RADEON X800 PRO Performance with Athlon XP May 12, 2004 Brandon Sandman Bell

Introduction

Page:: ( 1 / 17 )

Due to time constraints, one feature that we’ve had to remove from our graphics performance previews as of late is CPU scaling analysis. In the past we’d rely on one or perhaps two titles to explore this topic, but this paints a fairly narrow picture of the subject matter. At the same time however, obviously the more applications and processors you add, the more time it takes: a project that may only take a day or two very quickly blossoms into three or four. Next thing you know the non-disclosure agreement (NDA) expires and it’s time to publish the article!

I like to use the term “feature creep” for this particular situation. The more features you add to the article, whether it’s additional titles for benchmarking, adding graphics cards, or including added image quality/game settings, the more time involved to prepare the article for launch day. Sometimes the hour can arrive while you’re still busy working – for instance, that RADEON 8500 or GeForce4 added to the test suite took just a little longer than estimated. That’s good old feature creep for you.

Unfortunately, this is how we got caught up on launch day for the RADEON X800 article that appeared last week. As a result, the article went up a few hours after the embargo expired, and without CPU scaling analysis. Today we’re here to correct that.

The basics

With many enthusiasts already ordering their RADEON X800 PRO boards, we figured it was the natural card to start with. We’ve also added its predecessor, RADEON 9800 XT, so you can see how it compares.

On the processor side we’ve rounded up AMD’s Athlon XP line first, with plans for a follow-up story for Pentium 4 users to follow. Processors range from the venerable 2100+ to AMD’s top-of-the-line Athlon XP 3200+. We’ve also included 2500+ and 2800+ CPUs (both using AMD’s “Barton” core), to fill in the middle. Another feature we’ve added is testing at 2048x1536 in a few applications.

And just in case you’re not familiar with the term “CPU-limited”, we’ll provide a quick refresher. Quite frankly, in many titles the graphics card is held up waiting on the CPU. You can see this in benchmarks where you hit the same frame rate regardless of graphics settings (such as increasing screen resolution). As soon as a faster CPU is inserted, the frame rates increase.

This is a situation you’d like to avoid if you’ve just plunked down $400 or $500 on a brand new graphics card, as you’re not getting the most from your money.

By the time you’ve looked over the graphs, hopefully you’ll have a better idea of which processor or graphics card best fits your needs/budget. With prices falling on the RADEON 9800 XT, it’s shaping up to be a solid solution in the sub-$300 market and may be a better choice for you than the X800 PRO.

Test conditions

Page:: ( 2 / 17 )

System Setup

AMD Athlon 64 3400+

ASUS K8V Deluxe

512MB OCZ EL PC3200 (DDR400) SDRAM

ATI RADEON X800 PRO
Driver version ATI 6.14.10.6444 Beta

ATI RADEON 9800 XT
Driver version CATALYST 4.4

30GB IBM Deskstar DTLA 307030 ATA/100 Hard Drive

Windows XP Professional SP1

DirectX 9.0b

Benchmarks

Lock On: Modern Air Combat (Mig-29 custom demo)
Call of Duty (demo0032 custom demo)
Quake III: Arena version 1.32 (fscrusher demo)
Unreal Tournament 2004 (T3 custom demo)
IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles (The Black Death track)
Splinter Cell (FS custom demo)
Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness (Beyond3D custom demo)
Halo: Combat Evolved (stock benchmark)

Call of Duty

Page:: ( 3 / 17 )

Call of Duty – OpenGL

Notes

The RADEON X800 PRO scales nicely with the processors we used in Call of Duty. Of course, keep in mind that we’re running with all IQ settings at their maximums as well as enabling 4xAA and 8xAF.

Do note the X800 PRO’s performance with the Athlon XP 2100+ however – you’re losing out on a lot of potential performance at stock speeds, so it may not be a bad idea to overclock to higher levels.

IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles 4xAA

Page:: ( 4 / 17 )

IL-2 Sturmovik: FB - OpenGL

Notes

With their complicated physics engines and advanced AI, flight simulations tend to get bogged down, as a result you don’t see the large performance deltas you may see in many of today’s popular shooters. The Black Death track involves dozens of aircraft, making it even more platform rather than video dependant.

You can see this with the Athlon XP 2100+ testing. Both the RADEON 9800 XT and RADEON X800 PRO perform similarly with this setup despite the differences between both graphics cards.

IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles 4xAA/8xAF

Page:: ( 5 / 17 )

IL-2 Sturmovik: FB - OpenGL

Notes

Again, due to the complexity of the demo we’re using for IL-2 Sturmovik: FB we don’t see the huge margins between the RADEON 9800 XT and RADEON X800 PRO on the Athlon XP 2100+.

Splinter Cell

Page:: ( 6 / 17 )

Splinter Cell – Direct3D

Notes

Even with the Athlon 64 3400+, we’re completely CPU-bound on the X800 PRO in Splinter Cell at 800x600 and 1024x768, and to an extent, at 1280x1024. On the Athlon XP platforms, the X800 PRO is being held back by AMD’s Athlon XP 3200+.

As a result, the RADEON 9800 XT/Athlon XP combo provides pretty good bang for the buck in this benchmark as you’re getting most of the performance of the higher end X800/Athlon XP combination but at a lower cost.

Tomb Raider

Page:: ( 7 / 17 )

Tomb Raider – Direct3D

Notes

We’re graphics bound in Tomb Raider, pretty much regardless of the processor used.

Tomb Raider 4xAA

Page:: ( 8 / 17 )

Tomb Raider – Direct3D

Notes

The same trends continue with AA enabled, which isn’t surprising considering the additional demands of anti-aliasing.

Lock On: Modern Air Combat

Page:: ( 9 / 17 )

Lock On: Modern Air Combat – Direct3D

Notes

Performance scales nicely with the CPUs in Lock On at 1024x768. By 1280x1024 the RADEON 9800 XT graphics cards are capped regardless of the processor used, while the X800 still scales nicely at 1600x1200. Clearly LOMAC is a title that benefits from the 64-bit architecture of the Athlon 64 3400+.

Lock On: Modern Air Combat 4xAA

Page:: ( 10 / 17 )

Lock On: Modern Air Combat – Direct3D

UT 2004 4xAA

Page:: ( 11 / 17 )

Unreal Tournament 2004

Notes

We’re CPU-bound with the X800 PRO at 800x600 and 1024x768 on the 3400+, and CPU-bound at all resolutions with the same graphics card and an AMD Athlon XP processor. This is what allows the RADEON 9800 XT to perform so well in comparison to the RADEON X800 at lower resolutions. The graph also shows the benefits of upgrading from a RADEON 9800 XT to the X800 if you have an Athlon 64 3400+.

This particular upgrade will net you an additional 30% in performance.

UT 2004 4xAA/8xAF

Page:: ( 12 / 17 )

Unreal Tournament 2004

Notes

Even under the greater demands of 4xAA/8xAF, we’re still CPU-limited with the X800 PRO with the Athlon 64 3400+ at lower resolutions. The upgrade we mentioned on the previous page (Athlon 64 3400+ with RADEON 9800 XT to RADEON X800 PRO) nets you a performance improvement of nearly 2x.

Halo	Page:: ( 13 / 17 )

Halo

Notes

Unlike the other DX9 title we tested, Tomb Raider, Halo scales nicely with the processor used. Keep in mind that our Halo benchmark is based on the standard demo that comes with the game and isn’t truly reflective of real-world performance, unlike the other benches we’ve included. Think of Halo as more of a synthetic test than anything else.

Far Cry

Page:: ( 14 / 17 )

Far Cry – Direct3D

Notes

Far Cry is processor bound at the low resolutions, even on the Athlon 64 3400+. In fact the RADEON 9800 XT is as well. Let’s take a look at Far Cry with AA.

Far Cry 4xAA

Page:: ( 15 / 17 )

Far Cry – Direct3D

Notes

Under 4xAA we’re not processor limited like we were before on the Athlon 64 3400+. Of course, we are still unfortunately limited on the Athlon XP processors, including the 3200+.

Far Cry 4xAA/8xAF

Page:: ( 16 / 17 )

Far Cry – Direct3D

Conclusion

Page:: ( 17 / 17 )

Deciding on the right processor/video card combination can be a difficult decision to make. If you pair a high-end graphics card like ATI’s RADEON X800 PRO or X800 XT Platinum with a slower processor like the Athlon XP 3200+, you’ll find yourself limited by the processor in many situations.

On the other hand, not everyone can afford a $400 CPU like the Athlon 64 3400+.

Finding the perfect middle ground can be hard as various applications stress the processor and graphics card in different ways.

Flight simulators tend to stress the overall system, including components such as the graphics card and processor. Upgrading from a RADEON 9800 PRO to a 9800 XT buys you relatively minor performance gains. In fact, we saw little difference between a similarly equipped RADEON 9800 XT versus RADEON X800 AMD system until you hit 1600x1200 with AA and AF, and by then the frame rate would be considered unplayable to many IL-2 enthusiasts. We did see larger performance margins between the two graphics cards in LOMAC however, which is a more stressful title.

Unreal Tournament 2004 and its cousin Splinter Cell were two shooters that we were CPU-bound in a lot of cases with, so if you are a fan of one of these games it’s more imperative that you pair your graphics card up with a fast processor for optimal performance. Tomb Raider on the other hand was the exact opposite.

Hopefully this article made your upgrade decision a little easier, but we certainly would welcome your feedback in the news comments. And while it isn’t included here, we feel AMD’s Athlon 64 3400+ would make an excellent alternative to the Athlon XP 3200+. It’s priced somewhat similarly and delivers more performance; the only downside is current Athlon XP users would have to upgrade their motherboard, adding to the cost. If you could find an inexpensive RADEON 9800 or RADEON 9800 PRO, that would make an excellent upgrade as well.

Once you’ve got your budget nailed down hopefully you can use this article, in combination with previous reviews with more graphics cards included to see which processor/graphics combination best suits your needs.