HIS Radeon X1600 Pro AGP Review
3DMark2001 SE
Contents
3DMark2001 SE measures video card performance simulating DirectX 8.1 games. It is very effective software for evaluating the performance from previous-generation games, programmed using DirectX 8. In this software we run six tests. We run the software in three resolutions, 1024x768x32, 1280x1024x32 and 1600x1200x32, first without antialising and with no frame buffer, then we put the antialising at 4 samples and the frame buffer at triple-buffering. This improves the video quality but lowers the performance. We were willing to see how much performance we lost by putting the VGA to run at the maximum possible image quality. It is important to note that ATI chips can run at 6x antialising. Since NVIDIA chips cannot run at this configuration, we had to use 4x antialising to use a configuration that is valid to all video cards included in our bechmarks, allowing direct comparison between them.
You may be asking yourself why we added an old program in a review of a latest generation video card. To us, it is as important to know the performance of a video card with the latest games as it is to know its performance in an older game. That’s why we kept this software in our methodology.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1024×768 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 24,579 | 40.43% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 24,293 | 38.79% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 23,086 | 31.90% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 22,642 | 29.36% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 20,770 | 18.67% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 18,199 | 3.98% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 18,192 | 3.94% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 17,503 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 16,264 | 7.62% |
At a resolution of 1024×768 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 7.62% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and it was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 40.43% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 38.79% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 31.90% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 29.36% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 18.67% faster, Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 3.98% faster and Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 3.94% faster.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1280×1024 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 22,158 | 56.57% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 22,048 | 55.79% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 20,821 | 47.12% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 20,503 | 44.88% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 17,522 | 23.81% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 15,599 | 10.22% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 15,538 | 9.79% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 14,152 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 13,319 | 6.25% |
At a resolution of 1280×1024 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 6.25% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and it was beaten by ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 56.57% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 55.79% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 47.12% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 44.88% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 23.81% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 10.22% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 9.79% faster.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1600×1200 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 20,246 | 80.83% |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 20,002 | 78.65% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 19,338 | 72.72% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 18,177 | 62.35% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 14,537 | 29.84% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 13,511 | 20.68% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 13,374 | 19.45% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 11,196 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 10,418 | 7.47% |
At a resolution of 1600×1200 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 7.47% faster than HIS Radeon X700 and it was beaten by ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 80.83% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 78.65% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 72.72% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 62.35% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 29.84% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 20.68% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 19.45% faster.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1024×768 AA x4, FB x3 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 21,625 | 63.15% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 20,847 | 57.28% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 19,731 | 48.86% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 19,525 | 47.30% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 15,993 | 20.66% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 15,517 | 17.07% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 13,482 | 1.71% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 13,255 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 12,474 | 6.26% |
At a resolution of 1024×768 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP and it was 6.26% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 63.15% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 57.28% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 48.86% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 47.30% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 20.66% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 17.07% faster.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1280×1024 AA x4, FB x3 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 19,015 | 92.89% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 17,926 | 81.84% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 17,253 | 75.02% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 16,421 | 66.58% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 12,530 | 27.10% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 12,289 | 24.66% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 10,102 | 2.48% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 9,858 | |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 9,257 | 6.49% |
At a resolution of 1280×1024 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP and it was 6.49% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 92.89% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 81.84% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 75.02% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 66.58% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 27.10% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 24.66% faster.
| 3DMark2001 SE – 1600×1200 AA x4, FB x3 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 16,632 | 203.01% |
| Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition (ATI) | 15,001 | 173.29% |
| Radeon X800 Pro (Sapphire) | 13,632 | 148.35% |
| GeForce 6800 Ultra (XFX) | 13,331 | 142.87% |
| Radeon 9800 XT (ATI) | 9,497 | 73.02% |
| GeForce FX 5950 Ultra (Gigabyte) | 9,022 | 64.37% |
| Radeon X700 (HIS) | 6,873 | 25.21% |
| GeForce 6600 GT AGP (Leadtek) | 6,206 | 13.06% |
| Radeon X1600 Pro (HIS) | 5,489 |
At a resolution of 1600×1200 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 203.01% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 173.29% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 148.35% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 142.87% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 73.02% faster, Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 64.37% faster, HIS Radeon X700, which was 25.21% faster and Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 13.06% faster.