Games Benchmarks - Counter Strike: Source (DirectX)
While Hlaf Life 2 is being geared up for release we'll use the Video Stress Test from Counter Strike Source to test the performances of the AGP 6600 GT under some rendering conditions that are likely to be seen in the final game.
| CS: VSS (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| 6600 GT AGP | 197.3 | 177.7 | 132.6 | 105.5 | 66.7 |
| 6600 GT PCIe | 171.3 | 163.6 | 136.7 | 109.2 | 69.2 |
| 5700 Ultra | 122.1 | 90.4 | 62.3 | 44.7 | 29.4 |
| 5800 Ultra | 196.6 | 151.7 | 107.3 | 79.1 | 51.4 |
| 6600 GT AGP % Faster Than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| 6600 GT PCIe | 15.1% | 8.6% | -3.0% | -3.4% | -3.5% |
| 5700 Ultra | 61.5% | 96.6% | 112.7% | 135.8% | 126.8% |
| 5800 Ultra | 0.3% | 17.2% | 23.6% | 33.4% | 29.7% |
As the video stress test is fairly reliant on numerous shaders, the bandwidth penalty between the AGP and PCIe boards is lessened in comparison to previous tests. While we've seen very large performance advantages to the 6600's over the FX boards in previous shader tests, in this case the performance differences aren't as large, however this is because the FX boards are only rendering in DirectX8.1 mode whilst the 6600's in full DirectX9 mode.
| CS: VSS, 4x FSAA + 8x AF (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| 6600 GT AGP | 177.0 | 134.4 | 91.1 | 68.5 | 24.6 |
| 6600 GT PCIe | 164.1 | 141.9 | 97.5 | 73.2 | 31.4 |
| 5700 Ultra | 83.5 | 57.0 | 38.4 | 27.6 | 16.3 |
| 5800 Ultra | 121.0 | 83.8 | 56.2 | 40.9 | 20.5 |
| 6600 GT AGP % Faster Than: | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| 6600 GT PCIe | 7.8% | -5.3% | -6.6% | -6.5% | -21.8% |
| 5700 Ultra | 111.9% | 135.9% | 137.2% | 148.0% | 50.7% |
| 5800 Ultra | 46.3% | 60.4% | 62.3% | 67.5% | 19.8% |
The fill-rate graph highlights a dramatic performance drop at 1600x1200 on the 6600's due to the large memory requirements of both the Video Stress Testand 4x FSAA.
| 6600 GT AGP (FPS) | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| Normal | 197.3 | 177.7 | 132.6 | 105.5 | 66.7 |
| 8x AF | 194.9 | 167.3 | 117.2 | 92.7 | 61.7 |
| 4x FSAA | 186.8 | 149.0 | 102.4 | 74.2 | 28.5 |
| 4x FSAA + 8x AF | 177.0 | 134.4 | 91.1 | 68.5 | 24.6 |
| % Diff from Normal | 640x480 | 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x960 | 1600x1200 |
| 8x AF | -1.2% | -5.8% | -11.6% | -12.1% | -7.5% |
| 4x FSAA | -5.3% | -16.1% | -22.8% | -29.6% | -57.4% |
| 4x FSAA + 8x AF | -10.3% | -24.4% | -31.3% | -35.1% | -63.2% |
Looking at the performances of the AGP 6600 GT under the various rendering types we see that 8x AF incurs a maximum penalty of 12%, whilst, prior to 1600x1200, FSAA has a high performance hit of 30%. In this instance the performance of enabling FSAA and AF aren't cumulative as they are stressing different ends of the rendering pipeline.
