CONTENTS

1. Video cards' features
2. Testbed configuration, test tools, 2D quality
3. Comparison of the cards' performance
4. Conclusion

Test results

Before we start examining 2D quality, I should say there are no complete techniques for objective 2D quality estimation because: 

1. 2D quality much depends on certain samples for almost all modern 3D accelerators; 
2. Besides videocards, 2D quality depends on monitors and cables; 
3. Moreover, certain monitors might not work properly with certain video cards. 

As for the samples tested, together with the ViewSonic P817 monitor and BNC Bargo cable they showed excellent quality at the following resolutions and clock speeds:

Test results: comparison of the cards' performance

Test applications:

• Return to Castle Wolfenstein (MultiPlayer) (id Software/Activision) - OpenGL, multitexturing, Checkpoint-demo, test settings - maximum, S3TC OFF, the configurations can be downloaded from here

 
• Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v.1.05 (Croteam/GodGames) - OpenGL, multitexturing, Grand Cathedral demo, test settings: quality, S3TC OFF 

 
• Quake3 Arena v.1.17 (id Software/Activision) - OpenGL, multitexturing, Quaver, test settings - maximum: detailing level - High, texture detailing level - #4, S3TC OFF, smoothness of curves is much increased through variables r_subdivisions "1" and r_lodCurveError "30000" (at default r_lodCurveError is 250 !), the configurations can be downloaded from here

 
• Unreal Tournament 2003 Demo (Digital Extreme/Epic Games) - Direct3D, Vertex Shaders, Hardware T&L, Dot3, cube texturing, default quality

 
• Code Creatures Benchmark Pro (CodeCult) - the game that demonstrates card's operation in DirectX 8.1, Shaders, HW T&L.

 
• AquaMark (Massive Development) the game that demonstrates card's operation in DirectX 8.1, Shaders, HW T&L.

 
• RightMark 3D v.0.4 (one of the game scenes) - DirectX 8.1, Dot3, cube texturing, shadow buffers, vertex and pixel shaders (1.1, 1.4).

Quake3 Arena, Quaver

Well, 256 MB of a bit overclocked memory couldn't help the RADEON 9800 PRO to outscore the 128MB card, and both cards fall behind the NV35.

All other Sapphire's cards obviously look worse than NVIDIA's ones.

Serious Sam: The Second Encounter, Grand Cathedral

Again, 256 MB is unnecessary for the RADEON 9800 PRO, but both cards win against the NV35 in high resolutions but not in AA and anisotropy modes, where NVIDIA's baby keeps the leading position. 

All the other RADEON 9600/9200 cards win against their competitors when AA and anisotropy are disabled and lose when they are activated. It's interesting that the weakest 64bit RADEON 9200 card yields to its competitor GF FX 5200 also coupled with a 64bit bus. 

Return to Castle Wolfenstein (Multiplayer), Checkpoint

There is no need in commenting the difference between the 256MB and 128MB RADEON 9800 PRO cards. But both have an advantage over the NV35.

The weaker cards perform like in the previous test. Only the RADEON 9200 64bit loses to its counterpart.

Code Creatures

Unfortunately, the anisotropy doesn't work for the GeForce FX here because of the NVIDIA drivers.

As you can see, only the weakest RADEONs win the battle. 

Unreal Tournament 2003 DEMO

The RADEON line loses this battle.

AquaMark

It's the same here. Only the RADEON 9200 64bit outdoes the GF FX 5200 64bit.

RightMark 3D

This test shows how the cards cope with multiple shaders. We can see that the Canadian company has a higher shader speed indeed. Also, there is no difference between the 256MB RADEON 9800 PRO and the 128MB cards. The nV35 takes the lead only at the expense of the anti-aliasing.

The cheaper Sapphire's cards look even better. The advantages of the RADEON 9600/9600 PRO are obvious. Only the RADEON 9200 and 9200 64bit lose the battle. 

Conclusion

1. Sapphire Atlantis RADEON 9200 64MB 64bit is a Low-End solution; the speed is low but the price is adequate to the card's capabilities; 
2. Sapphire Atlantis RADEON 9200 128MB is a standard card based on the reference design; it has nothing peculiar; it belongs to the Low-End segment and has a proper price as well; 
3. Sapphire Atlantis RADEON 9600 128MB is a mainstream product; it's new, and prices are still high, but soon they must fall down to the level of $120-130; 
4. Sapphire Atlantis RADEON 9600 PRO 128MB - this card crowns the latest mainstream (Middle-End) line, and takes turn in winning battles with NVIDIA (we mentioned it in the base review of the same card), that is why everything will depend on the price. Also remember that there are FireBlade cards where the memory is able to overclock by 30 MHz at least, that is why they can of much interest for overclockers (above you can see what speeds the chipset endures); 
5. Sapphire Atlantis RADEON 9800 PRO 128MB is a High-End solution and copy of the reference one; the price is still too high; 
6. Sapphire Atlantis RADEON 9800 PRO 256MB DDR-II is a new top High-End solution in the ATI's line. As you could see, 256 MB memory (even DDR2) is not necessary (except maybe AA modes in 1600x1200, but is is worth extra $80-100?). The growth of the memory clock speed by 10 MHz has no benefit, but usage of the DDR2 memory markedly affects the cost price. Also, it's unclear why to use DDR2 for the sake of 350 MHz if DDR1 is able to run at even higher frequencies and it costs and heats less. It's a response to the NV35, but not a good one. 
7. Sapphire Atlantis All-in-Wonder 9700 PRO 128MB is actually a copy of the similar ATI's card. Only the box is changed. The cost is still to high.

In our 3Digest you can find comparison characteristics of video cards of other classes as well.

Well, the tests prove that Sapphire is the leading brand of ATI, and the company offers a variety of high-quality and reliable cards.

Certainly, it's impossible to avoid defective goods, but Sapphire grants warranty for its products, and we do have experts who are ready to help if you encounter such problems or if you simply bought a card with the clock speeds you didn't want.