X-bit labs

ATI RADEON X800 XL 512MB Graphics Card Review. 512MB: Today’s Need or Reserve for the Future? (page 23)

Category: Video

by Alexey Stepin , Anton Shilov

[ 05/05/2005 | 02:10 PM ]

Synthetic Benchmarks

Futuremark 3DMark03

Game 1

3DMark03 gave identical overall scores to both versions of the RADEON X800 XL. This is partially due to the default use of 1024x768 resolution in all benchmarks from Futuremark. Let’s see what we have in each test independently.

The first test indicates that the new RADEON X800 XL has no advantages over the older one in high resolutions, and they are both slower than the RADEON X850 models as well as both top-end devices from NVIDIA.

The same is true for the 4x FSAA mode since the first test doesn’t have complex textures.

A certain performance gain can be observed when the maximum antialiasing level is in use, but the gain is never more than 2-3%.

Game 2

The second test of the 3DMark03 suite doesn’t have high-resolution textures, either. That’s why, like in the first test, the RADEON X800 XL 512MB behaves exactly like the ordinary RADEON X800 XL does.

It’s the same story repeated in the 4x FSAA + 16x AF mode: the difference between the two RADEON X800 XL models lies in the measurement error range, again.

Our tuning on extreme antialiasing modes leads to the NVIDIA GeForce 6 cards falling behind the ATI RADEON X800/X850 models in high resolutions due to the high load on the memory subsystem.