Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup Part I - ATI's Radeon 9800 XT
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on October 1, 2003 3:02 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
You’ve been living too perfect of a life if you’ve never used the phrase “it’s been a long day,” and for NVIDIA it has most definitely been a very long day. Just over two weeks ago the graphics industry was shook by some very hard hitting comments from Gabe Newell of Valve, primarily relating to the poor performance of NVIDIA cards under Half Life 2. All of the sudden ATI had finally done what they had worked feverishly for years to do, they were finally, seemingly overnight, crowned the king of graphics and more importantly – drivers. There were no comments on Half Life 2 day about ATI having poor drivers, compatibility problems or anything even remotely resembling discussions about ATI from the Radeon 8500 days.
Half Life 2 day was quickly followed up with all sorts of accusations against NVIDIA and their driver team; more and more articles were published with new discoveries, shedding light on other areas where ATI trounced NVIDIA. Everything seemed to all make sense now; even 3DMark was given the credibility of being the “I told you so” benchmark that predicted Half Life 2 performance several months in advance of September 12, 2003. At the end of the day and by the end of the week, NVIDIA had experienced the longest day they’ve had in recent history.
Some of the more powerful accusations went far beyond NVIDIA skimping on image quality to improve performance; these accusations included things like NVIDIA not really being capable of running DirectX 9 titles at their full potential, and one of the more interesting ones – that NVIDIA only optimizes for benchmarks that sites like AnandTech uses. Part of the explanation behind the Half Life 2 fiasco was that even if NVIDIA improves performance through later driver revisions, the performance improvements are only there because the game is used as a benchmark – and not as an attempt to improve the overall quality of their customers’ gaming experience. If that were true, then NVIDIA’s “the way it’s meant to be played” slogan would have to go under some serious rethinking; the way it’s meant to be benchmarked comes to mind.
But rewind a little bit; quite a few of these accusations being thrown at NVIDIA were the same ones thrown at ATI. I seem to remember the launch of the Radeon 9700 Pro being tainted with one accusation in particular – that ATI only made sure their drivers worked on popular benchmarking titles, with the rest of the top 20 games out there hardly working on the new R300. As new as what we’re hearing these days about NVIDIA may seem, let us not be victim to the near sightedness of the graphics industry – this has all happened before with ATI and even good ol’ 3dfx.
So who are you to believe? These days it seems like the clear purchase is ATI, but on what data are we basing that? I won’t try to build up suspense senselessly, the clear recommendation today is ATI (how’s that for hype-less journalism), but not because of Half Life 2 or any other conspiracies we’ve seen floating around the web these days.
For entirely too long we’ve been basing GPU purchases on a small subset of tests, encouraging the hardware vendors to spend the majority of their time and resources optimizing for those games. We’re not just talking about NVIDIA, ATI does it too, and you would as well if you were running either of those two companies. We’ve complained about the lack of games with built-in benchmarks and cited that as a reason to sticking with the suite that we’ve used – but honestly, doing what’s easy isn’t a principle I founded AnandTech on 6+ years ago.
So today we bring you quite a few new things, some may surprise you, some may not. ATI has released their Fall refresh product – the Radeon 9800XT and they are announcing their Radeon 9600XT. NVIDIA has counterattacked by letting us publish benchmarks from their forthcoming NV38 GPU (the successor to the NV35 based GeForce FX 5900 Ultra). But quite possibly more important than any of those announcements is the suite of benchmarks we’re testing these cards in; how does a total of 15 popular games sound? This is the first installment of a multipart series that will help you decide what video card is best for you, and hopefully it will do a better job than we have ever in the past.
The extensive benchmarking we’ve undertaken has forced us to split this into multiple parts, so expect to see more coverage on higher resolutions, image quality, anti-aliasing, CPU scaling and budget card comparisons in the coming weeks. We’re working feverishly to bring it all to you as soon as possible and I’m sure there’s some sort of proverb about patience that I should be reciting from memory to end this sentence but I’ll leave it at that.
Now that the long-winded introduction is done with, let’s talk hardware before we dive into a whole lot of software.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
263 Comments
View All Comments
Malichite - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
I don't intend to join into a flame war, but I would like a few points cleared up. First of all I have a GF4 4600 and I am looking to upgrade, but I still have concerns with ATIs drivers. In this review I noticed a few discrepancies on both sides. Unless something has changed, ATI's 9x00 series has serious problem fps with both SimCity 4 and Neverwinter Nights w/shadows (not to mention problems in Morrowind). Just pop over to Rage3d's forums if you want to find out more. Additionally I believe the current 3.7 catalyst have flickering menu issues in FS2004, not show stoppers but definitely irritating. Lastly, I wish someone would mention the R3x0 series slow frame buffers, since they are of major concern for people that use PSX emulators.On the nVidia side, I am fairly confident that the NV38 isn't giving AA in Homeworld 2 unless they are using 4xS in OpenGL (not offered in current drivers). Just check the forums at Relic and you will find that none of the GF3+ cards work with AA in OpenGL unless you use QuinCunx/8XS.
I realize that you can't expect everything in a review, but I wish just a few review sites would mention/research the known bugs for the games they test.
Please don't respond with replies about how you don't play these games, thus you don't care if they work well. The point of a new GFX card is an upgrade for all software, not just to get 200+ fps in UT2003.
Just a view from someone that loves the IQ from ATI's R3x0 series, but dreads the driver issues. Guess I am either waiting for the NV40 or the magic Catalyst 3.8.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Be nice to see benchmarks using Battlefield 1942.As BF1942 has an expansion, and a new title Battlefield: Vietnam coming out next year.
Competition is good.. I've always liked ATi and never had any problems with them.. Nice job ATi.. keep it up.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
For the guys worried about which is the best way to blow $500 on games that haven't been released yet, get a life.There's no need for Anand to go over what everyone already knows about DX9 - NVidia blows bigtime with its current chips. Do the ATi fanboyz just want to grind the NVidia fanboyz faces in the dirt about this again?
The question is not whether to buy an ATi or an NVidia card, but whether it's worth upgrading your current card to a 9800XT when there's a next generation card only 6 months away. IMO only guys that reply to the "make your penis bigger" spams would think it's worth shelling out $500 at this point in time...
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Please include NASCAR Racing 2003 Season in the tests!Just set it up for the maximum number of players, enable all details and start a single race without qualifying. That leaves you behind a full field of cars and gives a realistic impression of frame rate. Hit "F" to display frame rate or use another tool to record frame rate.
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Halo sucks. Why won't that computer chick ever shut up! Hello, I'm fighting like 10 guys, stop talking to me you stupid broad! God is there like 5 hours of speech of her in this game?Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
BATTLEFIELD1942 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BATTLEFIELD1942!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Anonymous User - Thursday, October 2, 2003 - link
Homeworld BenchmarkFX56u.... AA -> Frame UP????????
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#154 here, just wanted to add that people shouldn't flip out just because their favorite company won/lost a benchmark. Just play the damn game, who cares if you're looking at 3fps less, seriously.Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#153: The XT is supposed to have a more powerful GPU (VPU? Damn companies using special names), so in theory the 9600XT could compete with the 9700 Pro if the VPU/RAM speeds were high enough. Of course, communism works too, in theory.Oh, and I run all my games in 1024x768 at 32-bit depth with 4xAA and 8xAF (64-tap) using a PNY Ti4200, slightly overclocked (read, to the limit of the card at 265/545); it runs everything but DX9 fine (a whopping 425 marks in 3dMark2003 with AA/AF on, looked pretty as hell chugging at 3fps). I like seeing a benchmark that uses a resolution I'm actually using, instead of these pin-sized 1600x1200+ resolutions that only the $500 21" CRT freaks can use without going blind. Yes, it taxes a card, but I don't plan on taxing my overclocked card so hard it fries the GPU; particularly a $500 one, thanks.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Is this a misprint? Did he mean to say 9500pro instead of 9700pro?“According to ATI, the Radeon 9600 XT should be the first mainstream part to outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro in all situations – not bad for a $199 card.”
That doesn’t sound like it’s possible according to specs and the 9600pro.