PDA

Archiv verlassen und diese Seite im Standarddesign anzeigen : PCI: Radeon 9100 vs. Geforce FX 5200


nagus
2003-04-23, 13:03:27
Quelle: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=31&threadid=1031972
--------------------------------------------------------------


Today we have another PCI video card comparison. Today’s benchmarks were done on an MX 440 PCI, a Radeon 9100 PCI, and a FX 5200 PCI. All the cards come equipped with 128mb DDR memory, and all are hardwired for different versions of Direct X. The first player is the Inno3D MX440 PCI, one of the best DX7 PCI video cards available. Visiontek’s Xtasy 9100 PCI is the new PCI card outfitted for DX8.1, and finally, the PNY FX 5200 PCI is the first mainstream DX9 PCI video card. For a baseline comparison, all the benchmarks that would support it were also run on Intel’s 845G “Extreme Graphics” integrated video.

On a side note, much of my benchmarking is limited by resolution factors. I currently have only a 15” CRT, so 1024x768 is the maximum resolution I can run. In some of the tests, the three video cards showed similar performance and the results would probably only begin to differentiate themselves at higher resolutions, where the tests would depend more on the video cards’ abilities and less on the processor speed. However, I would propose that most people who buy a PCI video card for gaming will probably not be playing graphically intensive games above 1024x768x32, since these cards are already slower (because of the restrictive PCI bus) than their “budget”-oriented AGP counterparts.

The benches were done using the latest drivers for each card, being the Catalyst 3.2 drivers for the 9100 PCI and the 43.45 Detonators for the 440 and FX 5200 PCI. Here is a list of the benchmarks used today:
3DMark2001SE
3DMark2003
Codecreatures
Dungeon Siege benchmark utility
DroneZ OpenGL benchmark
Comanche 4 Demo benchmark utility
Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo benchmark utility

System specifications:
Dell 4500S
2.4 P4 (400)
768mb pc2100
WinXP Home edition

Video cards tested:
Intel 845G integrated video “Extreme Graphics”, 64mb of system memory
Inno3D MX 440 PCI 128mb DDR with VGA & TV/out (s-video) - 270/200(400) – 5ns
PNY FX 5200 PCI 128mb with Dual-VGA & TV/out (s-video) – 250/150(300) – 6ns
Visiontek Xtasy 9100 PCI 128mb DDR with VGA, DVI-D & no TV/out – 250/250(500) – 4ns




3D Mark 2001 SE:

3DMark Score 1255
3DMark Score 4272
3DMark Score 4909
3DMark Score 7426

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 22.0 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 106.6 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 88.8 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 110.7 fps

Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 10.1 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 41.5 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 40.2 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 48.6 fps

Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 22.3 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 55.3 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 60.3 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 108.4 fps

Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 10.7 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 17.9 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 27.3 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 62.6 fps

Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 22.0 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 80.6 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 87.2 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 115.9 fps

Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 8.8 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 33.0 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 38.3 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 53.4 fps

Game 4 - Nature Not supported by hardware
Game 4 - Nature Not supported by hardware
Game 4 - Nature 21.5 fps
Game 4 - Nature 39.3 fps

Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 185.4 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 434.5 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 471.7 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 746.4 MTexels/s

Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 341.2 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 804.1 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 718.6 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 1864.3 MTexels/s

High Polygon Count (1 Light) 3.7 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 20.4 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 22.3 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 22.6 MTriangles/s

High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 3.6 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 6.5 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 4.9 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 8.5 MTriangles/s

Environment Bump Mapping Not supported by hardware
Environment Bump Mapping Not supported by hardware
Environment Bump Mapping 57.9 fps
Environment Bump Mapping 91.8 fps

DOT3 Bump Mapping 20.6 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping 68.9 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping 55.5 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping 70.3 fps

Vertex Shader 18.9 fps
Vertex Shader 4.1 fps
Vertex Shader 40.6 fps
Vertex Shader 69.3 fps

Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Pixel Shader 72.2 fps
Pixel Shader 81.2 fps

Advanced Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Advanced Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Advanced Pixel Shader 21.5 fps
Advanced Pixel Shader 77.0 fps

Point Sprites 1.3 MSprites/s
Point Sprites 10.5 MSprites/s
Point Sprites 9.1 MSprites/s
Point Sprites 23.7 MSprites/s


Dungeon Siege benchmark utility 1024x768x32:

Average 26.04 fps
Average 72.19 fps
The FX 5200 would not run the Dungeon Siege benchmark. The screen went blank, but I could occasionally see weapons and spell effects on the screen (i.e. the flight path of an arrow or the glowing effects of a spell). I tried the 43.45, the 41.09 and the 40.72 drivers, but nothing worked. The same test ran beautifully on the MX 440 PCI with the same drivers, so I can only guess that this was a hardware issue.
Average 59.73 fps


DroneZ OpenGL benchmark at 1024x768x32:

Benchmark results
Rendered Frames: 9721

Minimum FPS: 12.35
Minimum FPS: 76.39
Minimum FPS: 85.49
Minimum FPS: 92.63

Maximum FPS: 54.46
Maximum FPS: 228.77
Maximum FPS: 349.30
Maximum FPS: 408.51


Average FPS: 23.4690
Average FPS: 113.5936
Average FPS: 137.8713
Average FPS: 156.3428


Minimum GL K-triangles: 0.88
Minimum GL K-triangles: 7.51
Minimum GL K-triangles: 13.73
Minimum GL K-triangles: 14.35

Maximum GL K-triangles: 232.27
Maximum GL K-triangles: 735.93
Maximum GL K-triangles: 832.26
Maximum GL K-triangles: 1062.56


Average GL K-triangles: 88.7187
Average GL K-triangles: 427.8348
Average GL K-triangles: 518.6028
Average GL K-triangles: 576.0433

Minimum T&L K-triangles: 0.95
Minimum T&L K-triangles: 5.38
Minimum T&L K-triangles: 9.57
Minimum T&L K-triangles: 10.25

Maximum T&L K-triangles: 441.46
Maximum T&L K-triangles: 1560.35
Maximum T&L K-triangles: 1779.33
Maximum T&L K-triangles: 2005.32

Average T&L K-triangles: 164.3632
Average T&L K-triangles: 792.3255
Average T&L K-triangles: 961.5839
Average T&L K-triangles: 1066.3693


Comanche 4 Demo benchmark utility at 800x600x32 & 1024x768x32:

Note: The demo requires hardware T&L and, therefore, the test would not run on the integrated Intel graphics.

800X600x32:

Frames per second: 31.51 avg
Frames per second: 31.30 avg
Frames per second: 33.79 avg


1024x768x32:

Frames per second: 29.98 avg
Frames per second: 26.70 avg
Frames per second: 31.56 avg


UT2K3 Demo benchmark utility at 800x600x32 & 1024x768x32:

800x600x32:

flyby: 15.98
botmatch: 11.85

flyby: 114.90
botmatch: 45.08

flyby: 105.77
botmatch: 45.42

flyby: 136.20
botmatch: 44.92


1024x768x32:

flyby: 11.40
botmatch: 8.15

flyby: 84.27
botmatch: 45.65

flyby: 76.34
botmatch: 43.83

flyby: 111.57
botmatch: 46.50



Codecreatures:

The Codecreatures benchmark runs tests at three increasing resolutions, starting at 1024x768x32. Being that this is my highest attainable resolution, I was only able to run at 1024x768. This is a DX8.1 benchmark, so only the 9100 PCI and the FX 5200 PCI could complete the test.

1024x768x32:

Average fps: 11.3

Average fps: 18.2



3D Mark 2003:

This test is mainly for DX9 video cards, although DX8.1 cards can run most of the tests. It absolutely would not run on the Intel graphics and would only run one test on the DX7-based MX 440 PCI, so I only included the 9100 and FX 5200 PCI cards. The test is run at 1024x768x32:

3DMark Score 1197
3DMark Score 1240


GT1 - Wings of Fury 63.3 fps
GT1 - Wings of Fury 65.5 fps

GT2 - Battle of Proxycon 5.4 fps
GT2 - Battle of Proxycon 9.3 fps

GT3 - Troll's Lair 5.0 fps
GT3 - Troll's Lair 8.9 fps

GT4 - Mother Nature 7.8 fps
GT4 - Mother Nature Not Supported


Feature Tests

Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 428.4 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 616.9 MTexels/s

Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 684.7 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 1736.8 MTexels/s

Vertex Shader 4.4 fps
Vertex Shader 8.5 fps

Pixel Shader 2.0 7.7 fps
Pixel Shader 2.0 Not Supported

Ragtroll 3.7 fps
Ragtroll 4.0 fps




In conclusion: The clear winner here today is the Visiontek 9100 PCI. It is based on the Radeon 8500 core, a tried and true product that has been polished over many driver releases since its introduction. In either OpenGL or D3D tests that are not CPU-bound, it is clearly the most powerful card of the three tested here. The FX 5200 PCI has a lot of useful features such as Dual-VGA, DX9 compliance, and TV/out. I am confused, however, why PNY would release such a lowly-powered PCI card. Normally, AGP versions of the FX 5200 come clocked at 250/200(400). The 5200 PCI sports 6ns DDR RAM rated at 150mhz, or effectively 300mhz. Even DDR MX 420 PCI video cards come equipped with 166(333)mhz DDR RAM. I am certain that the FX 5200 PCI’s performance will improve over time with future driver releases, but I doubt any driver release can make up the performance difference that the 9100 PCI enjoys, in part, because of its 200mhz faster memory.

If you are looking for a decent performing PCI video card for a good price, then the MX 440 PCI should meet your needs nicely. If you enjoy using the TV/out function, then either Nvidia-based card will do. If, however, you simply want the most-powerful and best performing PCI video card, then the 9100 PCI is it.
----------------------------------------------------------------

LovesuckZ
2003-04-23, 13:06:29
Nagus, es waere eine Überraschung, wenn die 9100 nicht schneller waere.

/edit: Aha: PNY FX 5200 PCI 128mb with Dual-VGA & TV/out (s-video) – 250/150(300) – 6ns

Dann ist klar, warum die Karte so langsam ist.
Was soll der Thread jetzt eigentlich sagen?

Roadkill
2003-04-23, 13:07:19
hehe, Nagus lebt und stirbt auch mit Ati. :D

mapel110
2003-04-23, 13:13:45
Originally posted by LovesuckZ
Nagus, es waere eine Überraschung, wenn die 9100 nicht schneller waere.

/edit: Aha: PNY FX 5200 PCI 128mb with Dual-VGA & TV/out (s-video) – 250/150(300) – 6ns

Dann ist klar, warum die Karte so langsam ist.
Was soll der Thread jetzt eigentlich sagen?

*zustimm*
wird also vom hersteller und vom verwendeten speicher abhängen, welche karte besser ist.

BlackArchon
2003-04-24, 20:42:18
Also das Ergebnis ist ja katastrophal für die Radeon!!! Beim Dungeon Siege Benchmark.

nagus
2003-04-24, 21:09:33
Originally posted by BlackArchon
Also das Ergebnis ist ja katastrophal für die Radeon!!! Beim Dungeon Siege Benchmark.

Also das Ergebnis ist ja katastrophal für die GeforceFX 5200/MX!!! außer beim Dungeon Siege Benchmark.... und das läuft nicht auf der FX5200 ... super nvidia-treiber sag ich da nur

Unregistered
2003-04-24, 21:18:54
boah was nen gespamme

robbitop
2003-04-24, 21:36:43
nagus hast PM

Quasar
2003-04-24, 21:44:04
Ich wollt' grad' mal auf der Website von Visiontek schauen, ob die Karte per default so hoch getaktetes RAM hat und sah folgendes:

XTASY 9100 128MB
ASS KICK’n graphics performance
XTASY 9100, powered by ATI’s RADEON™ 9100 VPU with128MB DDR memory gives BITCH’N EYE CANDY! TRUFORM™ technology makes stuff more rounded and natural-like, while HYPER Z™ II saves bandwidth for better performance in your more demanding sit-e’ations…

ATI’s SMOOTHVISION,™ anti-aliasing, kicks the CRAP out of visual distortion resulting in smoother looking images. HI-RES 32-bit, 3D gaming up to 2048x1536 means when ‘intense applications’ come out to play, XTASY 9100 says: “ BI-A-TCH! GO MAKE ME A SAMWICH!!”

FREAK’N COOL Visual Effects
SMARTSHADER™ uses DirectX® 8.1 for AWESOME lighting effects. The 9100 supports DirectX® 8.1 and OpenGL® 1.3. ATI’s CHARISMA ENGINE™ II fronts ‘Transformation and Lighting’ (T&L) at 62.5 million triangles per second. THAT’S RIGHT… GET YO’ FREAK ON at 62.5M per second! PIXEL TAPESTRY™ II, 3D rendering engine, powers an unbelievable 2.4 gigatexels/second for awesome fill rates at 32-bit HI-RES.

TAPP’n in to TWO Monitors & DVD
ATI’s HYDRAVISION™ supports ol’school CRT monitors and flat panels, while VIDEO IMMERSION™ II enables integration of UNBELIEVABLE digital video stuff, including advanced de-interlacing for FREAK’N AWESOME video quality. YOU JUST connect to a digital flat panel and dig crisper images and ease yo’ eyestrain pain!

:rofl: Selten so eine geile Produktbeschreibung gelesen.... South-Central L.A.approved ;)

zeckensack
2003-04-24, 21:46:22
Scheiiiiiiße wie geil :D

StefanV
2003-04-24, 21:47:44
Naja, NV Karten mit PCI sind nicht gerade das Gelbe vom Ei, siehe letzten PCGH Test von PCI Karten...

@Nagus

Du solltest mal deinen Avatar anpassen!!
Zak ist schon LAAAANGE tot.

wie wärs damit:
http://www.trek47.com/ds9/images/char13f.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8713/Rom.html

nagus
2003-04-24, 22:34:29
Originally posted by Stefan Payne
Naja, NV Karten mit PCI sind nicht gerade das Gelbe vom Ei, siehe letzten PCGH Test von PCI Karten...

@Nagus

Du solltest mal deinen Avatar anpassen!!
Zak ist schon LAAAANGE tot.

wie wärs damit:
http://www.trek47.com/ds9/images/char13f.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8713/Rom.html


die letzte (7.) DS9 staffel gibts für mich nicht. ist mit abstand die schlechteste staffel überhaupt.

aber trotzdem danke für den hinweis :)

... und btw, es heist "Zek" und nicht "Zak"

nagus
2003-04-24, 22:37:45
Originally posted by Quasar
Ich wollt' grad' mal auf der Website von Visiontek schauen, ob die Karte per default so hoch getaktetes RAM hat und sah folgendes:


:rofl: Selten so eine geile Produktbeschreibung gelesen.... South-Central L.A.approved ;)

:lol::rofl::lol: ... sehr geil