Doom 3: (OpenGL)
Map: Demo1
| 800x600 |
| |
NoAA/AF
|
2xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
| N5900 |
50.9
|
41.5
|
32.7
|
29.2
|
| 9600XT |
28.8
|
19.4
|
19.5
|
18.8
|
| FX5600U |
24.1
|
17.1
|
16.6
|
16.2
|
| 1024x768 |
| |
NoAA/AF
|
2xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
| N5900 |
39.7
|
29.5
|
22.2
|
19.8
|
| 9600XT |
20.9
|
13.7
|
13.6
|
13.2
|
| FX5600U |
18.6
|
12.4
|
12.1
|
11.3
|
| 1280x1024 |
| |
NoAA/AF
|
2xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
| N5900 |
27.8
|
20.1
|
13.7
|
12.7
|
| 9600XT |
14.0
|
9.2
|
9.2
|
8.9
|
| FX5600U |
13.2
|
8.7
|
8.6
|
8.1
|
As I stated, this game is not only intense, you can actually hear the fan on the N5900 while in this game (it is normally almost silent). None the less, the N5900 does a respectful job at rendering with no AA/AF, even at 1024x768. Once you turn on AA/AF, you are going to be in the 800x600 realm only.
As expected, the N5900 takes this one, I have to admit, I was surprised to see an almost 100% gain over the 9600XT and a 105% gain over the FX5600U. Turning on AA/AF makes Doom 3 basically unplayable on the 9600XT and the FX5600U.
Unreal Tournament 2004: (DirectX)
Maps - as-convoy
| 800x600 |
| |
NoAA/AF
|
2xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
| N5900 |
58.4
|
58.1
|
58.3
|
58.3
|
| 9600XT |
53.3
|
53.0
|
52.6
|
52.6
|
| FX5600U |
33.2
|
33.1
|
32.9
|
32.8
|
| 1024x768 |
| |
NoAA/AF
|
2xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
| N5900 |
58.4
|
58.2
|
58.0
|
58.3
|
| 9600XT |
53.2
|
52.0
|
51.0
|
50.9
|
| FX5600U |
32.4
|
30.8
|
30.0
|
29.9
|
| 1280x1024 |
| |
NoAA/AF
|
2xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
| N5900 |
57.3
|
55.7
|
51.1
|
46.9
|
| 9600XT |
52.3
|
38.5
|
37.2
|
37.2
|
| FX5600U |
31.8
|
28.1
|
28.1
|
28.1
|
All both the N5900 and 9600 XT handle UT2K4 very well without AA/AF in as-convoy however, the FX 5600 Ultra falls off sharply. Strangely enough, the 9600XT stays in line with the N5900.
Turning on AA/AF only amplifies the lack of performance on the part of the FX5600 Ultra. Both the N5900 and the 9600XT handle UT2k4 at 4x AA/AF - 800x600. Only the N5900 could truly do 4xAA / 8xAF @ 1024x768, almost capturing 60 FPS on as-convoy.
Far Cry: (DirectX)
Map: Fort Demo
| 800x600 |
| |
NoAA/AF
|
2xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
| N5900 |
41.06
|
32.93
|
40.42
|
40.68
|
| 9600XT |
33.09
|
30.26
|
30.53
|
30.5
|
| FX5600U |
31.87
|
29.92
|
29.8
|
29.75
|
| 1024x768 |
| |
NoAA/AF
|
2xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
| N5900 |
41.11
|
40.53
|
35.18
|
33.11
|
| 9600XT |
28.96
|
21.93
|
21.71
|
21.69
|
| FX5600U |
28.13
|
20.36
|
20.24
|
20.21
|
| 1280x1024 |
| |
NoAA/AF
|
2xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
4xAA/AF
|
| N5900 |
39.60
|
32.93
|
17.46
|
15.78
|
| 9600XT |
19.27
|
14.23
|
14.07
|
14.04
|
| FX5600U |
19.41
|
13.88
|
13.49
|
13.47
|
All of the cards took a heavy hit from Far Cry, not even @ 800x600 did I get playable frame rates. I expected the N5900 to give me better playability than it did in this demo. There is a difference for sure between the 9600XT/FX5600U and the N5900, just not as large as I expected. To be fair, the 9600XT and FX5600U struggle even after some tweaks with the config to render smoothly, whereas the N5900 performs silky smooth once there is a little graphics manipulation.
NEXT
