Go Back   Rage3D » Rage3D Discussion Area » Graphics Technology Forums » Other Graphics Cards and 3D Technologies
Rage3D Subscribe Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Other Graphics Cards and 3D Technologies Discussion forum for any graphics hardware not provided by AMD/ATI. Also place to discuss 3D technologies such as 3D Stereo, PhysX and other interesting developments/rumours in the 3D industry.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jul 7, 2004, 07:26 PM   #1
Advertisement (Guests Only)

Login or Register to remove this ad
mpFLUX
Radeon R420
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 245
mpFLUX is still being judged by the masses


Default New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

Again!! Multi-texturing performance holds the NV back!!

Ok...

Here I wanna talk about something that we have talked about in the
past. Its something called "Multi-texturing" and after these past few
years of Nvidia's cards being DOMINATED by Radeons in the multi
texture fill-rate catagory, you would think that Nvidia would have
worked really hard to drastically improve NV40's multi-texturing
capabilities... but they failed to do so, and this is whats going to
make the 6800 look weak in 1 year when current fillrate requirements
double.

And even though their Pixel Shader performance has over
trippled, well over 300% better then 5900 series cards it is
still way inferior to the X800 and even the 9800XT.

Here is the proof that the 6800 reference design is seriously
lacking the "balls" to hold its own under the heaviest demand, and
the proof is in the numbers.

Lets take a look at a new Benchmark tool that is quickly beginning
to show up across the major hardware sites.

Its called "FillRateBenchmark" and its made by a company
called NDaw Interactive.

You can download FillRateBench 2004 from this
website... http://www.geocities.com/ndawinteractive/

I **HIGHLY** suggest that you all download a copy of this benchmark
tool and run it on your 9800 Pro's and 9800 XT's to get a baseline for
your own system.

Here are the settings that seem to be the most widely used
for benchmarking with FILLRATEBENCH.

1024x176 - D16 - No AA - No AF

Please take a look at this link here, it shows the results for
fillratebenchmark for the 6800 Non-Ultra reference 12 pipe
card running 350 mhz core.

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/gefor...6800_61.34.png

Ok.... Now pull up that image in the link above and then
compare it against the score you pulled off of your Radeon
9800 pro or 9800 XT.

See the "Dual Textures", "Triple Textures" and "Quad
Textures" test results? Now compare those against your
9800 Pro.

The 6800 falls behind the 9800 Pro by 30% when Dual
Textures are used on one pass... and falls 40% Behind when 3
textures are used during one pass, and falls OVER 60%!
behind when using quad texturing.

Compare the scores against your cards and see for
yourself...

And the referenced NV40 has 4 more pixel piplines
and more advanced GDDRIII !!

Now I look at the information above and wonder to myself
is high Pixel Shader performance worth more to me then
solid multitexturing performance? NO WAY!!!

Sure you happen to get 8 more "AVERAGE" fps from Aquamark3
with the 6800, but when the "Massive Overdraw" happends, the card
still bites the dust, while the X800 Pro manages to cut through it
quite nicely.

So little tricks here and their to push the framerate up on NV40
give it an appealing look in most benchmarks rough averages but
when the heat is truly on, the 6800 wimpers and cowers away.

If the Non-Ultra has such low multi-texturing performance im
doubting that the GT or Ultra are really going to raise this
bar?

Thanks for readingFlux0r
X800 Pro
__________________
Dual Athlon MP 2400+ @ 2.2ghz (cpufsb)
BBA Radeon 9800 Pro 128 @ 420/340
512mb's Mushkin PC2400 DDR
1x WD360GD Raptor 36gb
NEC P1150 21" CRT
mpFLUX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2004, 09:10 PM   #2
ellingsen1
Radeon R700
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Delaware
Posts: 836
ellingsen1 is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpFLUX
Again!! Multi-texturing performance holds the NV back!!

Ok...

Here I wanna talk about something that we have talked about in the
past. Its something called "Multi-texturing" and after these past few
years of Nvidia's cards being DOMINATED by Radeons in the multi
texture fill-rate catagory, you would think that Nvidia would have
worked really hard to drastically improve NV40's multi-texturing
capabilities... but they failed to do so, and this is whats going to
make the 6800 look weak in 1 year when current fillrate requirements
double.

And even though their Pixel Shader performance has over
trippled, well over 300% better then 5900 series cards it is
still way inferior to the X800 and even the 9800XT.

Here is the proof that the 6800 reference design is seriously
lacking the "balls" to hold its own under the heaviest demand, and
the proof is in the numbers.

Lets take a look at a new Benchmark tool that is quickly beginning
to show up across the major hardware sites.

Its called "FillRateBenchmark" and its made by a company
called NDaw Interactive.

You can download FillRateBench 2004 from this
website... http://www.geocities.com/ndawinteractive/

I **HIGHLY** suggest that you all download a copy of this benchmark
tool and run it on your 9800 Pro's and 9800 XT's to get a baseline for
your own system.

Here are the settings that seem to be the most widely used
for benchmarking with FILLRATEBENCH.

1024x176 - D16 - No AA - No AF

Please take a look at this link here, it shows the results for
fillratebenchmark for the 6800 Non-Ultra reference 12 pipe
card running 350 mhz core.

http://www.nvnews.net/previews/gefor...6800_61.34.png

Ok.... Now pull up that image in the link above and then
compare it against the score you pulled off of your Radeon
9800 pro or 9800 XT.

See the "Dual Textures", "Triple Textures" and "Quad
Textures" test results? Now compare those against your
9800 Pro.

The 6800 falls behind the 9800 Pro by 30% when Dual
Textures are used on one pass... and falls 40% Behind when 3
textures are used during one pass, and falls OVER 60%!
behind when using quad texturing.

Compare the scores against your cards and see for
yourself...

And the referenced NV40 has 4 more pixel piplines
and more advanced GDDRIII !!

Now I look at the information above and wonder to myself
is high Pixel Shader performance worth more to me then
solid multitexturing performance? NO WAY!!!

Sure you happen to get 8 more "AVERAGE" fps from Aquamark3
with the 6800, but when the "Massive Overdraw" happends, the card
still bites the dust, while the X800 Pro manages to cut through it
quite nicely.

So little tricks here and their to push the framerate up on NV40
give it an appealing look in most benchmarks rough averages but
when the heat is truly on, the 6800 wimpers and cowers away.

If the Non-Ultra has such low multi-texturing performance im
doubting that the GT or Ultra are really going to raise this
bar?

Thanks for readingFlux0r
X800 Pro
Stop spreading FUD.The Pro/XT lose every time against the GT/Ultras in all of the single,dual, triple, and quad fillrate and texturing speed tests. I personally think the test you are using or your settings are screwed.

Take a look below to see the real results between the cards. By the time they get to quads the Ultra is beating the XT by 50%+.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...y/r420_26.html

Here are the results I received using your fillrate tester and settings with a Ultra.
http://pages.prodigy.net/ellingsen1/Fillratre.JPG
__________________
http://www.alsphiladelphia.org/index.shtm They have helped me and my family beyond all expectations. If you can help in any way, please do. http://alsa.org

P4C800E-Deluxe P4 HT [email protected] Zalman 6500-CU WinXP SP-2 DX9.0c
2X512mb HyperX PC4000 @ DDR 480
XFX 6800 Ultra running 455/1300
SB Audigy 2-Klipsch Pro-Medias 4.1
22" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB
2-ATA 100 7200 rpm drives and Hitachi 7K250 SATA drive
ellingsen1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2004, 10:27 PM   #3
night
Radeon Arctic Islands
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: houston
Posts: 10,695
night can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficultynight can beat 'Minesweeper' on any difficulty


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

wtf did u quote him for
__________________
However, I am in the extreme minority, and I understand that there is something fundamentally wrong with me
night is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertisement (Guests Only)
Login or Register to remove this ad
Old Jul 7, 2004, 10:43 PM   #4
scottweil4nd
Radeon Sea Islands
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Canada Smithfield, VA
Posts: 3,432
scottweil4nd is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

a benchmark utility from a geocities website? nt
__________________
You gotta make your forums replies quick like this right:
lol lol roflol noob *** lol
scottweil4nd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2004, 10:43 PM   #5
DVS Darkside
.:. Lafiel .:.
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Outerspace
Posts: 555
DVS Darkside is still being judged by the masses


Gamepad Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

Score is greatly affected if you have AA enabled turn it and AF off just in case and scores will be normal
that little utility is pretty cool actually.
__________________
.:. Antec P180 .:. i7 2600k .:. eVga GTX 480 .:. Patriot DDR3 4GB .:. Silverstone 800W PSU .:. Asus P8P67-M Pro .:. Intel G2 SSD 80GB .:.
DVS Darkside is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2004, 10:47 PM   #6
_leech_
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canada Lost in time...
Posts: 16,787
_leech_ is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

I thought multi-texturing was on it's way out anyways in favour of shaders ever since the whole "three textures per pass"-thing on the original Radeon tanked...

_leech_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2004, 12:07 AM   #7
mpFLUX
Radeon R420
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 245
mpFLUX is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

I dont know the difference between the two benchmarks
the one I posted and the one thats on xbit, but... Xbit in
my honest oppionion has ALWAYS been Nvidia biased, you
can beleive what you want.

I have run this particular benchmark on many systems
now and believe its numbers are accurate, the card I
also pitted against was a Non-Ultra, I take these things
into consideration.

And for your artical from xbit, 3/4 of the tests go to
the X800, it started out lookin good... but the more math
involved your Geforce 6 choaks.



Flux
__________________
Dual Athlon MP 2400+ @ 2.2ghz (cpufsb)
BBA Radeon 9800 Pro 128 @ 420/340
512mb's Mushkin PC2400 DDR
1x WD360GD Raptor 36gb
NEC P1150 21" CRT
mpFLUX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2004, 12:11 AM   #8
mpFLUX
Radeon R420
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 245
mpFLUX is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ellingsen1
Here are the results I received using your fillrate tester and settings with a Ultra.
http://pages.prodigy.net/ellingsen1/Fillratre.JPG
Wow... This is JUST THE OPPOSITE of the
6800 Non-Ultra. WTF....

here is the original artical I pulled this off of... that changed my
mind about the real performance of the base architecture.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...2&page=1&pp=15

Your scores are pretty nice. I wonder what makes
the Non-Ultra choke so damn bad.

Thats a pitty

Flux
__________________
Dual Athlon MP 2400+ @ 2.2ghz (cpufsb)
BBA Radeon 9800 Pro 128 @ 420/340
512mb's Mushkin PC2400 DDR
1x WD360GD Raptor 36gb
NEC P1150 21" CRT
mpFLUX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2004, 01:43 AM   #9
Spitzfiya
Radeon Evergreen
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 1,983
Spitzfiya is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

Well from what this thread is telling me my 9800Pro owns the 6800U in some areas? I doubt it -_-

It was a good read but is it the truth?
Spitzfiya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2004, 02:05 AM   #10
badboy
Merc with a mouth
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sweden Sweden
Posts: 16,315
badboy knows why the caged bird singsbadboy knows why the caged bird singsbadboy knows why the caged bird singsbadboy knows why the caged bird singsbadboy knows why the caged bird sings


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

so the GF6800 series own the Radeon 9800 in every game out there beacuse of magic then? yeah k thats good
Look at the actual god damn game performance not on stupid benchmark numbers.
I personally am buying a new graphic card to play games maybe you are buying one to benchmark 24/7
__________________
”Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” - Albert Einstein

"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." - Richard Dawkins

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

"I'll happily keep risking it and enjoy my life" - Doozer

Luke: "God will make sure that evil gets punished"
Jason: "Oh yeah, then explain Europe to me?"
- True Blood
badboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2004, 08:04 AM   #11
therapture
Radeon R300
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 172
therapture is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by badboy
so the GF6800 series own the Radeon 9800 in every game out there beacuse of magic then? yeah k thats good
Look at the actual god damn game performance not on stupid benchmark numbers.
I personally am buying a new graphic card to play games maybe you are buying one to benchmark 24/7

OWNED...


I play real games too, not just sit around running dumb ass synthetic benches that have nothing in common with real world game play...
__________________
-Athlon X2 3800+ @2.6ghz @1.45v
-Zalman 7700cu and 700alcu coolers
-Abit AN8 SLI w/ 17 BIOS
-2gb (1gb x 2) OCZ PC3200 LL Platinum
-Albatron 7800GTX @491/1350
-Thermaltake Tsunami case
-Maxtor SATA150 250gb
-Maxtor SATA150 100gb
-Samsung 915N 19" LCD
therapture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2004, 01:10 PM   #12
Fahim
ATI RADEON HD 3870
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: United Kingdom In Front of my PC
Posts: 331
Fahim is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

This benchmark is nice, maybe effective too. But how can my 9800 PRO beat 6800NU?? Guys please post more result so we can understand the efficiency of this benchmark. Here goes mine:


PowerColor 9600XT Bravo 128MB (500,675) CAT 04.6


FillrateBenchmark(tm) 2004 - "easy benchmark series"

Benchmark Main Program Version: FRB_V092
Benchmark Date/Time : 27/06/2004 6:15:56 PM

System Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPU : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+
GFX : C.P. Technologies Inc. RADEON 9600XT BRAVO 128MB
OS : Microsoft Windows XP
Settings : 1024x768 32 bits D24S8 No AA

Benchmark Result
-----------------------------------------------------------
FrameBuffer Clear : 2752 FPS
Color Fill : 1331.272 M-Pixel/s
Z Fill : 1985.584 M-Pixel/s
Color + Z Fill : 1331.272 M-Pixel/s
Single Texture : 1361.471 M-Pixel/s
Single Texture Alpha Blend : 1051.931 M-Pixel/s
Dual Textures : 989.0168 M-Pixel/s
Triple Textures : 654.3114 M-Pixel/s
Quad Textures : 490.7336 M-Pixel/s
1 Floating Poing Texture : 971.4008 M-Pixel/s
Render to Self : 1290.587 M-Pixel/s
PS 1.1 Simple : 1366.504 M-Pixel/s
PS 1.4 Simple : 1366.504 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 Simple : 1366.504 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 PP Simple : 1363.988 M-Pixel/s
Customized Pixel Shader : 1006.633 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Sincos Procedure Tex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Per-Pixel Lighting : (Unsupported)
-----------------------------------------------------------
* End of FillrateBenchmark Result


MSI GeForce FX 5900XT 128MB (450,850) 61.71


FillrateBenchmark(tm) 2004 - "easy benchmark series"

Benchmark Main Program Version: FRB_V092
Benchmark Date/Time : 29/06/2004 12:26:58 PM

System Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
CPU : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+
GFX : NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900XT
OS : Microsoft Windows XP
Settings : 1024x768 32 bits D24S8 No AA

Benchmark Result
-----------------------------------------------------------
FrameBuffer Clear : 5747.2 FPS
Color Fill : 1814.456 M-Pixel/s
Z Fill : 3548.381 M-Pixel/s
Color + Z Fill : 1814.456 M-Pixel/s
Single Texture : 1736.442 M-Pixel/s
Single Texture Alpha Blend : 1202.926 M-Pixel/s
Dual Textures : 1215.509 M-Pixel/s
Triple Textures : 822.9225 M-Pixel/s
Quad Textures : 581.3306 M-Pixel/s
1 Floating Poing Texture : (Unsupported)
Render to Self : 1707.187 M-Pixel/s
PS 1.1 Simple : 1790.548 M-Pixel/s
PS 1.4 Simple : 1789.29 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 Simple : 586.3636 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 PP Simple : 1791.807 M-Pixel/s
Customized Pixel Shader : 444.1768 M-Pixel/s
PS 2.0 Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Complex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 PP Massive Register : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Sincos Procedure Tex : (Unsupported)
PS 2.0 Per-Pixel Lighting : (Unsupported)
-----------------------------------------------------------
* End of FillrateBenchmark Result
__________________
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE 3.20GHz
MSI 790FX-GD70 Winki Edition
4 x 2GB Corsair Dominator PC3-12800 DDR3 1600MHz
Total 25TB Hard Drive
XFX RADEON HD 5850 1GB (765, 4500)
Coolermaster Real Power Pro 1000W
Antec 1200 Case

Last edited by Fahim : Jul 8, 2004 at 01:25 PM.
Fahim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2004, 09:19 PM   #13
gts007
Radeon Sea Islands
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NorCaL
Posts: 3,313
gts007 is still being judged by the masses


Default Re: New benchmark shows 6800's true weaknesses...multitexturing!

Quote:
Originally Posted by badboy
so the GF6800 series own the Radeon 9800 in every game out there beacuse of magic then? yeah k thats good
Look at the actual god damn game performance not on stupid benchmark numbers.
I personally am buying a new graphic card to play games maybe you are buying one to benchmark 24/7
lol no sh**. Seems like most people here buy these cards to run benchmarks and argue about them over the internet
__________________


Last edited by gts007 : Jul 8, 2004 at 09:23 PM.
gts007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are these benchmark graphs true ? Dwarden Radeon Technical Support 1 Jul 23, 2003 12:35 AM
nVidia shows its lame true face. Tepel-Zuiger Off Topic Lounge 97 Apr 12, 2003 05:47 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:33 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright ©1998-2011 Rage3D.com
Links monetized by VigLink