![[H]ardOCP](/images/blank.gif){kind=small}
- Date:
- Tuesday , March 09, 2004
- Author:
- Brent Justice
- Editor:
- Kyle Bennett
- Google +1
ABIT 9800XT Review
ABIT’s new Radeon 9800XT versus a GeForceFX 5950Ultra with the newest drivers. We evaluate gameplay and image quality in eleven current games.
Software:
Contained on the software CD are three sections. Under the Drivers menu you can select the Catalyst 3.9 drivers to install. Included are the drivers, control panel and HydraVision. Under the Manual section you can choose to view the manual for the R9800XT after you have installed Adobe Acrobat Reader. Under the Utility menu you can install the Acrobat Reader, ATI Flash, DirectX 9.0b and PowerDVD 5.0.
There were no tweaking or overclocking applications included with this card.
Test Setup:
ABIT IC7-G (i875P), Intel Pentium 4 3GHz “C”, 2 X 512MB Corsair XMS PC3200LL TwinX Dual Channel DDR400, Maxtor 40GB ATA/133, Windows XP Professional SP1 with DirectX 9.0b.
ABIT 9800XT – Operating at default clock speeds 412/730 using Catalyst 4.2 (WHQL).
GeForceFX 5950Ultra – Operating at default clock speeds 475/950 using Forceware 56.56 (WHQL).
There is a new Forceware driver out from NVIDIA, well sort of. NVIDIA was set to release Forceware driver version 56.56 on February 18th. This driver is WHQL’d. However, there was a performance bug found in this driver version that effected Unreal Tournament 2004. In light of this NVIDIA decided not to release this driver on NVIDIA.com and instead wait until they resolve this performance issue and release a newer version on their website with this UT2004 performance fix.
However, that has not stopped NVIDIA from deciding to go ahead and give it to their add-in-board partners to ship with retail boards. Here is the quote from NVIDIA on this: “After talking with Epic, we have decided not to post Rel 55 on NVIDIA.com. We are working the UT 2004 issue with them and will post a WHQL driver with the UT fix in a couple of weeks. In the meantime all our add-in card partners and system integrators will be shipping with the WHQL 56.56 graphics driver.
So there you go, Forceware 56.56, with the UT2004 performance bug, will be included with shipping video cards. Therefore since this driver is WHQL’d and will be shipping with retail video cards we can use it here in this review since it is a driver that will be publicly available.
Halo: Combat Evolved
(DirectX 9)
In order to represent actual gameplay we relied on FRAPS and a manual run-through. Using FRAPS we ran through a certain path in the “Assault on the Control Room” mission. The manual run-through is done at a point in the game that focuses more on the graphics rather than the physics engine of the game. There are lots of mirrored bumped surfaces and specular over this entire level that put stress on these video cards.
ABIT 9800XT – Since Anti-Aliasing does not work with this game the only option we are left with is Anisotropic filtering. With the ABIT 9800XT we were able to run this game with 8XAF enabled at a resolution of 1024x768. With Halo one just has to accept that the game is going to get choppy in places. With that said there were some instances in heavy battles where the framerate went down into the 20’s. But everywhere else in the game performance was well above 30FPS with this video card allowing smooth gameplay. Since the game runs at Pixel Shader 2.0 with this video card we were experiencing the best the game could deliver in terms of image quality.
GeForceFX 5950U – Anti-Aliasing with the 5950 also does not work in Halo. Therefore the only extra quality setting we are left with is Anisotropic filtering. We found that playing Halo on the GeForceFX 5950Ultra was fairly choppy during certain scenes just like the ABIT 9800XT. We were able to play Halo at 1024x768 with 8XAF on the GFFX 5950Ultra though at times the framerate did dip down into the teens during intense fight scenes. We confirmed that the GeForceFX 5950Ultra was using Pixel Shader 2.0 in Halo. According to our test run the GeForceFX 5950Ultra came in with 36FPS as the minimum while the ABIT 9800XT did better at 41FPS. The averages were within 3FPS between both cards.
Image Quality:
In the first screenshot comparison above we see that the ABIT 9800XT is rendering the flashlight pattern in a very defined circular pattern while the 5950U does it in a more spread out pattern. In trying to figure out which one is the correct image we look to the Xbox. On the Xbox the flashlight pattern represents what we are seeing rendered from the ABIT 9800XT. The second comparison screenshot above is a bit more hard to detect, though the differences are there. Flipping back and forth between both pictures we found that there is slightly less shadowing being rendered on the GFFX 5950Ultra compared to the ABIT 9800XT. We also found that the ground is slightly bettered filtered on the ABIT 9800XT in the upper left portion of the screenshot. These are very minor differences though, and as you can see hardly noticeable even side by side, but they are there, so it is worth noting.
The next comparison was best seen if we left the full size screenshot intact. If you wish you can save both images to your hard drive and quickly flip back and forth between these pictures and you will see exactly what we are seeing. The first picture above is taken on the ABIT 9800XT, and the second is from the GFFX 5950Ultra. What you will notice is that there is a lighting difference between them. You will also notice the floor is slightly different as well. If you look towards the ceiling in the grating that present, you will find it rendered with slightly less detail on the GFFX 5950Ultra. All of these are very minor differences not likely to greatly impact gameplay but over the ABIT 9800XT gives what we see to be a better IQ.