Game 2 test also loads the vertex processors quite heavily, although here they are mostly used to create a lot of dynamically generated vegetation. There are also dynamic shadows using 2048x2048 depth maps and procedural light dissipation. RADEON X1600 XT doesn’t yield to 16-pipeline rivals and predecessors. The only exception is again the eye candy mode where our hero lacks memory subsystem performance, because this test seems to be loading memory more in this test than in the previous one.
Game 3 test exhausts the pixel processors almost completely, because one of the major materials imitating rocky surfaces is created with the help of a very long pixel shader pushing Shader Model 2.0 to the limit of its potential. And the water surface also created with complex math1ematical calculations is rendered in 6 passes. On the one hand, pixel processors of RADEON X1600 XT work pretty efficiently, and on the other hand, the memory subsystem is loaded quite heavily that is why the new ATI solution outperforms RADEON X800 XL and GeForce 6800 GT only in 1024x768, and then the previous-generation ATI RADEON takes the lead. When FSAA and anisotropic filtering are both enabled, both RADEON solutions perform equally fast up until 1600x1200 where RADEON X1600 XT again starts to suffer from narrow 128-bit memory bus.
In all three benchmarks RADEON X1600 XT performed either slightly faster or slightly lower than RADEON X800 XL, so that the total difference ins cores made only 117 points in favor of the new ATI solution.