|
Test Setup:::...
Western
Digital 80GB Special Edition (8MB cache)
512MB Corsair
TwinX 3200
ATi Radeon 9600XT, 9700 Pro, 9800 Pro on CATALYST
v3.8
AMD
Athlon XP 3200+ (Barton)
Microsoft WindowsXP Pro + SP1 + DX9.0a
MSI K7N2 Delta-ILSR
To avoid any possible confusion,
the following driver settings were used for all benchmarks:
FutureMark
3DMark03 Patched to 3.3.0
Despite the controversy we intend to
keep using 3DMark 03 and allow you, the reader, to
decide whether or not you want to put any weight behind
the results. The fact that we're sticking to the same
platform for these comparisons should remove any potential
question marks over the results anyway so I doubt
there'll be anything to worry about.
A score just shy of the 4000 mark is
a good foundation for a card at this price point.
The 9600XT is certainly a breath of fresh air in this
segment of the market but could, and indeed SHOULD
ATi have gone further? My first impressions are that
yes they should have.
What about with some of the more demanding
features enabled?
The 9600XT handles anisotropic filtering
with few problems but anti-aliasing is more of an
issue. Always-on AA may be a fact of life on high
end graphics cards but at this level we still need
to exercise care with when and how it's used.
Comparison:::...
And this is how it shapes up against
its big brothers:
The score is certainly respectable,
and much as it would be nice to see 9700 Pro levels
of performance from the 9600XT I think that was always
an unrealistic goal. The 9700 Pro was ahead of its
time and to some extent still is, and with so little
pressure on ATi to pull anything too miraculous out
of the performance hat we've not seen massive strides
at the top end and as a result we're not seeing massive
strides in the middle ground either. With nobody snapping
at their heals it seems ATi are quite happy to do
just enough and keep a little back for when they need
it.
|
