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
AquaMark 3
From the developers of Massive, we have AquaMark 3 to show and tell. This is another highly anticipated DX9 benchmark title that is based on the krass-engine, which was used in their previous AquaNox titles.For the purpose of our review, we turned the highest settings on (including 4xAA and 8xAF) and ran the resolution at 1280x1024 throughout. There are nine different chapters to AquaMark 3, which test everything from the particle system (particle upon particle texture build) to the terrain system (aquatic plants and the like as you pass over the bottom of the ocean floor). According to the faq, "AquaMark 3 approximately generates 30% of it's screen pixels (without overdraw) through ps2.0." The detail is quite impressive and can be visually seen in the bubbles of the water that are shown, as well as the light reflectivity in the bubbles of water. However, the detail is still shy of what we saw in Half-Life 2. There are explosions related to tanks and underwater craft firing projectiles, and the explosions are smoother than what we have seen many in DX8 titles. Time permitting later, we will explain this in more detail, so stayed tuned.
The scores that we achieved in AquaMark 3 are similarly reminiscent of our scores in Half-Life 2 but without such large margins. In AquaMark 3, the GeForce FX Go5650 achieves sub 10 fps scores in all but one of the scenarios. Meanwhile, the Mobility Radeon 9600 on the average is situated in the mid teens. Minimally, though, the Mobility Radeon 9600 shows its clear lead over the GeForce FX Go5650 with a 58% lead. At its best, the Mobility Radeon 9600 doubles the margin between its counterpart, and this just reinforces the GeForce FX Go5650’s trouble in true DX9 benchmarks.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
View All Comments
Andrew Ku - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
We are currently revising our graphics benchmark suite in the anticipation of future DX9 stuff. These two GPUs are full DX9 parts, and we are benchmarking them accordingly. UT2003 and our current line of benchmarking titles are DX8, and therefore aren't specifically appropriate for this context. Why are our choices of benchmark titles odd? The Mobility and Go mobile graphics parts are no more than mobile version of desktop processors (clocked down, better power management features and in the M10 case integrated memory package).dvinnen - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
Where's UT2003 and other stables? Odd choice of benchmarks. I would of liked to see how it stood up to desktop varients also.Andrew Ku - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
AgaBooga,Question 1: Actually, we were considering memory bandwidth as a possible issue. I will try and report back as soon as we sort this out.
Question 2: We tested at 1600x1200 for benchmark purposes, as it shows degrade. Additionally, the newer desknotes and mobile multimedia notebooks are capable of this resolution and higher.
Anonymous User - Monday, September 15, 2003 - link
Great review, funny too. (And it wasn't just the horrible failure of the Go5650 to perform that I found amusing!)AgaBooga - Sunday, September 14, 2003 - link
Wow, nice set of benchmarkings applications! That is really something you've put together! My compliments to you!Do you think it is bound by something other than the GPU at 1024x768 on Splinter Cell 2_2_1 Set 1? Also, why was it tested at 1600x1200 because laptop users usually don't use resolutions that high on a relatively small screen than what is used on a desktop.
Andrew Ku - Sunday, September 14, 2003 - link
I am somewhat considered a new writer. My first article was the CEO Forum - Q3/2003.AgaBooga - Sunday, September 14, 2003 - link
New article writer? Not bad, it seems pretty good!