Geforce GTX280 & Radeon HD4870X2 AA Scaling with XP & Vista

Videocards/VGA Reviews by jmke @ 2008-09-04

In this in-depth article we take a look at the performance of the NVIDIA Geforce GTX 280 and ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 when anti-aliasing is enabled. We test 8 different games at several different AA levels under Windows XP as well as under Windows Vista. How does performance scale when you go from XP to Vista, how much impact does enabling AA have? Read on to find out!

  • prev
  • Go to mainpage

Conclusive Thoughts

Conclusive Thoughts

After testing 8 games using a multitude of Anti-Aliasing settings under both XP and Vista 64-bit we can finally make an informed conclusion on gaming with these high end cards.

Anti Aliasing Performance Scaling

We put all our results together for all games tested under both operating systems we can extract the following findings:

  • Going from 0xAA to 4xAA

    - Geforce GTX 280 under XP: -19.1%
    - Radeon HD 4870 X2 under XP: -23.1%

    - Geforce GTX 280 under Vista: -21%
    - Radeon HD 4870 X2 under Vista: -10.6%

    For both cards under XP the drop is pretty much on par; under Vista the HD 4870 X2 shows a remarkable difference, as performance only drops by ~10% on average!

  • Going from 0xAA to 8xAA

    - Geforce GTX 280 under XP: -26%
    - Radeon HD 4870 X2 under XP: -25.8%

    - Geforce GTX 280 under Vista: -28.7%
    - Radeon HD 4870 X2 under Vista: -15.4%

    When going from 0xAA to 8xAA the HD 4870 X2 is now better in both XP and Vista, under Vista the performance drop is still quite small, only ~15%! The GTX 280 drops by nearly double.


  • For those wondering if their next gaming machine should be running Windows XP or Windows Vista, the following numbers will be most interesting:

    Performance Scaling XP to Vista

    On average with the Geforce GTX 280 you lose -1.6% by switching to Vista 64-bit, so in short: same performance and no loss!

    The Radeon HD 4870 X2 does even better, if we leave out the numbers of Stalker and Tomb Raider (as Crossfire failed to run properly under XP) we see a +5.8% boost in average FPS going from XP to Vista. If we add the two game titles and let them enjoy CF-scaling the number jumps up to +27.7%!


    This by no means a definitive performance overview, only a snapshot in time using these video cards under XP and Vista. Many of the performance difference can be attributed to driver issues as both these cards are relatively new in the market.

    From a gamer’s perspective there should be no reason why you wouldn’t want to use Windows Vista 64-bit. While our test setup with 2gb was sufficient to run all current generation games, there’s no doubt that having access to more system memory will prove useful in the future, and with a 64-bit OS you can profit from it.

    We hope this article will be helpful for those looking to upgrade their gaming system with a more capable 3D card! Until next time.


    Update 07-09-2008:: Some readers pointed out that NVIDIA uses different AA rendering modes compared to ATI and for fair comparison sake the following needs to be taken into account:

    - NVIDIA 8xAA = 4xMSAA, 16xAA = 4xMSAA (CSAA mode), 16xQAA = 8xMSAA (CSAA mode)
    - ATI 16xAA is a superAA mode where each core will render the same frame with a different AA pattern resulting in superior image quality.


    This does put in perspective the performance of the Geforce GTX 280 when the high quality AA levels are forced to match ATI's levels, as the performance of the GTX 280 is really trailing then. Of course you have to consider how much AA you need for the game to look smooth to you, this changes from person to person.

    We like to thank those who detailed the NVIDIA & ATI rendering modes, much appreciated!
    • prev
    • Go to mainpage
    Comment from Kaotik @ 2008/09/06
    You forgot to mention that
    ...8xAA on ATI should be compared to 8xQAA on nV, not the 8xAA which is 4xMSAA based CSAA mode
    ...16xAA on ATI effectively turn the card into single chip card which can do 16xMSAA, since both chips render the same frame with different AA patterns
    ...16xAA on nV is 4xMSAA based CSAA mode and 16xQAA on nV is 8xMSAA based CSAA mode

    So 16x and 8x comparisons in your graphs are far from being 'fair' or 'apples-to-apples', the 8xAA should have ATI 8xAA vs nV 8xQAA (8xQAA = 8xMSAA) and 16xAA shouldn't even exist since the GTX280 can't do 16xMSAA which is (practicly) what the HD4870X2 is doing by blending the same frame rendered twice with different AA patterns.
    Comment from jmke @ 2008/09/07
    Thank you for your input. much appreciated; the 16xAA on the ATI does indeed split performance in two, really heavy hit on performance, but ultimate image quality.

    While the performance on the two cards at different AA levels can be compared head to the head in the charts, their scaling going from XP to Vista was definitely my main focus.

    I don't know if you were the same person who email me about this same issue, but I agree with you that NVIDIA and ATI each have their own approach to the AA levels defined in their control panel, making it less than straight-forward.

    on the topic of AA levels, I was hard pressed to find major improvement on NVIDIA going from 4xAA to 16xQAA (through NV control panel); same goes for ATI where 4xAA or 8xAA did little to improve image quality visually, meaning that the to be able to spot the difference you'll have to do screenshot comparisons of static screens and use a zoom-loop in order to find them.

    on the upside, we finally almost get free 4xAA under Vista with ATI which will be a key feature for full DX11 compliance if I remember correctly.

    Again thank you for your input and the educative message!


    -----

    I received the following mail regarding Crysis performance with the HD 4870 X2 (and Crossfire)

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Felipe by email
    I saw you article about scaling with XP & Vista comparing tow of the fastest cards in the market and I just want to tell you, thar, there is a list of Cvar in Crysis that increase FPS when using with a CF setup, this worked with 3870X2 and 4870X2, running 32bits executable.

    I can say that Crysis some how is bottlenecking CF systems.

    One of the Cvars is R_TEXTURESTREAMING.
    Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 46,97
    Run #2- DX9 1280x1024 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 37,12
    Run #3- DX9 1280x1024 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 36,33
    TEXTURE STREAMING = 0
    Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 56,11
    Run #2- DX9 1280x1024 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 42,41
    Run #3- DX9 1280x1024 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 43,00
    And using this combination here (based on my system)
    sys_budget_numdrawcalls = 6000
    sys_budget_videomem = 512
    sys_budget_sysmem = 6144
    sys_budget_frametime = 80
    r_TexturesStreaming = 0
    Using Only texturestreaming
    Run #1- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 4635
    Using Texturestreamin and Budget config
    Run #1- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 4869

    This have the same effect on 4870X2 and 4870 series, for some reason it doesnt help Nvidia cards.
    Comment from Kaotik @ 2008/09/07
    Nah, I'm not the same person, it was another Beyond3D user as far as I know who mailed you.

    I just thought that those differences should be mentioned even though the comparison between Vista & XP was the main concern of the great article.

    Regarding the 'free 4xAA' on HD4870X2 you mentioned, I think you're mixing it with the DX10.1 requirement of 4xAA, which has nothing to do with performance, just that you have to have the support for it (as far as I know, DX10.1 was the first DX ever to actually require support for specific AA mode)
    Comment from jmke @ 2008/09/07
    I've added an addendum to the article regarding the difference in AA levels between ATI and NVIDIA

    I thought DX10.1 (and DX11) allowed 4xAA without a performance hit, much like Assassin's Creed on the ATI cards before they released the patch
    Comment from Kaotik @ 2008/09/07
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jmke View Post
    I've added an addendum to the article regarding the difference in AA levels between ATI and NVIDIA

    I thought DX10.1 (and DX11) allowed 4xAA without a performance hit, much like Assassin's Creed on the ATI cards before they released the patch
    Nope, there's no such thing as "free AA" really even though the performance drops are relatively small today. DX10.1 (or 11) changes nothing on these regards, 10.1 just introduced the requirement to have support for 4xMSAA to be 10.1 compliant, and allows access to the samples "better" (no idea how to better describe it really)
    In case of Assassin's Creed, they took advantage of DX10.1 how they can access the AA samples later in the rendering too, with DX10 they had to do two rendering passes for some effects, one with and one without AA, while with DX10.1 they could just re-use the buffers from AA rendering pass, completely dropping out one rendering pass.

     

    reply