1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Graphics Catalyst 3.10 Benchmarks

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by [cibyr], 29 Dec 2003.

  1. [cibyr]

    [cibyr] Sometimes posts here

    Joined:
    30 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    749
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm wanting to know if the new catalysts are any good, so I did some benchmarks....

    I used aquamark3 and 3dmark2003 v3.2.0, DirectX 9.0b

    My system is not the greatest, but seeing as I do not even have a budget it's pretty good:

    P4 2.53Ghz
    512 Mb 266Mhz DDR RAM
    Some crappy MSI mobo
    Gigabyte Radeon 9200SE 64 MB (Apparently the core is 200Mhz and the memory 400Mhz, but 3dMark reports both as 114.5Mhz?)

    Anyway - on with the results:

    Cats 3.6

    739 3Dmarks
    8882 Aquamarks (960 GFX)

    Cats 3.7

    742 3Dmarks
    8909 Aquamarks (963 GFX)

    Cats 3.10

    740 3Dmarks
    8911 Aquamarks (963 GFX)

    Hmm, not very conclusive... I'll also see if I can get and benchmark the 3.9 Catalysts. I will not touch the 3.8s with a 10 foot pole because of all the reports of really bad performance and damaged hardware.

    If someone else could perform some benchmarks on these drivers with some better hardware (or even better, give me some better hardware) I'd be interested in seeing the results.

    [edit] My mobo only supports 4x AGP, which is annoying becuase the 9200SE is an 8x card...
     
    Last edited: 29 Dec 2003
  2. micb

    micb Active Member

    Joined:
    4 Sep 2002
    Posts:
    1,949
    Likes Received:
    2
    Your graphics card is totally limiting you system scores, drivers will not give much more performance. The card has very little decent hardware to work with.


    My brothers computer.

    AMD 2800XP Barton @ 166x12.5 = 2083Mhz (Stock)
    DDR400 @ DDR333 cas 2.5
    VIA KT600
    Radeon 9800 Pro

    3DMark2001 SE : ~ 15860

    3DMark2003 Ver 340 : ~ 5460

    Aquamark3 : ~ 38000
     
  3. [cibyr]

    [cibyr] Sometimes posts here

    Joined:
    30 Nov 2003
    Posts:
    749
    Likes Received:
    1
    :sigh: I know, but I can't afford any better... could you do benchmarks with different drivers?
     
  4. micb

    micb Active Member

    Joined:
    4 Sep 2002
    Posts:
    1,949
    Likes Received:
    2
    My brother can not redo the benchmarks with the older drivers as he is happy with his current setup. He has benchmarked all the drivers since the ATI 3.6's.

    There have been slight fluctuations in scores some increases but not massive.

    The ATI CAT 3.8 and above are well worth using because of an HyperZ enhancements some games which use Z-buffering in certain ways get a approx 20% increase.

    This will not be highlighted in the bechmarks but some game engines will see an increase.

    We reccomend the ATI CAT 3.10 because they seem to give us the best performance up to now and fix quite a few game compatibility issues.
     
  5. HellDiver

    HellDiver New Member

    Joined:
    31 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 9200SE is the GF4MX of ATI's lineup. Not much good for anything other than Half-Life.
     
  6. LoopyJuice

    LoopyJuice Astronomical

    Joined:
    24 Jun 2001
    Posts:
    1,517
    Likes Received:
    1

    XP1800+ Palomino @ 1533mhz
    512mb Corsair XMS 3500+
    Epox 8RDA+ Nforce 2
    Radeon 9800 Pro @ 400/720

    and i'm pulling around 6000 on 3DMark2003 Ver 3.4.0 so something looks a bit odd there ^
     
  7. micb

    micb Active Member

    Joined:
    4 Sep 2002
    Posts:
    1,949
    Likes Received:
    2
    Your overlcock of the 9800 Pro would give that bit extra score in 3D Mark 03.

    You have over clocked you card by 5% in core and you score is about 8% faster, that looks about right to me.

    The card has been tested with custom Fillrate and Pixel Shader testers it is running the theortical maximums exactly as a ATI 9800 Pro should.

    Also my brother is running fairly un-agressive memory settings on the DDR 400 @ 333.

    The memory could be pushed a fair bit more but he does not see the need to really.
     
    Last edited: 31 Dec 2003
  8. LoopyJuice

    LoopyJuice Astronomical

    Joined:
    24 Jun 2001
    Posts:
    1,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    fairy nuff :) although this thing gets very hot, Hercules have put a very slow fan on to make it quiet but i've rigged and extra 80mm underneath it for uber coolage :) could do with something blowing on the top side however...
     
Tags:

Share This Page