FX and PS 1.4, DX9 tests?

[Luminescent]

Thankyou Brent for the results. Anyone with results for R9500/9700pro?

 

[Ante P]

ShaderMark v1.6 - DX9 2.0 Pixel Shader Benchmark - ToMMTi-Systems (http://www.tommti-systems.com)

video mode / device info
(1024x768), X8R8G8B8 (D24X8)
HAL (pure hw vp): RADEON 9700/9500 SERIES
benchmark info
DX9 mip filter reflections: on
mip filter reflections: on

shaders:
Fixed Function - Gouraud Shading
Fixed Function - Gouraud Shading
174.47 fps

shaders:
Fixed Function - Diffuse Texture Mapping
Fixed Function - Diffuse Texture Mapping
173.01 fps

shaders:
Fixed Function - Diffuse Bump Mapping
Fixed Function - Diffuse Bump Mapping
167.24 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
158.10 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
150.36 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse + Specular
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
167.61 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse + Specular
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
165.44 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse and Specular Lighting with per pixel Specular Exponent
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
167.96 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse and Specular Lighting with per pixel Specular Exponent
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
168.74 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Anisotropic Lighting
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
168.82 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Anisotropic Lighting
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
169.65 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Bumped Anisotropic Lighting plus Diffuse
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
167.33 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Bumped Anisotropic Lighting plus Diffuse
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
162.39 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Reflections
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
123.61 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Reflections
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
122.80 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Independently Colored Reflections
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
112.99 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Independently Colored Reflections
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
110.44 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Ghost Shader
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
137.14 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Ghost Shader
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
132.00 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Tinted Reflections with per pixel Fresnel Term
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
149.79 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Tinted Reflections with per pixel Fresnel Term
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
146.42 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Independently Colored Reflections
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
148.84 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Independently Colored Reflections
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
143.98 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - 4 Lights/Pass Diffuse Bump Mapping
PS 2.0 - 4 Lights/Pass Diffuse Bump Mapping
81.32 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - 2 Spot Lights
PS 2.0 - 2 Spot Lights
64.37 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Independently Colored Reflections
PS 2.0 - 4 Lights/Pass Diffuse Bump Mapping
82.70 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Diffuse Light and Tinted Refractions
PS 2.0 - 4 Lights/Pass Diffuse Bump Mapping
87.99 fps

 

[Ante P]

Hold on, I'll throw up a graph with the results. Though I'll skip the first four tests since they are basically useless and besides I'm too CPU limited compared to Brent there.

 

[Brent]

i'm running the 9700 pro right now on the same system

 

[Brent]

9700 Pro on the same system, 1024x768x32, latest cat 3.0 drivers from the web

ShaderMark v1.6 - DX9 2.0 Pixel Shader Benchmark - ToMMTi-Systems (http://www.tommti-systems.com)

video mode / device info
(1024x768), X8R8G8B8 (D24X8)
HAL (pure hw vp): RADEON 9700/9500 SERIES
benchmark info
DX9 mip filter reflections: on
mip filter reflections: on

shaders:
Fixed Function - Gouraud Shading
Fixed Function - Gouraud Shading
446.71 fps

shaders:
Fixed Function - Diffuse Texture Mapping
Fixed Function - Diffuse Texture Mapping
433.90 fps

shaders:
Fixed Function - Diffuse Bump Mapping
Fixed Function - Diffuse Bump Mapping
238.16 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
207.10 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
193.67 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse + Specular
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
228.52 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse + Specular
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
218.91 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse and Specular Lighting with per pixel Specular Exponent
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
242.02 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse and Specular Lighting with per pixel Specular Exponent
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
231.16 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Anisotropic Lighting
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
272.57 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Anisotropic Lighting
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
258.69 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Bumped Anisotropic Lighting plus Diffuse
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
223.32 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Bumped Anisotropic Lighting plus Diffuse
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
213.19 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Reflections
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
152.17 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Reflections
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
150.52 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Independently Colored Reflections
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
134.77 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Independently Colored Reflections
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
130.95 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Ghost Shader
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
172.33 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Ghost Shader
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
164.08 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Tinted Reflections with per pixel Fresnel Term
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
192.95 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Tinted Reflections with per pixel Fresnel Term
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
186.94 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Independently Colored Reflections
PS 2.0 - Diffuse Bump Mapping
191.03 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Independently Colored Reflections
PS 2.0 - Bumped Diffuse Lighting with per pixel intensity falloff
182.80 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - 4 Lights/Pass Diffuse Bump Mapping
PS 2.0 - 4 Lights/Pass Diffuse Bump Mapping
103.32 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - 2 Spot Lights
PS 2.0 - 2 Spot Lights
80.05 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Bumped Diffuse and Independently Colored Reflections
PS 2.0 - 4 Lights/Pass Diffuse Bump Mapping
105.45 fps

shaders:
PS 2.0 - Cubic Environment Diffuse Light and Tinted Refractions
PS 2.0 - 4 Lights/Pass Diffuse Bump Mapping
114.50 fps

 

[demalion]

Hmm...looks like more room for optimization than I'd thought.

Hmm...are the 2.0 shaders using integer processing?

Does anyone have more detailed guesses besides a generic "driver issues"?

The fixed function tests atleast look like what seems expected.

 

[Doomtrooper]

Thanks Brent...I'm sure you got better things to do.

 

[Ante P]

Oh well, I should have waited front Brents own figures on the same machine.

 

[Tagrineth]

Seems the GFFX performs very poorly in Shaders

 

[KimB]

Seems the GFFX performs very poorly in Shaders

I wouldn't make that conclusion just yet. I'd like to see some more varied benchmarks. In particular, I've never liked 3DMark.

 

[Brent]

i wouldn't make a conclusion either quite yet... too early to tell, more needs to be done etc...

 

[Luminescent]

Wow, major discrepency between the FX and the 9700, no wonder Nvidia didn't initially include any DX9 marks. The FX seems to be sporting some very immature drivers, which I find are not fully telling of the processor's performance potential (ala radeon 8500). Hopefully it will not take as long as it did the 8500 to get the processor up to speed.

 

[KimB]

Hmm, I didn't notice the FX benchmarks previously. They really look like something major is wrong. In particular, the fixed-function performance offers promise to the eventual programmability performance the FX will expose. But the performance really is too low to assume it's anything but driver issues we're seeing here.

But, it doesn't matter a huge amount right now, though I really do expect usable DX9 drivers by the time the cards are available.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Seems the GFFX performs very poorly in Shaders

I wouldn't make that conclusion just yet. I'd like to see some more varied benchmarks. In particular, I've never liked 3DMark.

Is that why you were so excited when I posted the GeforceFX hitting 26K 3dmarks?

 

[KimB]

Is that why you were so excited when I posted the GeforceFX hitting 26K 3dmarks?

No, that's why I didn't pay any attention to the score (and I think it was closer to 28k), and made an ass of myself in the process.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Is that why you were so excited when I posted the GeforceFX hitting 26K 3dmarks?

No, that's why I didn't pay any attention to the score (and I think it was closer to 28k), and made an ass of myself in the process.

Sorry about that.
It was mostly my fault.

 

[KimB]

:?

 

[LeStoffer]

Wow, major discrepency between the FX and the 9700, no wonder Nvidia didn't initially include any DX9 marks. The FX seems to be sporting some very immature drivers, which I find are not fully telling of the processor's performance potential (ala radeon 8500). Hopefully it will not take as long as it did the 8500 to get the processor up to speed.

Exactly my thoughts on this. The abysmal results doesn't exactly make you wanna rush out and pre-order this behemoth.

 

[Bambers]

Heres a graph if anyones interested:

 

[Doomtrooper]

Nice work Bambers, I was working on one last night but got lazy with entering the data points.