|
Review: ATI Radeon X1900 XTX
Back
to Page 2
Benchmark Test Scores
SimHQ included Futuremark's
3DMark06 for examining the theoretical raster and shader performance
characteristics of the two graphics boards. The individual
fill rate (multi-texturing) and pixel and vertex (complex)
shader tests were ran at the program's default resolution
of 1280x1024.
| |
X1800 XT
|
X1900 XTX
|
| Fill
Rate |
9910 MT/s
|
10330 MT/s
|
| Pixel
Shader |
161 fps
|
268 fps
|
| Vertex
Shader |
56 MV/s
|
62 MV/s
|
Considering
the small clock speed difference between the two cores the
fill rate score similarity isn't too surprising; the tripling
of shader cores obviously has no impact on the X1900s raster
performance in this particular synthetic test. The vertex
shader test likewise is fairly similar between the two test
boards, with the X1900 pulling roughly 10% ahead. The pixel
shader test, however, is where the X1900s design is allowed
to shine, with the tripled shader cores producing a score
that is 66% faster than that produced by the X1800.
We also ran the two game tests
inlcuded in the benchmark suite to see whether or not the
X1900's tripling of shader cores would allow it to pull substantially
ahead of the X1800.
| |
X1800 XT
|
X1900 XTX
|
| Canyon
Flight |
17.5 fps
|
25 fps
|
| Deep
Freeze |
17.5 fps
|
26.9 fps
|
Both game tests make fairly significant
use of shaders, so the X1800 is again considerably outperformed
by its refresh, with the 1900 pulling 50% ahead in both tests.
As with all synthetic testing, care should be taken before
extrapolating too many assumptions concerning real-world performance,
but the performance scaling exhibited by the 1900 here is
clearly due to the increased number of shader units; thus
it shouldn't be too bold to posit that future titles that
make increasing use of shader instructions will likewise scale
in performance.
Lock
On: Flaming Cliffs was
tested using the "SU-25T vs. two A-10" replay with
the graphics settings at high (heat blrs off).

Heavily
CPU-dependent, Flaming Cliffs
shows little variance between the two test boards. The X1900
eeked out out the smallest of victories at the lower resolutions,
though a 1 fps difference is obviously well within test error
margins.

High
quality (4x AA and 8x AF) shows the the same pattern, with
the 1900 giving essentially identical performance, though
there is more of a drop-off across the tested resolutions
with these settings. The lack of scores at 1920x1200 is due
to the fact that Flaming Cliffs would show no AA as being
in use at this resolution.
Go
To Page 4
Click
here to go to top of this page.
Copyright 2008, SimHQ.com. All Rights Reserved. Contact the webmaster.
|