historical graphic benchmarks?

[Ensign]

You all are going to laugh at this, but I'm curious how to compare the performance of one of my PCs (Athlon 64 3200+) that has an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro to some more current systems, including both integrated graphics options these days, as well as separate graphics cards.

Do such historical benchmarks exist?

Thanks.

 

[Arkadrel]

' whatever for?

As a wild guess Id say it falls somewhere between the 5450 and the 5550 (performance wise)... just going by memory bandwidth, but it might actually be slower.

*goes to search google*


a Athlon 3200+ with a 9800 pro 128mb, gets around 17,332 3Dmarks, in FutureMark's 3DMark2001SE.

So go download 3Dmark2001SE, run that and see how much it scores

To put this in perspective, a 580 OC'd to 1000/1075mhz scores around 114,138 3Dmarks in the same benchmark.
http://hwbot.org/signature.img?iid=559318&thumb=false&iehack=.jpg



**that said 3D marks is a horrible way to compair cards <.< esp across time, with its scaleing and how they score things. Even if the 580 score is *only* like 7 times as high, in more recent games, if you tested them, Im sure the 580 would be much much faster.

 

[Ensign]

' whatever for?...

I know, I know, it's crazy, but I was kind of curious and I guess part of me wants to have some justification for upgrading the older system. I guess I also wanted to know if, say, an integrated ATI Radeon HD 4250 GPU in a current motherboard, would meet or exceed the existing performance.

Thanks again for humoring me!

 

[alkemyst]

tomshardware has a list like this somewhere.

 

[tincart]

Your 9800 Pro is probably around the same performance level as the integrated graphics in an Intel Core i5-6x0 CPU. The Intel HD 3000 graphics in Sandy Bridge are a bit faster.

 

[RussianSensation]

You all are going to laugh at this, but I'm curious how to compare the performance of one of my PCs (Athlon 64 3200+) that has an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro to some more current systems, including both integrated graphics options these days, as well as separate graphics cards.

Do such historical benchmarks exist?

Thanks.

1. GPU

7900 GTX is about ~8-10x slower than a GTX480. 7900 GTX is at least 2x faster than a 9800 Pro. So a 9800Pro would be 16-20x slower than a GTX480.

2. CPU

Pentium EE 840 is faster than the CPU you have since it's a dual core with hyper-threading. Compared to modern CPUs, it's still about 4-6x slower. So your CPU will be even slower than that.

 

[Termie]

You all are going to laugh at this, but I'm curious how to compare the performance of one of my PCs (Athlon 64 3200+) that has an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro to some more current systems, including both integrated graphics options these days, as well as separate graphics cards.

Do such historical benchmarks exist?

Thanks.

tomshardware has a list like this somewhere.

9800pro comes in just faster than the HD graphics on core i5-6xx, and just under the HD graphics on a core i5-21xx: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...rd-geforce-gtx-590-radeon-hd-6990,2879-7.html.

Thus, it's very close to a $30 HD5450 discrete card.

 

[Termie]

Further data, from my own 3dMark05 runs:

9800pro/P4@3.0:

3DMark Score2620.0 3DMarks

CPU Score3611.0

Return to Proxycon12.16 FPS

Firefly Forest7.45 FPS

Canyon Flight (SM 3.0)12.71 FPS

CPU Test 11.83 FPS

CPU Test 21.83 FPS

X800xt/P4@3.0:

3DMark Score5789.0 3DMarks

CPU Score3870.0

Return to Proxycon24.04 FPS

Firefly Forest16.92 FPS

Canyon Flight (SM 3.0)30.54 FPS

CPU Test 12.22 FPS

CPU Test 22.22 FPS


x1900xt/C2D e6600:

3DMark Score11995.0 3DMarks

CPU Score9081.0

Return to Proxycon52.17 FPS

Firefly Forest33.77 FPS

Canyon Flight (SM 3.0)62.7 FPS

CPU Test 14.89 FPS

CPU Test 24.89 FPS

A 9800 Pro is thus 1/4 the speed of an x1900xt, which itself is about 1/2 as fast as a 5670, which is 1/2 as fast as a GTX460-768, which is 1/2 as fast as a GTX580. Thus, your 9800pro is 3&#37; as fast as a GTX580 (said another way, the GTX580 is 33x faster than your card).

 

[Ensign]

Wow! Thanks so much, Termie and everyone else, for all of the information. It's very helpful.

 

[Termie]

Wow! Thanks so much, Termie and everyone else, for all of the information. It's very helpful.

No problem - that was kind of fun!

When I upgrade, I always like to get a 100% GPU performance increase, so I have a lot of those numbers in my head.

 

[Ensign]

After looking at that chart more, I'm realizing that some of our systems our like the one in the commercial where the couple comes home and everything was stolen except for their old computer!

 

[pcm81]

2x Radeon 6990s
1x I7 980X
12GB of DDR3-16000 ram

3DMark 2001SE with all settings maxed out 42400 3DMarks

All parts at stock clocks.

 

[Tempered81]

 

[BD231]

One only has to look at the hardware.

9800pro:
5 Shaders

6970:
1536 Shaders

 

[alcoholbob]

9800 Pro was a beast for its day.

That said, if the games you are playing now are running as fast as you need them, there might be no need to upgrade

 

[RussianSensation]

One only has to look at the hardware.

9800pro:
5 Shaders

6970:
1536 Shaders

?

9800 Pro has 8 Fragment pipelines, 8 texture units, 8 ROPs and 4 Vertex pipelines. You can't compare HD6970's "shaders" to Radeon 9800Pro's "pipelines".

For example, HD2900XT has 320 shaders but it's not even 2x faster than an X1950XTX with only 48 fragment pipelines. With your comparison, the HD2900XT would be > 6x faster than an X1950XTX.

 

[MentalIlness]

Ah, the epic 9800 Pro. I had one of those, well...two of those.

I still have a ATI 9600 AGP here packed away. I remember playing Max Payne on it, ran really smooth. But C@C Generals stuttered badly.

Anyone remember when the 9500 Pro unlocked to a 9700 Pro ? Or something like that ?

 

[BD231]

?

9800 Pro has 8 Fragment pipelines, 8 texture units, 8 ROPs and 4 Vertex pipelines. You can't compare HD6970's "shaders" to Radeon 9800Pro's "pipelines".

For example, HD2900XT has 320 shaders but it's not even 2x faster than an X1950XTX with only 48 fragment pipelines. With your comparison, the HD2900XT would be > 6x faster than an X1950XTX.

Ah yes, 8 texture units not five.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

A 9800 Pro should be comparable to the latest integrated and low end cards out today. It should fall in between integrated and discrete.

I ran some tests pitting an X800 GT (a bit faster than a 9800 Pro) against an HD 3200 (a bit slower than integrated), and in "newish" GPU-intense games of Crysis and Call of Duty 4 the X800 demolished the 3200. It was about 75&#37; faster in Crysis and 60% faster in Call of Duty 4. The games were actually barely playable on the X800 but not playable on the HD3200, so the performance edge did make a difference. The X800 was also paired with a much slower single core processor, while the HD3200 was paired with a faster dual core.

?

9800 Pro has 8 Fragment pipelines, 8 texture units, 8 ROPs and 4 Vertex pipelines. You can't compare HD6970's "shaders" to Radeon 9800Pro's "pipelines".

For example, HD2900XT has 320 shaders but it's not even 2x faster than an X1950XTX with only 48 fragment pipelines. With your comparison, the HD2900XT would be > 6x faster than an X1950XTX.

I'm not sure where he got 5 for the 9800 Pro from, but

320 marketed shaders / VLIW 5 = 64

 

[Ensign]

Ah, the epic 9800 Pro. I had one of those, well...two of those.

I still have a ATI 9600 AGP here packed away. I remember playing Max Payne on it, ran really smooth. But C@C Generals stuttered badly.

Anyone remember when the 9500 Pro unlocked to a 9700 Pro ? Or something like that ?

Heck, I remember my two Voodoo 2 cards running in SLI just for "3D" graphics. That was on my 400 mhz 0entium. Life was so much simpler then. *sigh* LOL