ATI Radeon vs NVIDIA GeForce drivers

[Linux-Us]

Brief Description :
It all began with that before we raised the obvious question: "Is not it too slow graphics card has become the standard for the next year to test the performance of processors?" Logical answer was as simple as the question: "What offer?" Instead, proposed a seemingly impressive graphics production based Sapphire Radeon X1900XT. We decided that the proposal is that, as a minimum, be subject to scrutiny (despite the fact that the number-tested the new method of processors come close to a dozen). However, the results of testing of a new contender for the title of the standard graphics card in the method of testing the performance of processors, they put us in a certain shock ... It is this fact and will focus on the following material. Perhaps the fans 3D-accelerators, he seems not too full, but what can you do - we are not experts in this field, so our opinions can be based only on test scores and banal logic.


Hardware and software :

[Linux-Us]

Testing :
It should be noted that in this case, we were able to move away from the concept of "an overall score for the sub-tests, we use a new method of« by default », and focused on the results that the application of different video cards were indeed very different from each other. We think that in the context of testing this approach is most appropriate: we really have changed on the test bench just the video card, and nothing but her.

3ds max 7.0
The first resounding "hook", received ATI Radeon X1900XT ... When the faster (like, for all performance characteristics) card loses more slowly from 32 to 52% - want to re-measure all over again: "It can not be, because this can never happen!

Maya 6.5 :

The first shock has passed, therefore, looking at the results of SPEC for Maya, we are just convinced that losing Radeon X1900XT GeForce 7800GTX is not a stupid accident. But the regularity of conversation still was too early.


Pro / ENGINEER Wildfire 2.0 :
Now we can talk about the laws. The first of them - API. Professional programs practically do not use Direct3D, preferring to OpenGL, - due multiplatform last (Direct3D can use 3ds max, but he's working in OpenGL-mode). Second - while we did not deal with any programs other than professional - games will be more.


SolidWorks :
It would be naive to assume that all the hardware advantages X1900XT «sham" (and, looking ahead, we will soon see that it is not). Therefore, sin must be on something else.


FEAR :
We turn now to the games - and everything changes quite the opposite: ATI Radeon X1900XT confident leader. As it should be more powerful and modern graphics card. Finally we saw that the X1900XT is quite worthy of the title.


Half-Life 2 :
In this game the graphics card on a chip, ATI convincing win, with victory on the Intel platform (in percentage) is even more pronounced.

[Linux-Us]

Quake 4 :
So far the only case in gaming applications, where we see at once two striking differences from previous results. First, this is the first game application, where a relatively weak graphics card on a chip, NVIDIA managed to win ATI Radeon X1900XT (the result on the platform of Intel). Secondly, it is only through this test the test, where the preferences platforms differed: on the AMD won ATI. Explanation of the second fact is hardly possible - clearly an exceptional case, but statistics are not enough, but first you can try to explain the fact that the graphics engines, John Carmack has always had a tradition of "classic", "right» OpenGL, that, in discussing purely speculative, could lead to they have preferences similar to professional programs.


Unreal Tournament :
The old game, the old engine - and let a small, but still a victory NVIDIA. And this, mind you, though the GeForce 7800GTX is much more "feeble" chip than the Radeon X1900XT.


Conclusion :
As it is not very frequent, but nevertheless occurs regularly in our practice - absolutely seemingly innocuous and predictable "internal" testing have taught us a very strange surprise: it is quite convincing victory "on points" obviously less powerful graphics card over one of the Monsters of modern 3D-chip. One may well ask the classic question: "Who's to blame?" Stated outright fantastic assumption that the chip inside the Radeon X1900XT is contained, in fact, Rage 128 Pro, and all the performance characteristics and flow charts of new products engineers ATI paint in his spare time with colored pens , we have to assume that summed up a powerful chip programming part - the drivers. What happened to the driver CATALYST?


- ATI drivers are very weak optimization for professional applications that use OpenGL API, because the company is focused on meeting the demands of gamers, and is not engaged seriously sector professional applications.
- ATI deliberately does not include code that is optimized for professional applications, the "amateur» CATALYST, designed for cards "home-home" line RADEON (and includes, respectively - in the drivers for the professional lines of 3D-accelerators FireGL). In support of this argument says that by ATI, in contrast to NVIDIA, there is no unified driver for the amateur and professional lines.
- The combination of first and second option: in view of some of the features themselves graphics chip ATI, their drivers are well optimized, or under a professional OpenGL, or a game, switching modes is impossible or very difficult.

Which of these three options is most likely? Oddly enough, we tend to place a bet on the first. Why? First, it is quite consistent with the razor Occam, being the simplest. Secondly, this assumption is partially confirmed by the results of testing the latest version of the most famous game OpenGL-engine (Quake 4 / id Software). Finally, the third - the problem of ATI's drivers, even with playing OpenGL-applications that have "a long and glorious" history, well known to all who are interested in the situation in the sector of 3D-accelerators on the platform x86. In the end, even if the right is the option number 2, still stands to give preference to the less "greedy» NVIDIA, which even its amateur video cards equipped with more decent, in terms of professional applications, drivers. If the actual version number 3 (although it is the most fantastic of all), then again NVIDIA is a winner, because then it chips are more versatile. As for the conclusions we made based on this internal testing for themselves, they are obvious: since we use on a set of applications in cases where the performance will vary, including the video card, a weaker NVIDIA GeForce 7800GTX was able to win by 14-16% ATI Radeon X1900XT - meaning, at least, within our method, we made the right choice of graphics platforms for use in testing the performance of processors.