ATI Fire GL3

The ATI Fire GL3 is a professional graphics card from AMD's Fire GL generation, built around the GT1000 chip on IBM's 180 nm process. Launched on May 31, 2000, it carries a launch MSRP of 1,999 USD. This single-slot AGP 4x card offers 128 MB of DDR memory on a 256-bit bus, with a pixel fill rate of 120.0 MPixel/s and a texture fill rate of 480.0 MTexel/s. The card is end-of-life, and its benchmark data is sparse—the average benchmark score is 0, though its percentile rank of 50 places it exactly at the median of all GPUs in the database.

Benchmark Performance

With no recorded benchmark scores, the Fire GL3's performance must be inferred from its theoretical fill rates and memory bandwidth. The pixel rate of 120.0 MPixel/s is a measure of how many pixels the single ROP can output per second. The texture rate of 480.0 MTexel/s, generated by four TMUs, indicates that the card can apply up to four texture layers per pixel. These figures are consistent with a GPU designed for professional 3D acceleration in the era of its release, but the single ROP is a notable bottleneck for fill-rate-intensive scenes. The 4:1 ratio between texture and pixel rates matches the 4 TMUs and 1 ROP, meaning the card is optimized for texture-heavy workloads rather than high-resolution color fills.

The memory subsystem plays a critical role in sustaining these rates. With a 256-bit bus and 8.000 GB/s of bandwidth, the Fire GL3 can feed its texture units without starving them. The memory clock runs at 125 MHz, with a 250 Mbps effective data rate per pin, which is a modest frequency but compensated by the wide interface. The 128 MB capacity is adequate for early 3D applications and large 2D framebuffers, though it falls short of the demands of later, more texture-rich titles.

The percentile rank of 50 is the only comparative metric available. It indicates that the Fire GL3 sits exactly at the midpoint of the GPU performance distribution in the database. Half of all recorded GPUs are faster, and half are slower. This is a neutral positioning—neither a high-end part nor a low-end part, but a balanced performer that would have been a credible professional option at its launch. The average benchmark score of 0 suggests that no standardized performance measurements were captured for this card, so the fill rates and bandwidth are the primary quantitative indicators of its capability.

In practical terms, the Fire GL3's performance is best described as adequate for the software and resolutions of its time. The pixel rate of 120 MPixel/s limits how many pixels can be shaded per second, which becomes a constraint at higher resolutions or with anti-aliasing enabled. The texture rate of 480 MTexel/s is more generous, allowing detailed texture mapping in scenes that do not require excessive pixel shading. The card's memory bandwidth of 8.000 GB/s is sufficient to support these fill rates without becoming a bottleneck, but it is not exceptionally high, meaning that memory-intensive workloads could still see performance degradation.

Who Should Consider It

Given its pixel and texture rates, the Fire GL3 is best suited for users whose primary tasks are 2D CAD, basic 3D modeling, and legacy software that relies on OpenGL 1.2 or DirectX 6.0. The card's 128 MB memory and 256-bit bus allow it to handle large framebuffers, but the single ROP limits performance at higher resolutions and with anti-aliasing enabled. For gaming, the card can manage early 3D titles at lower resolutions and detail settings, but it is not designed for high-end gaming. The display outputs—1x DVI, 1x VGA, and 1x S-Video—make it a flexible option for multi-monitor or video-out configurations. The card's end-of-life status means it is only relevant for retro builds or legacy systems.

The suggested PSU of 200 W indicates modest power requirements, making it suitable for older power supplies. The single-slot design and lack of power connectors further simplify installation in compact or period-correct systems. However, the AGP 4x interface limits compatibility with modern motherboards, so this card is not a practical choice for current hardware. Users who require professional-grade 3D acceleration for contemporary workloads should look to newer GPUs with higher fill rates and more memory. For those preserving a vintage workstation or running early 2000s software, the Fire GL3 offers a functional, if not spectacular, solution.

Memory Subsystem

The Fire GL3 features 128 MB of DDR memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 8.000 GB/s. The memory clock is 125 MHz, with a 250 Mbps effective data rate per pin. The 256-bit interface is wide, allowing the card to move large amounts of data per clock cycle. This bandwidth is crucial for texture-heavy workloads, as the texture units can consume up to 480.0 MTexel/s, and the 8 GB/s budget provides ample headroom for those operations. The DDR type doubles the data rate compared to SDR SDRAM, and the 256-bit bus compensates for the relatively low clock speed.

The 128 MB capacity is modest by today's standards, but for its time it was sufficient for high-resolution 2D framebuffers and early 3D textures. The memory subsystem is well-balanced for the card's compute resources: the pixel rate of 120 MPixel/s at 32-bit color would require roughly 480 MB/s of bandwidth, while the texture rate of 480 MTexel/s would demand up to 1.92 GB/s if each texel is 32 bits. Both figures are well below the 8.000 GB/s available, meaning the memory bus is not a limiting factor for the card's fill rates. This design choice suggests that the Fire GL3 was intended to avoid memory bottlenecks, even under heavy texture load.

The 256-bit bus is a standout feature for a card in its class, as it provides double the data path width of many contemporaries. This wide interface is particularly beneficial for texture streaming and large geometry buffers, which are common in professional 3D applications. The memory clock of 125 MHz is conservative, but the effective 250 Mbps per pin is typical for early DDR memory. Overall, the memory subsystem is one of the strongest aspects of the Fire GL3, offering a generous amount of memory and bandwidth for its era.

FAQ

Q: What is the memory capacity and type?

A: The Fire GL3 has 128 MB of DDR memory.

Q: What is the memory bus width and bandwidth?

A: The bus is 256 bits wide, providing a bandwidth of 8.000 GB/s.

Q: What are the pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The pixel fill rate is 120.0 MPixel/s, and the texture fill rate is 480.0 MTexel/s.

Q: What process node is used?

A: The chip is fabricated on a 180 nm process at IBM, with a die size of 100 mm².

Q: What is the card's interface and power requirement?

A: It uses AGP 4x, and the suggested PSU is 200 W.

Q: What APIs does it support?

A: It supports DirectX 6.0 and OpenGL 1.2.

How It Compares

The Fire GL3 occupies a middle position in the Fire GL lineup. Its predecessor, the Rage GL, was based on an earlier architecture, while its successor, the FireGL, brought improvements. The Fire GL3's percentile rank of 50 places it exactly at the median of all GPUs in the database, meaning it outperforms half of all recorded GPUs and is outperformed by the other half. Without specific rival data, the card's standing is defined by its fill rates and memory bandwidth. The 4 TMUs and 1 ROP configuration suggests a focus on texture processing over pixel throughput, which is typical for professional 3D applications that emphasize texture mapping. The card's 128 MB memory is generous for its time, and the 256-bit bus provides ample bandwidth.

Compared to the Rage GL, the Fire GL3 likely offers higher fill rates and more memory, though exact numbers are not available. The Rage GL was an earlier part, so the Fire GL3's 180 nm process and 100 mm² die size indicate a more modern implementation. Compared to the FireGL, the Fire GL3 may lack certain features or performance, but again, no quantitative data is provided. The FireGL succeeded this card, so it presumably addressed any shortcomings. In the broader market, the Fire GL3's 50th percentile ranking indicates it is a balanced performer, neither a high-end nor a low-end part. It would have been a credible choice for professional users who needed OpenGL acceleration and a wide memory bus, but it was not a flagship product. The card's end-of-life status and lack of benchmark data make direct comparisons difficult, but its theoretical rates and memory configuration place it firmly in the mid-range of early 2000s GPUs.