Fall 2003 Video Card Roundup Part I - ATI's Radeon 9800 XT
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Derek Wilson on October 1, 2003 3:02 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
We’ll limit the talk about the new batch of $500 cards to the first few lines of this conclusion. The Radeon 9800 XT offers a marginal performance improvement over the regular Radeon 9800 Pro, definitely not worth upgrading to for current 9800 Pro owners.
As far as people looking to upgrade once for the long run, with new architectures due out in 6 months, a $500 investment today would be significantly more out of date than if you purchase a card right before a refresh. We rarely recommend that you buy the fastest performing card on the market; in fact the last time we did that was with the Radeon 9700 Pro – the impact of which is clearly not equaled by the Radeon 9800 XT (nor were we expecting it to). Whether spending $500 is worth it today is your call, but you can definitely get very similar performance out of a used Radeon 9700 Pro or even a non-Pro Radeon 9800 at much better price points. If money is no object, then we’re sure that ATI wouldn’t mind shipping a few more XTs in your direction.
We’re quite wary of recommending any of the current NVIDIA cards at this point, for two major reasons. First, with NV38 coming right around the corner any FX 5900 Ultra purchases wouldn’t be wise investments. Also, given the marginal performance improvements you can expect out of a 5% core clock increase, don’t have incredibly high expectations for the NV38. We can’t recommend the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra because NVIDIA has already indicated that NV36 (the 5600 Ultra’s successor) will be here shortly to replace it and should offer significantly greater performance. So if you’re looking to buy a video card right now, ATI is the way to go.
Looking at the stats, ATI clearly wins in 6 games, NVIDIA wins in 4 games and the two come very close in 5 games. Games such as Command & Conquer Generals: Ground Zero and Simcity 4: Rush Hour are examples where ATI clearly has the lead over NVIDIA and the argument could be made that ATI holds the lead because they optimize for all games, while NVIDIA just optimizes for benchmark titles. However, looking at games like Homeworld 2 and Neverwinter Nights you could make the exact opposite argument.
What’s clear is that both manufacturers optimize for the more popular games and the focus of optimizations is obviously greater on more visible games. With that said, we’re hoping that by expanding our test suite we will be able to encourage optimizations to make more games run better. We’ll see how the picture we’ve depicted here today changes as time goes on.
Although we did provide some insight into the “next generation” of games with scores from Halo, the real question on everyone’s mind is still Half Life 2 as well as Doom3. The performance crown under Doom3 is still in NVIDIA’s camp apparently, and although the latest drivers have closed the gap significantly, ATI is still ahead in Half Life 2. The numbers we’ve seen indicate that in most tests ATI only holds single digit percentage leads (< 5%), although in some cases ATI manages to pull ahead by double digits.
There’s much more to come, but for now we’ve given you quite a bit to chew on…
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
263 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#19, did you even read this review at all? You look more idiotic by the second; Anand DID INCLUDE NV38.And if you are honestly that whiny to suggest that you can't wait for Part 2 for a free service such as Anandtech...then just get a life.
And no, SM2.0 cannot single handedly predict future game titles, that's just ignorance on your part. If you knew anything about programming you'd know that there are so many different variables that affect a game that it would take multiple code testing programs (like SM2.0) to even get a relatively accurate picture of future game title performance. Unfortunately, no web site in the world is going to spend their whole day doing that crap, they wouldn’t be able to get other games benchmarked.
(Btw, if you mistyped your comment about NV38, since your next comment seemed to imply that AT is somehow biased because they got NV38 and no one else did, you are simply a paranoid dope with nothing better to do than bash a big web site. Christ, you don't even know how dumb you sound; just today I was told by an editor through pms that AT's 9800XT review was delayed because they received NV38 at the last minute. Yeah, that clearly shows that NVIDIA had planned all along to have this AT review by their biased leash.
Haha, I just noticed over at Beyond3D that you're Natoma, yes? Haha, no wonder, you're one of the least knowledgeable guys there. Lol
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#19 cont.: Look what NVidia needs is not NV38 but NV40. And NV40 should better be better than R420 in ALL terms.And I'd love to see NVidia back on track.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Doom 3 is an OPENGL game, not DirectX. And Carmack himself said they had to write specific code paths for Nvidia (to use lower precision), so you can't really compare ATI and Nvidia in Doom 3 directly.Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Perhaps YOU are clueless. I don't need to wait for complete reviews on other sides. And yes, they might have had more time as they did not benchmark NV38. However that they did not get NV38 makes this review even more suspicious.AND: You should also want Shadermark 2.0 crap if you are interested in playing some games already on the horizon and most games that will be released over the next year. Some of these games may be fillrate intensive like Aquamark3 but they are not that Pixel Shader 2.0 intensive.
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
prescott..naa...but then again why not?Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
#11 you're an idiot. What loser who wants to buy a 9800XT or NV38 wants to see Shadermark 2.0 crap? Jesus, I certainly don't, and I'm one of many people that wants to buy a high-end video card. Tomb Raider sure, but he included 15 total games you idiot. And if you actually READ the review, you would have noticed Anand say he will do IQ testing in Part 2 of this review.Jesus, are there really this many clueless Anandtech readers? lol
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
@ 15: I was once an NVidia stockholder and gladly sold them early. With Doom 3 being DirectX 8 i mean that it does not use much of the new Shader capabilities that DirectX 9.0 cards have.I saw that Anand uses AF/AA in some games. Too bad that the most demanding games Aquamark3 and Halo were not also benched this way...
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Yes Anand really is using a 2.8GHz Prescott. =)#11 Doom3 is OpenGL. I dont know where you got this directx 8 business. Are you bashing AT because NVIDIA scored poorly, or because ATI scored well?
Kristopher
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
@ 12: Because Raven Software uses far more polygons and newer shader extensions in JK3. It is not really comparable to Quake 3.Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - link
Concerning #11: I did not mean that all games are CPU limited. But Anandtech complained about not having enough time for AA/AF. So possibly they should have excluded games like FS 2004.