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 - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
That 30 FPS-eye-limit rubbish always comes up in these sort of threads - I can't believe there are people who think they can't tell the difference between a game running at 30 FPS and 60 FPS.Anyway, I'd like to ask about the HL2 benches - you mention the 5600 is supposed to drop down a code path, but don't specifically say which one was used in the tests. DX8? Mixed? The charts say "DX 9.0", so if that was indeed used then it's interesting from a theoretical point of view but doesn't actually tell us how the game will run on such a system, since the DX8 code path is recommmended by Valve for the 5200/5600.
Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
The "car wheels not rotating right" effect is caused by aliasing, and you'll still get that effect even if your video card is running at 2000fps.Besides, you're limited by your monitor's refresh rate anyhow.
Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
#14 that is incorrect and totally misleading. Humans can tell the difference up to about 60fps (sometimes a little more).Have you ever seen a movie where the car's tires dont seem to rotate right? Thats becuse at 29.97fps you notice things like that.
Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
#13, unless your not human, the human eye cant see a difference at 30fps and up. 60fps is a goal for users cause at that point, even if there is a slow down to 30fps you cant see the difference.Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
Overall, I liked the article...However, whilst I understand that you wanted to run everything at maximum detail to show how much faster one chipset may be than another, it would have been helpful if some lower resolution benchmarks could have been thrown in.
After all, what good does it do you to know that chip B may perform at 30fps whilst chip A performs at 10fps if both are unplayable?
I don't mind whether I can play a game at an astoundingly good detail level or not - I care more about whether I can play the game at all! :)
In the end, we'd all love to be able to play all our games in glorious mega-detail looks-better-than-real-life mode at 2000fps, but it's not always possible.
A big question should be can I play the game at a reasonable speed with a merely acceptable quality. And that's the sort of information that helps us poor consumers! :)
Thanks for your time and a great article.
Sxotty - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
Um do you mean floating point (FP16) or 16bit color? As opposed to FP32 on the NV hardware, as ATI's doesn't even support FP32, which is not 32bit color. ATI supports FP24. LOL and the no fog thing was just funny, that is NV's fault it is not like it has to be dropped they did it to gain a tiny fraction of performance.rqle - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
I really like this comment:"Don’t forget that programmers are also artists, and on a separate level, it is frustrating for them to see their hard work go to waste, as those high level settings get turned off."
Hope future article on graphic card/chipset will offer more insight on how the may developer feel.
Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
please note: the warcraft benchmark was done under direct3d. now nvidia cards perform badly under direct 3d with warcraft whereas ati does a very fine job. it's a completely different story, however, if u start warcraft 3 with the warcraft.exe -opengl command. so please take note of that, only very few people about this anyway. my quadro 4 700 go gl gets about +10fps more under opgengl compared to d3d!Pete - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
Nice read. Actually, IIRC, UT2003 is DX7, with some DX7 shaders rewritten in DX8 for minimal performance gains. Thus, HL2 should be not only the first great DX9 benchmark, but also a nice DX8(.1) benchmark as well.Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
so valve let you guys test out half life 2 on some laptops eh? very nice. (great review to, well written)