Published on 24th Jan 2006, written by Dave Baumann for Consumer Graphics - Last updated: 9th Jun 2008
High Image Quality Performances
4x FSAA vs 6x FSAA
On element that characterised X1800 when we initially tested it was the performance drop between 4x and 6x FSAA was quite low, something that ATI's engineering stated that had spent some time optimising so that these higher quality setting could be used more of the time. Here we'll check to see if this still hold true on the latest drivers and the X1900 XTX.
Splinter Cell - 4xFSAA vs 6xFSAA
307200
480000
786432
1310720
1920000
X1900 XTX - 4x
41.1
61.3
87.4
109.6
122.3
X1900 XTX - 6x
40.8
59.6
83.3
102.5
113.9
X1800 XT - 4x
39.2
55.1
69.9
81.8
88.3
X1800 XT - 6x
39.3
55
70
81.8
88.3
pixels x fps - Mpixels per second
Difference between 4x and 6x
640x480
800x600
1024x768
1280x1024
1600x1200
X1900 XTX
-0.80%
-2.80%
-4.70%
-6.50%
-6.90%
X1800 XT
0.30%
-0.10%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
percentage
With just differenct levels of FSAA enabled the performance difference between 4x and 6x FSAA on the X1800 is nothing, probably due to the the X1800 being quite shader bound in this title, much of the time. The X1900, on the other hand, does drop in performance a little, to the tune of about 7% at high resolution, but that's still a fairly negligible performance drop for an extra two samples per pixel.
Doom 3 - 4xFSAA vs 6xFSAA
307200
480000
786432
1310720
1920000
X1900 XTX - 4x
45.5
71.3
109
142.6
162.4
X1900 XTX - 6x
46.2
67.9
93.8
113.9
126.5
X1800 XT - 4x
45.1
69.3
101.8
128.3
140.4
X1800 XT - 6x
45.4
64.9
86.5
103.5
111.2
pixels x fps - Mpixels per second
Difference between 4x and 6x
640x480
800x600
1024x768
1280x1024
1600x1200
X1900 XTX
1.60%
-4.80%
-13.90%
-20.10%
-22.10%
X1800 XT
0.70%
-6.40%
-15.10%
-19.30%
-20.80%
percentage
The performance difference between 4x and 6x FSAA under Doom 3 is a little greater, with a hit a little over 20% in both cases. In this instance we wonder if its a case of the OpenGL drivers not being as tuned as the Direct3D drivers.