iXBT Labs - Computer Hardware in Detail

Platform

Video

Multimedia

Mobile

Other

ATI RADEON X800 XT and X800 PRO (R420) Review

May 4, 2004





CONTENTS

  1. Official specifications
  2. Architecture
  3. Graphics card features
  4. Testbed configurations, benchmarks, 2D quality, Temporal AA quality
  5. D3D RightMark synthetic tests
  6. Trilinear and anisotropic filtering quality
  7. AA quality
  8. General quality on the example of FarCry
  9. Test results: Quake3 ARENA
  10. Test results: Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
  11. Test results: Return to Castle Wolfenstein
  12. Test results: Code Creatures DEMO
  13. Test results: Unreal Tournament 2003
  14. Test results: Unreal II: The Awakening
  15. Test results: RightMark 3D
  16. Test results: TRAOD
  17. Test results: FarCry
  18. Test results: Call Of Duty
  19. Test results: HALO: Combat Evolved
  20. Test results: Half-Life2(beta)
  21. Test results: Splinter Cell
  22. Conclusions


April is over, as is our trip to Toronto (Canada) where we first saw the ATI novelty (codenamed R420 then). For those willing to know more details about ATI Technology Days, here are the links to the first and the second days of the forum.

Today we'll take a closer look at the new products. Why do we say it in plural? The thing is, there are several R420-based cards. Today we'll take two of them, RADEON X800 XT and X800 PRO.

Not long ago we issued an article on NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra, and its announcement contained a certain doubt: will NV40 be a long-term 3D-king or will the powerful R420 oust it?

Well, today we'll try to answer this question.



Radeon X800 official specs

  1. Chip codenamed R420
  2. 130nm technology (TMSC, low-k, copper connections)
  3. 180 million transistors
  4. FC case (flip chip with no metallic cover)
  5. 256-bit memory interface
  6. Up to 512 MB of DDR/GDDR-2/GDDR-3 memory
  7. AGP 3.0 8x bus interface (also the PCI-Express version of the R423 chip)
  8. 16 pixel processors, each having one texture unit (X800 PRO - 12 pipelines)
  9. Calculates, blends, and writes up to 16 full (colour, depth, stencil buffer) pixels per clock
  10. Calculates and writes up to 32 values of depth and stencil buffer per clock
  11. Supports a two-way stencil buffer
  12. MSAA 2x/4x/6x, with flexibly programmed countdown patterns. Compression of frame and Z buffers in MSAA modes. Possibility to change MSAA patterns from one frame to another (Temporal AA);
  13. Up to 16x anisotropic filtering
  14. 6 vertex processors
  15. All necessary things to support pixel and vertex shaders version 2.0
  16. Additional capabilities of pixel shaders based on 2.0.b, the extended version of 2.0
  17. Additional capabilities of vertex shaders higher than 2.0
  18. New texture compression technique optimised to compress two-component cards of normals (so-called 3Dc, 4:1 compression).
  19. Supports rendering into floating-point buffers with FP16 and FP32 precision per component.
  20. Supports 3D and FP texture formats
  21. MRT
  22. 2 RAMDAC 400 MHz
  23. 2 DVI interfaces
  24. TV-Out and TV-In interface (interface chips required)
  25. Programmable video processing - pixel processores are used for streaming video processing (compression, decompression, and post-processing tasks)
  26. 2D accelerator supporting all GDI+ functions

Specs of the actual R420-based cards:

  • RADEON X800 XT: 525/575 (1150) MHz, 256MB GDDR3, AGP 8x/4x, 16 pixel pipelines ($499) - a rival of NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra.
  • RADEON X800 PRO: 475/450 (900) MHz, 256MB GDDR3, AGP 8x/4x, 12 pixel pipelines ($399) - a rival of NVIDIA GeForce 6800 (?).

General chip scheme



Observant readers will immediately see that the scheme virtually coincides with NV40. But that comes as no surprise: both companies seeking to create an optimal solution have been sticking to an effective time-proved organisation of the general structure of graphic pipeline for several generations. The differences are inside the units and first of all, in pixel and vertex processors.

R420 as well as NV40 has six vertex processors and four separate pixel processors each working with one quad (a 2x2-pixel fragment). Evidently, there's only one level of data texture caching here, in contrast to NV40.

Each of four quad processors can be excluded from work. Due to market demands or defected chips, one can exclude one, two, or even three processors thus producing cards that can process 4, 8, 12, or 16 pixels per clock.

And now we'll traditionally increase detalisation level in the most interesting parts:

Vertex processors and data selection

Here's a schematic of an R420 vertex processor:

The processor itself is represented as a yellow bar, and the blocks surrounding it are only shown to make the picture more complete. R420 is announced to have six independent processors (multiply the yellow bar by six). According to some sources, R420 vertex processors support dynamic execution control, but this information needs checking. Anyway, this option is not available in API for the moment. But if it exists, it will be used in OpenGL and probably to the full. Although it will hardly appear in DX9, as its vertex unit fit neither VS 3.0 full specs (no access to the textures), nor NVIDIA's extended 2.0 specification (the so-called 2.0.a).

In respect of the arithmetic performance per clock, an R420 vertex processor (like an NV40 one) can simultaneously execute one vector operation (up to four FP32 components) and one scalar operation.

Let us remind you a summary table of modern vertex processors' parameters concerning DX9 vertex shaders:

Vertex shader, version 2.0 (R3XX, R42X) 2.a (NV3X) 3.0 (NV40)
Number of instructions in the shader code
256
256
512 and more
Number of executed instructions
65535
65535
65535 and more
Predicates
No
Yes
Yes
Temporary registers
12
13
32
Constant registers
256 and more
256 and more
256 and more
Static jumps
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dynamic jumps
No (?)
Yes
Yes
Nesting depth of dynamic jumps
No
24
24
Texture value selection
No
No
Yes (4)

There's one more interesting aspect that we'll dwell on a bit later, namely, FFP (T&L) emulation performance. It will be recalled that R3XX's lag from NVIDIA chips was largely caused by the absence of special hardware lighting calculation units that were used in three NVIDIA generations to speed up T&L emulation. Hopefully, ATI developers have analysed the number of applications that make a partial or a full use of T&L, made certain conclusions, and improved the situation.

Pixel processors and filling organisation

Let's examine the R420 pixel architecture in the order of data sequence. This is what comes after the triangle parameters are set:

Now we are going to touch upon the most interesting facts. First, in contrast to earlier R3XXs that only had one quad processor taking a block of four pixels (2x2) per clock, we now have four such processors. They are absolutely independent of one another, and each of them can be excluded from work (for instance, to create a lighter chip version with three processors in case of them has a defect).

The scheme looks a lot like that of NV40, but there are also fundamental differences which will now constitute the subject of our discussion.

To begin with, a triangle is divided into first-level blocks (8x8 or 4x4 depending on rendering resolution) and the first stage of discarding of invisible blocks takes place basing on the data of mini Z buffer allocated fully on the chip. The buffer's size is not announced, but to all appearance, it is a little below 200 KB in R420. All in all, this stage can discard up to four blocks per clock, i.e. up to 256 invisible pixels.

The second stage divides blocks into 2x2 quads, and fully invisible quads are discarded basing on L2 Z buffer (2x2 granularity) stored in the video memory. Depending on the MSAA mode, an element of the buffer can correspond to 4 (no), 8(MSAA 2x), 16 (MSAA 4x), or even 24 (MSAA 6x) pixels in the frame buffer. Hence its classification as a separate borderline structure between a mini Z buffer allocated fully on the chip and an ultimate base-level Z buffer. Thus, NVIDIA products have a two-level organisation of HSR and Z buffer, while ATI products have a three-level one. Later on, when we deal with synthetic tests we'll pay attention to the infuence this factor has on performance.

Then quads are selected and distributed among active pixel processors. And this is where dramatic differences between R420 and NV40 appear:

Algorithm of an NVIDIA pixel processor:

Shader instructions loop

  • Calculate the microcode of the following instruction
  • Configurate the texture module and all ALUs
  • Loop of all quads in the queue
    • Run the quad through the processor, TMU, and ALU
  • End of quad loop
End of shader instructions loop

Algorithm of an ATI pixel processor

4-phase loop

  • Loop all quads in the queue
    • Loop of the textures selected in this phase (up to 8)
      • Select the texture value
    • End of texture loop
  • Loop of computation instructions in this phase (up to 128)
    • Execute the instruction
  • End of loop
End of quad loop. End of 4-phase loop.

Thus, NVIDIA executes the instructions gradually, running all the quads in processing through each of them. ATI, on the contrary, divides the shader in four phases, each of which selects the data of the necessary textures and then makes calculations with the data.

It's impossible to say which approach is better. ATI is worse for complex shaders, but on the other hand, calculations within each of the four phases are executed on a scheme similar to CPU. During calculations, a full-value pool of temporary registers can be used with no loss in performance or penalty for using more than four registers, as is the case with NV40. Besides, ATI requires pipelines with less stages, and consequently, less transistors are expended and potentially higher clock frequencies can be reached. It's easy to predict a shader's performance and to write the code (no need to worry about equal grouping of texture and computation instructions or expenditure of temporary registers).

However, there are a lot of restrictions. They concern the number of dependent selections, the number of instructions within one phase, the need to keep "at hand" (that is, right in the pixel processor) the whole shader microcode for four phases. And there can be potential delays in case intensive dependent selections follow each other.

ATI approach is, in fact, optimal for shaders 2.0 that have a rather limited length and no dynamic execution control. We will face problems if we try to fit such architecture with an unlimited shader length or an unlimited flexibility in texture selections.

The scheme of the pixel processor contains the F buffer logic (mechanism for writing and restoring parameters of shader's temporary variables). This trick allows to execute shaders that exceed pixel processor restrictions in the length or the number of dependent (and standard too, in fact) texture selections. But the payment comes in the form of additional passes, which makes the solution not so ideal. The more complex the shaders will become, the more passes and data temporarily stored in the video memory there will be. As a result, ATI will have a higher penalty compared to NVIDIA-like architectures that are not limited by the length or the complexity of the shader.

Well, real game applications will show which approach is better. And don't forget about energy consumption: flexibility of NV40 shaders comes at the expense of 220 million transistors which can prove to be too high for the 0.13 technology.

Now we're getting back to the features of the R420 architecture. Processors have the FP24 data format in calculations, but TMUs have higher precision in operations with texture coordinates at texture selection. In this respect, the situation is the same as in the case with R3XX: there are two ALUs for each pixel, and each ALU can execute two different operations on the 3+1 scheme (R3XX had only one ALU). See DX Current for more details. Random masking and post-operational component rearrangement are not supported, everything is within shaders 2.0 and a bit longer 2.0.b shaders.

Thus, depending on the shader code, R420 can execute (per clock) one to four different FP24 operations on vectors (up to 3D) and scalars and one access to the data already selected from the texture in the given phase. Such performance is directly related to the compiler and the code, but it's evident that we have:

Minimum: one access to the selected texture data per clock
Minimum: two operations per clock without access to the texture
Maximum: four operations per clock without access to the texture Maximum: four operations per clock with access to the texture

The peak variant exceeds NV40 capabilities. But we should also consider that in reality, this solution is not so flexible (always 3+1 scheme) in terms of compiling the instructions into superscalar clusters. Tests will show real effectiveness. Computation effectiveness of the new pipelines has increased twofold against R3XX. And together with a twofold increase of their number and a gain in clock frequency, we get a solid theoretical advantage comparing to the previous generation.

All new modifications will be available in the new version of shaders 2.0.b when the new SDK and the new DirectX 9 version appear (9.0c). Here's a summary table of capabilities:

Pixel shader, version 2.0 (R3XX) 2.a (NV3X) 2.b (R420?) 3.0 (NV40)
Nesting of texture selection, up to
4
No restrictions
4
No restrictions
Texture value selections, up to
32
No restrictions
No restrictions
No restrictions
Shader code length
32 + 64
512
512
512 and more
Executed shader instructions
32 + 64
512
512
65535 and more
Interpolators
2 + 8
2 + 8
2 + 8
10
Predicates
no
yes
no
yes
Temporary registers
12
22
32
32
Constant registers
32
32
32
224
Optional component rearrangement
no
yes
no
yes
Gradient instructions (DDX/DDY)
no
yes
no
yes
Nesting depth of dynamic jumps
no
no
no
24

NV40's flexibility and programming capabilities in DX9 are unrivalled for now.

Now let's get back to our scheme and look at its lower part. It contains units responsible for comparison and modification of colour values, transparency, depth, stencil buffer, and also MSAA. In contrast to NV40 that supports generation of up to four MSAA samplings basing on one pixel, R420 generated up to six of them. And Z and stencil buffers have performance twice higher than the base filling rate of 32 values per clock (the same as in NV40). Thus, 2x MSAA is given with no speed penalty, and 4x and 6x take two and three clocks, respectively. However, if we use pixel shaders at least several instructions long, this penalty ceases to play any crucial role. Memory bandwidth is much more important here. Of course, MSAA modes compress both colour and depth data, and in the best-case scenario compression coefficient is close to the number of MSAA samples and makes 6:1 in the MSAA 6x mode.

In contrast to NV40 that uses RGMS, R420 (as well as all R3XX chips) supports pseudostochastic MSAA patterns on the 8x8 base grid. As a result, the smoothing quality of edges and slanting lines becomes better. New drivers have the so-called Temporal AA that changes patterns from one frame to another. Thus, if the picture of the neighbouring frames is easily averaged by our eye (or by an LCD), we'll get an improved smoothing quality. Performance will not fall, but the effect can manifest itself in different ways, depending on the display and frame calculation frequency in the application.

Technological innovations

  1. A new algorithm of the F buffer that enables not to calculate this or that pass of the divided pixel shader for pixels that don't need it. It can visibly optimise performance of pixel shaders with conditions and branchings in OpenGL, that are executed in several passes with the help of the F buffer.
  2. A new method of 3Dc texture compression designed specially to compress two-component cards of the normals. Conventional texture compression methods are only made for standard textures. What is good for RGB-format pictures is bad for vectors, and vice versa. That is why there's a need of a special compression algorithm that would have a hardware support in TMUs of graphic accelerators. And that seems to be just the niche for 3Dc, although it is bad for developers that it is not yet supported by NVIDIA.



Boards



ATI RADEON X800 XT/PRO


The cards have AGP x8/x4 interface, and a 256-MB GDDR3 SDRAM allocated in 8 chips on the front and the back sides of the PCB.

ATI RADEON X800 XT
Samsung memory chips (GDDR3); 1.6ns memory access time, which corresponds to 625 (1300) MHz; memory works at 575 (1150) MHz; GPU frequency 525 MHz; 256-bit memory bus.
ATI RADEON X800 PRO
Samsung memory chips (GDDR3), 2.0ns memory access time, which corresponds to 500 (1000) MHz; memory works at 445 (890) MHz; 475-MHz GPU frequency; 256-bit memory bus.




Comparison with the reference design, front view
ATI RADEON X800 XT/PRO ATI RADEON 9800 XT
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra




Comparison with the reference design, back view
ATI RADEON X800 XT/PRO ATI RADEON 9800 XT
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra




We can see that R420 looks very much like his predecessor R360 in terms of design. Only arrangement has been changed a bit because of the GDDR3 memory. Evidently, R420 pins are fully compatible with R360. Also noteworthy, there's still only one external power connector, and the cards consume far less energy than NV40.

Now let's take a look at the cooling system and see what has been changed here.

ATI RADEON X800 XT/PRO
Oh, it was just cut at the edges!

We see the same copper cooler with a fan shifted to the left. The fan rotates at high frequencies only if the card is used in a tight case with no blasting. The cooler has been simplified as the GDDR3 memory doesn't require compulsory cooling.

Thus, X800 has taken on all positive aspects of its predecessor, such as low power consumption and one-slot cooling system.

ATI RADEON X800 XT/PRO NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra


Interestingly, the X800 family already supports VIVO with the help of the good old RAGE THEATER, while 9800XT was made for the new Theater 200, although we have seen no cards with it. ASUS was the only one to make 9800XT with VIVO.

Now let's look at the chip. First of all, we'll compare the sizes of R360, R420, and NV40 dies:

It is clearly seen that R420 has a larger die comparing to R360 (180 against 115 mln transistors), but NV40 has the largest one (222 mln transistors).

Now the chip itself with the case:

R360



R420 XT

R420 PRO

The dies were made late in March or early in April. There are no visible differences between the chips' resistors, both in marking and arrangement. Which makes us think that pipelines were cut softwarily, through drivers. But this idea needs checking.

Now for the overclocking. Due to Alexei Nikolaichuk, the author of RivaTuner, this utility can already estimate frequencies in R420. Here's what X800 XT gives us:





Unfortunately, the card is hard to overclock, and even minute frequency changes result the driver bringing the frequency back to the initial level.

And here are X800 PRO frequencies:



Here, overclocking is possible: it was 540 MHz for the chip and 580 (1180) MHz for the memory. To check how the card works at X800 XT frequency, we fixed 525/575 (1150) MHz overclocking frequencies and tested X800 PRO at them.

Installation and drivers

Testbeds:

  • System on Pentium 4 3200MHz used in synthetic tests:
    • Intel Pentium 4 3200MHz processor
    • ASUS P4C800 Deluxe motherboard on i875P
    • 1024MB DDR SDRAM
    • Seagate Barracuda IV 40GB HDD
  • System on Athlon 64 3200+ used in game tests:
    • AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (L2=1024K) processor
    • ASUS K8V SE Deluxe motherboard on VIA K8T800
    • 1GB DDR SDRAM PC3200
    • Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB SATA HDD
  • Windows XP SP1; DirectX 9.0b;
  • 21" ViewSonic P810 and 21" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb monitors
  • ATI 6.444 (CATALYST BETA) and NVIDIA 60.72 (61.11 was released at the moment this article had been finished.)

VSync was turned off, S3TC was turned off in games.

There's no sense in describing beta drivers, as they offer the same features as usual CATALYST 4.4.

But the access to the so-called Temporal AA is available only via Registry:

Note the TemporalAAMultipler variable. It's the one responsible for this AA mode. 0 and 1 mean Temporal AA is off, while 2 and 3 mean vice versa. The latter differ only by pattern swap frequency (3 is the highest.)

The TemporalAAFrameThreshold variable contains threshold FPS over which Temporal AA is enabled. 0 stands for permanent enable. E.g. if you set it 60, there won't be Temporal AA if fps is below 60.

As the very essence of thie feature bases on eye perception and luminophor or LCD operation, it's impossible to make screenshots of Temporal AA. I can just state that if fps differs much from refresh rate, slight flickering becomes noticeable on edges of adjoining objects. I tried to record a movie of this with my digital camera. The result (7MB) is avaiable via this link. AA can be seen on the thick beam edge, and is not applicable to the grating as it's based on a semi-transparent texture.

Test results

Before we briefly comment the 2D quality I'll repeat that there's currently NO fully-fledged methods to evaluate this feature objectively because:

  1. Almost all modern 3D accelerators can have 2D quality vary from card to card
  2. 2D quality depends not only on graphics card, but also on monitor and cable in-between
  3. Recently monitor-card units have been affecting this feature very noticeably, because some monitors just "don't like" some graphics cards.

Still the samples tested with Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb demonstrated excellent quality at the following resolutions and refresh rates:

ATI RADEON X800 XT 1600x1200x85Hz, 1280x1024x120Hz, 1024x768x160Hz
ATI RADEON X800 PRO 1600x1200x85Hz, 1280x1024x120Hz, 1024x768x160Hz

D3D RightMark synthetic tests

We used D3D RightMark Beta 4 (1050) available at http://3d.rightmark.org

One more time I'll state that all RightMark results were obtained on the Pentium4 system.

D3D settings were:

D3D RightMark: NV40, NV38, R360, R420
DX CapsViewer: NV40, NV38, R360, R420

Attention! Note that the current DirectX version coupled with current drivers doesn't offer 2.0.b features. They are to become available in DirectX 9.0c and the new SDK.

All tests include results from NV40 review, so we'll just comment differences and behaviour of R420 (Radeon X800 XT) and 12-pipeline R420 (Radeon X800 PRO).

Pixel Filling test

Peak texelrate, FFP, measured for various amount of textures applied to a single pixel:

R420's theoretical maximum is 8.4 gigatexels/s. Actually we reached 7.5 gigatexels/s that unambiguously witnesses for 16 texture units. Single textures are applied better by NVIDIA due to pixel processor architecture. And this isn't optimal mode for R420 due to expenses related to the single phase of this test. Two and three textures allow R420 spread wings and beat NV40. Higher clock rate (125MHz clock rate difference x 16 pipelines is no joke.) Neither card's results jumped switching between odd and even digits (that is usual for TMUs-per-pixel configurations.

The next test is fillrate / pixelrate, FFP, measured for various amount of textures applied to a single pixel:

NV40 wins over R420 with single textures or constant colors and loses in all other modes. NVIDIA shows higher peak frame buffer performance (0 textures - flood fill and single texture), but ATI does better with texture sampling as their number grows. The higher clock rate does help.

Let's see how fillrate depends on shaders:

The same as with FFP

All is the same again

So, without any or with one texture NV40 looks better despite lower clock rate. This speaks for good frame buffer performance. But real tasks have not been limited by these frames for a long time already.

Also note that now different shader versions have almost no effect on performance, so NV3X peculiarities are the past now, and the results are foreseeable and linear.

The following preferences emerge:

Version 1.1 1.4 2.0
NV40
Optimal
Optimal
Optimal
NV38
Optimal
Optimal
Not optimal
R360
Optimal
Not optimal
Optimal
R420
Optimal
Optimal
Optimal

And now let's see how texture units perform caching and bilinear filtering of real variably sized textures:

The results are given for various texture sizes; one and two textures per pixel. It's interesting that ATI hates single textures even if they are rather large! Very strange it is. Looks like some time expenses at phase switching and shader finishing. Or it's a product of texture module pipeline latency? Anyway, two textures change the situation to better. NVIDIA looks all right in this test, especially the bigger the texture is. Even ATI's higher clock rate doesn't enable R420 to dominate in all situations. Texture sampling has always been NVIDIA's advantage. Still NV40 doesn't win over R420. As >= is better than <= R420 is the winner. :-)

Let's see if trilinear filtering changes this:

Wow! NV40 gets even closer to R420. MIP levels enable it to cache textures effectively. NV40's dual-level cache is of great help here. As a result, we can't say R420 is either winner, or loser. It's a wavering parity.

Finally, the ultimate eight trilinear filtered textures:

Everything's according to clock rate and pipeline amount, so ATI is the leader:

And now let's look at texture unit performance dependence on texture format:

Larger size:

The picture is interesting. NV40 caches textures more effectively and its two-level cache rules. R420 works about the same with large textures (here memory is the bottleneck, while bandwidth is about the same) and does considerably better with compressed textures. Why ATI wins this much over NV40 with large compressed textures? It's simple: NVIDIA's texture texture cache keeps uncompressed textures converted to 32-bit format, while ATI has textures still compressed in the cache. On the one hand, NVIDIA will provide higher texture sampling performance due to fewer uncompression delays and lower latencies. On the other hand, large textures make ATI a leader as NV40 rests on memory bandwidth that even 16 TMUs can't help. You can clearly see this on the second chart. Depending on shaders, texture amount and size, etc. scale might incline to either side.

In general, there are two facts to state:

  1. R420 is a champion of fillrate, especially with two textures and over. Still NVIDIA's legendary TMU and frame buffer performance gives chances to compete with R420 higher clock rate. It seems R420 will strengthen position in real applications that indicate peak situations, and some NVIDIA's advantages may be negated.
  2. No annoying irregularities depending on pixel shader versions were noticed. You are free to choose any you like.

Geometry Processing Speed test

The simplest shader to measure peak triangle bandwidth:

R420 is a leader with peak bandwidth perfectly scaled along with core clock. Why NV40 results are almost on the level of the previous generation. Hard to say. It seems its vertex processors just can't perform at full in this simple task. We'll check this later on more complex tasks. And now we'll state that the dependence of R420 performance on shader version is very close to that of R3XX: there's no dependencies at all :-)

A more complex shader with a simple point light source:

At last! ATI has finally provided effective T&L emulation, so now the performance is slightly higher, but not lower. The same 6 vertex units of NV40 don't do the thing at the lower clock rate.

Increasing task complexity:

NV40 FFP is a leader here despite ATI's clock rate. FFP outruns shaders and we again find confirmations to our thesis of R420's additional hardware units. Though NVIDIA's are more effective, ATI wins in general.

And now the most complex task with three light sources, in static and dynamic transition variants:

FFP performs good, while static transitions noticeable strike NVIDIA. The paradox is that NVIDIA's dynamic transitions are more beneficial than static. ATI performs smoothly and FFP is almost on the shader level. R420 is a general winner again.

So:

  1. R420's FFP has finally become more powerful than that of R3XX.
  2. NVIDIA doesn't perform static transitions perfectly.
  3. R420 performs smoothly with all shader types without any bothering anomalies of R3XX (FFP) or NV40 (static transitions.)
  4. R420 doesn't support dynamic transitions.

Pixel Shaders test

The first group includes 1.1, 1.4, 2.0 shaders rather simple for real time:

R420 is a general leader, though sometimes NV40 catches up (and even outruns with 1.4 shaders.) It's such a paradox that ATI's brainchild performs on NVIDIA products with more comfort. R3XX's good old pixel pipelines are well overclocked and optimized, while shaders 1.1 performance is just astonishing. The phase pixel pipeline described above is very close to 1.1 source architectures.

Let's see if 16-bit FP precision helps NV40:

16-bit FP precision is an actual advantage of NV40, but R420's higher clock rate still doesn't give it a chance.

And now let's try a really complex cinematic shader 2.a confined to R420 pixel pipelines limits due to few dependent samples.

NV40 is more confident here, because its architecture is well adapted to long and complex shaders. However is can't win over R420 even using 16-bit FP precision. But there's place to expand - many texture samples and time variables, rather complex code. That's why 16-bit and 32-bit FP precision difference is that noticeable.

Finally, let's examine the dependence of each GPU performance on arithmetic and tabular sin and pow procedures and vector normalization:


So, R420 depends on various procedures even less than R3XX. ATI's pride is a predictable and smooth architecture for any shaders 2.0. In both arithmetic and tabular procedures ATI performs as said above and thus leads clearly.

Pixel shaders summary:

  1. Hors concours performance
  2. No annoying anomalies
  3. No dynamic calculation management
  4. Phenomenally fast shaders 1.1
  5. Very fast other shaders (faster that those of NV40.)

HSR test

First, let it be peak efficiency (with and without textures) depending on geometry complexity:


You can see that ATI performs in average and complex scenes better due to two additional Z buffer levels (plus the basic.) NVIDIA traditionally has one additional level, so its HSR efficiency is lower in an optimally balanced scene of average complexity. You can see that HSR algorithm itself hasn't changed and R350 and R420 efficiency is almost identical. Therefore the culled/coloured pixels per clock ratio hasn't changed. But the absolute values grew significantly:


However they are not as good as NV40 is in low and mid-detailed scenes! However they strike back in high details and overlay factor. NVIDIA has very effective simple pixel colouring and HSR despite only one additional Z buffer level.

Conclusion:

  1. HSR algorithm hasn't changed significantly.
  2. But its performance has grown. This is normal considering the large number of coloured or culled quads per clock.

Point Sprites test


Sprites ceased to be popular innovation and often lose to triangles in the performance field. ATI performs better in this task, because NV40 rests on some strange limit, while R420 scales well.

MSAA test

NVIDIA's MSAA is more effective in peak situations and performance drop at 4x is not that deep. But note that NVIDIA's AA is of some worse quality. You can clearly see that 8x of NV40 is a hybrid set with SSAA at which the performance drops below the allowed threshold. But 6x of R420 almost doesn't differ from 4x and that's good.

Synthetic tests summary:

  1. The bugs were fixed.
  2. The future reserve is noticeable except for the flexibility that is loses to NV40
  3. The clock rate is higher and the performance is hors concours.
  4. We consider R420 better for gaming, while NV40, perhaps, would perform better in DCC and other professional fields that require long and complex shaders.
  5. The lower complexity and consumption did their beneficial job. Perhaps, they'll also affect prices positively. In general, it's an excellent solution for today.

Trilinear and anisotropic filtering (High Quality)

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra GeForce 6800 Ultra RADEON X800 XT/PRO RADEON 9800XT
0-degree angle
Trilinear filtering
8x anisotropic filtering
16x anisotropic filtering
-
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra GeForce 6800 Ultra RADEON X800 XT/PRO RADEON 9800XT
30-degree angle
Trilinear filtering
8x anisotropic filtering
16x anisotropic filtering
-
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra GeForce 6800 Ultra RADEON X800 XT/PRO RADEON 9800XT
45-degree angle
Trilinear filtering
8x anisotropic filtering
16x anisotropic filtering
-
GeForce FX 5950 Ultra GeForce 6800 Ultra RADEON X800 XT/PRO RADEON 9800XT
60-degree angle
Trilinear filtering
8x anisotropic filtering
16x anisotropic filtering
-


You can see, it uses the same anisotropy algorithm as was used in R360 and earliear ATI products. Thus we won't find any differences here.

Now let's evaluate gaming anisotropy on the example of Call of Duty.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra GeForce 6800 Ultra RADEON X800 XT/PRO RADEON 9800XT
Trilinear filtering
16x anisotropic filtering
-


Now we can see almost identical images on all top cards.

AA (High Quality)

We'll evaluate this feature on the example of Unreal II.

GeForce FX 5950 Ultra GeForce 6800 Ultra RADEON X800 XT/PRO RADEON 9800XT
No AA
4x AA
8x/6x AA
-


General quality on the example of FarCry


GeForce FX 5950 Ultra GeForce 6800 Ultra RADEON X800 XT/PRO RADEON 9800XT
Example #1
Example #2
Example #3
Example #4
Example #5


Test results: performance comparison



Note that all game test results were obtained on Athlon64-based system.

We used:

  • Return to Castle Wolfenstein (MultiPlayer; id Software/Activision) - OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt0703-demo, best quality settings, S3TC OFF, configs are here.
  • Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v.1.05 (Croteam/GodGames) - OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt0703-demo, quality settings, S3TC OFF.
  • Quake3 Arena v.1.17 (id Software/Activision) - OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt0703-demo, best quality settings: High detail level, №4 texture detail level, S3TC OFF, curves are greatly improved by r_subdivisions "1" and r_lodCurveError "30000" (r_lodCurveError is 250 by default), configs are 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) - DirectX 8.1 game test, 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 game 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, Paris5_4 demo, best quality settings just without Depth of Fields PS20.
  • HALO: Combat Evolved (Microsoft) - Direct3D, Vertex/Pixel Shaders 1.1/2.0, Hardware T&L, best quality settings
  • Half-Life2 (Valve/Sierra) - DirectX 9.0, ixbt07 demo; tested with anisotropic filtering ON and with AA + anisotropy.
  • Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell v.1.2b (UbiSoft) - Direct3D, Vertex/Pixel Shaders 1.1/2.0, Hardware T&L, Very High quality, 1_1_2_Tbilisi demo.
  • Call of Duty (MultiPlayer) (Infinity Ward/Activision) - OpenGL, multitexturing, ixbt0104demo, best quality settings, S3TC ON.
  • FarCry 1.1 (Crytek/UbiSoft), DirectX 9.0, multitexturing, demo01 (research; run with -DEVMODE), Very High settings.

If you need benchmark demos please write me an email.

Note that we used both new, and old games in this test section. The reason was to show gamers that in such games a bottleneck IS NOT a powerful graphics card, but a CPU. More gaming test results will be provided in the next article.

Quake3 Arena











The lightest mode without AA and anisotropy: slight loss (due to CPU)

The same with AA enabled

The same with anisotropy enabled

The hardest load, AA + anisotropy: almost equal, loses only in 1024x.

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - almost equal considering that CPU has been a bottleneck here for a long time already.
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO is good on the background of previous solutions and even the loss to NV40U is not great.

Of course, NVIDIA has the most debugged drivers for this game, so the result is rather predictable.

Serious Sam: The Second Encounter











R420XT lost all modes. Resembles the situation above.

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - loss
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - good in high resolutions, CPU is still the bottleneck.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Multiplayer)











The same as above.

Code Creatures











The lightest modes without AA and anisotropy: almost parity.

AA enabled: ATI wins a little

Anisotropy enabled: wins even more

The hardest mode, AA + anisotropy: victory.

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - victory.
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - excellent result and less loss to NV40U

The modern and "shadery" the game is, the more chances there are that R420 will win.

Unreal Tournament 2003











The lightest mode without AA and anisotropy: victory.

AA enabled: victory.

Anisotropy enabled: excellent.

The hardest mode, AA + anisotropy: up to 47% win in 1600x1200!

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - flawless victory!
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - flawless victory!

Unreal II: The Awakening











The lightest mode without AA and anisotropy: slight loss (it's interesting that all RADEONs have been winning this test before.)

AA enabled: the same.

Anisotropy enabled: and here X800 XT is victorious.

The hardest mode, AA + anisotropy: general victory due to anisotropy.

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - generally overtakes.
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - good results and less loss to NV40U.

RightMark 3D











The lightest mode without AA and anisotropy: loss

AA enabled: the same

Anisotropy enabled: almost parity in 1600x1200

The hardest mode, AA + anisotropy: victory.

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - slight victory, but more parity.
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - could be better. :-) Still 22% is good enough.

Note this previously favourite RADEON test already demonstrates NVIDIA's advantages.

TR:AoD, Paris5_4 DEMO











The lightest mode without AA and anisotropy: excellent results and flawless victory!

AA enabled: 89% advantage!

Anisotropy enabled: excellent as well!

The hardest mode, AA + anisotropy: Point-blank. Double domination. :-)

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - excellent results and superb victory!
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - excellent!

As stated above, the more modern the test is...

FarCry, demo01











The lightest mode without AA and anisotropy: victory.

AA enabled: victory!

Anisotropy enabled: 80% advantage.

The hardest mode, AA + anisotropy: up to 85% advantage.

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - another flawless victory!
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - the same! Even NV40U is behind!

Of course, there have been no performance-boosting patches for NV40 for this game or final drivers yet, so the situation may change. But will it be a turning point? The time will tell. NVIDIA still has very good reserves.

Call of Duty, ixbt04











The lightest mode without AA and anisotropy: victory! Despite "OpenGL". :-)

AA enabled: the same.

Anisotropy enabled: the same!

The hardest mode, AA + anisotropy: and the same (parity only in 1600x1200)

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - victory.
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - outran even NV40U.


HALO: Combat Evolved







The lightest mode without AA and anisotropy: parity (due to CPU bottleneck).

AA enabled: not supported ingame.

Anisotropy enabled: good victory!

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - victory.
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - very nice result, but bad loss to NV40U.


Half-Life2 (beta): ixbt07 demo







Anisotropy enabled: almost parity with slight R420XT advantage.

The hardest mode, AA + anisotropy: victory!

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - victory.
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - very nice results, but NV40U is more powerful (as expected.)


Splinter Cell







The lightest mode without AA and anisotropy: parity.

AA enabled: not supported ingame.

Anisotropy enabled: parity as well.

Summary:

  • ATI RADEON X800 XT vs. NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra - parity.
  • ATI RADEON X800 PRO vs. previous solutions - excellent result.


Conclusions:

We tested the new R420 (in two products) in various tests, some of which are used by other testers, while some are already not. We proved that in old games both newest and previous-generation graphics cards rest on CPU as a main bottleneck. This should be considered by gamers who like old games, but also like newest hardware.

In the next article we'll conduct a big test only in new games and benchmarks. Still there's enough of them in this article as well. So we can draw an objective conclusion regarding the 3D king if there's one. In the previous review of NV40 we asked for how long it would be the top. It's time for an answer:

  1. ATI RADEON X800 XT: ATI's most powerful creation for today. Its marks are:
    • Quake3 Arena v.1.17 - loss
    • Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v.1.07 - loss
    • Return to Castle Wolfenstein (MultiPlayer) - loss
    • Code Creatures Benchmark Pro - victory
    • Unreal Tournament 2003 v.2225 - victory
    • Unreal II: The Awakening - slight loss
    • RightMark 3D v.0.4 - parity
    • Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness v.49 - great victory
    • FarCry v.1.1 - great victory
    • Call of Duty - great victory
    • HALO: Combat Evolved (Microsoft) - victory
    • Half-Life 2 (beta) - victory
    • Splinter Cell - parity

    Considering that losses were only in old games and tests we award ATI RADEON X800 XT with a king crown. It doesn't win in old games (though shows over 200 fps anyway), we guess those who will buy it will think of the future. Comparing to NV40 this card has moderate energy consumption on the level of RADEON 9800 XT. The 0.13 low-k process does its job. And we await new games like Half-Life 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Doom III.

  2. ATI RADEON X800 PRO: it's not correct to mark this card, while its rival (GeForce 6800) is not available yet. We saw this card performs very good on the background of the previous products. And sometimes even outruns GeForce 6800 Ultra that's positioned on the next price level! So we put dots, not dot here, and will continue tests when the rival arrives. We'll also state that when overclocked to the level of X800 XT the novelty indicated ambiguous effect of pared-down pipelines. Sometimes it wasn't visible, while sometimes it was clearly seen. The more shaders are in the game, the more this difference shows up. However, this is natural and should have been expected.

So, if we don't consider NV40's support of shaders 3.0, R420 XT is a clear leader. But we must remember GeForce 6800 in serial production might have higher clock rates (but prices may be above). Besides, 61.11 drivers have already been released claimed to provide 5% to 20% performance boosts.

Adding synthetic tests to games, we can see that R420 leads in pure performance, but loses in flexibility. Still this won't affect modern (and the near-future) games anyway. Again we'll mention R420 energy consumption that remained on the level of previous generation, while the GPU became twice and even more powerful. It seems R420 yield may be higher than that of NV40 affecting dates of R420's actual arrival to stores (despite the later announcement) and price reduction dynamics.

There's certain industry where NVIDIA's NV40 would be considerably more beneficial - DCC. Shaders 3.0 and excellent OpenGL may very positively affect the promotion of Quadro 4000 (on NV40GL). ATI has considerably less to be proud of in this field.

We are looking forward to junior models based on NV40/R420 innovations. What a battle it will be!

More comparatives and charts of both graphics cards will be provided in our 3Digest.



Andrew Vorobiev (anvakams@ixbt.com)
Alexander Medvedev (unclesam@ixbt.com)

28.04.2004

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


31

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