So of course everyone has been asking for benchmarks of the Radeon 9600XT, and next week we'll be able to provide you with them. Right now we're in the early formulation stages of the review and I wanted to get some feedback from you all in terms of what you'd like to see included.
Keep in mind that we'll be using our new test suite of around 20 benchmarks, so we have to watch what we include in order for there to be enough time to physically publish this thing by next week.
The first question is resolution; since we're talking about cards in the $100 - $200 range and not the top of the line stuff, is testing only at 1024x768 ok? Frame rates at 1600x1200 with these cards aren't exactly playable, so I figured 10x7 tests should be fine. We'd also probably throw in AA/AF tests at the same res, which will also help stress the card.
The next question is what cards do we include? Here's what I'm planning on doing right now:
ATI Radeon 9600XT
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600
NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600
I'd like to stick to 6 cards simply because of the plethora of benchmarks we're running on them (6 cards * 20 benchmarks * 2 tests per benchmark = 240 tests). Anything you'd like to see added? Removed? I can't guarantee that we'll get it in there but I'd like to hear your opinions.
Finally we have to ask what platform we should test on. For this to be simply a video card test we should test on the fastest platform available (Athlon 64 FX 51), however whenever we do something like that we usually get complaints that the system isn't realistic enough and we should test on a cheaper platform. Our reasoning for going with the highest performing CPU is to remove the CPU as a bottleneck and truly figure out which video card is the fastest, but there is still much to be said about using a more reasonably priced test bed. My inclination right now is to use the Athlon 64 FX as the test platform and do a CPU scaling comparison later, but if we get enough requests to switch platforms I will. I don't think including a second platform would be feasible for this review simply because of the short time period we have to get all the testing done.
As always, your comments are much appreciated and even more desired. So let me know :)
I haven't been getting much sleep lately so I'm thinking a nice 5 or 10 minute nap may be in order before lunch.
Enjoy the day folks, take care.
Keep in mind that we'll be using our new test suite of around 20 benchmarks, so we have to watch what we include in order for there to be enough time to physically publish this thing by next week.
The first question is resolution; since we're talking about cards in the $100 - $200 range and not the top of the line stuff, is testing only at 1024x768 ok? Frame rates at 1600x1200 with these cards aren't exactly playable, so I figured 10x7 tests should be fine. We'd also probably throw in AA/AF tests at the same res, which will also help stress the card.
The next question is what cards do we include? Here's what I'm planning on doing right now:
ATI Radeon 9600XT
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600
NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600
I'd like to stick to 6 cards simply because of the plethora of benchmarks we're running on them (6 cards * 20 benchmarks * 2 tests per benchmark = 240 tests). Anything you'd like to see added? Removed? I can't guarantee that we'll get it in there but I'd like to hear your opinions.
Finally we have to ask what platform we should test on. For this to be simply a video card test we should test on the fastest platform available (Athlon 64 FX 51), however whenever we do something like that we usually get complaints that the system isn't realistic enough and we should test on a cheaper platform. Our reasoning for going with the highest performing CPU is to remove the CPU as a bottleneck and truly figure out which video card is the fastest, but there is still much to be said about using a more reasonably priced test bed. My inclination right now is to use the Athlon 64 FX as the test platform and do a CPU scaling comparison later, but if we get enough requests to switch platforms I will. I don't think including a second platform would be feasible for this review simply because of the short time period we have to get all the testing done.
As always, your comments are much appreciated and even more desired. So let me know :)
I haven't been getting much sleep lately so I'm thinking a nice 5 or 10 minute nap may be in order before lunch.
Enjoy the day folks, take care.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
70 Comments
View All Comments
DG - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
I'd like a 9800pro (or 9800XT) in there, just as a reference, numbers mean much more when there is something more "understood" to compare against. Also I thought ATi said the 9600XT would beat the 9700PRO in all areas, so that might be the more suited card of the two - I think its a more popular card also. Maybe not 100% relevant to the cost bracket, but still close and most enthusiasts have an idea of the comparable performance of the 9700pro/non-pro.Also I agree about going with fastest CPU generally, since the main objective is to compare video cards. Also to support a CPU scaling chart or two (the most "important" games and the most apparently cpu bound one only maybe?), this has been VERY useful for people buying whole new systems and those looking to upgrade.
Anonymous - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
Jeff, you're an idiot, stop posting irrelevant crap about subscribers in every weblog. Dork.Anyway, I'd really like to see a Ti4200 and/or Ti4600 included in your benchmarks. Preferably, Ti4200. Besides that, just make sure BF1942 is included, as that is a VERY popular games.
Thanks Anand. :)
Ronald - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
See if the 9600XT can be somehow modded into a 9800XT. :Omietde - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
1280x1024 would be nice though.Defconfunk - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
I'd really like to see the 9500Pro included.I'm really curious how it stacks up to these newer cards.
Henry Thomas - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
There are quite a few of us at Rage3D who want to see what the differences are between the 9700 Pro and the 9600 Pro. There is speculation that the 9600 Pro will actually be a faster card overall even with the reduced memory pipeline.Truder - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
Since it is a "mainstream" product, it would be reasonable to bench it on a mainstream computer (I'm sure you know what, better than I do).Although the bottleneck issue is a valid point as well, and if you intend to do a CPU scaling article later on, it might be the best choice. Ultimately it's your call.
Keep up the good work!
Anonymous - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
9700 Pro, since ATI made the comparison and claimed the 9600XT better in all ways.Also, I agree about benchmarking this class of cards with nothing faster than a 3 GHz P4. That's about equal to an OC'd 2.4C or Barton.
Ronald - Saturday, October 11, 2003 - link
Ti4200 included.edplayer - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
and I think you should use the 9800 nonpro and a 8500 in your comparisons (some NVidia cards also, including the Ti4200).