3DMark03 measures performance by simulating games written to DirectX 9, which are contemporary games. We run this program in three resolutions, 1024x768x32, 1280x1024x32 and 1600x1200x32, first without antialiasing and anisotropic filtering, and then configuring antialising at 4x and anisotropic filtering also at 4x. 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 antialiasing. Since NVIDIA chips cannot run at this configuration, we had to use 4x antialiasing to use a configuration that is valid to all video cards included in our bechmarks, allowing direct comparison between them.

At a resolution of 1024x768 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 3.34% faster than Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and 4.97% faster than HIS Radeon X700.

HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 93.44% faster, ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 92.03% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 89.17% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 57.50% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 19.23% faster and ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 3.48% faster.

At a resolution of 1280x1024 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and it was 8.86% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
 
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 109.05% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 105.29% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 103.06% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 63.28% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 19.45% faster and ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 3.66% faster.

At a resolution of 1600x1200 without any image quality enhancement, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and it was 15.22% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
 
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 127.32% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 119.46% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Editionm, which was 116.55% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 73.34% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 21.39% faster and ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 3.37% faster.

At a resolution of 1024x768 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and it was 18.04% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
 
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 129.33% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 115.94% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 108.79% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 68.34% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 17.24% faster and ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 10.89% faster.

At a resolution of 1280x1024 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro achieved a similar performance to Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and it was 28.55% faster than HIS Radeon X700.
 
HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 220.40% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 123.00% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 119.93% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 71.78% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 11.48% faster and Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 8.69% faster.

At a resolution of 1600x1200 enabling image quality enhancements, HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was 25.74% faster than HIS Radeon X700.

HIS Radeon X1600 Pro was beaten by ATI Radeon X850 XT Platinum Edition, which was 185.93% faster, XFX GeForce 6800 Ultra, which was 152.77% faster, ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum Edition, which was 148.83% faster, Sapphire Radeon X800 Pro, which was 94.05% faster, ATI Radeon 9800 XT, which was 21.73% faster, Leadtek GeForce 6600 GT AGP, which was 10.69% faster and Gigabyte GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, which was 8.98% faster.