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
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