MDolenc's Fillrate Tester: GF FX FP32/FP16 Performance

The test, when used on a GeForc2 MX, kinda gives the impression that it's not capable of apply more than two texture layers per pixel which is clearly not true. Of course, the application would really only be used by people that understand this anyway but it would be nice to see how the fill rate pans out for such cards that have to use multiple passes for large-ish number of texture layers.
 
Come on...somebody with a 5900 Post some numbers...

Heres my 9800 Pro:

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: RADEON 9800 PRO (Omega 2.4.43)
Driver version: 6.14.10.6343
Display mode: 1280x1024 A8R8G8B8 75Hz
Z-Buffer format: D24S8
--------------------------

FFP - Pure fillrate - 2873.092041M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 2851.378662M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 2786.164307M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 1532.153198M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 805.526611M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 650.343750M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 1686.099976M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 1686.119019M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - 1685.154785M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Simple - 1686.064453M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer - 848.249634M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer - 848.194885M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer 4 Registers - 848.237854M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer 4 Registers - 848.201843M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Lighting - 183.394073M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Per Pixel Lighting - 179.197281M pixels/sec
Click to expand...
 
A quick survey through this thread shows that:

Display adapter: RADEON 8500 Series (Omega 2.4.07a)
Driver version: 6.14.1.6307
PS 1.1 - Simple - 1105.937378M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 558.337708M pixels/sec

Display adapter: RADEON 9700 PRO
Driver version: 6.14.10.6343
PS 1.1 - Simple - 1384.389404M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 1384.398193M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - 1384.516235M pixels/sec

Display adapter: RADEON 9800 PRO (Omega 2.4.43)
Driver version: 6.14.10.6343
PS 1.1 - Simple - 1686.099976M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 1686.119019M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - 1685.154785M pixels/sec

Display adapter: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800 Ultra
Driver version: 6.14.10.4410
PS 1.1 - Simple - 989.477356M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 624.802979M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - 628.450745M pixels/sec

:oops:

Now while I have no doubts that the 8500 was an overclocked card, the fact that it's on par with the 5800 Ultra is somewhat startling! But look at the R3xx figures....owwwwcchhhh! ;)
 
Don't worry, the 8500 Pro was at stock-speed (275/275). The whole system is actualy ;)

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: RADEON 8500 Series (Omega 2.4.07a)
Driver version: 6.14.1.6307
Display mode: 1280x1024 A8R8G8B8 60Hz
Z-Buffer format: D24S8
--------------------------

FFP - Pure fillrate - 1105.286743M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 1106.937134M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 977.404602M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 964.515991M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 388.466675M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 293.247345M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 1105.818359M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 558.480835M pixels/sec

Overclock @285gpu/299mem

Hmm... rivatuner is workin is it ?(it says 285/999). But i get basicly the same results as my default system (NOT overclocked) 1800XP+(1540mhz), 133mhz FSB and 275/275 gpu/mem.
 
yep I get the same results on a 275/275 64mb 8500

If overclocked is what you want then..

325/325MHz

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: RADEON 8500 SERIES
Driver version: 6.14.10.6343
Display mode: 1280x1024 A8R8G8B8 60Hz
Z-Buffer format: D24S8
--------------------------

FFP - Pure fillrate - 1257.197632M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 1255.079346M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1235.667603M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 1178.798828M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 594.158081M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 586.703308M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 1254.161987M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 633.181396M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - Failed!
PS 2.0 PP - Simple - Failed!
PS 2.0 - Longer - Failed!
PS 2.0 PP - Longer - Failed!
PS 2.0 - Longer 4 Registers - Failed!
PS 2.0 PP - Longer 4 Registers - Failed!
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Lighting - Failed!
PS 2.0 PP - Per Pixel Lighting - Failed!

:)
 
A 9000pro (stock clocks):
Code: 
Display adapter: HIGHTECH EXCALIBUR RADEON 9000 PRO
Driver version: 6.14.1.6307
Display mode: 1280x1024 A8R8G8B8 60Hz
Z-Buffer format: D24S8
--------------------------

FFP - Pure fillrate - 1064.168213M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 1064.784546M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1048.653076M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 520.342896M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 311.200134M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 217.832291M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 541.043640M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 359.489349M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - Failed!
PS 2.0 PP - Simple - Failed!
PS 2.0 - Longer - Failed!
PS 2.0 PP - Longer - Failed!
PS 2.0 - Longer 4 Registers - Failed!
PS 2.0 PP - Longer 4 Registers - Failed!
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Lighting - Failed!
PS 2.0 PP - Per Pixel Lighting - Failed!
not even close to the 8500...
The measurement method doesn't seem to be very reliable, though. If I don't disable a bunch of utilities sitting in the tasktray, I usually get some stuttering in games, but that fillrate tester gives me 5-25% *higher* results in that case (in w98se at least, the numbers above are with w2k where I don't have those tray apps installed).
 
The 8500 results are rather odd - it's the only card that's actually exceeding the theoretical fill rate capabilities.

275MHz x 4 = 1100Mpixels/sec

:oops:
 
Neeyik said:
The 8500 results are rather odd - it's the only card that's actually exceeding the theoretical fill rate capabilities.

275MHz x 4 = 1100Mpixels/sec

:oops:
Click to expand...

Well, remember 275Mhz is rarely *exactly* 275Mhz. Can very well be something like 275.49Mhz...
So, considrering that, I believe this just shows the RV250 as very, very near to its theorical fillrate, much more than other chips. Saying it exceeds it is not correct IMO.


Uttar
 
Yeah, I knew somebody would come in and say something about the clock rates ;). However, I'm still surprised at how well the 8500 does compared to a GeForce4 at the same clock speeds...

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600
Driver version: 6.14.1.4351
Display mode: 1280x1024 A8R8G8B8 85Hz
Z-Buffer format: D24S8
--------------------------

FFP - Pure fillrate - 1072.933472M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 1072.587280M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 938.991455M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 840.891113M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 500.596802M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 406.948700M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 542.285156M pixels/sec

Results from my own GF4 Ti4600 at 275/275 (or to be more accurate, 274.5 and 276.75MHz ;))
 
LeStoffer said:
Luminescent said:
Can somebody test the bloody 5900 ultra with MDolnec's updated fillrate app?!!
Click to expand...

Yes, it cant be that elusive amongst the people here for crying out loud! :eek:
Click to expand...

most people don't get to keep their preview samples ;)
in fact most reviewers can only keep them for a matter of two or three days

it would be interesting to see where manufacturer draws the line "ok if the site fits this criteria it will keep the board"
 
Calavaro said:
Radeon9700Pro:

Direct3D 9 Fillrate tester V0.3 [beta]
Copyright(c) 2003 Ping-Che Chen

Initialize: 1024x768x24
No shader file specified. Perform accuracy test.
Precision: 0 bits
PP Precision: 8 bits
Fillrate: 58.843 Mpix/s
Click to expand...

I got a 9500 pro on a amd 1900+ 256 ram
Direct3D 9 Fillrate tester V0.3 [beta]
Copyright(c) 2003 Ping-Che Chen

Initialize: 1024x768x24
No shader file specified. Perform accuracy test.
Precision: 5 bits
PP Precision: 8 bits
Fillrate: 64.377 Mpix/s


Strange
 
Switched of AA & AF got this

Direct3D 9 Fillrate tester V0.3 [beta]
Copyright(c) 2003 Ping-Che Chen

Initialize: 1024x768x24
No shader file specified. Perform accuracy test.
Precision: 0 bits
PP Precision: 8 bits
Fillrate: 65.105 Mpix/s
 
Stock Clock (378Mhz Core/351Mhz Memory):

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: RADEON 9800 PRO
Driver version: 6.14.10.6368
Display mode: 1280x1024 A8R8G8B8 100Hz
Z-Buffer format: D24S8
--------------------------

FFP - Pure fillrate - 2751.840332M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 2644.327637M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 2606.393066M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 1386.586914M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 736.115967M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 599.055237M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 1492.666626M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 1492.645630M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - 1492.738281M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Simple - 1492.666382M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer - 750.545837M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer - 750.555725M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer 4 Registers - 750.552246M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer 4 Registers - 750.560913M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Lighting - 158.528244M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Per Pixel Lighting - 158.527573M pixels/sec

-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Overclocked (411.75Mhz Core/371.25Mhz Memory):

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: RADEON 9800 PRO
Driver version: 6.14.10.6368
Display mode: 1280x1024 A8R8G8B8 100Hz
Z-Buffer format: D24S8
--------------------------

FFP - Pure fillrate - 2911.572998M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 2847.915039M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 2784.174316M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 1490.487549M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 781.649353M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 637.240601M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 1625.292969M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 1625.291504M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - 1625.279175M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Simple - 1625.285522M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer - 817.465454M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer - 817.460999M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer 4 Registers - 817.466370M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer 4 Registers - 817.473816M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Lighting - 172.672928M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Per Pixel Lighting - 172.675018M pixels/sec
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sorry to bring up this old buried tread but Reverend wrote:
Let's re-visit this topic (specifically wrt NV35) when Det50.xx are released.
Click to expand...
So I was wondering if anyone has some numbers from 5950U and 9800XT with the newest WHQL drivers from MDolenc's Fillrate Tester? (I haven't seen that used in reviews for some time... Is there a good reason why?)
 
Tokelil said:
Sorry to bring up this old buried tread but Reverend wrote:
Let's re-visit this topic (specifically wrt NV35) when Det50.xx are released.
Click to expand...
So I was wondering if anyone has some numbers from 5950U and 9800XT with the newest WHQL drivers from MDolenc's Fillrate Tester? (I haven't seen that used in reviews for some time... Is there a good reason why?)
Click to expand...

Here is Tridam's results posted before:

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5950 Ultra
Driver version: 6.14.10.5216
Display mode: 1024x768 A8R8G8B8 85Hz
Z-Buffer format: D24S8
--------------------------

FFP - Pure fillrate - 1884.801025M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 3542.484131M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1726.633667M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 1490.212158M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 798.393860M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 537.607605M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 938.785889M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 885.801453M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - 597.972290M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Simple - 889.860535M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer - 256.424377M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer - 450.701233M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer 4 Registers - 255.315384M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer 4 Registers - 595.546570M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Lighting - 102.137840M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Per Pixel Lighting - 128.088409M pixels/sec
Click to expand...

And here is mine :

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: RADEON 9800 PRO
Driver version: 6.14.10.6396
Display mode: 1024x768 A8R8G8B8 85Hz
Z-Buffer format: D24S8
--------------------------

FFP - Pure fillrate - 2633.528076M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 2610.297363M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 2550.419189M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 1374.092651M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 745.315979M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 607.454224M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 1489.901123M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 1489.822754M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - 1489.942993M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Simple - 1489.938599M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer - 749.569031M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer - 749.568665M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer 4 Registers - 749.590149M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer 4 Registers - 749.573303M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Lighting - 167.189240M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Per Pixel Lighting - 167.189423M pixels/sec
Click to expand...
 
Code: 
Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5800 Ultra  
Driver version: 6.14.10.5216
Display mode: 1024x768 A8R8G8B8 60Hz
Z-Buffer format: D24S8
--------------------------

FFP - Pure fillrate - 1959.906982M pixels/sec
FFP - Z pixel rate - 2116.175537M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1571.467529M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 1302.212769M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 743.387573M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 514.572327M pixels/sec
PS 1.1 - Simple - 989.363831M pixels/sec
PS 1.4 - Simple - 933.775024M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Simple - 631.757019M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Simple - 631.473450M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer - 381.601990M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer - 381.478180M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Longer 4 Registers - 308.371277M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Longer 4 Registers - 381.195953M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 - Per Pixel Lighting - 65.767677M pixels/sec
PS 2.0 PP - Per Pixel Lighting - 70.808784M pixels/sec
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CarstenS
AMD vs. Nvidia: Per Unit/clock performance of recent architectures
Replies
4
Views
5K
fellix
F
B
Why Barts is really VLIW4, not VLIW5 (and more on HD 5830/6790 being mainly 128-bit)
5 6 7
Replies
132
Views
37K
Alexko
A
Z
3D Labs Wildcat Realizm 100
Replies
11
Views
4K
Nite_Hawk
N
A
  • Locked
List of Rendering Resolutions
Replies
4
Views
1M
AlNom
A
Z
Matrox Millennium P650
Replies
7
Views
2K
Zvekan
Z
Back
Top