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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
Illissius - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link
For these benches, were nVidia's trilinear and/or anisotropic optimizations on or off? (This would help in comparing results with other sites, for example.) I don't recall seeing them mentioned, but they're getting to be as important as the driver revision these days.DerekWilson - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link
DAPUNISHER:I'm not sure about the 64bit version of any game, as game developers are much more likely to hold everything until MS releases WinXP64 than hardware vendors. My guess is that we can expect not to see any visual improvements or differences with the 64bit move. There's much less reason to alter the graphics of the game when gaining more registers and memory address space than when you add the ability to do conditional rendering, floating point frame buffers, instancing, and all that...
Zak,
We could try to guess performance based on these numbers:
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=2044&...
But we didn't use those because they're based on the 1.1 version of farcry under dx9b and Catalyst 4.4 ...
Our focus was the impact of SM3.0, not on overall relative performance, but in the future we will include older generation cards even when looking at next gen features. You are right, it does provide a way to relate to the numbers, and those cards should be in there for completeness' sake as well. Thanks for the suggestion.
Zak - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link
I wish you guys would include one or two benchmarks on some older video cards to give a point of reference for those, such as myself, who still run R9800 and older generation cards. Without seeing how the game performs on R9800 or eqivalent card it's hard to relate to these benchmarks.Zak
DAPUNISHER - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link
Very impressed with the GT's performance in this version. When can we expect your preview of FarCry 64bit version with the SM3 path Derek? and will 64bit bring some new eye candy or more performance? Inquiring minds want to know :-)Warder45 - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link
Interesting. Some odd stuff like ATI's X800 line actually decreasing in performace with the 1.2 patch. I wonder if thats a driver issue that now needs to be fixed, but if I was an ATI owner I'd stick with the 1.1 version of the game. I'd really like to see someone benchmark with omega's drivers for ATI, and see if there's any difference in performace there.#9, That article at tom's is from the NV40 review months ago. This new verison, 1.2 fixes most of the IQ problems nvidia was having.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/far...
So far the only IQ problem I've seen mentioned with the new version.
araczynski - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link
very nice, that 68UE sure is kicking some tail, before AND after the SM3.perhaps this will lead to developers optomizing (to some small degree at elast) their code for the 2 camps? (or at least for the camp that pays them the most...)
in any case, here's to hoping the 68U/UE are priced acceptably by xmas, or at least next tax time :)
Shad0hawK - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link
"Then, during the ATi refresh,we will all be greeted the the Geforce 6900, 6900 Ultra, 6900 Turbo and 6900 Ultra Hyper Fighting Edition."actually that will probobly be after ATI anounces the super golden/silver platinum extra extra XT edition with not only one but TWO "free" certificates for games not out yet
nserra - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link
#1, #2, #3, #4:I think the huge hit is because nvidia is not doing AA to the all scene as ati does.
The new drivers from nvidia have this ability. How do you think nvidia have come to top so soon, after some driver release ... Trilinear optimizations, Shader optimizations and now AA optimizations...
I also don't understand why only toms site notes differences between ati and nvidia image quality...
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040414/...
ZobarStyl - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link
Bearxor, though I agree the overclocked editions are silly, don't act like ATi doesn't do the exact same thing...Ultra Extreme = XT Platinum Edition
Ultra = XT
GT = Pro
vanilla 6800 has no direct competitor, but it held it's own occasionally against the Pro in the review.
Both of the double-named cards are just the top end overclocked, so I tend to ignore them in the reviews, but then the GT was beating all of the ATi cards in some of those demos too...
RyanVM - Friday, July 2, 2004 - link
#6, Ditto :p. Dell 2001FP for life :D