Looking Back Pt. 3: The 6800 Ultra, ForceWare, and the Future
by Ryan Smith on May 11, 2006 4:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Wildcard: Console Ports
One area of increasing importance lately in gaming is the relationship between PC games and consoles games. Once greatly separated in abilities and game types, the PC and the console have been coming together in recent years with a number of titles being published for both the PC and one or more consoles. Since this influences game design towards a different direction than PC-centric design, we've rounded up 4 games from our usual test sequence that are all console ports, to see if these console influences offer anything substantially different from the normal ebb & flow of game performance.Because these games aren't designed with the PC as the primary platform, benchmarking these games is a more limited and difficult affair than our other games. As such, we are only going to list the performance of the initial working driver and the latest driver for each game.
Serious Sam 2
First off is Serious Sam 2, Croteam's sequel to their immensely popular run and gun FPS. Unlike its predecessor which was first a PC game and then poorly ported to a console, this title was simultaneously developed for both the Xbox and the PC, which means it shows some of those aforementioned console influences.
| Serious Sam 2 | ||
| 1024x768 | 0xAA | 4xAA |
| ForceWare 78.01 | 82.2 | 56.9 |
| ForceWare 84.21 | 83.7 | 58 |
| Catalyst 5.09 | 56.3 | 23.3 |
| Catalyst 6.04 | 72.7 | 41 |
Like most games designed with a console in mind, Serious Sam 2 while still a graphically impressive title is not terribly hard on our GPUs. However, looking at the ATI results, the performance improvement is very eye-catching, though it also highlights the initial disappointing performance. With NVIDIA providing the underpinnings of the original Xbox, it's hard to tell if this is a case where they have a natural advantage or if ATI simply was unlucky with the game initially, but at any rate it reinforces the importance of the impact of new drivers on freshly-released games.
The Chronicles of Riddick
Here is another game with roots originally in a console game, and in fact it was originally only a console game. However, with the PC version released some 6 months after the Xbox version, the Developers Cut offers enough differences from other titles that were simultaneously developed that it can stand apart.
| The Chronicles of Riddick | ||
| 1280x1024 | 0xAA | 4xAA |
| ForceWare 66.93 | 36.83 | 21.26 |
| ForceWare 84.21 | 37.6 | 21.5 |
| Catalyst 4.11 | 20.11 | 9.11 |
| Catalyst 6.04 | 23.22 | 10.88 |
In spite of the time difference between releases and the more PC-focused nature of the resulting game, we see an interesting pattern similar to what happened in Serious Sam 2. NVIDIA picks up nothing, while ATI picks up over 10% in order to partially close a fairly wide gap. This could be another case where performance favors NVIDIA due to the Xbox, in which case NVIDIA may be in for a rude awakening in the near future as more Xbox360 titles make the transition to the PC. (Xbox360 uses an ATI graphics chip, whereas the original Xbox used an NVIDIA graphics chip.) Of course, with PS3 also using NVIDIA hardware, it could be that Xbox360 ports will run better on ATI while PS3 ports will run better on NVIDIA; that's something we'll watch for over the coming year(s).
Need For Speed: Underground 2
Moving away from Xbox-only titles, Need For Speed: Underground 2 differs in that it was created for multiple consoles instead of being an Xbox exclusive. With a focus on vehicular mayhem, NFS offers a nice contrast to our other games. Here, a super high frame rate isn't quite as important as in FPS games, since fast changes in direction aren't quite as frequent. It will also be interesting to see how a "sim" compares to the more common FPS benchmarks.
| Need For Speed: Underground 2 | ||
| 1024x768 | 0xAA | 4xAA |
| ForceWare 66.93 | 62 | 49 |
| ForceWare 84.21 | 62 | 49 |
| Catalyst 4.11 | 58 | 38 |
| Catalyst 6.04 | 59 | 39 |
As the only multi-platform console port on our list of games, it's very notable that NVIDIA does not have a massive performance lead at any point here, nor does ATI need to close any large gaps. While the framerate hovers around 60 FPS, the title is not locked at 60hz internally, and rather this is only an odd coincidence. Although the lack of a performance increase is a bit disappointing, the implications of the data aren't. As PC games become increasingly tied to console games, who's under the hood of the primary console may be having a fairly large impact when it comes to PC performance.
Final Fantasy XI
Rounding up our look at console games, we take a look at Square-Enix's MMORPG, originally released for the Playstation 2. With an emphasis on the number of characters in a scene over individual character detail and environmental detail, FFXI can be fairly punishing even with it's now dated graphics.
| Final Fantasy XI | |
| 1024x768 | 0xAA |
| ForceWare 60.72 | 6472 |
| ForceWare 84.21 | 6562 |
| Catalyst 4.05 | 6336 |
| Catalyst 6.04 | 6212 |
As neither ATI nor NVIDIA supply the graphics underpinnings of the PS2, it's not surprising to see both start out on equal footing. In fact, neither card deviates much from their initial score, indicating that the limiting factor is not the GPU in the first place, and hence there's little that either company can do to improve performance. However as ATI and NVIDIA will be supplying the GPUs in all 3 next-generation consoles, these scenarios are likely to be few and far between in the near future.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
24 Comments
View All Comments
z3R0C00L - Thursday, May 11, 2006 - link
Forgot to mention another fact..nVIDIA releases BETA drivers on a regular basis (usually not too stable and still plagued with issues that may fix a few issues in certain games but break others.. of course they're BETA).
ATi release WHQL drivers each month. A new set is release on a monthly basis, usually with MANY bug fixes. ATi is better at fixing issues quicker then nVIDIA. nVIDIA releases a WHQL'd driver once every soo often (like 4 times a year.. maybe up to 6 if lucky).
This means most nVIDIA users run BETA, non tested drivers. You're the guinea pigs. ATi at least rigourously test each release and even have a 3rd party corporation (Microsoft) test them and certify them. This is a commitment to the utmost quality in drivers.
So those who complain of ATi driver's are quite honestly liars (they probably own competitor cards and suffer from a disease known as fanboyism).
These are FACTS. Call me a fanboy for posting FACTS.. it's ok.. Anandtech knows it's true, as do HardOCP, Tom's Hardware, Elitebastards and Beyond 3D.
Before I leave I want to post another FACT. nVIDIA's OpenGL drivers remain top dog. This is NOT because they code the drivers better. It's because nVIDIA own more OpenGL extension patents that are more widely used by OpenGL game dev's. Most Dev's use nVIDIA OpenGL paths then ATi paths. Forcing ATi to either use a path optimised for nVIDIA cards or a generic path. This is partly ATi's fault for not creating there own path and pushing dev's to use them.
There... the FACTS. ;)
gamara - Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - link
There are always fewer bugs to fix in less buggy code. If ATI got it right the first time in more cases, maybe their bug fix total wouldn't be as high. I have to agree with another poster on having several issues with ATI drivers in some games and not having anywhere near the same number of issues with beta drivers from nVidia. I had more issues with drivers on a single ATI card than on my Riva TNT, GeForce2, GeForce4, FX5600 Ultra, 6600GT, and 7800GTX combined.Ryan Smith - Thursday, May 11, 2006 - link
You have the right idea, but the wrong terminology. In the past, Nvidia has only released around 4 official drivers a year, compared to ATI's 12(though recently have since then been releasing more often). However, they submit many more drivers for WHQL certification than those 4 drivers; usually any "beta" drivers they officially release are already WHQL certified. Unlike ATI there are non-certified drivers out there too since Nvidia shares its drivers more freely with its OEM partners than ATI, and hence you'll see a leak now and then, but for the most part Nvidia drivers are WHQL certified. In fact for this article, I reference the following:
However given the simply enormous number of such drivers, we used only Windows Hardware Quality Labs (WHQL) certified drivers, which means these are drivers NVIDIA was confident enough to release in a final form and submit to testing to Microsoft.
Wesleyrpg - Thursday, May 11, 2006 - link
hey there,you guys mention FFXI tests on page 3, but theres no results on any of the pages? whats up with that?
Wesleyrpg - Thursday, May 11, 2006 - link
whoops....its under console portsRyan Smith - Thursday, May 11, 2006 - link
Sorry about that, it's been made clearer now. Karen is on vacation, and it's more or less the worst kept secret in the world that we're terrible bachelors when it comes to writing.etriky - Thursday, May 11, 2006 - link
The reason ATI has been able to get large increases in their drivers is their first ones are terrible. I'll be the first to admit they make very good hardware. But their control panel is annoyingly bloated and driver stability is terrible. My hat's off to people that will put up with their software.Griswold - Thursday, May 11, 2006 - link
The usual humbug. The only thing I can agree with is that CCC is unwanted bloatware. Besides that, ATIs drivers are excellent and that is coming from a current nvidia user (though I still have an old box with my trusty 9700 pro and I've enjoyed catalysts ever since I bought this card a few months after its launch).Spoonbender - Thursday, May 11, 2006 - link
Currently they are, yes. But some years back, they sucked.I think the article neglects to mention the possibilty that maybe NVidia's drivers were just better optimized to begin with? If that's the case, ATI has "merely" been catching up.
I don't even find it unlikely. Today, both ATI and NVidia has great drivers (although some find the ATI control panel a bit bloated, but that's hardly a *driver* issue)
But, say, 5 years ago, ATI just couldn't make drivers, while NVidia were about as good as they are today. So ATI has obviously been catching up, and obviously, the scores in this article reflect that. ATI has just had more room for optimizing because they started at a disadvantage.
So I'm not sure I agree with the article that "ATI is the victor for getting the most out of its drivers." That's only true if we assume they were even when they started out.
However, one final thought. It's pretty clear that if you want an accurate picture of performance, you should wait at least two driver revisions from launch. Seems to more or less stabilize after that. So is there any chance, with future hardware releases, that you're going to revisit them after, say, two driver updates? Would be interesting to say the least.
Griswold - Friday, May 12, 2006 - link
I was talking about a few years back. I didnt buy that 9700 last year. I bought it at the end of 2002. It was launched in august 2002. And I've never had any issues with ATIs drivers with that card to this very day. YMMV but you wont hear me say "they suck" for an obivious reason.