIA demonstrates optimizations in rendering (probably, ATI has them as well), but no visual bugs are noticed.

    Unreal Tournament 2003

     













    No AA, no anisotropy: the RADEON 9800 XT and NV38 are generally equal. The 9600XT wins the battle. Although it wins over the 9600 PRO the growth by 8% at  the core clock difference of 100MHz shows that the performance much depends on the memory bus. The future of the 9600SE will depend on its price. The 9200 SE doesn't perform well. 

    AA enabled: the RADEONs perform pretty well except the 9600 XT which is limited by its memory bus. 

    Anisotropy enabled: the 9800XT both wins and loses, while the 9600XT gain a victory. 

    AA & anisotropy enabled: all the RADEONs are a success, though the 9600XT loses in 1600X1200. 

    So:

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB - performs a bit worse
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - depends on its price and on its actual competitors
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B - easy victory except in 1600X1200 (but hardly anyone would play on such card in this resolution with AA enabled)
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB - easy victory
    RADEON 9800, driver 6.387 FX 5900, driver 52.xx
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    No complaints about quality.

    Unreal II: The Awakening

     













    No AA, no anisotropy: all the RADEONs win except the 9200 SE which goes on a par with the competitor. The 9600 XT wins over the 9600 PRO as the core clock is much more influential than the memory bus. The 9600 SE loses to the FX 5600, but its price is also higher. The FX 5200 is also beaten that is why the price will decide a lot. 

    AA enabled: the RADEONs win except the 9600XT which loses in 1600x1200 because of the memory bus. 

    Anisotropy enabled: the cards sweep the field. 

    AA & anisotropy enabled: the picture is the same as in the AA mode. 

    So: 

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB - equal to the competitor
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - depends on its price, but if it's lower $100, it will be an unconditional winner
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B - victory
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB - victory

    RADEON 9800, driver 6.387 FX 5900, driver 52.xx
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    In the RADEON 9800 XT review I mentioned the problems the GeForce FX had in this game with the driver 51.75. Let's compare it to the driver 52.xx:

    FX 5900, driver 51.75 FX 5900, driver 52.xx






    The situation definitely looks better, the problem is solved.

    RightMark 3D

     













    AA & anisotropy enabled and disabled: the RADEONs (all except 9200SE) win in all tests, though not that perfectly as the last time. 

    So: 

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB doesn't shine
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB succeeds
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B gains victory
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB wins
    RADEON 9800, driver 6.387 FX 5900, driver 52.xx
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    Look at the bugs in this test with the ATI driver 3.8! The programmers are already informed about it, and we hope that the next time it will be corrected. However, judging by the previous tests where we had no complaints about the quality, the RADEONs except the 9200SE look superior.

    TR:AoD, Paris5_4 DEMO

     







    Well, where shaders 2.0 are used 2.0, ATI firmly holds the crown. 

    So: 

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB - excellent
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - in spite of the 64bit bus this card looks well
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B - perfect
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB - fine

    Quality was already examined, and next time we will add more about it. 

    TR:AoD, Paris1c DEMO

     







    The test uses fewer shaders, that is why the breakaway is not that great. 

    So: 

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB - performs better than its counterpart
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - the memory interface doesn't spoil the performance as the shaders outweigh.
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B - works well though it breathes heavily
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB - expected performance.

    Quality was already examined, and next time we will add more about it. 

    TR:AoD, Paris2g DEMO

     







    No AA, no anisotropy: 

    This benchmark uses few shaders, the GeForces are close on the heels. 

    So: 

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB - perfect
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - there's a fly in the ointment
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B - cloudless performance
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB - the gain is very small.

    Quality was already examined, and next time we will add more about it. 

    HALO: Combat Evolved

     







    No AA, no anisotropy: the RADEON 9800 XT falls a bit behind, while the 9600 XT is a real success. The others look perfect as well, but remember that the 9200SE doesn't support shaders 2.0, and it used only v1.4 (DX81). But it doesn't affect the quality. 

    Anisotropy enabled: the cards ASUS win the victory. 

    So: 

    • ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB - although the speed is not high, it still keeps ahead
    • ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - the same
    • ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B - pure victory
    • ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB - victory thanks to the anisotropy mode

    This game doesn't support AA.

    RADEON 9800, driver 6.387 FX 5900, driver 52.xx
    Example 1
    No AA, No ANISO






    ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    Example 2
    No AA, No ANISO






    ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    Example 3
    No AA, No ANISO






    ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    The quality on examples 1 and 2 is flawless. But we can see differences between ATI and NVIDIA cards quality on example 3. There are missing lights in the NVIDIA images.

    AquaMark3

    This time we tested only two most powerful accelerators: RADEON 9800 XT and NV38 because of some technical problems. 







    No AA, no anisotropy: the RADEON 9800 XT loses to its competitor. 

    AA enabled: the RADEON 9800 XT wins. 

    Anisotropy enabled: the same. 

    AA & anisotropy enabled: WINNER! 

    So: 

    ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB is a leader (though I can hardly admit that such performance is playable).

    RADEON 9800, driver 6.387 FX 5900, driver 52.xx
    Example 1
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    Example 2
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    Example 3
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    Example 4
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    Example 5
    No AA, No ANISO






    AA4x, ANISO 16xQ/8xQ






    Some testers mentioned flaws in quality in this test with the first versions of NVIDIA's drivers 5x.xx. This time the rendering quality looks equal. I do not except any optimizations or changes in the driver operation, but from the user's point of view there is no difference in quality. 

    Conclusion

    So, ASUSTeK entered the market with a new series of video cards based on ATI's GPUs for the niche of $50 to $500. The price gaps in this line are filled up with NVIDIA based cards. 

    Also note that we expanded the list of the test tools and carried out the more thorough and complete examination of speed and quality of the cards in 3D. 

    Finally, it's the first time we deal with the newcomer on the middle-end market - RADEON 9600 XT. 

    1. ASUS RADEON 9200SE 128MB is a copy of the reference card and targets the office PC market being able to run relatively light 3D games. Scores:
      • Quake3 Arena v.1.17 - wins
      • Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v.1.07 - wins
      • Return to Castle Wolfenstein (MultiPlayer) - wins
      • Code Creatures Benchmark Pro - loses
      • Unreal Tournament 2003 v.2225 - loses a little
      • Unreal II: The Awakening - equal
      • RightMark 3D v.0.4 - loses
      • Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness v.49 - wins
      • HALO: Combat Evolved (Microsoft) - wins

      It obviously beats the 64bit 5200 card. 
       

    2. ASUS RADEON 9600SE 128MB - this card doesn't have yet competitors in NVIDIA's camp: I never saw an FX 5600 with a 64-bit bus. It might compete only against the FX 5200 Ultra. But this is an expensive product, and its price will decide its future demand. 
      • Quake3 Arena v.1.17 - depends on price
      • Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v.1.07 - loses
      • Return to Castle Wolfenstein (MultiPlayer) - loses
      • Code Creatures Benchmark Pro - loses
      • Unreal Tournament 2003 v.2225 - depends on price
      • Unreal II: The Awakening - depends on price
      • RightMark 3D v.0.4 - wins
      • Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness v.49 - wins
      • HALO: Combat Evolved (Microsoft) - wins

      If the price is lower $100, the card will have a chance to succeed. 
       

    3. ASUS RADEON 9600 XT 128B is an overclocked version of the RADEON 9600 PRO. But only its core clock is lifted. This review can be considered a basic one for estimating capabilities of the RADEON 9600 XT. 
      • Quake3 Arena v.1.17 - wins
      • Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v.1.07 - loses
      • Return to Castle Wolfenstein (MultiPlayer) - wins
      • Code Creatures Benchmark Pro - arguable
      • Unreal Tournament 2003 v.2225 - wins
      • Unreal II: The Awakening - wins
      • RightMark 3D v.0.4 - wins
      • Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness v.49 - wins
      • HALO: Combat Evolved (Microsoft) - wins
      • AquaMark3 (Massive Development) - wins

      It looks stronger than the FX 5600 Ultra, but NVIDIA will soon release its new solution for the middle-end market, that is why the key battle is yet to come. 
       

    4. ASUS RADEON 9800 XT 256MB is the flagship and the most powerful accelerator for gaming graphics. This line supports the GameFace technology that allows seeing competitors' faces through web cameras in network games, and the company supplies a special driver which works together with ATI's drivers. 
      • Quake3 Arena v.1.17 - arguable
      • Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v.1.07 - loses
      • Return to Castle Wolfenstein (MultiPlayer) - wins
      • Code Creatures Benchmark Pro - equal
      • Unreal Tournament 2003 v.2225 - wins
      • Unreal II: The Awakening - wins
      • RightMark 3D v.0.4 - wins
      • Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness v.49 - wins
      • HALO: Combat Evolved (Microsoft) - wins
      • AquaMark3 (Massive Development) - wins


       

      The RADEON 9800 XT looks a new 3D king. But remember that we used the overclocked NV35 as the NV38, and we don't have yet the final driver version 5x.xx. That is why the tests will continue and I think by the end of fall it will be clear what comes out a leader, though the parity is also possible. 

    All the cards tested have excellent built quality! 

    In our 3Digest you can find full comparison characteristics for video cards of this and other classes.
     
     






    Andrey Vorobiev (anvakams@ixbt.com)


    Write a comment below. No registration needed!


    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


    19

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