  Bilinear Filtering |   Tri-linear Filtering |
by FastSite
07/27/1999 | 12:00 AM
Well, again Quake3 Arena is at the top of its popularity. The previous time it was in spring that wesaw the same stir around this game though it was not released yet. However, all this public attention wasnot for nothing: the occasion dealt with the release of the Quake3 Arena demo version open for generaluse - Q3Test ver. 1.05. At that time not only gamers' sites savoured this topic. Most mass media dealingwith hardware tried to benefit from Q3Test and to use it solely for their own purposes, such as graphicscards performance testing, but they failed. The benchmark integrated in this program worked incorrectlyand showed wrong results, which seemed more likely to depend on the location of the stars and planets atthat particular moment than on the power of the system tested. :-) <%BANNER[article]%>
In spring id Software didn't provide any testing labs with a modern tool for checking performance. Thiscompany traditionally releases the games, which in fact turn into standard benchmarks showing the gamingpower of the system tested. The engines developed there are so popular and demanded among the game-makersthat graphics cards manufacturers sometimes provide their products with Quake drivers and optimize themfor higher performance of the whole system. Quake-games are almost the only ones, which manage toachieve fantastic realism and amazingly beautiful effects with API OpenGL. So, at present thecomprehensive testing turns out absolutely impossible without Q3Test.
But, our day has finally come. During last two weeks we got even two versions of the so impatientlyawaited Q3Test: first came out ver. 1.06 and then a bit later - ver. 1.07, which finally could boastthe properly working integrated benchmark. We couldn't leave this occasion unnoticed and decided totake advantage of the case and to try all the today's graphics accelerators with the new benchmark.Judging by the results achieved in this test, we can now speak about the future of the graphics cardstaking into account the coming release of the so long awaited Quake3 Arena. This game will undoubtedlybecome an unsurpassed blockbuster among computer games.
As usually, we carried out the tests on two different platforms - Slot 1 and Socket 7. Bothsystems were configured as follows:
Slot 1 system:
Socket 7 system:
And now a few words about the graphics accelerators we had for our testing.
So, as you see all the newest generation chipsets and to be more precise, the graphics cardsbased on these chipsets, took part in our tests. We tried each of them in two different states:working at nominal frequencies and at overclocked frequencies most typical for each chipset.
According to a preliminary analysis of the chipsets features we can single out two main rivals:3dfx Voodoo3 3000 and nVidia Riva TNT2 (Ultra). The first one is an indisputable leader inmultitexturing supported by Quake3, while the second one is supposed to show good results dueto its theoretically higher fillrate. And it is quite possible that Matrox MGA G400 appearssomewhere very close to these two chipsets as well. And as far as Savage4 is concerned, our forecast,like the chipset's features, won't be very promising.
According to the previously effected tests in OpenGL as well as in Direct3D, Riva TNT2 Ultra was alwaysthe first in terms of its fastness, and then followed 3dfx Voodoo3 3000. Matrox MGA G400 proved almost atthe same level as Voodoo3. The ordinary nVidia Riva TNT2 version fell slightly behind, and S3 Savage4(Pro) based cards performed the worst of all.
In other words, the whole thing about Quake3 seems rather exciting and the final resume is verylikely to influence the choice of a user when deciding on a graphics accelerator.
But, let's return back to the subject, namely to fps. We will use q3testdemo1.dm3 demo to testthe performance since it provides higher utilization of the graphics accelerator and imitates thegaming conditions just perfectly. To run this test you'll have to pull down the console by pressingthe tilde sign (~) on the keyboard. And then you'll have to type there the following commands:
s_initsound 0
snd_restart
timedemo 1
demo q3testdemo1
The first two commands from the list above turn off the sound in order to free the system of anyadditional operations not connected with 3D graphics.
All the tests were run with Sync Every Frame (Vsync - monitor vertical refresh rate synchronizationwith the graphics card) disabled.
We divided the whole procedure into four testing sets:
So, with this set of tests we managed to cover the whole range of Quake3 parameters: startingfrom the nominal game settings and finishing with the extreme ones.
Before passing over to the results achieved, we would like to dwell for a while on one of theQuake3 options - the choosing of the filtering type: bilinear or tri-linear. We thoroughly studiedboth cases for each graphics card, and arrived at the conclusion that we could hardly see anydifference in Quake3 image quality when enabling tri-linear filtering instead of bilinear one.The only case when it really mattered was with nVidia Riva TNT2.
This is tri-linear filtering on TNT2:
Bilinear Filtering | Tri-linear Filtering |
The difference is quite evident. If you take a look at the screenshot with tri-linear filtering,you'll definitely notice more washed out details. However, this hardly makes the overall imagequality much better, and some of you may even find bilinear filtering more realistic. Nevertheless,when tri-linear filtering is disabled we can see a quite tangible performance gain on TNT2, forinstance, which makes about 5-8%.
As for 3dfx Voodoo3 3000, Matrox MGA G400 and S3 Savage4, we don't see much sense in posting thewhole bunch of screenshots here since the use of tri-linear filtering makes no visual differences.The only difference is the gaming speed. Matrox MGA G400 and S3 Savage4 lose about 5-7% of theirperformance if tri-linear filtering is activated. And the drivers of 3dfx Voodoo3 seem to totallylack tri-linear filtering realization because the results achieved in both cases appeared absolutelyidentical.
Keeping in mind all the things we mentioned above, we decided to run the tests without tri-linearfiltering (with bilinear filtering only) since this function doesn't improve the image quality, whichis easily noticeable.
Well, let's take a look at the results.
First comes Intel Pentium III based system:
Judging by these tests we have every right to admit: nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra at all resolutions isan indisputable leader. Then follow nVidia Riva TNT2 and Matrox MGA G400, which is quite unexpected.Some time ago we used to often complain about a relatively weak ICD driver of G400, but with the releaseof a new driver version we got a much better performance as well as higher image quality.
3dfx Voodoo3 3000, which used to please everyone with its perfect work in Direct3D as well as in OpenGLdue to its cool mini-driver, has awfully fallen behind, and is now the last but one among the graphics cardstested. However, at lower resolutions it did its best to exonerate itself and surpassed Matrox MGA G400 by afew fps. Well, well… 3dfx seems to have lost too much time when working on a normal ICD OpenGL driver. Thefirst version turned out simply unfit for use, and version 1.02.11 released the other day only slightlyincreased the general performance level of 3dfx Voodoo3 that's why Voodoo-fans don't have many reasons fordelight.
And the performance of S3 Savage4 Pro isn't even worth mentioning. It is far under all possible levels!So, we think that S3 deserves our fair reproach because it is still unable to provide its chipsets with anappropriate ICD OpenGL driver.
So, summing up we can state that most graphics cards except S3 Savage4 perform quite well at 800x600and 1024x768 in 16-bit color depth, and as it comes to 32-bit color nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra becomes theonly card with good gaming performance.
And now AMD K6-2 based system.
Frankly speaking, the results obtained on the Socket 7 system are none other than a tragedy. Notethat the CPU we had in our system was almost the most powerful Socket 7 device of all presently available(the only cooler processor is K6-III, which provides a very insignificant performance gain in such games asQuake). However, the gaming performance could be regarded as acceptable in fewer regimes than on Pentium IIIbased system. Only at the resolution set to 800x600, with all the gaming effects on and high graphicsquality, 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 and nVidia Riva TNT2 Ultra laid themselves out and squeezed the requiredfps, so that to "pass" the test with a satisfactory mark. Of course, if we turn off high detailizationand all gaming effects, we will get much better results, however, this may be of any interest only toprofessional Quakers, who don't care much about the beauty of the surrounding scenery. Well, all thismeans that Socket 7 platform starts being too weak for the new games and Quake3 seems to be the firstone.
Now let's pass over to the image quality.
 Normal |  Fastest |
As wee see, low detail provides washed out images, total absence of clear-cut image borders andpatterns and even simplifies the scenery (for example, you may notice that a cylindrical niche behindthe teleport became polygonal). However, we would like to mention that 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 can showreally acceptable frame rate with the existing drivers only at low detail level.
The latest version of 3dfx driver is provided with a few different ways of dithering (smoothingthe contrast between bordering colors) realization in alpha-blending (creating transparent andsemi-transparent objects). 3dfx introduced two special terms especially for these functions: Sharperand Smoother. They don't differ in terms of performance - only visually. Two sets of screenshots givenbelow will give you a better idea of both dithering realizations:
   Sharper |    Smoother |
Well, tastes differ, and you are free to choose the one, which is dearer to your particular heart.You may notice a slight grid on one screenshot and poor colors palette on the other. By the way, the blurring,which is so typical of the cards based on 3dfx chipsets is not so clearly seen in Quake3 compared to Glide-games.
 High Quality | ||
 Normal |  Fastest | |
At 16-bit resolutions G400 provides relatively high image quality for 16-bit color regime. Its gamingperformance remains quite cool even with high texture and geometrical detail.
As for 32-bit images, the quality is again on a very high level. And at 800x600 MGA G400 performsvery nicely, which is undoubtedly another great point of this chipset. By the way, Matrox promised tomake its OpenGL driver 40% faster!
 High Quality | ||
 Normal |  Fastest | |
As we have already said, all nVidia Riva TNT2 (especially Ultra) based cards show the best gamingfeatures even at 1024x768 in 32-bit color depth with all the effects enabled.
 High Quality | ||
 Normal |  Fastest | |
We tested the card based on this chipset with the texture compression technology, however, we decidednot to post the benchmarks results because in this regime the card was highly unstable throughout all thetesting. Well, again it is a raw ICD OpenGL driver, which is to blame…
But in terms of image quality we simply must draw your attention to the most clear-cut picture, thoughunfortunately OpenGL driver is a total failure here. Take a look at the screenshots: there are no numbersat the bottom. And in order to find out the results after running Q3testdemo1, we had to switch to anotherWindows 98 task and then back to Quake3. Otherwise nether the starting menu, nor the console were visible.
Well, what can we say in conclusion? First of all, let's point out the fact that Quake3 doesn't support3DNow! and SSE technologies. We sincerely hope that in the future this drawback will be eliminated andthe chances of Socket 7 systems will become somewhat higher. And for now you will hardly be happy playingQuake3 in the systems on K6-2, though the image quality in these systems is quite OK.
Then we should mention that 3dfx developed an impossibly slow ICD OpenGL driver. We all remember theimpressive fastness of 3dfx mini-driver in Quake2 that's why let's hope for the better and believe in thetalent of 3dfx software developers, who may save the situation.
And S3 should better mark all its chipsets as "Quake3 Incompatible". We were quite disappointed withSavage4 chipset, which is not that bad actually. Its bad performance and awful OpenGL support simply don'tmatch the wonderful image quality we saw.
However, things are not so sad, as they may seem. Matrox made us really happy with its improved OpenGLdriver, which proves that this company has finally found a way out of the OpenGL-crisis.
But the winner in Quake3 tests is nVidia Riva TNT2 and especially its Ultra version. It leaves all theothers so far behind that we can hardly think of a situation when it falls down from its podium (unless thenext generation bears a new cool chipset).
So, let's try to forecast the future… The graphics cards may change their positions in the today's listonly if somebody releases better optimized drivers. We are pretty sure that 3dfx has every chance to improveits rank in terms of performance, and expect Matrox to please us with higher optimized and faster driversfor its G400. As for nVidia chipsets, we never doubted its persistence and straight-forwardness: they won'tbe satisfied with what they've got and the today's coolest OpenGL driver will for sure get cooler and cooler.
In the end, we'd like to say once again that a powerful CPU is simply indispensable for a graphics cardto show everything it is capable of in full. The less powerful is the CPU in your system, the lower is thegaming in Quake3. That's why don't forget about a CPU and sufficient memory resources before you decide on alatest graphics card for your gaming PC.