Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup Part I - ATI's Radeon 9800 XT
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on October 1, 2003 3:02 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
We’ll limit the talk about the new batch of $500 cards to the first few lines of this conclusion. The Radeon 9800 XT offers a marginal performance improvement over the regular Radeon 9800 Pro, definitely not worth upgrading to for current 9800 Pro owners.
As far as people looking to upgrade once for the long run, with new architectures due out in 6 months, a $500 investment today would be significantly more out of date than if you purchase a card right before a refresh. We rarely recommend that you buy the fastest performing card on the market; in fact the last time we did that was with the Radeon 9700 Pro – the impact of which is clearly not equaled by the Radeon 9800 XT (nor were we expecting it to). Whether spending $500 is worth it today is your call, but you can definitely get very similar performance out of a used Radeon 9700 Pro or even a non-Pro Radeon 9800 at much better price points. If money is no object, then we’re sure that ATI wouldn’t mind shipping a few more XTs in your direction.
We’re quite wary of recommending any of the current NVIDIA cards at this point, for two major reasons. First, with NV38 coming right around the corner any FX 5900 Ultra purchases wouldn’t be wise investments. Also, given the marginal performance improvements you can expect out of a 5% core clock increase, don’t have incredibly high expectations for the NV38. We can’t recommend the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra because NVIDIA has already indicated that NV36 (the 5600 Ultra’s successor) will be here shortly to replace it and should offer significantly greater performance. So if you’re looking to buy a video card right now, ATI is the way to go.
Looking at the stats, ATI clearly wins in 6 games, NVIDIA wins in 4 games and the two come very close in 5 games. Games such as Command & Conquer Generals: Ground Zero and Simcity 4: Rush Hour are examples where ATI clearly has the lead over NVIDIA and the argument could be made that ATI holds the lead because they optimize for all games, while NVIDIA just optimizes for benchmark titles. However, looking at games like Homeworld 2 and Neverwinter Nights you could make the exact opposite argument.
What’s clear is that both manufacturers optimize for the more popular games and the focus of optimizations is obviously greater on more visible games. With that said, we’re hoping that by expanding our test suite we will be able to encourage optimizations to make more games run better. We’ll see how the picture we’ve depicted here today changes as time goes on.
Although we did provide some insight into the “next generation” of games with scores from Halo, the real question on everyone’s mind is still Half Life 2 as well as Doom3. The performance crown under Doom3 is still in NVIDIA’s camp apparently, and although the latest drivers have closed the gap significantly, ATI is still ahead in Half Life 2. The numbers we’ve seen indicate that in most tests ATI only holds single digit percentage leads (< 5%), although in some cases ATI manages to pull ahead by double digits.
There’s much more to come, but for now we’ve given you quite a bit to chew on…
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
263 Comments
View All Comments
Jeff7181 - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
I think Anand is too worried about creating benchmarks that compare to benchmarks done by other review sites. Which is why they had "trouble" benchmarking certain games.I agree, Morrowind would be a good game to benchmark with... I've used it recently to show the differences of AA and AF along with FS2004.
I think what needs to be done in some games like Morrowind is just play the game for 15 minutes... then tell us what the minimum frame rate was, the average, and the high. Who cares if it's not replicated EXACTLY each time... after 15 minutes, the average along with the lows and highs should paint a pretty accurate picture.
Also, in my opinion, FS2004 is THE BEST software to use in comparing the differences between AA and AF between video cards. All you have to do is disable weather and ATC, and save a flight, then load the flight every time you want to take a screen shot. Also pressing Shift+Z twice puts your frame rates on the screen, so there's no need to use FRAPS.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
How about testing old games up to 2048x1536?Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
I suggest adding Tiger Woods 2004 to the suite. Turning up the eye candy is more demanding than one may think, so it would be a good test. But my main motivation is that there appear to be serious driver-related image quality issues with ATI (!) cards (e.g. water reflections).Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
What I would also like to see, is the test results from ATI and Nvidia against DCC packages, such as 3DStudioMax and Maya. I would like to know if these high end gaming cards can also handle some animation rendering too. Maybe they can't, but its one man's dream...Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Good job.You should benchmark it with MORROWIND as well, or maybe under GOTHIC 2.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
And I have a voodoo2 and it sucks on Dx9, what's your point.?Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Sony PS2 and X box Never have a graphics card issue (coz they purley game consoles idiot) yeah I know that, but also the game programers write the games for that particular game console.My question is why does Nvidia or Ati have to constantly adapt their drivers to PC games instead of the Games be compatible with the Graphics cards?
yours sincerly...
Noise
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
I have ATI 9000 card and I can say that ATI sucks in OpenGL.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
#163, I believe that FarCry/64-bit/improved graphics is 100% marketing BS.Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
It's a good suite for testing, but one game that I'd really like to see is Far Cry performance on an Athlon 64...From what I've read the game will use the 64-bit architecture for something graphics-related, and it would be interesting to see how the graphics cards handle this.
If it can't be done now, it may be one to remember for the future...
Also, how well do the 64-bit drivers of both companies perform?