R300 3DMARK2001 PROJECT COMPARE

The application doesn't use more than 8 textures at once. I believe that's the most you can support with DX7/8-style fixed function texturing.

 

Dang! Forgot about DX8 limits Still, better than a poky ol' GF4, eh? (Looks at his poky ol' GF4 in PC and gives it a poke). 8 passes for the R300 and 16 for the NVIDIA card. I know the former is having to apply twice as many texture layers in that pass compared to the GF4 but what's the betting that it can do this a tad quicker?

 

I think it might just be that the relationship between TMUs, clock, and Texels/sec might be a little more complicated in this generation of chips.

 

Neeyik, yes, it should be faster than a GF4.
But if it has 8 pipelines, and each one can sample one texture per clock (which has been stated everywhere), it simply can not reach more than 2600 MTexels/s at 325 MHz. So either that or this 3dmark result is wrong.

 

...or the card is overclocked.

 

Or somebody will find a way to build a perpetual motion machine with the 9700 as well...

 

Hmmm, I've been playing with some numbers in my head (and calculator). Assuming that the "R300" data is correct, here's what we have:

My GF4 - stock speed
MT Fill rate = 2319.1 which equates to 46.1 frames per second

R300-thingy
MT Fill rate = 2848.8 which is 56.6 frames per second.

Mine took 16 passes to render each one of those frames, so at the very least each pass was 1.3 milliseconds in length. The R300 on the other hand only took 8 passes to render each frame (presumably), so at the very least each one would be 2.2 ms in length. The ATI card is having to apply twice as many texture layers as the GF4 in each pass so if you half the R300 time, it comes out to be 1.1 milliseconds! Oh I know this is all nonsense but with luck, some fanboy will come and read it, then post it on another site somewhere 8) I can see it now..."Radeon 9700 is officially 15% faster than a GF4"

 

COOL

ATi really shipped an R9700Pro to You. When will we see the Review?

 

** TOP SECRET**

 

I've been puzzled by the fillrate of some of the 3dmark fillrate scores myself assuming that the default clock is suppose to be 325 MHz.

On Rage3d there was member by the name of 'Triomferus' that was reporting that for his 3dmark scores on a 1.9 GHz Athlon XP overclocked,gets fillrate at just over 3 Gigatexels STOCK.


Since the R300 has only one-texture engine you'd think that the multitexture rate wouldn't be much over that but I would call 800 Megatexels over the single-texture fillrate quite an achievement,heh that's even more than what my voodoo 5 produces.

I'll be sure to get one of these next week & see how it really fears in person.

 

I think there it's almost guaranteed that Triomferus was just lying. No one else who won an R9700 got one to take home that day (they all were getting it delivered upon release). He had over a day to post some conclusive proof of the card, including simply taking a screen shot of some sort and he provided nothing. His 3DMark score was unbelievably high, higher than a P4 3 GHz, and the ORB conveniently wouldn't connect.

Everything points to him being totally full of it. It's not that hard to simply post a screen shot or something (granted you can fake a screen shot, but he didn't provide anything). In my opinion he was just lying.

 

Right On Nagorak!!!! ..he's a big liar..we ought to all spam him. haha

 

Could it be that the R300 is shipping at 350/620?

That would be consistent with this thread at Rage3d:
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33631570

btw, The Triomferus fellow admitted he was lying, so don't bother looking into his falsifyed scores.