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
Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
Cards I'd like to see:9600XT
9700 PRO (or 9800 Non-PRO)
9500 PRO
NV36/FX5700 (if possible)
FX5600 Ultra
Ti4600
Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
How long until you get your hands on NV36. I think that's the comparison everyone wants. 9600XT vs. 9700 PRO vs. 9500 PRO would also be good.z0mb1e - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
There seems to be alot of interest in comparing the 9700 Pro and the 9600XT. As someone who will be buying a gfx card soon I'd like to see that comparison myself. Also, I'd rather see a 9500 than a 9600 Pro, especially with the newer games.Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
I have a hard time asking for anything considering the great job you've already done, but here's one request:Maybe instead of a Ti4600, you could use a Ti4200. I realize the difference will be minimal when compared to such powerful cards, but I believe there are many many more Ti4200 owners out there than Ti4600 owners.
In truth, I would just like to see the incredible leaps the graphics industry has made in the last few years, and comparing a very popular card of yesterday (such as the Ti4200) with the new breed could foster a little appreciation among those who only see the (relatively) minute differences between the top-end contenders. (The greater the gap between new and old, the greater the appreciation, thus the Ti4200)
Either way, I fully support the addition of a GeForce4 Ti card, and can't wait to see the results.
Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
Finally, I'm so glad to hear about the inclusion of the Ti4600. Ever since the new DX9 cards have come out, everyone has completely dropped the older DX7/8 cards. If we're contemplating an upgrade, it helps to see what sort of performance increases we get by moving to the new crop of cards. Also, I think if you're testing with the 5600 Ultra, you can drop the 5600 from the suite.As for the CPU, I saw go with the fastest. If you use a slower processor, and we get to a game where the CPU is limiting things, we get absolutely no information on the video cards- which is the sole purpose of this review. Save scaling for later, and tell us about the cards.
Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
You think Anand reads this? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !Jeff - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
Anand, check your email and actually reply please. Stop ignoring the subscriber issues.Anonymous - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
Cards I would like to see:9800XT
9600XT
9700Pro
9500
9200
NVidia FX5600 Ultra
We don't need to see much of the nVidia side of the market, since the other nVidia cards have their own reviews that compare to the ATI counterpart.
And I would either use the same test bed you used in the original 9800XT review to save you some time. I don't think it matters what the test bed is, you should still theoretically see the same rank of winners in the end.
Thanks for asking, Anand!
Mark - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1890..."According to ATI, the Radeon 9600 XT should be the first mainstream part to outperform the Radeon 9700 Pro in all situations – not bad for a $199 card."
Would be nice to see the 9700 Pro used in the review, and perhaps some 1280x960,1280x1024 comparisons on the same test system used in the High End Shootout.
Shalmanese - Friday, October 10, 2003 - link
If you use the same testing platform, wouldn't it be possible to use the numbers from the 9800XT review? That way, you could get away with testing less cards but have more numbers, better both ways.