FIC A92 Radeon 9200 64MB - Benchmarks

Test Setup

1. Intel Pentium IV 2.4B @ 2.91GHz (18 x 162fsb)

2. ABIT IS7-E Springdale Motherboard (bios 13)

3. 512MB Geil PC3200 "value" @ DDR405 (162fsb, 5/4 multiplier) 2.5-6-3-3

4. 2x Western Digital ATA100 40GB 7200rpm

5. CompUSA 250 watt power supply

6. WindowsXP Pro (Service Pack 1) OS, DX9 installed

7. FIC Radeon 9200 64MB AGP8X @ 250/400 stock

8. BFG GeForce 4 Ti4200 128MB AGP4X @ 250/444 stock

Drivers & Settings

1. ATI Catalyst 3.4 Driver Suite, "optimal performance" = texture preference and mipmap detail level both at High Performance, "optimal quality" = texture preference and mipmap detail level both at High Quality

2. nVidia Detonator FX 44.03, "optimal performance" = image settings at High Performance, "optimal quality" = image settings at Quality

Both Catalyst and Detonator drivers have come a long way and are fairly easy to use when it comes to manipulating image quality.

Benchmarks

1. 3DMark01SE Build 330

2. Comanche 4

3. AquaMark

4. Code Creatures

5. DroneZmarK

6. GLExcess

7. UT2k3

Most of these benchmarks are DX8, which should suit both the 9200 and Ti4200 well. Besides the different texture and mipmap settings between the two cards (denoted by optimal performance and quality settings), certain benchmarks have specific image quality settings (i.e. UT2k3) which override any settings done through the control panel.

We will also look at how anti-aliasing impacts gaming performance in UT2k3, and a comparison between AGP4X and AGP8X performance of the 9200.

Keep in mind the Ti4200 is expected to come out on top in every test. It is simply there for comparison. Ideally a FX5200 would have been used, but the Ti4200 was the only card I had on hand.

3DMark01SE

Even with the release of the 2003 version, 3DMark01 remains one of the most widely used synthetic benchmarks, and it should do well here to give an overall assessment of the Radeon 9200's DX8 performance. It was run at 1024x768 default settings. With that said...

It's obvious that the 9200 is restricting this 2.9GHz system from its full potential. A 7K score is by all means laughable, but then again no one buys a $66 video card looking to beat out SPeeD junkies who spend every day trying to top their 3DMark scores from the day before. Let's take a look at some other benchmarks.

Comanche 4

Being that Comanche 4 is a little bit more CPU dependent, there should be a smaller gap in performance between the 9200 and Ti4200 on this D3D test. We performed the test in 1024x768, 32bit color.

 I'm surprised that IQ settings didn't have much of an impact on Comanche 4. In any case, Comanche 4 is not a game you will want to play at 1028x768 resolution.

AquaMark

AquaMark is another oldie but goodie, based on the D3D game engine of Aquanox. Tests were run in 1028x768, 32bit color.

Again, image quality has no affect on performance. Or does it? Looks at these screenshots:

The first two screenshots show the 9200 and Ti4200 running in optimal performance settings respectively, while the third shot, running in quality settings, is what the ending screen is supposed to look like. I don't know how to explain it, but I'm confident it is just a problem with AquaMark.

Next: More Benchmarking >>
 

More Video Cards Articles
More By KaoMAN