Creative Labs Radeon 9600 256 MB

Graphics cards 1049 Page 8 of 14 Published by

teaser

Page 8 - AquaMark 3

am3-tease.jpgAquaMark 3 from Massive Development

The latest graphics cards on the market are almost all DirectX9 compatible these days, and we also see an increasing number of games utilizing the new DX9 features. To be able to see how well a graphics cards is performing in this new challenging DirectX 9 environment, AquaMark was developed.

The AquaMark3 benchmark delivers scores for specific hardware components as well as an overall score for the entire system. AquaMark3 is highly qualified to meet the needs of gamers because it's as close as possible to a typical game application. The AquaMark benchmarking series is based directly on the huge code and data base of the AquaNox games and the underlying krass game engine."

In the past we have used AquaMark 2.3 in our benchmark suite and although still a reputable application, Massive figured it was time for the next best thing. This is AquaMark 3, a benchmark that will utilize some of the finest DirectX 9 capabilities like Pixel and Vertex Shaders 2.0, and yet is by far not as Shader dependant as Half-Life is, for example. You will notice that in the overall results later in this article.

AquaMark 3, however, is not solely a DirectX9 benchmark; if you are working with a DirectX 8 or 7 compatible graphics card, you will still be able to use it just with a lot of graphical features missing. Make no mistake, AquaMark3 is a DirectX 9 benchmark. But since it's based on a real game engine it has fallbacks to DirectX 8 and even DirectX 7 making this software not a 100% DX9 benchmark.

Download: Aquamark 3 (63 MB)

First let's have a look at RAW performance, no Anisotropic filtering is enabled here, and Anti Aliasing has been disabled.

AquaMark 3 800x600 1024x768 1280x1024 1600x1200
FX 5600 24 21 17 13
9600 256 29 23 17 13
Creative R9600 29 23 17 13
9600 Pro 31 25 19 14
FX 5700 Ultra 41 35 27 21
9700 Pro 46 41 33 26
9800 Pro 49 45 38 30
5900 49 44 37 30
Blaster5 FX5900 49 44 37 30
9800 Pro 50 44 38 30
9800XT 51 46 40 33
FX 5900 Ultra 52 48 41 34
FX 5950 Ultra 53 49 43 36

As you can see the names look a bit funny. The numbers behind them represent the driver used. Without Anisotropic filtering and AA enabled here, the results are in favor for NVIDIA in the high-end range. This will change when we enable some IQ settings though. As you can see the Radeon 9600 is faster than the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra series.

4xAA 8xAF 800x600 1024x768 1280x1024 1600x1200
FX 5600 16 13 9 7
Creative R9600 21 16 12 7
9600 256 21 16 12 8
9600 Pro 24 18 13 9
FX 5700 Ultra 26 19 14 11
FX 5900 34 27 20 15
Blaster5 FX5900 34 27 20 15
9700 Pro 39 32 24 19
FX 5900 Ultra 39 31 23 17
FX 5950 Ultra 40 32 24 18
9800 Pro 43 36 27 21
9800XT 45 39 30 23

Again you can see the Radeon 9600 is faster than the GeForce FX 5600 Ultra series. It's obvious that the mighty Radeon series have the overall performance edge here, especially the mid-range dominates. The results as demonstrated here on all cards have Anti Aliasing at 4x and Anisotropic Filtering at 8x enabled, the R9600 256Mb is having a really tough ride here though.

Copyright 2003 - Guru3D.com

Share this content
Twitter Facebook Reddit WhatsApp Email Print