The original Radeon 64DDR does quite badly in 3DMark2000 but then again, it was never good at 16bit benchmarks. 3DMark2000 can't really tell the difference between the GeForce2/3 or Radeon 8500. It's just not taxing enough to the videocard and that's evident since the GeForce2 Ti can compete with the bigger guns.

3DMark2001SE	Source: MadOnion

3DMark2001SE is the latest installment in the 3DMark series by MadOnion. By combining DirectX8 support with completely new graphics, it continues to provide good overall system benchmarks. 3DMark2001SE has been created in cooperation with the major 3D accelerator and processor manufacturers to provide a reliable set of diagnostic tools. The suite demonstrates 3D gaming performance by using real-world gaming technology to test a system's true performance abilities. Tests include: DirectX8 Vertex Shaders, Pixel Shaders and Point Sprites, DOT3 and Environment Mapped Bump Mapping, support for Full Scene Anti-aliasing and Texture Compression and two game tests using Ipion real-time physics.

Higher numbers denote better performance.

3DMark2001SE Benchmark Results
	Video Card	3DMarks	Ranking
1.	GeForce2 Ti	5301
2.	GeForce3 Ti500	8974
3.	Radeon 64 DDR	4012
4.	ATi Radeon 8500	9354
5.	FIC Radeon 8500	9089
6.	FIC Radeon 8500 (oc'ed)	9329

The Radeon 8500 has always done well in 3DMark2001/SE. Here even the stock FIC Radeon 8500 is able to best the GeForce3 Ti500. The older non programmable T&L cards the GeForce2 Ti and Radeon 64 DDR are left way behind in the dust. It's not a surprise that the FIC Radeon 8500 when overclocked is the same speed as the ATi Retail Radeon 8500.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein	Source: ID Software

Return to Castle Wolfenstein is a relatively new game benchmark. However, RTCW takes up where Quake III left off and continues to form the basis of the first person shooter system stressing that QIII has become a hallmark for. Based upon the Quake III engine, RTCS is obviously going to be quite taxing on even a top end system.

Higher numbers denote faster frames per second (FPS), and hence, better performance.

RTCW MAX 1024x768 atdemo6
	Video Card	FPS	Ranking
1.	GeForce2 Ti	57.6
2.	GeForce3 Ti500	59.8
3.	Radeon 64 DDR	48.6
4.	ATi Radeon 8500	59.2
5.	FIC Radeon 8500	58.3
6.	FIC Radeon 8500 (oc'ed)	58.8

RTCW MAX 1024x768 atdemo8
	Video Card	FPS	Ranking
1.	GeForce2 Ti	141.2
2.	GeForce3 Ti500	170.8
3.	Radeon 64 DDR	105.7
4.	ATi Radeon 8500	165.2
5.	FIC Radeon 8500	158.1
6.	FIC Radeon 8500 (oc'ed)	167.1

At 1024x768 we're barely pushing the FIC Radeon 8500. Sure it's slower then the GeForce3 Ti500 and the ATi Radeon 8500, however you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. It looks like there is some room for improvement since the Radeon 8500 hardware is more powerful then the GeForce3 Ti500.

RTCW MAX 1600x1200 atdemo6
	Video Card	FPS	Ranking
1.	GeForce2 Ti	34.7
2.	GeForce3 Ti500	43.2
3.	Radeon 64 DDR	24.1
4.	ATi Radeon 8500	45.2
5.	FIC Radeon 8500	42.9
6.	FIC Radeon 8500 (oc'ed)	45.1

RTCW MAX 1600x1200 atdemo8
	Video Card	FPS	Ranking
1.	GeForce2 Ti	63.1
2.	GeForce3 Ti500	98.1
3.	Radeon 64 DDR	46.3
4.	ATi Radeon 8500	85.4
5.	FIC Radeon 8500	80.7
6.	FIC Radeon 8500 (oc'ed)	86

At the higher resolutions, both Radeon 8500's stay very close to the GeForce3 Ti500 but can't quite beat it. Hopefully newer drivers will give the Radeon 8500 a speed boost!