ATI Radeon X800 Pro and XT Platinum Edition: R420 Arrives

Name: ATI Radeon X800 Pro and XT Platinum Edition: R420 Arrives
Item: ATI Radeon X800 Pro and XT Platinum Edition: R420 Arrives
Author: Derek Wilson

by Derek Wilson on May 4, 2004 10:28 AM EST

Posted in
GPUs

95 Comments | Add A Comment

95 Comments

Pixel Shader Performance Tests

ShaderMark v2.0 is a program designed to stress test the shader performance of modern DX9 graphics hardware with Shader Model 2.0 programs written in HLSL running on a couple shapes in a scene.

We haven't used ShaderMark in the past because we don't advocate the idea of trying to predict the performance of real world game code using a synthetic set of tests designed to push the hardware. Honestly, as we've said before, the only way to determine performance of a certain program on specific hardware is to run that program on that hardware. As both software and hardware get more complex, results of any given test become less and less generalize able, and games, graphics hardware, and modern computer systems are some of the most complex entities on earth.

So why are we using ShaderMark you may ask. There are a couple reasons. First this is only a kind of ball park test. ATI and NVIDIA both have architectures that should be able to push a lot of shader operations through. It is a fact that NV3x had a bit of a handicap when it came to shader performance. A cursory glance at ShaderMark should tell us enough to know if that handicap carries over to the current generation of cards, and whether or not R420 and NV40 are on the same playing field. We don't want to make a direct comparison, we just want to get a feel for the situation. With that in mind, here are the benchmarks.

	Radeon X800 XT PE	Radeon X800 Pro	GeForce 6800 Ultra	GeForce 6800 GT	GeForce FX 5950 U
2	310	217	355	314	65
3	244	170	213	188	43
4	238	165
5	211	146	162	143	34
6	244	169	211	187	43
7	277	160	205	182	36
8	176	121
9	157	107	124	110	20
10	352	249	448	410	72
11	291	206	276	248	54
12	220	153	188	167	34
13	134	89	133	118	20
14	140	106	141	129	29
15	195	134	145	128	29
16	163	113	149	133	27
17	18	13	15	13	3
18	159	111	99	89	17
19	49	34
20	78	56
21	85	61
22	47	33
23	49	43	49	46

These benchmarks are run with fp32 on NVIDIA hardware and fp24 on ATI hardware. It isn't really an apples to apples comparison, but with some of the shaders used in shadermark, partial precision floating point causes error accumulation (since this is a benchmark designed to stress shader performance, this is not surprising).

ShaderMark v2.0 clearly shows huge increase in pixel shader performance from NV38 to either flavor of NV40. Even though the results can't really be compared apples to apples (because of the difference in precision), NVIDIA manages to keep up with the ATI hardware fairly well. In fact, under the diffuse lighting and environment mapping, shadowed bump mapping and water color shaders don't show ATI wiping the floor with NVIDIA.

In looking at data collected on the 60.72 version of the NVIDIA driver, no frame rates changed and a visual inspection of the images output by each driver yielded no red flags.

We would like to stress again that these numbers are not apples to apples numbers, but the relative performance of each GPU indicates that the ATI and NVIDIA architectures are very close to comparable from a pixel shader standpoint (with each architecture having different favored types of shader or operation).

In addition to getting a small idea of performance, we can also look deep into the hearts of NV40 and see what happens when we enable partial precision rendering mode in terms of performance gains. As we have stated before, there were a few image quality issues with the types of shaders ShaderMark runs, but this bit of analysis will stick only to how much work is getting done in the same amount of time without regard to the relative quality of the work.

	GeForce 6800 U PP	GeForce 6800 GT PP	GeForce 6800 U	GeForce 6800 GT
2	413	369	355	314
3	320	283	213	188
5	250	221	162	143
6	300	268	211	187
7	285	255	205	182
9	159	142	124	110
10	432	389	448	410
11	288	259	276	248
12	258	225	188	167
13	175	150	133	118
14	167	150	141	129
15	195	173	145	128
16	180	161	149	133
17	21	19	15	13
18	155	139	99	89
23	49	46	49	46

The most obvious thing to notice is that, overall, partial precision mode rendering increases shader rendering speed. Shader 2 through 8 are lighting shaders (with 2 being a simple diffuse lighting shader). These lighting shaders (especially the point and spot light shaders) will make heavy use of vector normalization. As we are running in partial precision mode, this should translate to a partial precision normalize, which is a "free" operation on NV40. Almost any time a partial precision normalize is needed, NV40 will be able to schedule the instruction immediately. This is not the case when dealing with full precision normalization, so the many 50% performance gains coming out of those lighting shaders is probably due to the partial precision normalization hardware built into each shader unit in NV40. The smaller performance gains (which, interestingly, occur on the shaders that have image quality issues) are most likely the result of decreased bandwidth requirements, and decreased register pressure: a single internal fp32 register can handle two fp16 values making scheduling and managing resources much less of a task for the hardware.

As we work on our image quality analysis of NV40 and R420, we will be paying heavy attention to shader performance in both full and partial precision modes (as we want to look at what gamers will actually be seeing in the real world). We will likely bring shadermark back for these tests as well. This is a new benchmark for us, so please bear with us as we get used to its ins and outs.

NVIDIA's Last Minute Effort and The Test Aquamark 3 Performance

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Post Your Comment
Please log in or sign up to comment.

Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

raks1024 - Monday, January 24, 2005 - link
free ati x800: http://www.pctech4free.com/default.aspx?ref=46670
Ritalinkid - Monday, June 28, 2004 - link
After reading almost all of the video cards reviews posted on anandtech I start to get the feeling the anandtech has a grudge against nvidia. The reviews seem to put nvidia down no matter what area they excel in. With leading openGL support, ps3.0 support, and the 6850 shadowing the x800 in directX, its seems like nvidia should not be counted out as the "best card."
I would love to see a review that tested all the features that both cards offered especially if showed the games that would benefit the most from each cards features (if they are available). Maybe then could I decide which is better, or which could benefit me more.
BlackShrike - Saturday, May 8, 2004 - link
Hey if anyone is gonna be buying one of these new cards, would anyone want to sell their 9700 pro or 9800 por/Xt for like 100-150 bucks? If you do contact me at POT989@hotmail.com. Thanks.
DonB - Saturday, May 8, 2004 - link
No TV tuner on this card either? Will there be an "All-In-Wonder" version soon that will include it?
xin - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link
(my bad, I didn't notice that I was on the first page of the posts, and replied to a message there heh)

Well, since everyone else is throwing their preferences out there... I guess I will too. My last 3 cards have been ATI cards (9700Pro & 9500Pro, and an 8500 "Pro"), and I have not been let down. Right at this moment I lean towards the x800XT.

However, I am not concerned about power since I am running a TruePower550, and I will be interested in seeing what happens with all of this between now and the next 4-6 weeks when these cards actually come to market... and I will make my decision then on which card to buy.
xin - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link

Besides that, even if it were true (which it isn't), there is a world of difference between have *some* level of support, and requiring it. (*some* meaning the intial application of PS3.0 technology to games, that will likely be as sloppy as your first time in the back of a car with your first girlfriend).

Game makers will not require PS3.0 support for a long long long time... because it would alienate the vast majority of the people out there, or at least for the time being any person who doesn't have a NV40 card.

Some games may implement it and look slightly better, or even still look the same only run faster while looking the same.... but I would put money down that by the time PS3.0 usage in games comes anywhere close to mainstream, both mfg's will have their new, latest and greatest cards out, probably a 2 generations or more past these cards.
xin - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link

first of all... "alot of the upcoming topgames will support PS3.0!" ??? They will? Which ones exactly?
Z80 - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link
Good review. Pretty much tells me that I can select either Nvidia or ATI with confidence that I'm getting alot of "bang for my buck". However, my buck bang for video cards rarely exceeds $150 so I'm waiting for the new low to mid range cards before making a purchase.
xin - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link

I love how a handful of stores out there feel the need to rip people off by charing $500+ for the x800PRO cards, since the XT isn't available yet.

Anyway, something interesting I noticed today:

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?p...

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?p...

Notice the "expected ship date"... at least they have their pricing right.
a2y - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link
Trog, I Also agree, the thing is.. its true i do not have complete knowledge of deep details of video cards.. u see my current video card is now 1 year old (Geforce4 mx440) which is terrible for gaming (50fps and less) and some games actually do not support it (like deusEX 2). I wanted a card that would be future proof, every consumer would go thinking this way, I do not spend everything i earned, but to me and some others $400-$500 is O.K. If it means its going to last a bit longer.
I especially worry about the technology used more than the other specs of the cards, more technologies mean future games are going to support it. I DO NOT know what i'v just said actually means, but I fealt it during the past few years and have been affected by it right now (like the deus ex 2 problem!) it just doesn't support it, and my card performs TERRIBLY in all games

now my system is relatively slow for hardcore gaming:
P4 2.4GHz - 512MB RDRAM PC800 - 533MHz FSB - 512KB L2 Cache - 128MB Geforce4 mx440 card.

I wanted a big jump in performance especially in gaming so thats why i wanted the best card currently available.

ATI Radeon X800 Pro and XT Platinum Edition: R420 Arrives

Pixel Shader Performance Tests

Post Your Comment

95 Comments

View All Comments

raks1024 - Monday, January 24, 2005 - link

Ritalinkid - Monday, June 28, 2004 - link

BlackShrike - Saturday, May 8, 2004 - link

DonB - Saturday, May 8, 2004 - link

xin - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link

xin - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link

xin - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link

Z80 - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link

xin - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link

a2y - Friday, May 7, 2004 - link

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now

	Radeon X800 XT PE	Radeon X800 Pro	GeForce 6800 Ultra	GeForce 6800 GT	GeForce FX 5950 U
2	310	217	355	314	65
3	244	170	213	188	43
4	238	165
5	211	146	162	143	34
6	244	169	211	187	43
7	277	160	205	182	36
8	176	121
9	157	107	124	110	20
10	352	249	448	410	72
11	291	206	276	248	54
12	220	153	188	167	34
13	134	89	133	118	20
14	140	106	141	129	29
15	195	134	145	128	29
16	163	113	149	133	27
17	18	13	15	13	3
18	159	111	99	89	17
19	49	34
20	78	56
21	85	61
22	47	33
23	49	43	49	46

	GeForce 6800 U PP	GeForce 6800 GT PP	GeForce 6800 U	GeForce 6800 GT
2	413	369	355	314
3	320	283	213	188
5	250	221	162	143
6	300	268	211	187
7	285	255	205	182
9	159	142	124	110
10	432	389	448	410
11	288	259	276	248
12	258	225	188	167
13	175	150	133	118
14	167	150	141	129
15	195	173	145	128
16	180	161	149	133
17	21	19	15	13
18	155	139	99	89
23	49	46	49	46

	Radeon X800 XT PE	Radeon X800 Pro	GeForce 6800 Ultra	GeForce 6800 GT	GeForce FX 5950 U
2	310	217	355	314	65
3	244	170	213	188	43
4	238	165
5	211	146	162	143	34
6	244	169	211	187	43
7	277	160	205	182	36
8	176	121
9	157	107	124	110	20
10	352	249	448	410	72
11	291	206	276	248	54
12	220	153	188	167	34
13	134	89	133	118	20
14	140	106	141	129	29
15	195	134	145	128	29
16	163	113	149	133	27
17	18	13	15	13	3
18	159	111	99	89	17
19	49	34
20	78	56
21	85	61
22	47	33
23	49	43	49	46

	GeForce 6800 U PP	GeForce 6800 GT PP	GeForce 6800 U	GeForce 6800 GT
2	413	369	355	314
3	320	283	213	188
5	250	221	162	143
6	300	268	211	187
7	285	255	205	182
9	159	142	124	110
10	432	389	448	410
11	288	259	276	248
12	258	225	188	167
13	175	150	133	118
14	167	150	141	129
15	195	173	145	128
16	180	161	149	133
17	21	19	15	13
18	155	139	99	89
23	49	46	49	46

	Radeon X800 XT PE	Radeon X800 Pro	GeForce 6800 Ultra	GeForce 6800 GT	GeForce FX 5950 U
2	310	217	355	314	65
3	244	170	213	188	43
4	238	165
5	211	146	162	143	34
6	244	169	211	187	43
7	277	160	205	182	36
8	176	121
9	157	107	124	110	20
10	352	249	448	410	72
11	291	206	276	248	54
12	220	153	188	167	34
13	134	89	133	118	20
14	140	106	141	129	29
15	195	134	145	128	29
16	163	113	149	133	27
17	18	13	15	13	3
18	159	111	99	89	17
19	49	34
20	78	56
21	85	61
22	47	33
23	49	43	49	46

	GeForce 6800 U PP	GeForce 6800 GT PP	GeForce 6800 U	GeForce 6800 GT
2	413	369	355	314
3	320	283	213	188
5	250	221	162	143
6	300	268	211	187
7	285	255	205	182
9	159	142	124	110
10	432	389	448	410
11	288	259	276	248
12	258	225	188	167
13	175	150	133	118
14	167	150	141	129
15	195	173	145	128
16	180	161	149	133
17	21	19	15	13
18	155	139	99	89
23	49	46	49	46