Everything we’ve said above is wholly applicable to the first game test which doesn’t use any functions beyond the scope of DirectX 7. There’s no use for additional pixel processors here, so the Radeon X1900 XTX behaves exactly like the Radeon X1800 XT.
The second test is more up-to-date as it uses version 1.1 and 1.4 shaders and dynamic stencil shadows. Lacking a technology similar to Nvidia’s UltraShadow II, the Radeon X1900 XTX and Radeon X1800 XT have a lower pure speed than the GeForce 7800 GTX 512 which is capable of processing up to 32 Z-values per clock cycle.
Unlike in the first test, the 48 pixel shader processors are useful indeed and the Radeon X1900 XTX rises above the level of the Radeon X1800 XT to the level of the GeForce 7800 GTX 512.
3DMark03’s third game test produces largely the same picture as the second one since they only differ in the geometry of the scene. There are some minor differences, though. The gap between the senior graphics cards from ATI and the GeForce 7800 GTX 512 is bigger and the Radeon X1900 XTX only overtakes the Nvidia card in 1600x1200 when full-screen antialiasing and anisotropic filtering are enabled.
The Radeon X1900 XTX finds itself in the first place in 3DMark03 in the fourth test only. But this test is rather too old to be a good indicator of the perspectives of this or that graphics hardware architecture.
The “eye candy” mode results are curious here. ATI’s graphics cards usually do better in this mode thanks to their more efficient graphics memory subsystem, but this time we’ve got quite the opposite: the ring-bus controller and memory clocked 775 (1550) MHz do worse than Nvidia’s traditional controller and 850 (1700) MHz memory.