Review Index:
Feedback

Mainstream Graphics: Radeon 9600XT vs. FX5700 Ultra

Manufacturer: General
Tagged:

Synthetic Benchmarks

This content was originally featured on Amdmb.com and has been converted to PC Perspective's website. Some color changes and flaws may appear.


Aquamark
3

Aquamark
3 has become one of the popular alternatives to 3DMark. This benchmark
uses the Krass Engine which is used to power Massive Development's Aquanox
2 game. The benchmark uses many DirectX 9 features and therefore is a good
measurement of DX9 capabilities and comparing it to other similarly configured
systems.

Benchmark
Configuration
Resolution 1024x768
AA None
AF 4x

 

 
NVIDIA
FX5700 Ultra
Asus
Radeon 9600XT
Score
29173
30856
Average
FPS
29.1735
30.8563
Min
FPS
8.4746
7.4212
Max
FPS
91
109

Looking
at the results of this benchmark, it's hard to say which one is faster.
Both cards have about the same overall score and average frame rate. Sure
the Asus Radeon 9600XT looks like it's faster, but it's such a marginal
difference that it's not really significant.

However,
as we saw in our review of the Asus Radeon 9800XT, both the FX5950 Ultra
and the Radeon 9800XT performed nearly identically in this test, but the
Radeon 9800XT proved to be the better DirectX performer overall. Let's
see if the same story unfolds for the FX5700 Ultra and the Radeon 9600XT.

 

Futuremark
3DMark 03 v340 and 3DMark 2001SE

Even though
the relevance of this benchmark is debatable now that we are seeing a lot
more DirectX 9 games being released, it remains a good method of comparing
results between systems. 3DMark 03 uses a combination of DirectX 7, DirectX
8, and a small sampling of DirectX 9. Therefore it is a good indication
on how it would perform in some older games of games that have a small
quantity of DirectX 9 features.

 

NVIDIA
FX5700 Ultra

Asus
Radeon 9600XT
3DMark
Score

3799

3759

GT1
- Wings of Fury (FPS)
152.49

134.45

GT2
- Battle of Proxycon (FPS)
24.18
23.29

GT3
- Troll's Lair (FPS)
20.34
21.39

GT4
- Mother Nature (FPS)
21.57
23.53

Fill
Rate (Single-Texturing, MTexels/s)
1156.70
906.47

Fill
Rate (Multi-Texturing, MTexels/s)
1523.53
1821.46

Vertex
Shader (FPS)
17.07
12.95

Pixel
Shader 2.0
27.01
32.13

Ragtroll
(FPS)
14.22

14.91

Like in
Aquamark 3, there is little difference between the results in this test.
Both the Asus Radeon 9600XT and the NVIDIA FX5700 Ultra perform roughly
the same with each card taking and losing different tests. If looking at
these two cards based on the tests so far, we'd have to say they're about
equal. But of course we don't stop here. ;)

Just for
reference, here are the 3DMark 2001 SE scores.

 

NVIDIA
FX5700 Ultra

Asus
Radeon 9600XT
3DMark
Score
14114
12902

GT1
- Car Chase (Low)
230.1
163.9

GT1
- Car Chase (High)
78.6
75.3

GT2
- Dragolithic (Low)
230.6
212.5
GT2
- Dragolithic (High)
128.9
124.9

GT3
- Lobby (Low)
201.4
191.3

GT3
- Lobby (High)
93.7
92.4

GT4
- Nature
73.5
68.6

 

 

SPEC
ViewPerf 7.1

SPEC ViewPerf
uses industry standard applications (like 3DS Max and Pro/Engineer) to create
a benchmark that measures real-world professional performance. This benchmark
is purely OpenGL based and gives a good sense of how graphics hardware performs
in rendering applications. For gamers, this benchmark would give you an idea
of raw OpenGL performance, but is a poor reflection of actual game play.

 

NVIDIA
FX5700 Ultra

Asus
Radeon 9600XT
3DS
Max

13.96 10.68
Design
Review
48.08 37.49
Data
Explorer

58.71 65.85
Lightwave

14.56 13.08
Pro/Engineer

12.76

12.87
Unigraphics
8.422 23.59

Here we see
some really mixed results. If you are to take anything from these results
is that each card is better suited to particular professional applications.
However, both cards seem to perform equally well in Lightwave and Pro/Engineer.

Unreal
Tournament 2003

Even though
Unreal Tournament 2003 is a honest-to-god game, the benchmark feature that
many reviews use is synthetic because it is not what a user experiences in
a real game. However, this doesn't mean it still isn't relevant. The benchmark
does show us how well hardware perform with the game's engine and gives you
a rough idea of what you can expect in an online match (I mentally subtract
10 FPS from the results to give me a better rough estimate of real game performance
with real players).

Benchmark
Configuration
Skin
and Texture Details
Ultra High
Effects
(i.e. coronas, decals)
All enabled
Anisotropic
Filtering
Specified through
LevelOfAnisotropy variable

The Asus Radeon
9600XT performs a bit better than the NVIDIA FX5700 Ultra. At each setting,
the Asus beats the FX5700 Ultra by at least 10 FPS, which isn't a very significant
difference when frame rates are in excess of 80FPS (you'd hardly notice it).
The Radeon 9600XT will have no problems playing this game with all the details
enabled with even 4x anti-aliasing and 8x aniso. The FX5700 Ultra plays UT
well except at 4x8, where in an online game you may experience FPS below
the playable 60 FPS mark.

Here we see
some interesting results. It would appear that the FX5700 Ultra performs
better without any anisotropic filtering, whereas the Asus Radeon 9600XT
performs slightly better with it on. However, this does not mean much since
neither card can play UT2K3 properly above 0x0. So looking at the only playable
setting (0xAA, 0xAF) we see that the FX5700 Ultra is only slightly better
by 3 FPS. I would suspect both cards are able to play with 2xAA if you take
down the details a bit.

No comments posted yet.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.