FarCry v1.2 SM3.0 Path Analysis

The Test

For this test, we used the same setup as in our 6800 and x800 launch articles. This time around, we are using newer drivers, a beta windows service pack, DX9.0c, and the 1.2 version of FarCry. The numbers that we originally ran are much different (in a good way) than the numbers that we will see here for the SM2.0 path on both cards.

In order to test image quality, we couldn't use Windows' built-in screen capture, or HyperSnap 5 (which we usually use to accommodate DX9 captures with special requirements). We had to use FarCry's built-in screen capture (default key is F12), which only captures images in .jpg format rather than any of the uncompressed formats that we would rather see for IQ comparisons. As such, pixel perfect comparisons (though not technically possible in the first place) aren't even a distant hope. Small versions of the images have only been cropped, not resized or resampled, and the full 1600x1200 images will be linked up.

Performance Test Configuration
Processor(s):	AMD Athlon 64 3400+
RAM:	2x 512MB OCZ PC3200 (2:2:3:6)
Hard Drive(s):	Seagate Barracuda 7200.7
Video AGP & IDE Bus Master Drivers:	VIA Hyperion 4in1 4.51
Video Card(s):	NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT NVIDIA GeForce 6800 ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition ATI Radeon X800 XT ATI Radeon X800 Pro
Video Drivers:	NVIDIA 61.45 SM3 Beta Graphics Drivers ATI Catalyst 4.6
Operating System(s):	Windows XP Professional SP2 RC2 with DX9.0c and the Summer 2004 DirectX SDK Update
Power Supply:	PC Power & Cooling Turbo Cool 510
Motherboards:	FIC K8T800 (754 pin)

As is apparent from the table, we are introducing a couple of new cards this time around. For easy reference, here is the pixel width, core clock speed and memory data rate of all the parts included:

NVIDIA GeForce 6800: 12 pipes, 325 core, 700 mem
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT: 16 pipes, 350 core, 1000 mem
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra: 16 pipes, 400 core, 1100 mem
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra Extreme: 16 pipes, 460 core, 1200 mem

ATI Radeon X800 Pro: 12 pipes, 475 core, 900 mem
ATI Radeon X800 XT: 16 pipes, 500 core, 1000 mem
ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition: 16 pipes, 520 core, 1120 mem

ATI cards are always run in SM2.0 mode (as they don't support SM3.0), so the labels on the graphs only reflect the code path that NVIDIA's cards take. Each level analysis will have an SM2.0 comparison (both NVIDIA and ATI on the same path) and an SM3.0 comparison (NVIDIA running SM3.0 with ATI running SM2.0).

Also, keep in mind that this test is performing an analysis of two different rendering paths, and not the performance difference between SM2.0 and SM3.0 code. If this were really a test of SM2.0 versus SM3.0, we would be talking about using the same rendering techniques with different instructions (in which case, the lower complexity of SM2.0 has the potential to be faster in many cases). What we are looking at here are two different rendering methods.

In other words, this is the performance difference between two different implementations of CryTek's engine, not a generalization of SM2.0 versus SM3.0 performance. In this case, CryTek determined that SM3.0 provided functionality, which made changes to the rendering path, worth the cost of implementation. Let's take a look at the end result.