Workstation Graphics: AGP Cross Section 2004
by Derek Wilson on December 23, 2004 4:14 PM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Shader Analysis
To open this section, we would first like to start by stating that we wish we could have found a suitable benchmark to test GLSL performance in a similar way that Shadermark manages to test HLSL performance. OpenGL fragment shading performance under which we ran the demos on the Wildcat Realizm part is much higher than its DirectX pixel shading performance under Shadermark. In fact, even in playing with ATI's own Rendermonkey, it was apparent that the 3Dlabs card handled GLSL shaders better than the FireGL X3. Since OpenGL is the language of the workstation, it makes sense that the workstation is only where 3Dlabs would focus its efforts first, while ATI's consumer oriented approach would lend it the clear upper hand in DirectX HLSL benchmarks like Shadermark.But DirectX and HLSL is still a very relevant test and is supported on all these cards. Of note is the fact that Shadermark would not run PS 3.0 code on the Wildcat Realizm. Shadermark chose to use the PS 2.0a path, which supports a wider range of features than the PS 2.0b path used for both of the ATI cards. Shadermark has been known to be very picky about code paths that it runs, and it's possible that there is an issue with the fact that this 3Dlabs part is simply not on the Shadermark map. But part of the point of HLSL is that the code should still run with no problems. We did get the option of creating an A2R10G10B10 hardware device on the Wildcat Realizm in shadermark where no other card presented such a feature. But let's take a look at what the numbers have to say.
| Shadermark v2.1 Performance Chart | |||||
| GeForce 6800U | Quadro FX 4000 | Radeon X850XT | FireGL X3-256 | Realizm 200 | |
| shader 2 | 893 | 596 | 996 | 731 | 41 |
| shader 3 | 736 | 493 | 735 | 531 | 28 |
| shader 4 | 737 | 493 | 732 | 531 | 28 |
| shader 5 | 669 | 448 | 608 | 438 | 16 |
| shader 6 | 680 | 467 | 735 | 530 | 28 |
| shader 7 | 631 | 417 | 654 | 485 | 23 |
| shader 8 | 383 | 255 | 406 | 301 | 11 |
| shader 9 | 894 | 630 | 1263 | 977 | 55 |
| shader 10 | 807 | 553 | 819 | 617 | 43 |
| shader 11 | 680 | 467 | 694 | 509 | 27 |
| shader 12 | 446 | 319 | 263 | 186 | 13 |
| shader 13 | 383 | 276 | 361 | 252 | 13 |
| shader 14 | 446 | 316 | 399 | 280 | 18 |
| shader 15 | 328 | 244 | 285 | 206 | 21 |
| shader 16 | 314 | 224 | 336 | 244 | 8 |
| shader 17 | 425 | 309 | 429 | 315 | 8 |
| shader 18 | 56 | 39 | 40 | 30 | 2 |
| shader 19 | 180 | 134 | 139 | 99 | 6 |
| shader 20 | 57 | 41 | 47 | 33 | 3 |
| shader 21 | 90 | 63 | - | - | - |
| shader 22 | 119 | 96 | 204 | 154 | 14 |
| shader 23 | 133 | 106 | - | - | 15 |
| shader 24 | 80 | 67 | 143 | 108 | 118 |
| shader 25 | 97 | 69 | 118 | 86 | 6 |
| shader 26 | 93 | 67 | 123 | 89 | 6 |
Not surprisingly, the consumer level parts are the top performers here. The Quadro FX 4000 and FireGL X3-256 don't do a bad job of keeping up with their desktop counterparts. However, the Wildcat Realizm 200 puts in a very poor showing. In addition to this, the Realizm didn't render many of the shaders correctly. Granted, the Microsoft reference rasterizer does not create correct images, but they are close in most cases. Shadermark generates MSE (mean squared error) data for screenshots taken and compared against reference images. Both ATI and NVIDIA hit between 0.5 and 1 in most tests. There is not a single shader rendered on the Wildcat Realizm 200 with an MSE of less than about 2.5. Most shaders show very clear image quality issues.
With the image quality of Wildcat Realizm in Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 being dead on with the other cards, and performance under Half-Life 2 not being as bad as we expected, we have to wonder how much of the issues with Shadermark would translate into actual applications. And by applications, we mean any application that allows the creation and/or visualization of HLSL or GLSL shaders. DCC workstation users are becoming more and more involved in the process of creating and designing complex shader effects. In order to maintain a firm position in the future of DCC workflow, 3Dlabs will need to assure smooth, accurate support of HLSL, no matter what the application running the code.
We will continue to evaluate programs for benchmarking GLSL performance. Through observation, the NVIDIA and 3Dlabs parts have an advantage over the ATI parts in GLSL performance. Unfortunately, we don't have any quantitative tests to bring to the table at this time.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
View All Comments
Sword - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link
Hi again,I want to add to my first post that there were 2 parts and a complex assembly (>110 very complex parts without simplified rep).
The amount of data to process was pretty high (XP shows >400 Mb and it can goes up to 600 Mb).
About the specific features, I believe that most of the CAD users do not use them. People like me, mechanical engineers and other engineers, are using the software like Pro/E, UGS, Solidworks, Inventor and Catia for solid modeling without any textures or special effects.
My comment was really to point that the high end features seams useless in real world application for engineering.
I still believe that for 3D multimedia content, there is place for high-end workstation and the specviewperf benchmark is a good tool for that.
Dubb - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link
how about throwing in soft-quadro'd cards? when people realize with a little effort they can take a $350 6800GT to near-q4000 performance, that changes the pricing issue a bit.Slaimus - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link
If the Realizm 200 performs this well, it will be scary to see the 800 in action.DerekWilson - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link
dvinnen, workstation cards are higher margin -- selling consumer parts may be higher volume, but the competition is harder as well. Creative would have to really change their business model if they wanted to sell consumer parts.Sword, like we mentioned, the size of the data set tested has a large impact on performance in our tests. Also, Draven31 is correct -- a lot depends on the specific features that you end up using during your normal work day.
Draven31, 3dlabs drivers have improved greatly with the Realizm from what we've seen in the past. In fact, the Realizm does a much better job of video overlay playback as well.
Since one feature of the Quadro and Realizm cards is their ability to run genlock/framelock video walls, perhaps a video playback/editing test would make a good addition to our benchmark suite
Draven31 - Friday, December 24, 2004 - link
Coming up with the difference between the spec viewperf tests and real-world 3d work means finding out which "high-end card' features that the test is using and then turning them off in the tests. With NVidia cards, this usually starts with antialiased lines. It also depends on whether the application you are running even uses these features... in Lightwave3D, the 'pro' cards and the consumer cards are very comparable performance-wise because it doesn't use these so-called 'high-end' features very extensively.And while they may be faster in some Viewperf tests, 3dLabs drivers generally suck. Having owned and/or used several, I can tell you any app that uses DirectX overlays as part of its display routines is going to either be slow or not work at all. For actual application use, 3dLabs cards are useless. I've seen 3dLabs cards choke on directX apps, and that includes both games and applications that do windowed video playback on the desktop (for instance, video editing and compositing apps)
Sword - Thursday, December 23, 2004 - link
Hi everyone,I am a mechanical engineer in Canada and I am a fan of anandtech.
I made last year a very big comparison of mainstream vs workstation video card for our internal use (the company I work for).
The goal was to compare the different systems (and mainly video cards) to see if in Pro-Engineer and the kind of work with do we could take real advantage of high-end workstation video card.
My conclusion is very clear : in specviewperf there is a huge difference between mainstream video card and workstation video card. BUT, in the day-to-day work, there is no real difference in our reaults.
To summarize, I made a benchmark in Pro/E using the trail files with 3 of our most complex parts. I made comparison in shading, wireframe, hidden line and I also verified the regeneration time for each part. The benchmark was almost 1 hour long. I compared 3D Labs product, ATI professionnal, Nvidia professionnal and Nvidia mainstream.
My point is : do not believe specviewperf !! Make your own comparison with your actual day-to-day work to see if you really have to spend 1000 $ per video cards. Also, take the time to choose the right components so you minimize the calculation time.
If anyone at Anandtech is willing to take a look at my study, I am willing to share the results.
Thank you
dvinnen - Thursday, December 23, 2004 - link
I always wondered why Creative (they own 3dLabs) never made a consumer edition of the Wildcat. Seems like a smallish market when it wouldn't be all that hard to expand into consumer cards.Cygni - Thursday, December 23, 2004 - link
Im surprised by the power of the Wildcat, really... great for the dollar.DerekWilson - Thursday, December 23, 2004 - link
mattsaccount,glad we could help out with that :-)
there have been some reports of people getting consumer level driver to install on workstatoin class parts, which should give better performance numbers for the ATI and NVIDIA parts under games if possible. But keep in mind that the trend in workstation parts is to clock them at lower speeds than the current highest end consumer level products for heat and stability reasons.
if you're a gamer who's insane about performance, you'd be much better off paying $800 on ebay for the ultra rare uberclocked parts from ATI and NVIDIA than going out and getting a workstation class card.
Now, if you're a programmer, having access to the workstation level features is fun and interesting. But probably not worth the money in most cases.
Only people who want workstation class features should buy workstation class cards.
Derek Wilson
mattsaccount - Thursday, December 23, 2004 - link
Yes, very interesting. This gives me and lots of others something to point to when someone asks why they shouldn't get the multi-thousand dollar video card if they want top gaming performance :)