ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 and NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5650: Taking on DX9
by Andrew Ku on September 14, 2003 11:04 PM EST- Posted in
- Laptops
The Test
For NDA reasons, as we have cited in previous reviews, we can’t go into details when describing the platform we tested. The only thing we can reveal is what is cited below, and that the system has a modular GPU design. This allows us to isolate the GPU in the same manner as a desktop system.The term “qualified” has been tossed around, and we are sure that it will be used when discussing this review. Unlike desktop components, the graphic vendors can’t validate their own graphics processors for mobile use. The final approval goes to mobile system vendors like IBM, Dell, HP, etc., which is based on bidding price, heat/thermal emissions, and power consumption among other things. Even though validation comes into question when making this comparison, we do it because these two graphic processors, in and of themselves, are shipping in systems.
| Windows XP Professional Notebook Test System | |
| Motherboard(s) | 855PM DDR |
| Memory | 512MB PC2100 |
| Video Card(s) | ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 128MB 128-bit DDR NVIDIA GeForce FX Go5650 128MB 128-bit DDR |
| Ethernet | Onboard Ethernet Adapter |
| Operating System | Windows XP Professional SP1 |
| Video Drivers | ATI 7.93 NVIDIA 44.82 |
| Benchmarking Applications | Blizzard Entertainment Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne – High Quality Settings Microsoft FlightSim 2004: Century of Flight – High Quality Settings Edios Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness - High Quality Settings Ubi Soft Splinter Cell – Normal Settings Valve Half-Life 2 – Normal Settings Massive AquaMark 3 – High Quality Settings |
We should, additionally, note that we used DirectX 9.0b in our system configuration.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link
The Mobility Radeon 9600 with 128MB is available from Compaq/HP.MR9600 Pro:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/3219...
Mobility FireGL T2:
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF05a/3219...
So go get yourself one today! Coz I am!
-Ad
Anonymous User - Thursday, October 9, 2003 - link
There are some people around that are developers. I personally use OpenGL for all my CG projects and there is no comparison for OpenGL. Traditionally nvidia used to have the upper hand in OpenGL (my Golden Sample Ti4200 runs better than Radeon 9700). I'm not favouring nvidia or ati. What I need is something that performs under OpenGL and not DX9...Dell inspiron 8600 is a great choice, but it comes with 5650 Go. It is reasonably cheap and extremely powerfull. Easy to get (online) or via a university (my case). Although ATI is faster under DX9, it is not supported by the big names (Dell, Toshiba, Compaq...). So if 5650 is even 80% as fast as 9600 under OpenGL, it IS a choice for me... If it is yet again 400% slower... NO
Please give us some OpenGL numbers!!!
Even Quake 3 will do, GLExcess, whatever...
Thanks
Yannis
Norwich, UK
Andrew Ku - Monday, September 29, 2003 - link
#43 Well the different results aren't unexpected. You used a different resolution. :)Anonymous User - Saturday, September 27, 2003 - link
I'd like to see a couple openGL tests included in the comparison.Thanks.
Anonymous User - Thursday, September 18, 2003 - link
I get different results!I have a Dell Inspiron 8600 with the NVidia 5650 running AquaMark3. I'm using the driver that Dell ships with the 8600 (version 4.4.8.2). I get VASTLY better results on than what's posted in this article. Below, I'm taking my results vs. the article's Radeon numbers:
Frames per second (FPS)
My results Results from article
Chapter Go5650 Go5650 Radeon9600 fps
1 22.30 11.64 25.97
2 9.38 4.23 6.68
3 16.15 8.87 15.00
4 6.52 5.15 11.27
5 14.72 9.31 19.93
6 14.28 8.47 17.96
7 18.27 9.92 17.08
8 13.00 6.63 12.56
9 9.47 4.67 7.93
I submitted my results to Aquatech's results board under my user name "RonSchaaf" I ran the test multiple times with the same results, running with the Aquatech defaults.
Big Note: I just double-checked everything and I ran my tests at 1024x768x32, No FSAA, 4x Anisotropy, Maximum Details, with the Driver set to Maximum Quality. But I can't run at 1280x1024 like was done for the article because the Aquatech program won't let me change setting without springing for the "Professional" version.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, September 17, 2003 - link
Nice review.It is a good idea you tested the DX9 power of the cards and not some driver or game "optimisations"
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - link
#34 Said: "Download 51.75 and run the test. Then tell us what you see. What a bunch of CRAP."Your right... with Det 51.75 they'd see a bunch of CRAP. Take a look at these image quality results: http://www.gamersdepot.com/hardware/video_cards/at...
btw, the accoding to nVidia, the det 51.75 isn't ready to be installed on any machine yet. Kind of funny how that didn't stop them from saying it was the only valid version for benching hl 2...
http://www.techconnect.ws/modules.php?name=News&am...
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - link
I agree with shalmanese)
Anonymous User - Tuesday, September 16, 2003 - link
I didn't see a mention of the speed of the CPU used.Anyone know? (I might have missed it, but it wasn't on the benchmark setup page)
I know it's a P-M, but at what speed?
Shalmanese - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
Eh, I thought all in all ,it was a pretty ordinary review, lots of mistakes throughout.First of all, your graph numbers are up to 6 significant figures, round them down to even fps or 1 decimal place at the very least.
While theoretical comparisons laughing at how much the ATI card beat the nVidia card are all very pleasant, some indication for people who may have wanted to BUY these cards, what sort of performance they were in for might be nice as well. This means adding the NV3X and the DX8 codepath figures for HL2 etc. Also, a Go4200 and a Mobility 9000 thrown in might have been good as well but I understand that time may have not been adequate.
I also noticed that the CPU wasn't listed for the laptop. Is this part of the NDA info? Seems unusual as this is normally given.
pg1:
"Mobility Radeon 9600 in North America" should be "THE Mobility..."
"...between Mobility Radeon 9600..." again, missed a THE ... infact, its all throughout the article.
" You may have seen other media report benchmark scores that have been called into question. In our time spent benchmarking the two mobile graphics processors, we have yet to be able to recreate a similar scenario."
huh? you've yet to create a benchmark that has been called into question? What are you trying to say?
pg2:
"specifies that the Mobility Radeon 9600 consumes 1.0V while running, and 0.5W in Windows idle." Is that V or W? theres no point telling us what voltage the chip is running at when working. Give us wattage figures.
pg3: again, you give a V figure.
Shalmanese