Tech-Hounds.com

Deeper with the Radeon X1900 Series

PCI Express x16 graphics cards
Chipset X1900 512 MB, 256 bit

It's only been three months into the year 2006, but the next generation of graphics chipsets are already here. This time around, the first salvo is from ATI, in the form of the Radeon X1900 series formerly known as R580. When the very late Radeon X1800 came out several months ago, most people agree that the chip to watch out for is not the Radeon X1800 (or R520) but the R580. Architecturally, the two are very similar, but the R580 is equipped with more shader units per pixel pipeline than the R520 - 48 shader units in all.

Both the Radeon X1800 and X1900 signify a new move in realtime consumer 3D graphics - a more shader oriented approach. Granted, shaders is not a new thing, it's been present ever since DirectX 8 made its debut in realtime consumer 3D graphics. However, due to limitations of graphics hardware and API, these shaders are very simple in nature and not used very extensively. With the move to DirectX 9 and SM 2.0 / 3.0 and the rise of shader processing power, shaders are now used more extensively than ever before. In fact, some of the newest 'eye candy' effects present today like motion blur, depth of field and high dynamic range rendering which until now remains in the realm of offline rendering is now possible with shader capable graphics hardware.

If shader capable graphics hardware is so abundant this days, what makes the Radeon X1800 and X1900 unique? It's their design, the Radeon X1900 with its 48 shader units in particular. Unlike the GeForce 7 series from NVIDIA, ATI decided to keep the number of pixel pipelines at 16 for both the Radeon X1800 and X1900. Both cards rely on a higher operating speed (MHz) to maintain fillrate parity with NVIDIA's GeForce 7. On the other hand, NVIDIA chose to equip the GeForce 7 series with 20 pixel pipelines for GeForce 7800GT and 24 pixel pipelines for the 7800GTX, respectively. With more pixel pipelines, NVIDIA GeForce 7 can offer higher frame rates than the Radeon X1800 or X1900 on texture dependent games. However, on shader heavy games, the Radeon X1800 and X1900 should provide the same level of performance to the GeForce 7800GTX. Most likely even higher in the case of X1900. ATI is 'betting' that the clock speed difference is sufficient enough for their cards to have the same level of performance compared to the GeForce 7. But when it came to shaders, the Radeon X1900 should be significantly faster than the GeForce 7800GTX. This makes both the Radeon X1800 and X1900 unique, in a manner marking the transition to even more complex and comprehensive use of shaders in realtime 3D graphics.

There's a reason why ATI chose to push shaders. Textures take up space, but more importantly, they take up bandwidth. We're already seeing 512 MB graphics cards today, which should be the norm this year with the coming of new games and Windows Vista. However, unlike capacity that's ever growing, memory bandwidth is relatively 'stuck' and have virtually hit a brick wall - even the fastest GDDR4 available can only offer 10 - 11 GBs of bandwidth. With a 256 memory controller, that's about 40 - 44 GBs of bandwidth total. Now look at the GeForce 7800GTX 512, a card that has about 50 GBs (or so) of bandwidth. This is the upper limits of current memory technology. Our article last month (which you can read here) shows that to get a significant increase in performance, either from a higher clocked core and / or more pixel pipelines out of the current architecture, we need to have more than that. There's no point of putting more pixel pipelines with the bandwidth available today.

Furthermore, games today are focusing on shaders more and more. ATI feels that this is the area next generation of graphics cards should focus on. Not just pixel or texel fillrate. The Radeon X1K series are actually the first SM 3.0 capable parts from the Canadian based manufacturer. The series span across different levels, from the entry level X1300, the mainstream X1600, and the high end X1800 and X1900. It's about time too, since rival NVIDIA have had SM 3.0 parts for more than one year now with the GeForce 6 and 7 series. ATI felt SM 3.0 was not needed a year ago, and they are right with so many games and developers still targeting SM 2.0 hardware or still in the process of transitioning from DirectX 8 to DirectX 9. Games are just beginning to utilize SM 3.0, despite the already widespread use of SM 3.0 capable GeForce 6 and 7 series. Even now, there are only a number of titles available today that utilize SM 3.0. ATI feels the time has come for SM 3.0 to take center stage, that's why they're introducing the X1K series. This move in the desktop arena is in sync with their overall strategy, including developments on the console market. The Xenos chip in the Xbox 360 shares many similarities with the X1K series. The similarities between the two products should ease development on two platforms for game developers, at the very least make porting code between platforms easier and take less time.

Of course, while having more shader power is nice, that power can only be unleashed with the right software. Since games fully utilizing SM 3.0 potential are yet to appear, we really don't know just how good (or bad) ATI's design decision for the X1800 and X1900 is until those games appear on the market. So, the X1800 and X1900 come with more than just raw shader power. It offers higher quality filtering with less optimization, adaptive antialiasing for transparent textures, high dynamic range rendering with anti aliasing and overall faster antialiasing performance. We'll be looking into several of those claims in this article.

Image Quality Comparison

First of, let's examine texture filtering. Below you'll see screenshots of D3D AF tester with the Radeon X1900. The screenshots are arranged in this order: 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x and 16x. In case you're wondering, the number of AF samples is forced from the driver panel.



They're not that much different from the previous generation, the X800. However there is one major difference. ATI took a lot of flak with AF in X800 because it is only applied to the first texture stage (when forced from the driver panel), so the X800 is pretty much only doing bilinear filtering to the other stages. Below you can see that with the Radeon X1900 (and X1800 too), that's not the case anymore. Every texture stage is now correctly anisotropically filtered, even when AF is forced from the control panel. Theoretically this gives us a much higher quality image than on the X800 (under the same settings).



Next up are the application controlled AF screenshots. Just like before, they are arranged in this order: 1x, 2x, 4x, 8x, and 16x. They're pretty much the same thing really, we can see that there are no visible compromises here, except maybe for angle optimization.



Starting with the Radeon X1800, a new high quality anisotropic filtering option is now available. When this option is enabled, angle optimizations are turned off. Below are the MIP filter screenshots with HQ AF enabled (1x. 2x. 4x. 8x and 16x). There's definitely a significant difference between the two, although it may not always be noticeable in gameplay. The most intriguing thing about this HQ AF is that it can be used with both application controlled and driver forced anisotropic filtering levels. But even more so, ATI claims this filtering is essentially free with virtually no performance hit whatsoever.



With the previous generation, we really couldn't say that ATI have the best filtering, although it did provide the better image quality even with optimizations enabled. With the X1800 and X1900, that's simply not true anymore. With the X1800 and X1900 series, ATI does not only offer the best filtering available, but have taken it to a higher level with HQ AF. They are also claiming that the new series have a much more faster 6x anti aliasing performance, nearly close to 4x AA levels. These two improvements should be very welcomed by gamers wanting a higher quality image. We'll take a later look at these performance claims to see if they are true or not. For now, let's take a look at what these image quality improvements offer in real games.

The Real World

Below you'll see several screenshots, both from the Radeon X1900 and GeForce 7. There are three screenshots from the Radeon X1900: 4x AA with 16x AF, 6xAA with 16x AF and 6xAA with with 16x HQ anisotropic filtering. From the GeForce 7, we have 4x AA with 16x AF and 8xS AA with 16x AF, in that order. Let's take a look at them.

Call of Duty

Radeon X1900



GeForce 7



There's very little difference between the Radeon X1900's screenshots. The most noticeable difference is on the fence on the left, between HQ AF and the standard AF shots. However, even 6xAA with 16x HQ AF can not come close to NVIDIA's 8xS. The use of 2 sample supersampling in this mode provide the best image quality for that area. You probably won't notice that in gameplay though. Other than that, we don't really see any improvement over 4x. The reason maybe caused by the lack of faraway objects on the horizon.

Nascar 2003

Radeon X1900



GeForce 7



The most obvious difference between these shots are the slightly sharper, darker texture of the crowd between HQ AF and all other shots. The 8xS do come close, but HQ AF is the definite winner here. If you look down the track, you'll see that the 6x AA 16 HQ AF shot has 'leaner' poles than all the other shots as well. In all fairness, these differences don't amount to much, but they do show that using more samples when anti aliasing will help display faraway objects with slightly less aliasing.

Homeworld 2

Radeon X1900



GeForce 7



Aliasing in motion
Radeon X1900
4x AA
6x AA

GeForce 7
2xQ AA
8xS AA

These static screenshots are pretty much the same. It's not until we see the game in motion do we see the limitations of NVIDIA's anti aliasing compared to ATI's. Even 8xS AA still exhibits aliasing despite the number of samples. ATI is maintaining the tradition of more effective anti aliasing with the X1800 and X1900.

SW: KOTOR

Radeon X1900



GeForce 7



Aliasing in motion
Radeon X1900
4x AA
6x AA

GeForce 7
4x AA
8xS AA

The differences are subtle but they can be seen if you look close enough in the screenshots. They become more apparent when viewed in motion. ATI's 4x and 6x is still more effective than NVIDIA's 8xS in removing aliasing. However, we can see that 4x and 6x antialiasing is not that much different if we were to look only at static screenshots. ATI's 4x mode is that good.

Except for Call of Duty which feature transparent textures, anti aliasing is still better on the Radeon X1900 than on NVIDIA's GeForce 7 series, be it 4x and 8xS. On faraway objects, ATI's 6x and NVIDIA's 8xS does a better job than both's 4x mode, but not that much. So, even if the X1900 6x is still slower than 4x on the Radeon X1900, we actually don't lose that much in image quality. Or put in another way, we really don't gain that much with 6x. The most notable gain is actually the use of HQ AF, though it may not be noticeable in all games.Let's see if those performance claims are true.

Performance

We put off examinations of transparency anti aliasing and HDR performance for the time being - hopefully we can examine them more closely next week. For now, we'll be focusing on performance under default, 4x AA and 16x AF, and also 6x AA and HQ AF settings. To put these scores into perspective, we've included results from both a standard clocked and a higher clocked GeForce 7800GTX (the ASUS EN7800GTX TOP) with comparable settings (default and 4x AA 16x AF). Out of the many cards in the X1900 series, we chose the X1900 XTX for this article, which is the current high end model of the X1900 series. Performance with X1900 XT should be slightly slower, though not by much.

We'd like to thank both Tagan and Kingston for supplying the additional power supply and 1 GB memory modules for this article. We'd also like to thank Gigabyte for providing the Radeon X1900 XTX sample card.

Our test setup
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ socket 939
2 x 1024 MB Kingston KVR 3-3-3 PC3200 DDR-SDRAM
MSI K8N NForce 4 SLI motherboard
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9 80 GBs Serial ATA 8 MB buffer
ASUS E-616 DVD-ROM
Tagan TG530-U15 530 watts ATX/BTX power supply

Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 installed
ATI Catalyst 6.2 reference driver
NVIDIA Forceware 81.98 reference driver
NVIDIA NForce 4 6.66 reference driver
Creative SoundBlaster Live! 24 bit 5.12.1.512 driver.
DirectX 9.0c

The graphs are pretty self explanatory, but in case you can't see the text, they're arranged in groups of three colors: green for minimum fps, blue for average fps and red for maximum fps. The first group represent test results under default settings, and the second represent results with 4xAA and 16xAF enabled. For the X1900XTX, the third group represent results with 4xAA and 16x HQ AF, while the fourth represent 6xAA and 16x HQ AF. These results are in frame rate per second.

The results:

Obviously we're system limited at 1024 x 768, even with AA and AF. Only at 1280 x 1024 and higher do we see the three cards behave differently. The difference becomes more apparent at 1600 x 1200. It's clear that the GeForce 7800GTX is faster under default settings, but with AA and AF, the Radeon X1900 XTX reigns supreme. We're still seeing very high frame rates with 6xAA and 16x HQ AF in 1600 x 1200 with the Radeon X1900 XTX, much more than we're getting with the GeForce 7800GTX.

Call of Duty is quite old, so we doubt the 512 MB RAM on the Radeon X1900 XTX is making that much of a difference here. ATI retains the lead even when we enabled 6xAA with 16x HQ AF. It looks like ATI's claims has some truth - both HQ and 6x is relatively free. However, we'd have to see if that's true just for old games or all games in general.

	GeForce 7800GTX TOP		GeForce 7800GTX		Radeon X1900 XTX
	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF
<30 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
45-60 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
60-90 fps	3	8	4	32	8	9
90-120 fps	6	58	5	42	9	12
>120 fps	67	10	67	2	59	55
Total	76	76	76	76	76	76

results are in seconds

In case you're wondering, the table above is actually a brokedown of the benchmark results, displaying the time spent throughout the replay organized into several different frame rate ranges. Because this is a replay and not a timedemo, the replay runtime is the same between all cards. Now look at the 60 - 90 fps range, where the minimum fps shown by the earlier graphs are. You'll see both the Radeon X1900 XTX and the higher clocked GeForce 7800GTX spending less than 10 seconds here. We can also see the Radeon X1900 XTX is pretty much system limited, with virtually no difference across the entire fps range with and without AA and AF. In comparison, both the GeForce drop from above 120 fps to the 90 - 120 fps range when AA and AF is enabled.


In Homeworld 2, things looks a bit different although the trend is similar. The Radeon X1900 XTX is faster only at 1600 x 1200 with AA and AF enabled. It has a slightly overall lower minimum fps than both GeForce 7800GTXs. The GeForce 7800GTX is simply faster here because this game rely more on texture than shaders, which suits the GeForce 7800GTX a whole lot better.

The good news is that the Radeon X1900 XTX hardly flinched with even 6x AA and 16x HQ AF at 1600 x 1200. Just like in Call of Duty, HQ AF and 6x AA is free in this game with the Radeon X1900 XTX.

	GeForce 7800GTX TOP		GeForce 7800GTX		Radeon X1900 XTX
	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF
<30 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
45-60 fps	0	0	0	1	0	0
60-90 fps	0	3	0	11	3	3
90-120 fps	1	44	0	48	17	17
>120 fps	69	23	70	10	50	50
Total	70	70	70	70	70	70

results are in seconds

Here, we're seeing virtually the same result from the Radeon X1900 XTX both in default and with AA and AF enabled. It spent the same amount of time virtually above 90 fps with and without AA and AF. In comparison, both GeForce 7800GTX is very fast and spent all of its time above 120 fps when running without AA and AF. However, with AA and AF is enabled, both of them took quite a hit and spent most of their time in the 90 - 120 fps and even 60 - 90 fps.


It's not until we hit 1280 x 1024 do we see a difference. With 4x AA and 16x AF enabled, the Radeon X1900 XTX is around 20 to 30 fps faster than the GeForce 7800GTX Performance levels with 6xAA with 16x HQ AF on the Radeon X1900 XTX is pretty much the same with 4xAA and 16x AF on the higher clocked GeForce 7800GTX. We do see a slight difference between 4x and 6x AA and also HQ AF, so they do come with a minimal performance penalty in this game. In 1600 x 1200, this becomes more apparent: we're losing about 10 fps with HQ AF and almost 20 fps with 6x AA and HQ AF.

	GeForce 7800GTX TOP		GeForce 7800GTX		Radeon X1900 XTX
	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF
<30 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
45-60 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
60-90 fps	0	38	0	141	0	1
90-120 fps	19	213	26	117	12	120
>120 fps	240	8	233	1	247	138
Total	259	259	259	259	259	259

results are in seconds

You can see clearly the Radeon X1900 XTX is besting both GTX, both in default and with AA and AF enabled. The Radeon X1900 only dipped slightly to the 60 - 90 fps range, spending 1 second there and continues to maintain a comfortable frame rate above 90 and 120 fps throughout the rest of the replay. In comparison, we can see the higher clocked GeForce 7800GTX dipped to below 90 fps at some point during the replay. The standard clocked GeForce 7800GTX even spent more than nearly two minutes between 60 - 90 fps (141 seconds).


The average fps may mislead you to think the GeForce 7800GTX is faster. That's because the maximum fps from the GeForce 7800GTX is higher than the Radeon X1900. Only when we focus our attention on the minimum fps do we see that the Radeon X1900 XTX offers noticeably higher minimum frame rates. That means less lag than the GeForce 7800GTX. Even at 1280 x 1024, the Radeon X1900 XTX still managed to reach the 30 fps minimum mark where even the higher clocked GeForce 7800GTX dipped below it.

6x AA can still be too much of a strain even for the Radeon X1900 XTX, although HQ AF is free.

	GeForce 7800GTX TOP		GeForce 7800GTX		Radeon X1900 XTX
	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF
<30 fps	2	3	2	6	0	2
30-45 fps	1	5	2	3	2	4
45-60 fps	4	4	3	4	4	2
60-90 fps	7	8	9	7	14	12
90-120 fps	6	0	4	0	0	0
>120 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	20	20	20	20	20	20

results are in seconds

The table confirms our conclusion: both GeForce 7800GTXs spent more time on the lower fps ranges than the Radeon X1900 XTX. The slightly higher average of both cards are 'inflated' because they we're able to spend time in the higher range (90-120 fps). You can interpret the results like this: with AA and AF, the GeForce 7 series spent 8 to 9 seconds below 45 fps, while the Radeon spent only 6 seconds. Mind you that the Radeon X1900 XTX still managed a higher minimum fps than both GeForce 7800GTX (22 fps as opposed to 17 or 18 fps).


It's obvious that Brothers in Arms runs way faster on the GeForce 7800GTX than the Radeon X1900 XTX, even to the point of ridicule. With AA and AF, the GeForce 7800GTXs are still faster, though not by much but it's still significant. Like Homeworld 2, this game shows the compromise ATI must make to achieve higher shader performance - the Radeon X1900 XTX is 'weaker' on some texture dependent games.

ATI did deliver on it's promise though - the penalty of HQ AF and 6x AA is minimal, but you still wouldn't want to enable it at 1280 x 1024 or higher.

	GeForce 7800GTX TOP		GeForce 7800GTX		Radeon X1900 XTX
	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF
<30 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0	0	52
45-60 fps	0	0	0	5	35	45
60-90 fps	10	46	29	69	70	26
90-120 fps	74	45	54	30	29	11
>120 fps	50	43	51	30	0	0
Total	134	134	134	134	134	134

results are in seconds

The numbers in the table speaks for themselves - the Radeon X1900 XTX spent more time on the lower ranges while both GeForce 7800GTX spent most of their time above 90 fps. Clearly, the Radeon X1900 XTX is no match for the GeForce 7800GTX in this game.


Battlefield 2 results are as erratic as ever, it's not until we're at 1600 x 1200 do the game become graphically limited instead of system limited. With AA and AF enabled, we can see a noticeable difference between the three cards. The Radeon X1900 XTX's 512 MB RAM is helping here, the game can store much more of its data than on the GeForce 7800GTXs. 10 fps faster may not seem much, but that's quite a lot for Battlefield 2.

We can see that both HQ AF and 6x AA has minimal performance penalty on the Radeon X1900 XTX. From the looks of it, HQ AF and 6x AA do have a small, albeit minimal performance penalty. Of course, up to this point we've only looked at 'old' texture dependent games. How about new ones? Let's find out.


Not surprisingly, the Radeon X1900 XTX is faster than GeForce 7800GTX in this game, even at default settings. This is at least one proof that ATI made the right decision to push the shader processing power of the Radeon X1900. With AA and AF, the lead gets substantially larger - around 30 to 40 fps in average fps. That's very significant since we're seeing around 100 fps under default settings. It's still not bulletproof though - the Radeon X1900 XTX is just barely hitting the 30 fps minimum mark at 1280 x 960 with 4x AA and 16x AF.

We can see 6x AA have a fairly high performance penalty in this game, around 16 fps. That's the highest we've seen so far. So, 6x AA penalty vary from game to game. Thankfully that's not true for HQ AF - performance with HQ AF is virtually similar with standard AF.

	GeForce 7800GTX TOP		GeForce 7800GTX		Radeon X1900 XTX
	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF
<30 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	14	0	24	0	7
45-60 fps	6	21	10	17	9	15
60-90 fps	21	12	19	10	15	17
90-120 fps	15	7	15	4	18	6
>120 fps	13	1	11	0	13	10
Total	55	55	55	55	55	55

results are in seconds

At default settings, the three graphics cards are evenly matched, with the Radeon X1900 XTX getting the upper hand by spending more time in 90 - 120 fps as opposed to the more evenly spread out GeForce 7800GTX's (60 - 120 fps). With AA and AF enabled, the GTXs spent more time between 30 - 60 fps. Meanwhile, the Radeon managed to spent less time between 30 - 45 fps and spent more time between 45 - 90 fps. There's no denying it, the Radeon X1900 XTX is definitely the better card of the three, 7 seconds as opposed to 14 and 24 seconds on the 30 - 45 fps range with AA and AF.


Despite being a new game, Quake 4 is still very texture dependent. So, it's not surprising to see the Radeon X1909 XTX is slower under default settings. Just like most games, it's only with AA and AF enabled is it able to best the GeForce 7800GTX, all the way up to 1600 x 1200. However, you don't really want to push that high. We can see minimum frame rates are slower on the Radeon X1900 XTX, dropping to below 30 fps in 1600 x 1200. So, 1280 x 1024 is probably the highest you can go.

Like in F.E.A.R, we can see 6x AA has a fairly large penalty on the Radeon X1900 XTX. To get high enough frame rates, you probably should only enable it at 1024 x 768 and not higher. HQ AF continues its trend continues - it remains penalty free on the Radeon X1900.

	GeForce 7800GTX TOP		GeForce 7800GTX		Radeon X1900 XTX
	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF
<30 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
45-60 fps	0	0	0	4	0	3
60-90 fps	3	16	2	21	5	10
90-120 fps	11	25	9	18	18	20
>120 fps	17	0	19	1	10	6
Total	31	41	30	44	33	39

results are in seconds

You obviously see the replay runtime don't match up for each column - that's normal because Quake 4 tries to render the entire gameplay session as fast as it can, much like a timedemo. Kind of playing in fast forward instead of slow motion. Actually, this way we can see which card is the better card. Just look at the shortest time! Comparing the cards at default settings, we can see the Radeon X1900 XTX only managed 10 seconds between 90 - 120 fps, while both GeForce 7800GTX spent 16 and 21 seconds here. So, the difference is not on the lower fps range, but on the higher range (maximum fps). Minimum fps wise, all three cards are practically the same. The Radeon X1900 XTX minimum fps is 62 fps, while the GeForce 7800GTX are 68 and 69 fps, that's 6 / 7 seconds difference for 1 second, hardly noticeable in real life (10 percent).

With AA and AF enabled, the picture changed drastically. While the Radeon X1900 XTX managed to only spend 11 seconds between 45 - 90 fps, the higher clocked GeForce 7800GTX has to spend 14 seconds there. It's even longer for the standard clocked GeForce 7800GTX, nearly half a minute (24 seconds).


Serious Sam II is another new game that is still very texture dependent, so naturally the GeForce 7 is faster here. The Radeon X1900 XTX can only match it with AA and AF enabled at 1280 x 960 and higher. Even then, the GeForce 7800GTX is still slightly faster, though it's certainly nothing to write home about. The good news for the Radeon X1900 XTX is that both 6x AA and HQ AF have very minimal penalty in this game. So, with the Radeon X1900 XTX, you can get higher quality visuals with about the same level of performance. You better stick to at most 1280 x 960, though, since any higher will be too jerky or slow on both the Radeon X1900 XTX or the GeForce 7800GTX.

	GeForce 7800GTX TOP		GeForce 7800GTX		Radeon X1900 XTX
	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF
<30 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	1	7	29
45-60 fps	39	44	40	57	44	33
60-90 fps	24	19	23	5	12	1
90-120 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
>120 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
Total	63	63	63	63	63	63

results are in seconds

We can already see from the graph that the Radeon X1900 XTX trails behind both GeForce 7800GTX in this game. This table just put more perspective on that. Half of the time, the Radeon X1900 XTX only managed around 30 - 60 fps, while both GeForce 7800GTX managed 45 - 90 fps.


Games in the Splinter Cell franchise have always been at the forefront with shaders and Chaos Theory is no exception. We're seeing a similar situation like F.E.A.R here. The Radeon X1900 XTX is leaving behind the GeForce 7800GTX by a significant margin. At 1024 x 768, AA and AF results from the Radeon X1900 XTX is on the same level as the GeForce 7800GTX's results under default settings! The lead gets even larger at higher resolutions, you can even turn on 6x AA and HQ AF on the Radeon X1900 XTX at 1600 x 1200 where it still managed to barely reach the 30 minimum fps mark. It will be very interesting to see HDR results with this game (and with Serious Sam II as well).

While 6x AA do come with a minimal performance penalty, it's still fast enough even at 1600 x 1200 (though you wouldn't want to use it on even higher resolutions). As for HQ AF, it's just outstanding - it is virtually penalty free on the Radeon X1900.

	GeForce 7800GTX TOP		GeForce 7800GTX		Radeon X1900 XTX
	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF	Default	4x AA 16x AF
<30 fps	0	0	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	1	0	0
45-60 fps	0	6	0	14	0	0
60-90 fps	13	61	28	81	10	22
90-120 fps	56	24	51	10	53	54
>120 fps	18	9	11	7	20	12
Total	87	99	90	113	83	88

results are in seconds

Just like Quake 4, we're seeing different totals from each column. That's because we're using the built in benchmarking tool to get the results, so they are from a timedemo and not replay hence the different runtimes. With a glance, we can tell that the Radeon X1900 XTX is the fastest card here - it has the smallest runtime. Looking at the specifics, we can see almost no change between default and AA and AF numbers from the Radeon X1900 XTX. The GeForce 7800GTX is a different matter, with AA and AF enabled it dipped to between 45 - 120 fps, as opposed to default range of 60 - 120 fps.

Conclusion:

It's been a long time coming, but the next generation chipset from ATI is finally here. Obviously, we meant the Radeon X1900 and not the Radeon X1800. With its abundant number of pixel shaders, this card should be more than enough for new games availaible today and coming this year Why? Well, isn't obvious. It offers more than high enough frame rates for comfortable fluid gaming, even with demanding titles such as F.E.A.R and Quake 4. There's virtually very minimal performance lost with AA and AF, unlike the GeForce 7800GTX. So, even with newer games that's shader oriented, you shouldn't experience more than minimal lost of frame rate with the Radeon X1900 XTX.

Even more intriguing is the option to enable High Quality AF without any performance hit. Those who want better visuals and is still comfortable with 1024 x 768 can opt to enable 6x AA. While it did come with a minimal penalty, the frame rates should be high enough. For those who want more, either higher resolution and / or higher levels of AA, there's always Crossfire. But that's another article.

Unfortunately, there are some tradeoff you should consider. For one, performance with some texture heavy games can be way below that of a GeForce 7800GTX. Out of our benchmark suite, that will be Brothers in Arms and Serious Sam II. However, do keep in mind that games are transitionin to shaders rather than textures. So, the number of texture dependent games should be decreasing, though not completely gone. Even offline rendering still rely on textures. If you're going to play much of these types of games, it might be wise to wait for the coming GeForce 7900 series. It should offer at least GeForce 7800GTX 512 performance at more affordable prices.

There's also some annyoing things you will probably get use to: mainly ATI's decision to 'force' users to use Catalyst Control Center. Even with the latest drivers, it's still too slow and can be annoying if you repeatedly have to make changes in 3D settings (like AA and AF). Granted, in newer games these settings should be applied in game, but still, what's the point of making life difficult with Catalyst Control Center? Even on a 2 GB system we used for testing, it take some time to start the Control Center, not to mention it also required lots of hard disk access everytime you enter Windows (from a restart).

Overall, while the Radeon X1900 is not always the fastest card around in all games, it is faster with AA and AF and it is faster in new, shader heavy games. Even with texture dependent games, the Radeon X1900 is still able to supply gamers with more than enough frame rates and in most cases still retain the lead with AA and AF enabled. Not only that, it also bring to the table higher quality visuals (HQ AF) with virtually no performance loss.

Go to top