Radeon 3850 AGP Plus Single-Core CPU

Test System and Configuration

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Processor:AMD Athlon 64 3400+ (Venice), 2.2 GHz, 512k L2 cache
Motherboard:ASrock 9393dual-SATA2 (socket 939), ULI 1695 chipset, BIOS v1.6
RAM:All Memory run at 166 MHz, (CL2.5-3-3-7)
Row 3 - Cell 0 PATRIOT EP, 1 x 1024 MB PC3500 (CL2.0-3-2-5)
Row 4 - Cell 0 SAMSUNG, 1 x 512 MB PC2700 (CL2.5-3-3-7)
Row 5 - Cell 0 KINGSTON KVR, 1 x 512 MB PC3500 (CL3.0-3-3-8)
Hard Drive:Western Digital WD1200JB
Row 7 - Cell 0 120 GB, 7,200 RPM, 8 MB cache, UltraATA/100
Networking:On-board 100 Mb Ethernet
Graphics Cards:Powercolor Radeon 3850 AGP, 512MB RAM
Row 10 - Cell 0 HIS Radeon 3870 PCIe, 512MB RAM
Row 11 - Cell 0 Diamond Radeon X1950 PRO AGP, 512MB RAM
Row 12 - Cell 0 Sapphire Radeon 2600 XT, 256MB RAM
Row 13 - Cell 0 BFG Geforce 6600 GT OC, 256MB RAM
Power Supply:Nextherm PSU460 (460W, ATX)
Swipe to scroll horizontally
OS:Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 6.0.6000 (Vista Retail)
DirectX Version:10
Graphics Driver:Catalyst 8.4
Row 3 - Cell 0 nVIDIA ForceWare 169.25
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Crysis:Version: 1.1
Row 1 - Cell 0 Medium-High: Shaders and Textures High, all other settings Medium, Physics Low, no AA
Row 2 - Cell 0 Medium-Low: All settings Medium, Physics Low, no AA
Row 3 - Cell 0 Benchmark: Benchmark_CPU.bat
Prey:Version: 1.3
Row 5 - Cell 0 Maximum Quality Settings (textures and Shaders to Highest available)
Row 6 - Cell 0 Vsync: Off
Row 7 - Cell 0 Benchmark: THG-Demo
Supreme Commander:Version: 3.220
Row 9 - Cell 0 Minimal Settings (all settings Low or Off)
Row 10 - Cell 0 Vsync: Off
Row 11 - Cell 0 Benchmark: Real Game, 90 seconds
Unreal Tournament 3:Version: Retail
Row 13 - Cell 0 Texture Detail: Max, World Detail: Max
Row 14 - Cell 0 Shader Quality: Default
Row 15 - Cell 0 Field of View: 100
Row 16 - Cell 0 Benchmark: Botmatch (WAR-Torlan, 12 bots, 1 Minute)
Flight Simulator X:Version: 1.6
Row 18 - Cell 0 Video Quality: Default (Highest Settings)
Row 19 - Cell 0 Demo: THG Timedemo (1 Minute)
Row 20 - Cell 0 HD Video PlaybackRow 20 - Cell 2
Cyberlink PowerDVDHD-DVD: Transformers (3 Minutes)
Row 22 - Cell 0 Resolution: 1920x1080 (1080p) 16:9
Row 23 - Cell 0 SyntheticsRow 23 - Cell 2
Futuremark 3D Mark 06Version 1.10
Row 25 - Cell 0 Default Settings, 1280x1024
Row 26 - Cell 0 System Test Only

Once again, we will be benchmarking on the unique ASROCK 939Dual-Sata2 board, because of its ability to offer both a full-speed AGP 8x slot and a full-speed PCIe 16x slot. This allows us to test the difference the bus speed makes on similar cards, which in the past has been very useful in showing us that there isn’t a heck of a lot of real-world difference between AGP and PCIe bandwidth.

We will be testing Powercolor’s Radeon 3850 AGP against a variety of cards that represent a good cross section of what’s available out there, both new and what’s already in older systems.

For a baseline reference against older AGP cards, we’ve included an AGP Geforce 6600 GT. This card used to be the mainstream leader, and has comparable performance to the older AGP cards like the Radeon 9800 XT, 9700 PRO, and X700, as well as the newer X1600 PRO.

We included the Radeon 2600 XT because it is probably the best price/performance card available for AGP right now, and it performs very closely to other AGP options such as the Geforce 7600 GT, Geforce 6800 Ultra, and Radeon X800 XT. Although we couldn’t get our hands on an AGP version of the 2600 XT, our previous AGP analysis showed absolutely no performance difference between the similarly performing 7600 GT AGP and 7600 GT PCI Express, so we are satisfied that the AGP bus will not noticeably slow down this class of card.

Of course, the review wouldn’t be complete without the previous king of AGP, the Radeon X1950 PRO 512MB. This is still a very good gaming card, and it will be interesting to see if the 3850 has enough legs to leave the X1950 behind before the CPU bottlenecks the system. The X1950 PRO performs closely to the Geforce 7900 GS, another of the fastest AGP cards available, so this is another indicator we can use when considering how alternatives fit in the broad spectrum of performance.

We will note that our X1950 PRO sample had overheating problems when playing the newest titles, and the Catalyst driver would report that it was lowering clock speeds to manage this problem. We solved the issue with a Thermaltake Cu-900 aftermarket GPU cooler that made the heat issue go away in short order.

The final card we are testing is a Radeon 3870 PCI Express model. The idea here was to demonstrate if there is a difference in performance between the AGP and PCIe bus with a similar card. We couldn’t get a hold of a 3850 PCIe, so we underclocked our 3870 PCIe to the same core 668 MHz clock speed of the AGP 3850, in the Catalyst Control Center’s Overdrive panel. Unfortunately, Overdrive wouldn’t support memory underclocking, so we were stuck at a much higher 1125 MHz memory speed than the AGP 3850’s 828 MHz. As you will see in the benchmarks, however, this had almost no impact.

We chose Windows Vista 32-bit over Windows XP for testing, and we had a few good reasons for doing so. First, we wanted to see if Vista features like DirectX 10 worked with the AGP versions of the Radeon 3850 (it did). Second, we wanted to see if Vista was a viable operating system on older hardware (it was). Third, and most important, we like to choose the worst-case-scenario for our benchmarks, so that we can deliver a realistic expectation of the kind of performance the end user will see.

Because we chose Vista, we wanted at least 2 GB of RAM. Unfortunately, with older DDR being quite scarce nowadays, we had to use different memory with different timings to make this happen. This bit us in the butt later when we tried to overclock, but once again, it’s probably a good representation of the kind of long-standing previously upgraded systems out there in the wild, and what their owners have to deal with.

With all of these factors in play, we proceeded to benchmark the cards on the newest and most demanding games we could find. Is your old AGP platform up to snuff with nothing but a video card upgrade? Let’s find out!

  • nofxman
    This is the best article I have read lately, I installed AOC on an old desktop with a 2.8 P4 and vanilla 6600 and it ran like crap. I was debating purchasing a 3850 from Newegg until I saw how much the cpu holds it back so I just saved $80 buying a 2600pro instead.
    Reply
  • slapdashzero
    Excellent article. I love these "real world application" reads. I've got a garage full of older single core machines, and now I know that there are still useable things to be done with them.
    Reply
  • xx12amanxx
    Man i remember when my old 3000+ was considered fast..lol. But we already knew an older single core 64 would be a bottleneck.The real question is if a newer dual core will suffice? The computer i built for my mom has the older 3800+ dual in it and i paired it with a 7600gt. It played all games at that time great! She actually still uses it!
    Reply
  • You could overclock the 3850 card by using the bios and over clocking a cpu should of been no problem for you "old pros" I think you are not telling the whole story. AGP is alive and well and is good for most people..
    Reply
  • Preytor
    Nice to see such a great article done on AGP.
    AGP isn't dead yet. I still use a 7600GS 512MB on P4 @ 3.6Ghz, it's just fine for most games, and will play anything with the "right settings".
    Reply
  • Jakt
    Last week, I installed an AGP 2600xt in my Athlon 3000+ htpc, to replace an ATI 9600 AIW card that died. There was a very noticeable improvement in the picture quality on my television (Thanks, Avivo!), but there wasn't a large enough improvement in decoding HD to make it playable. I am still playing with the drivers to see if there is anything I can do to improve it, as theoretically it should be doable. The big problem that I have run into is that ATI has dumped support for this card on the AGP platform. I had specifically chosen ATI because it has superior support for dual monitors on an HTPC setup, but the lack of support is very discouraging.
    Reply
  • cleeve
    anonymous.You could overclock the 3850 card by using the bios and over clocking a cpu should of been no problem for you "old pros" I think you are not telling the whole story. AGP is alive and well and is good for most people.
    What part of the story are we not telling?
    Look at the system specs, we had to use 3 types of old DDR RAM to get to 2GB, some of it was very cheap - not even 400 MHz stuff. It doesn't matter how much of a pro I am, you can't squeeze more performance out by raising the CPU clock and lowering the memory clock into the basement to get it to work.

    I managed to scrounge up some better stuff for part 2, and it looks like we'll be using XP instead of Vista which will open up some videocard overclocking options. So hold on there sport, overclocking is on the way.
    Reply
  • cleeve
    anonymous.You could overclock the 3850 card by using the bios and over clocking a cpu should of been no problem for you "old pros" I think you are not telling the whole story. AGP is alive and well and is good for most people.
    What part of the story are we not telling?
    Look at the system specs, we had to use 3 types of old DDR RAM to get to 2GB, some of it was very cheap - not even 400 MHz stuff. It doesn't matter how much of a pro I am, you can't squeeze more performance out by raising the CPU clock and lowering the memory clock into the basement to get it to work.

    I managed to scrounge up some better stuff for part 2, and it looks like we'll be using XP instead of Vista which will open up some videocard overclocking options. So hold on there sport, overclocking is on the way.
    Reply
  • Great article

    shame that you ran the memory in single channel mode though.

    Reply
  • Mach5Motorsport
    Congrats to Tom's Hardware for again demonstrating that AGP is still a decent interface. I'm sure all the collective PCIe ubergeeks will be again shouting how AGP is dead..... ;) much to their dismay. AGP has now outlived PCIe standard 1.0!
    Reply