by Alexey Stepin
12/08/2004 | 08:36 PM
The support of HDTV is becoming the more wanted option as there appear more home devices that can reproduce high-quality video of that format. To have an image of the maximum quality, such devices are usually attached to the video source via the so-called component or YPbPr connection. The YPbPr signal sent to the input of a TV-set or plasma/LCD panel is directly translated into RGB + sync signals and applied to the ray-cathode tube or the matrix of the display device.
<%BANNER[article]%>A logical question arises: why don’t we use RGB + HV (Horizontal/Vertical Synchronization) from the start instead of YPbPr? Because when DVD technology was only emerging the component video signal was accepted as a standard for digitization and compression with the MPEG-2 algorithm. Thus, all home DVD players output a color-difference YPbPr signal, not RGB; the RGB is converted from YPbPr, either inside DVD players (with some unavoidable distortions), or by displaying devices themselves. Since modern high-quality home display devices like CRT, plasma or LCD TV-sets and video projectors are equipped with improved YPbPr-RGB converters and feeding them a component signal is the best choice. The quality you get this way allows watching HDTV video, for example.
Since the personal computer can serve as a possible source of video signal, no wonder the support of the component output by modern graphics cards becomes the more demanded option, especially with the expansion of the HDTV format. Today we’re going to review a special version of the RADEON X600 XT created by ASUSTeK Computer, and one of the distinguishing traits of this product is its capability to attach to video display devices equipped with a component video input.
In fact, graphics processors from ATI Technologies have been able to output a component video signal since the RADEON 8500. It was easy to implement the new standard – the driver performed all the necessary conversions, re-programming the card’s DAC in an appropriate way, but a special adapter, usually purchased optionally and not included as an accessory, was required to actually connect a display device with a component input. ASUS took a different approach to developing its Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD. We’ll discuss this approach shortly, but first let’s take a look at the card proper.
Like other products from ASUS tested in our labs earlier, the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD came to us in its retail package. The size of the box is smaller compared to the boxes cards of the X800 family are shipping in, but the style remains the same: the company’s name in bold test on the left and a colorful picture on the right.
You see the same girl who embellishes the boxes of ASUS AX800 PRO and AX800 XT graphics cards we’ve already tested. We guess this rather small and flat box made of robust cardboard is easier to transport than those gigantic packages ASUS’ top-end graphics cards are shipped in. And it’s not very comfortable to walk in the street with a big and colorful box that’s drawing the inquisitive looks from all the passers-by.
The back side of the package is informative enough, describing the product’s capabilities and enumerating the enclosed cables and adapters. Thus, you won’t have to open the box up to check out what accessories you are receiving with the card.
The box itself has three compartments inside, one of which stores a round orange case with compact-discs. On the right, nestled in soft porous material, there lies the graphics card itself. The bottom compartment contains cables and adapters:
Besides that, the box also contains a quick installation guide and two CDs in paper envelopes. One CD contains a bundle of drivers and utilities from ASUS; the other stores a full copy of the user manual in several languages. That’s quite right, as few people ever read the full manual through, while the brief installation guide is informative enough for any user to get the installation done.
The orange plastic box, enclosed with the majority of ASUS’ graphics cards and well-known to you by our earlier reports, includes the following discs:
Considering the support of the VIVO functions by the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD, its accessories seem sufficient. Well, all graphics cards from ASUS we’ve ever had a chance to test boasted excellent accessories, so the company just keeps up the good tradition.
ASUS’ exclusive technologies like GameFace Live, VideoSecurity Online, OnScreenDisplay, SmartDoctor and SmartCooling are fully supported. For details about them you can refer to the following reviews:
The only technology we haven’t yet encountered is called HyperDrive and it is in fact an analog of ATI’s Catalyst Overdrive. ASUS’ HyperDrive looks preferable to the dynamic overclocking technology from ATI as it offers three modes: 3D Game Mode, CPU Usage Mode and Temperature Mode.
In the first mode the GPU frequency is adjusted depending on the running application. If it is a 3D application, HyperDrive automatically steps up the GPU clock rate (you have to install ASUS’ exclusive driver to use this mode). The second mode, CPU Usage, is rather an odd one as it increases the GPU clock rate when the CPU load is high. However, a growth of the CPU load is not always provoked by 3D applications, so the increase of the GPU clock rate may be futile and may even affect the stability of the system at large. The third mode can be called “sparing” as the GPU clock rate is reduced after the core temperature reaches a definite threshold value.
Unlike Catalyst Overdrive, the HyperDrive technology allows the user to choose the overclocking limit manually. The default frequency gain is 13MHz, but you can adjust it to either side. Overall, ASUS’ HyperDrive technology isn’t anything new or especially necessary, but its very presence shows that the company’s trying to be up to the mark in every respect – and succeeds!
The ASUS Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD graphics card is rather unusual in its appearance: although its design seems to be identical to the reference one, it’s not really so.
The Rage Theater chip and a scattering of its small companions catch the eye, but it’s not the main deviation from ATI’s reference card. You may note that there’s a non-standard gray connector instead of an ordinary 15-pin D-Sub plug. It is the connector devices with a component input should use (TV-sets, plasma panels and video projectors). This is an arguable solution as the card now cannot work with two monitors simultaneously; you can only attach a monitor and an YPbPr device to it at the same time. The approach of NVIDIA and S3 Graphics looks more logical in this respect: an YPbPr splitter is attached to a special round-shaped video connector and the two outputs to monitors (DVI and D-Sub) remain where they belong. ATI Technologies also has it in a logical way – devices with a component video input are supposed to connect to D-Sub of the DVI connector via a special adapter. So, whatever the reason for ASUS’ solution, one of the standard monitor outputs of the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD is replaced with a connector for an YPbPr splitter and this deprives this card of the support of multi-monitor configurations.
The back side of the card’s PCB also deviates from the etalon, probably due to the exclusive hardware monitoring and fan control system. Otherwise, the design is the same as ATI developed it for its RADEON X600 XT.
The cooling system of the Extreme AX600 AX/HTVD is simple: a small aluminum heatsink with curved ribs is mounted on the GPU and four memory chips on the face side of the board. Some thermoplastic stuff is used as an interface between the GPU and the heatsink foot; the memory transfers its heat to the heatsink via white rubber-like pads, like in many other modern graphics cards. Again, like in many graphics cards, the memory on the back side of the PCB isn’t cooled at all, and this reduces the overall cooling efficiency. Well, nearly every manufacturer is guilty of that – few of them do install heatsinks on the backside memory chips, although it wouldn’t increase the cost of the end product much.
The axis of the fan does not coincide with the GPU die; instead, the fan is driving the air stream towards the die. This rather rare solution is justifiable because if the fan is placed right above the GPU, a dead zone without any airflow is made up, which reduces the cooling efficiency.
The heatsink is covered with an air-directing, ASUS-logo-bearing casing made of transparent plastic. This casing is removable – you can easily pull it up off the heatsink. This may be intended for an easy dusting of the heatsink, but few people ever do this operation with graphics cards. The fan is equipped with blue highlighting – this seems to have become another ASUS’ tradition.
As for the technical characteristics, they are up to the title “Extreme” in the product’s full name. For example, the memory from Hynix installed on the PCB has an access time of 2 nanoseconds rather than 2.5, as usual. Theoretically this should result in the memory’s ability to be stable at 500 (1000DDR) MHz. We hadn’t expected to see such fast memory on a graphics card from the RADEON X600 XT family, frankly speaking. On the other hand, the low access time doesn’t guarantee you a frequency of 1 gigahertz as the relatively simple PCB design may become an obstacle to that. Well, we will only know for sure after we have tried (see the next section of the review). The default frequency of the memory is 370 (740DDR) MHz which is slightly above the standard memory frequency of RADEON X600 XT cards. The graphics core is clocked at 500MHz, as usual.
Without ASUS SmartDoctor, the cooler of the EAX600 XT/HTVD is very loud. The noise isn’t into high frequencies, and thus is less annoying, yet it’s anyway loud. But as soon as you install SmartDoctor, the noise goes down to an acceptable level. To make the card almost perfectly silent you should play with the SmartDoctor controls – the comfort of your ears is all in your own hands.
We enjoyed overclocking this graphics card: its memory frequency grew to 440 (880DDR) MHz. Well, that’s not a thousand megahertz, but excellent, considering the PCB isn’t specially designed for such clock rates. The graphics processor sped up to 630MHz, and that’s an excellent result, too, indicating that it’s all right with ATI’s tech process.
As for 2D quality, the image was crisp in all resolutions of our Dell P1110 monitor up to 1800x1440@75Hz inclusive (with the use of an adapter as the card has a DVI output only). Unfortunately, we couldn’t test the component video output as we hadn’t appropriate display devices at our disposal. We’ll try to test it later on, though.
We rolled out our standard testbed, configured like follows:
We used the following benchmarks:
First Person 3D Shooters:
Third Person 3D Shooters:
Simulators:
Strategy:
Semi-Synthetic Benchmarks:
Synthetic Benchmarks:
We selected the maximum possible graphics quality settings in each application – the same for cards with GPUs from ATI and NVIDIA. We enabled anisotropic and tri-linear filtering optimizations in the ForceWare driver for NVIDIA’s GPUs.
Call of Duty is one of the simplest games we employ in our tests; it uses pixel shaders only to render the water surface. The game prefers graphics cards from ATI Technologies, although the ASUS card has to share the top position with the GeForce 6600 whose eight pixel pipelines and a more advanced architecture counterweigh its low clock rates. The excellent overclocking (for a RADEON X600-based card) allows the ASUS to become an absolute winner, though.
With enabled full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD wins resolutions above 1024x768 even at its default frequencies. Overclocking is effective here.
Doom 3 needs no descriptions, we guess. As you should know from our earlier reports, this game favors NVIDIA’s architectures, so the first place of the GeForce 6600 is an expected outcome.
The same goes for the d3dm4 multiplayer map, but the absolute fps rates are higher here due to the absence of monsters.
Despite its beautiful textures and complex geometry, Unreal Tournament 2004 can’t be honestly called a new-generation game, as it doesn’t use pixel shaders and offers no extraordinary special effects. The Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD has an advantage over the GeForce 6600 in the lowest resolution, but the latter overtakes the former in 1600x1200. By overclocking the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD we have a nice performance bonus, which is conspicuous in this game, too.
The Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD and the GeForce 6600 deliver the same performance in the eye candy mode in all resolutions. The ASUS card only wins by overclocking (the memory overclocked nearly to 900MHz makes a biggest contribution to this result).
It’s different on the Metallurgy level – the GeForce 6600 looks better than the ASUS Extreme AX600 XT, especially in high resolutions. It is no surprise actually as NVIDIA’s GPU has three vertex processors against two in the ASUS card, and there’s a lot of geometry to be processed on this level.
We enable full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering to see the GeForce 6600 achieving the highest speed. The more efficient methods of working with the graphics memory help the ASUS Extreme AX600 XT here: it only loses 2 frames per second to the GeForce 6600 in 1600x1200 resolution. The overclocked ASUS keeps even with the GeForce 6600.
There’s a disputable situation on the Pier level: the GeForce 6600’s better architecture with eight pixel pipelines is compensated by the high operational frequencies of the Extreme AX600 XT. The ASUS is slightly behind the GeForce in 1024x768, but scores even in 1280x1024. Overclocking helps the ASUS to win in both resolutions. We don’t publish the results for 1600x1200 display mode because they are very low and absolutely unplayable.
The Extreme AX600 XT isn’t aided by its high frequencies in the eye candy mode anymore, and it loses to the GeForce 6600. Overclocking helps, as usual.
The GeForce 6600 has a formidable speed on the Research level – it’s half faster than the Extreme AX600 XT at the default frequencies. Well, the card from NVIDIA works in the Shader Model 3.0 mode which helps it to render light sources in closed environments in one pass, while graphics cards supporting Shader Model 2.0 have to do that in several passes.
The same goes for the eye candy mode with its full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.
Halo is a game of simple textures, but heavy pixel shaders. Benefiting by its advanced architecture and having eight pixel pipelines (against four in the other participants), the GeForce 6600 shows the best result. The overclocked Extreme AX600 XT is, however, quite close to it. The GPU frequency is important here, as it determines the speed of execution of pixel shaders.
The GeForce 6600 is better than the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD in high resolutions. The latter performs better at higher frequencies, even winning in 1024x768 resolution. This game features a relatively complex geometry and various shader-based special effects. New graphics architectures have no problems with either, while RADEON X600-based graphics cards can only rely on their high clock rates.
It’s only through overclocking that the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD can be competitive against the GeForce 6600 in the eye candy mode.
Having been ported from a game console, this third-person shooter isn’t rich in textures, but abounds in pixel shaders. The shaders are complex, but not as much as to become a problem for the RADEON X600 architecture. Just take a look at the diagram: the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD outperforms the GeForce 6600 in all resolutions. Well, the gap is diminishing in high display rates, but the ASUS is still better. Overclocking adds it some more speed.
The GeForce 6600 feels more at its ease in this game than in Splinter Cell. Its advantage isn’t overwhelming, though – the overclocked Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD has the same results. We want to remind you that we perform our tests manually in Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow and in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, so the numbers are approximations.
Max Payne is no leader in visual effects, either. Working at the default frequencies, the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD is slightly behind the GeForce 6600. When overclocked, the ASUS graphics card has the same speed as the new-generation solution from NVIDIA.
The eye candy mode poses a problem for the GeForce 6600 with its very slow memory, so the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD wins here. The gap becomes wider as we overclock the ASUS card: the considerable growth of the core and memory frequencies have a most positive effect on the performance.
The new GeForce 6600 architecture with its eight pixel pipelines balances the high frequencies of the overclocked Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD in this game. When working at its default frequencies, the graphics card from ASUS has much humbler results.
The GeForce 6600 keeps its first place when full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are enabled; the overclocked Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD is following it at a distance of 2fps.
This flight simulator is complex from the geometrical standpoint, but has few pixel shaders. Modern graphics architecture like the GeForce 6600 has nowhere to apply itself here, but this card is anyway as fast as the ASUS. Overclocking the Extreme AX600 XT produces a nice performance gain. We should warn you about the capricious behavior of this game which can sometimes reset your graphics settings.
The GeForce 6600 and the ASUS Extreme AX600 XT have almost the same results. The overclocking gain of the ASUS card amounts to 25 percent!
Working at its standard frequencies, the Extreme AX600 XT is worse compared to the GeForce 6600, especially in high resolutions. Overclocking helps the ASUS to overtake the main rival. We benchmark the cards manually in this game, so the numbers are approximations.
With enabled FSAA and anisotropic filtering, the GeForce 6600 is faster than the ASUS. The overclocked ASUS has the same performance as the GeForce 6600.
This game likes graphics cards with fast memory and high pixel shader performance. The Extreme AX600 XT reaches the speed ceiling imposed by the CPU in 1024x768; the GeForce 6600 cannot do the same due to its low clock rates. In 1280x1024, however, the GeForce 6600 equals the ASUS card. In the highest resolution the Extreme AX600 XT can only compete with the GeForce 6600 at the overclocked frequencies.
The fast memory allows the Extreme AX600 XT to work well in the eye candy mode, but it loses to the GeForce 6600 in high resolutions when clocked at the default frequencies.
There’s no talking about playability in Perimeter; only the monstrous representatives of RADEON X800 and GeForce 6800 families provide it here. Anyway, the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD turns in the best results among all the participating graphics cards.
The third Aquamark doesn’t have many shaders, but features a complex geometry and a high overdraw count. This time the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD is a little behind the GeForce 6600, overtaking it during overclocking.
It becomes more interesting in the eye candy mode: the GeForce 6600 has a good result in 1024x768, but its slow memory impedes it in 1600x1200. That’s why the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD looks better in high resolutions.
The GeForce 6600 has a higher total score, but the overclocked Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD takes the first place with an advantage of about 500 points. Let’s view each of the 3DMark03 tests in detail.
Don’t forget that the first game test isn’t a problem for any modern graphics card. The Extreme AX600 XT is faster here thanks to its excellent overclockability. When working at its default frequencies, this card is slightly slower than the GeForce 6600.
The superiority of the overclocked ASUS is less obvious in the eye candy mode, but it is also closer to the GeForce 6600 at the default frequencies.
The second game test is known to use rendering algorithms that run better on graphics cards with NVIDIA’s GPUs, so it’s natural the GeForce 6600 wins it. The overclocked Extreme AX600 XT is only 2-3fps behind, though.
The same goes for the eye candy mode with its full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering.
The third test is similar to the second one and produces similar results. The only difference is that the overclocked ASUS and the GeForce 6600 are perfect equals here whereas the latter has been faster in the second test.
With full-screen anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled, the Extreme AX600 XT can only reach the level of the GeForce 6600 by overclocking.
The fourth game test is probably the main and most interesting part of the 3DMark03 suite, as it is stuffed with complex version 2.0 pixel shaders. This time the high clock rates of the Extreme AX600 XT equal the advanced architecture of the GeForce 6600. The ASUS card wins at the overclocked frequencies.
It’s all the same in the eye candy mode.
Overall, the ASUS Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD is less spectacular in 3DMark03 compared to the GeForce 6600, but this is no wonder considering that it is an architectural analog of the RADEON 9600 XT; the only difference is the memory frequency and the support of the PCI Express interface. Still, the excellent overclockability of the ASUS card allows it to turn in an excellent 3DMark03 score for a graphics card of its class.
The Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD graphics card from ASUS can’t be characterized in one word or phrase. On the one hand, its highest performance and excellent overclockability are obvious advantages, but on the other hand, the card is based on an outdated architecture, which suits badly for playing next-generation games with any comfort. Add the lack of dual-monitor configurations, too. The last fact has an explanation, though. The Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD is a special product for a special category of users, particularly for owners of plasma panels, projectors and other display devices equipped with a component YPbPr video input. Unfortunately, we couldn’t test the card’s capabilities in processing a HDTV signal as we just had no device with an appropriate input.
Otherwise, the card is an analog of the standard RADEON X600 XT and you shouldn’t expect wonders from it if it’s clocked at its default frequencies:
As you see, the RADEON X600 architecture can be considered really obsolete in view of the average lag from the GeForce 6600. It’s only through overclocking that the Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD can offer a comparable performance, but this is also not enough for some modern games like Doom 3.
It’s less gloomy for the ASUS card in the eye candy mode. Since the load on the graphics memory subsystem is high here, the GeForce 6600 feels the lack of the memory bandwidth (it’s equipped with slow memory clocked at about 500MHz). Having the memory bus of the same width, the ASUS Extreme AX600 XT clocks it at a higher rate, especially during overclocking. As a result, the overclocked ASUS looks overall more appealing in this mode than the GeForce 6600.
Right now, a sample of the ASUS Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD graphics card would cost you about $240, according to Pricewatch.com. That’s not cheap at all. You can have a GeForce 6600 GT or a RADEON X700 PRO from other manufacturers for that money, and adding $30 more you can have a GeForce 6800. That’s why we don’t recommend this card for people who are assembling a PCI Express system for playing current and upcoming games. But if you don’t need extra-high performance in 3D applications, but want to have a graphics card capable of connecting to HDTV devices and capturing video, you may want to consider the ASUS Extreme AX600 XT/HTVD as an option.
Highs:
Lows: