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.
25 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Thursday, December 23, 2004 - link
johnsonx,thanks for the suggestion. we're definitly exploring options for other workstation articles.
since this is the first of the graphics workstation articles we've tackled in quite a while, we wanted to start with current technology (R4xx, NV4x, and WC Realizm based parts). There aren't curently lower end parts (with the exception of the Wildcat Realizm 100) based on the technology we tested for this article.
thanks again. let us know if there's anything else we can look into doing for future reviews.
Derek Wilson
johnsonx - Thursday, December 23, 2004 - link
How about benchmarking some of the lower Quadro and FireGL cards? ATI has the FireGL 9600 (aka FireGL T2-128), FireGL 9700 (aka FireGL X1), and FireGL 9800 (aka FireGL X2-256t) at $250, $500 and $600 price points repectively. Comparable Quadros are available as well.For many professional uses, a workstation class card (with attendant workstation class, certified drives) is desired, but ultra-high performance isn't important. It'd be nice to see the comparitive performance of the lower end cards.
DerekWilson - Thursday, December 23, 2004 - link
ksherman,You may have some luck with the 6600gt under AutoCAD, espeically if you don't intend to push the graphics subsystem as much as we did (no AA lines, less tess, etc...), but depending on the Pro/E workload, you may have trouble.
The SPECviewperf veiwset tests a much larger workload than the OCUS benchmark. If you're working with smaller data, you should be fine, but if we're talking millions of verts, you're going to have increasing ammounts of trouble with a 128MB card.
Derek Wilson
ksherman - Thursday, December 23, 2004 - link
You guys should throw in a few mainstream graphics cards for comparison. I am trying to build a systems whos primary use will be with Pro/Engineer and AutoCAD and i certainly do not have the money for a $1000+ video card. Im just wondering how the other cards match up (like the 6600gt AGP)Speedo - Thursday, December 23, 2004 - link
Nice review!