The New Test Suite

As we mentioned at the beginning of this article, we are introducing a brand new test suite with this review and we are also kicking off the first installment of a multipart series covering multiple aspects of current (and somewhat next) generation gaming performance.

By no means should you take the limited (yet extensive) tests we have here as all you will see from us, but rather something to whet your appetite for what is yet to come. The focus of this review is plain and simple – comparing the basic performance of the latest offerings from ATI and NVIDIA. In the future installments we will cover image quality, CPU scaling and other aspects of performance in greater detail. We will be making notes of noticeable visual differences between ATI and NVIDIA in this article, but a comparison with supporting images will be done in Part II of the series.

As far as the new test suite is concerned, here are the benchmarks that made it in:

AquaMark 3
Command & Conquer Generals: Zero Hour
F1 Challenge ’99-‘02
Final Fantasy XI Benchmark 2
Halo
Homeworld 2
Jedi Knight III: Jedi Academy
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004
Neverwinter Nights: The Shadows of the Undrentide
Simcity 4
Splinter Cell
Unreal Tournament 2003
X2
Warcraft III: Frozen Throne
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory

We are working on expanding the suite even further, but for now this is what we have. If you’d like to see more games added please feel free to let us know either by sending an email or even better, leaving a comment through the system at the bottom of the page.

We used ATI’s publicly available Catalyst 3.7 drivers and in order to support the NV38 we used NVIDIA’s forthcoming 52.14 drivers. The 52.14 drivers apparently have issues in two games, neither of which are featured in our test suite (Half Life 2 & Gunmetal).

Our test bed was configured as follows:

2.8GHz Intel Processor Prescott
512MB DDR400
Intel 875P Motherboard

The Radeon 9600XT & NV38 Aquamark 3
Comments Locked

263 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    #81 and anyone who thinks it isnt important to benchmark dx9 performance:

    When you have 2 of the most highly anticipated games due for release over the next few months (halflife2 and doom3 for those who are asleep at the wheel) which both include dx9 features, Why in gods name would you buy a $500 card that _doesn't_ support dx9 features effectively? You would obviously have to be someone who isnt interested in having the best quality visuals you can get, and that is the exact opposite to the reason anyone would spend that amount of money on a video card in the first place. People want to see the best quality with the best performance! I simply cannot understand why someone would buy one of these expensive cards expecting that they would need to buy another equally or more expensive card as soon as such new dx9 titles appear... the simple truth is that you would have to be a fool with money to burn if you are prepared to pay $500 for a card that cannot perform well in new games that arrive after a couple of months

    It's not a matter of whether dx9 features should be benchmarked, it's a matter of how.. I will avoid the whole benchmarking fiasco going on with regard to cheats, but why do you think people put such weight in programs which are designed to predict the performance of hardware on future games? People want cards that will perform well with _future_ games! It is just a pity there arent more tools available that can provide a RELIABLE prediction of how hardware will perform with these future games.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    #90

    If you're serious enough to inquire about BF1942...why not test it using TFC? I personally enjoy the soles of my Air Nikes, but come on, Reebok? I think I'd rather buy a pair of New Balance at my local shoe wharehouse. ATi has proven itself to be capable of running today's graphically intense games, just as smooth as STEAM is running HL. Thx for the tests, ATech.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    How about benchmarking the game with Battlefield 1942? I know it isn't one of the most graphically intensive games out there, but it is one of the most popular.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    Any chance of benchmarking Soldier of Fortune 2, it may be old but still very popular online.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    No discussion of image quality for each game?
    Other sites now do this as a matter of course as it is clear that Nvidia is taking shortcuts on quality to maximize speed. Hey I own a 4600 Gold Sample so I am not an ATI zealot, but I know where my next card purchase this year is going, that is clear from all the reviews I have seen.

    I think its time you look beyond raw frame rates.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    id like to see doom 3 when available
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    thanks #65\#77, that is very interesting

    it doesnt make a lot of sense as to why such scores would increase... unless it was some sort of driver 'bug'...
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    #73, who in their right mind would use the PCI slot next to the AGP slot? That's a surefire way to give you graphics card trouble.
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    I would suggest adding a few sports games to the mix; I myself would prefer Madden 2004. Thank you :)
  • Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link

    ADDD HL2

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now