|
The second stage of testing focuses on the capabilities of the integrated Pixel/Vertex Shader Engines, i.e. DirectX 8.1 Hardware support.
When ATI chose to make architectural cuts elsewhere to integrate support for the DirectX 8.1 feature set in hardware, was this merely to claim fame to having the first budget DX8.1 capable card, or can the core actually perform? Let's find out.
I turned to 3dMark2001 SE again, and used two different tests that both demonstrate the level of performance, with comparisons to the high-end Radeon 9700 Pro for reference. Once again, tests were conducted at 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200.
The first test was a strictly pixel shader based benchmark. Although not what you would deem a 'complete' stressor for DirectX 8.1 hardware (no vertex shader test), seeing as most of the new visual effects we are see appearing in the latest games derive from the pixel shader engine, I thought it best to benchmark this aspect singly and bring some clarity to the situation.
Pixel Shader 1.0
The RV250 has surpassed my expectations in regard to Pixel Shader 1.0 performance. With the AIW 9000 Pro at 1024x768, the card is only 20fps behind the 9700 Pro at 1280x1024. This further emphasises the point that at 1024x768, the card is a very good performer, although take into account that this is a purely theoretical test, so acknowledge these numbers as you will.
The second test was a more realistic stressor to the hardware, utilising several key DirectX 8.1 Features, including both pixel and vertex shading engines, and also carrying a particularly high polygon count.
The nature test is much closer to a gaming scenario than the previous test, and provides a more accurate representation of the capabilities of the hardware as a whole, rather than individual aspects.
3DMark 2001SE's Nature Test
The performance of the card in this situation at first glance is somewhat low, particularly at the higher resolutions. However, take into account the limited bandwidth and the extreme complexities of the test, and again I must iterate, at 1024x768, the card performs surprisingly well.
What's becoming clear to me as we move through the testing stages is that at 1024x768, the card is more than capable of tackling everything you throw at it at decent speeds. However, 1280x1024 is only acceptable for certain, less demanding games, and 1600x1200 is simply out of bounds it seems.
This was expected due to the aforementioned low bandwidth capabilities of the card, which is mostly to blame for the extreme reductions in performance at higher resolutions.
As a whole, the card's integrated DirectX 8.1 Hardware is somewhat impressive for a budget solution. Pixel shading features aren't the only thing that tax the card's performance however, as you will see in the next testing stage.
|
