So of course everyone has been asking for benchmarks of the Radeon 9600XT, and next week we'll be able to provide you with them. Right now we're in the early formulation stages of the review and I wanted to get some feedback from you all in terms of what you'd like to see included.
Keep in mind that we'll be using our new test suite of around 20 benchmarks, so we have to watch what we include in order for there to be enough time to physically publish this thing by next week.
The first question is resolution; since we're talking about cards in the $100 - $200 range and not the top of the line stuff, is testing only at 1024x768 ok? Frame rates at 1600x1200 with these cards aren't exactly playable, so I figured 10x7 tests should be fine. We'd also probably throw in AA/AF tests at the same res, which will also help stress the card.
The next question is what cards do we include? Here's what I'm planning on doing right now:
ATI Radeon 9600XT
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600
NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600
I'd like to stick to 6 cards simply because of the plethora of benchmarks we're running on them (6 cards * 20 benchmarks * 2 tests per benchmark = 240 tests). Anything you'd like to see added? Removed? I can't guarantee that we'll get it in there but I'd like to hear your opinions.
Finally we have to ask what platform we should test on. For this to be simply a video card test we should test on the fastest platform available (Athlon 64 FX 51), however whenever we do something like that we usually get complaints that the system isn't realistic enough and we should test on a cheaper platform. Our reasoning for going with the highest performing CPU is to remove the CPU as a bottleneck and truly figure out which video card is the fastest, but there is still much to be said about using a more reasonably priced test bed. My inclination right now is to use the Athlon 64 FX as the test platform and do a CPU scaling comparison later, but if we get enough requests to switch platforms I will. I don't think including a second platform would be feasible for this review simply because of the short time period we have to get all the testing done.
As always, your comments are much appreciated and even more desired. So let me know :)
I haven't been getting much sleep lately so I'm thinking a nice 5 or 10 minute nap may be in order before lunch.
Enjoy the day folks, take care.
Keep in mind that we'll be using our new test suite of around 20 benchmarks, so we have to watch what we include in order for there to be enough time to physically publish this thing by next week.
The first question is resolution; since we're talking about cards in the $100 - $200 range and not the top of the line stuff, is testing only at 1024x768 ok? Frame rates at 1600x1200 with these cards aren't exactly playable, so I figured 10x7 tests should be fine. We'd also probably throw in AA/AF tests at the same res, which will also help stress the card.
The next question is what cards do we include? Here's what I'm planning on doing right now:
ATI Radeon 9600XT
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600
NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600
I'd like to stick to 6 cards simply because of the plethora of benchmarks we're running on them (6 cards * 20 benchmarks * 2 tests per benchmark = 240 tests). Anything you'd like to see added? Removed? I can't guarantee that we'll get it in there but I'd like to hear your opinions.
Finally we have to ask what platform we should test on. For this to be simply a video card test we should test on the fastest platform available (Athlon 64 FX 51), however whenever we do something like that we usually get complaints that the system isn't realistic enough and we should test on a cheaper platform. Our reasoning for going with the highest performing CPU is to remove the CPU as a bottleneck and truly figure out which video card is the fastest, but there is still much to be said about using a more reasonably priced test bed. My inclination right now is to use the Athlon 64 FX as the test platform and do a CPU scaling comparison later, but if we get enough requests to switch platforms I will. I don't think including a second platform would be feasible for this review simply because of the short time period we have to get all the testing done.
As always, your comments are much appreciated and even more desired. So let me know :)
I haven't been getting much sleep lately so I'm thinking a nice 5 or 10 minute nap may be in order before lunch.
Enjoy the day folks, take care.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous - Thursday, October 16, 2003 - link
add 5800NUPete - Monday, October 13, 2003 - link
My suggestions:1024x768 seems reasonable across the board. I'd like to see three settings at that res: plain, 2xAA 4xAF, and 4xAA 8xAF. I'd also like to see screenshots of each card at each setting in each game. You can include small inline jpg's if you want, but I'm more interested in links to full-size jpg's. I'd prefer a text summary of IQ differences you spotted along with a table of links to the various screenshots, a la NordicHardware's 9800XT review. Small inline shots are fairly useless, as I'd imagine the cards won't show differences so great that they'd be visible in almost-thumbnail sized pics. Please, please include commentary on how their AA and AF implementations differ in each game, as well as whether you'd prefer lower res with AA, or higher res without. Perhaps the latter analysis would only be useful if you could provide 12x10 plain (and maybe 2xAA 4xAF) numbers, too. Please pay particular attention to 3DCenter.de's recent discovery that the 52.14 drivers totally remove trilinear filtering as an option for FX cards.
As for the system, I think an nF2 and Barton 2500+ is a reasonable mid-range system ATM.
Anonymous - Monday, October 13, 2003 - link
Why should people have to read between the lines then? Hell, why should Anand have to make comments where you HAVE to read between the lines? Shouldn't he just come straight out with the facts, THEN let us make a decision based on that? What about the guys who maybe don't know as much? Who don't know the difference betwen Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic? What's he supposed to do? Guess? What's the point of writing a review/analysis if all you do is make it even more difficult for a buyer to choose? The current state of hardware reviews is completly ridiculous. All the reviewers worry about is upsetting the company that gave them the card in the first place. No one has any integrity. No one.Morten - Monday, October 13, 2003 - link
#65Settle down dude. If you gotta be told straight out, then find some other hardware sites that does exactly that. AT never has, and probably never will. AT may certianly point you in the right direction, but it never tells you what to do. It lays out all the facts, and all the findings. And leave it to you to decide what to actually buy. But if you read between the lines, it's fairly obvious anyway. I don't really see why it bothers you so much. It's a tough decision. All the alternatives are good at worst. Just use your head. Stop bitching. Don't like it, go somewhere else. I like it this way. Makes me actually think about what I'm gonna get, instead of following blindly.
Anonymous#2 - Sunday, October 12, 2003 - link
1280x1024 would be nice for the 17" and 19" TFT owners.Anonymous - Sunday, October 12, 2003 - link
These "reviews" are starting to piss me off. You'll all - Anand, Toms, and [H], a bunch of spineless jellyfish afraid of upsetting nVidia. Stop taking advice from nVidia on what and how to benchmark. Actually REPORT your findings. MAKE IT CLEAR what you are trying to say. Don't say "we'll leave it up to you to decide" or "a certain hardware vendor does this" or "we don't notice it during gameplay so it doesn't matter". Don't force us to speculate on what point it is you've tried to make but have hidden behind your spineless attempts at journalism - SAY IT. SAY WHAT YOU MEAN. IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO YOUR READERS TO MAKE SURE THEY MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION WHEN BUYING THEIR $500 VIDEOCARD.Go1 - Sunday, October 12, 2003 - link
Please include 9800 pro or xt for reference. 9700pro is a more common card and would be nice to see it instead of 9700. 1280x960 would be great, I want to see how well this card will do at higher resolutions.pisart - Sunday, October 12, 2003 - link
Use the gf4 ti4600 to, in the latest reviews they let that card every time be replaced by the ti4200. Your current list is good. ;)lifeguard1999 - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
For card #6 I would use an ATI 8500 or NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200.BMA - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
I would also request that the tests be done on a more common PC setup.