Performance numbers calculated (from Anandtech's reviews)

[Nagorak]

Here's the calculated FPS based on the "normalized" scores in the Anandtech review.

Unreal Tournament 2003 (DM-Antalus)
1024x768x32 High Detail Settings
Radeon 9700: 130.4
GF4 Ti4600: 94.5
Parhelia: 54.4
Radeon 8500: 57.6

Unreal Tournament 2003 (DM-Antalus)
1280x1024x32 High Detail Settings
Radeon 9700: 87.8
GF4 Ti4600: 59.3
Parhelia: 35.1
Radeon 8500: 37.9

Unreal Tournament 2003 (DM-Antalus)
1600x1200x32 High Detail Settings
Radeon 9700: 63.3
GF4 Ti4600: 41.1
Parhelia: 24.6
Radeon 8500: 25.2

---------------------------------------------------------------

Unreal Tournament 2003 (DM-Asbestos)
1024x768x32 High Detail Settings
Radeon 9700: 210.3
GF4 Ti4600: 178.2
Parhelia: 100.4
Radeon 8500: 91.1

Unreal Tournament 2003 (DM-Asbestos)
1280x1024 High Detail Settings
Radeon 9700: 144.3
GF4 Ti4600: 115.4
Parhelia: 65.5
Radeon 8500: 58.9

Unreal Tournament 2003 (DM-Asbestos)
1600x1200 High Detail Settings
Radeon 9700: 104.1
GF4 Ti4600: 82.0
Parhelia: 46.9
Radeon 8500: 42.0

---------------------------------------------------------------

Jedi Knight 2
'demo jk2ffa' 1024x768x32
Radeon 9700: 122.5
GF4 Ti4600: 125
Parhelia: 90.5
Radeon 8500: 123.5

Jedi Knight 2
'demo jk2ffa' 1280x1024x32
Radeon 9700: 123.2
GF4 Ti4600: 124.4
Parhelia: 74.9
Radeon 8500: 116.9

Jedi Knight 2
'demo jk2ffa' @ 1600x1200
Radeon 9700: 124.3
GF4 Ti4600: 113.0
Parhelia: 65.9
Radeon 8500: 93.2

---------------------------------------------------------------

Serious Sam 2: The Second Encounter
'Little Trouble' 1024x768x32
Radeon 9700: 115.2
GF4 Ti4600: 100.2
Parhelia: 67.4
Radeon 8500: 58.2

Serious Sam 2: The Second Encounter
'Little Trouble' 1280x1024x32
Radeon 9700: 102.6
GF4 Ti4600: 72.9
Parhelia: 49.5
Radeon 8500: 45.3

Serious Sam 2: The Second Encounter
'Little Trouble' 1600x1200x32
Radeon 9700: 77.6
GF4 Ti4600: 51.7
Parhelia: 37.3
Radeon 8500: 32.1

 

[Matt Burris]

Amazing, that's all there is to say. To only think, they may be able to squeeze even more performance with future drivers. I just don't see why anyone even uses the Jedi Knight 2 benchmark, nor RtCW. Clearly they're both not very good representatives of 3D performance. Thanks for the calculations Nagorak, makes much more sense than what Anandtech has going there.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I just don't see why anyone even uses the Jedi Knight 2 benchmark, nor RtCW. Clearly they're both not very good representatives of 3D performance.

Yes, its clearly very CPU limited on even the fastest of todays CPU's:

http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/intel/p4_253/index.php?page=page9.inc

the GF4 Ti 4600 is only just beginning to show fill limits at 1600x1200 with the latest P4's.

 

[muted]

Fixed Anisotropic Filtering, Finally

that's the line i like most in the review

and i wonder why they removed the parhelia from the AA tests

think i'm going to get me a R300

 

[jvd]

"At 1600x1200 with 4X AA enabled, the Radeon 9700 is 251% faster than the GeForce4 Ti 4600. While the frame rates are high enough to be playable, even the almighty Radeon 9700 would need to back down to 1280x1024 with 4X AA enabled to be smooth as silk"

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1656&p=23

ut2003 it feels good

 

[jvd]

"ATI won’t go the route of 3dfx, they’re going the route of NVIDIA and today they just entered the passing lane."

again from anand ... sorry guys its just allways great to see the underdog win .... it give me hope of winning one day

 

[Kristof]

"ATI won’t go the route of 3dfx, they’re going the route of NVIDIA and today they just entered the passing lane."

again from anand ... sorry guys its just allways great to see the underdog win .... it give me hope of winning one day

K~

 

[nggalai]

Am I wrong, or were all past Ti4600 scores on Anandtech from AthlonXP systems, but the new comparison scores with a P4?

I don't think the math works in that case.

ta,
-Sascha.rb

 

[Guest]

The Radeon 9700 does 325 million triangles compared to nvidias geforce 4 ti4600 136million triangles. Wicked.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_1428871__2

 

[CosmoKramer]

"ATI won’t go the route of 3dfx, they’re going the route of NVIDIA and today they just entered the passing lane."

again from anand ... sorry guys its just allways great to see the underdog win .... it give me hope of winning one day

K~

 

[Althornin]

"ATI won’t go the route of 3dfx, they’re going the route of NVIDIA and today they just entered the passing lane."

again from anand ... sorry guys its just allways great to see the underdog win .... it give me hope of winning one day

K~

 

[jvd]

guys i was joking . I'm just happy that the reviews are ending on a positive note instead of the but we all know ati's past stuff they pull .

the only other thing i wonder is if when the nv30 comes out the reviewers will say its the king of the hill till ati's refresh comes out .

 

[crypto1300]

...

 

[Jazz]

Another interesting thing over at THG is:

Here are a few numbers for those of you who can't wait. The 3DMark2001SE score of GeForce4 Ti4600 was 11,400, while Radeon 9700, with its young driver, scored 14,000. Once 4x FSAA and 8x anisotropic filtering was used, the scores changed quite significantly. GeForce4 Ti4600 was able to get a mere 4500 points, while Radeon 9700 scored 10,000 points, thus, more than twice the points of the competitor from NVIDIA.

Not that I regard 3dmark 2001 as an important benchmark but the part where the g4 gets 4500 and the ATI card gets 10000 is interesting.

 

[Neeyik]

The Radeon 9700 does 325 million triangles compared to nvidias geforce 4 ti4600 136million triangles. Wicked.

I'd read that info too but thought it can't be right. The text in the review states that the R9700 is crunching one vertex per clock cycle, so with a core speed of 325MHz that's 325 million verticies...but since when has 1 vertex = 1 triangle?

 

[Basic]

...but since when has 1 vertex = 1 triangle?

Since triangle strips were invented. (Quite long time ago.)
Read http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1602 for more info.

 

[mboeller]

WHERE ARE THE AA-NUMBERS???? Please!

Has someone benchmarked the GF4 Ti4600 with 4xAA in UT 2003 already?

I would like to see the numbers so we can compare them with the numbers from the Radeon 9700. With an (up to) 2.5 times higher speed with AA enabled it seems (for me) that the Radeon 9700 does 4xAA nearly for free (in comparison with the competition)

I was only able to spot an estimate based on anandtechs reviews of the parhelia and doing a little bit of math :

GF4 Ti4600 4xAA @ 1024x768 [ DM antalus ] = 42,8 fps [parhelia review ]
GF4 Ti4600 noAA @ 1024x768 [ DM antalus ] = 94,5 fps [UT2003 benchmarks ]
GF4 Ti4600 noAA @ 1600x1200 [ DM antalus ] = 41,1 fps [UT2003 benchmarks ]

Radeon9700 = 2,51 x (42,8/94,5) x 41,1 = 46,7 fps @ 1600x1200 with 4xAA!!
Radeon9700 without AA @ 1600x1200 = 63,3 fps

so the fps goes only down ~25% with 4xAA enabled. If they really have fixed the bilinear anisotropic filtering too, then you can have all the glory with only ~50% performance penalty. If it is true (my speculation based on the preview from tomshardware) that the Radeon9700 supports RGMS then this chip will/should give really outstanding image quality.

 

[Geeforcer]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1656&p=23

Come on people, we all can do basic math here. 2.5 times faster != 250% faster.

 

[nooneyouknow]

The Radeon 9700 can do 300+ million POLYS per, not VERTICES per cycle. How so? Well, since it has 4 Vertex Engines, each can do a Vertice right?

Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Neeyik]

Doh...I wasn't thinking when I made that comment. I was aware that strips, fans, meshes et al can give you average figures of less than one vertex per polygon (and easily less than 3) but I'd looking over the text, thinking that it didn't look right