|
3D Mark 2001 SE
Madonion's 3D Mark doesn't need any introduction. It's arguably the most popular Direct 3D benchmarking tool out there. It doesn't really stress a lot of todays video cards, but it's freely available, and people still use it&
Based on our past test results, the Ti4600 does much better with the latest drivers. Knowing that, it is still easily outpaced by the Radeon 9700 Pro at all resolutions. At the lower resolutions, the gap is noticeable, but nothing that made my jaw drop. The reason for this is some tweaking by the user, and perhaps a newer driver may add 300-500 3D Marks to narrow this gap.
At the maximum resolution of 1600x1200 however, we're talking nearly 2000 3D Marks. What this means to the end user is high resolution gaming is the 9700 Pro's bread and butter, which is obvious from the graph. We can also speculate that the Radeon also has more headroom for AA and maximum settings than the Ti4600 would. Until the NV30, I can't imagine any tweaking (outside of overclocking) or newer drivers is going to close that much of a gap between the two cards.
Unreal Tournament 2003
I've been playing around with the retail version of UT2K3 for quite sometime now, and have been pretty impressed with the graphics. It's a real system killer, and can bring many pre-2002 killer rigs to its knees. We used the scripts written by , which are excellent tools in testing various resolutions and detail levels&
Antelus Benchmark
Asbestos Benchmark
In the Antelus benchmark, the 9700 beats the Ti4600 by an almost 50% at the maximum resolution. I had to look twice as I didn't expect such a huge margin. Things get a little tighter in the Asbestos benchmark, but the 9700 isn't sweating much to stay ahead.
Citadel Benchmark
As with 3D Mark, the Radeon scores a pretty decisive victory across all resolutions. The Ti4600 holds up quite well at the lower settings, but once we started cranking up the resolution, the Radeon leaves the Ti4600 behind.
Code Creatures
I've never used this benchmark before, but it was something demo'd a lot with the GeForce 3. It's actually a "pretty" benchmark, but it's more useful to me than 3D Mark since it's a little more geared towards next-gen cards due to it's DX8 capable engine...
Given that most of us are used to seeing 300FPS in Quake 3, it was a bit of a humbling experience to see FPS in the mid 20s to 30s. From what I hear, framerates of 30+ are difficult to attain, and the Radeon 9700 nearly does that at 1280x1024. No doubt, a faster PC or some overclocking will fix that. I probably wouldn't bother with AA though, as that will surely kill the framerates to unplayable levels.
Don't let these number scare you off though, as it will still be some time before we see a game that will be this taxing.
Previous Page - Overclocking & Test Setup
Next Page - Benchmarks - OpenGL
|
