ATI's X1000 Series: Extended Performance Testing
by Derek Wilson on October 7, 2005 10:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Far Cry Performance
Crytek has done an excellent job keeping up with the times. As new technologies come out, it seems like they do their research into how to use them on their production game. Incorporating SM3.0 code, geometry instancing, HDR, and the like into their last patch adds value to their game, gives us a platform with which to test the current incarnation of their engine, and gives potential game engine customers a look at what they could be getting in a shipping product. We are already hearing about another patch that will further extend the impact of HDR on the game, among other things. For these tests, we crank the graphics quality settings up to very high (ultra high for water) and let the chips fall where they may. The demo that we used for this test was the built-in regulator demo.
These tests show the top end ATI and NVIDIA cards running neck and neck. The 7800 GT leads the X1800 XL in performance (which is on par with the 6800 GT in the tests that overlap). The X1600 XT is able to perform better than the 6600 GT, but we should hope to see that from a card that costs over 50% more if MSRP is anywhere near street price. Again, the X1300 shouldn't be played at over 1024x768 unless the settings are dropped.
Enabling AA gives the advantage to the X1800 XT while the X1800 XL still lags behind the 7800 GT. The X1600 XT performs much better than the 6600 GT (which we wouldn't recommend running with AA).
Once again, the X1800 XT handles the impact of AA better than any other card. The added memory bandwidth is likely the reason why we keep seeing such good handling of AA. The 7800 GT and 7800 GTX both handle AA almost as well as the X1800 XL (and finally over-take the new ATI part at 2048x1536).
Crytek has done an excellent job keeping up with the times. As new technologies come out, it seems like they do their research into how to use them on their production game. Incorporating SM3.0 code, geometry instancing, HDR, and the like into their last patch adds value to their game, gives us a platform with which to test the current incarnation of their engine, and gives potential game engine customers a look at what they could be getting in a shipping product. We are already hearing about another patch that will further extend the impact of HDR on the game, among other things. For these tests, we crank the graphics quality settings up to very high (ultra high for water) and let the chips fall where they may. The demo that we used for this test was the built-in regulator demo.
These tests show the top end ATI and NVIDIA cards running neck and neck. The 7800 GT leads the X1800 XL in performance (which is on par with the 6800 GT in the tests that overlap). The X1600 XT is able to perform better than the 6600 GT, but we should hope to see that from a card that costs over 50% more if MSRP is anywhere near street price. Again, the X1300 shouldn't be played at over 1024x768 unless the settings are dropped.
Enabling AA gives the advantage to the X1800 XT while the X1800 XL still lags behind the 7800 GT. The X1600 XT performs much better than the 6600 GT (which we wouldn't recommend running with AA).
Once again, the X1800 XT handles the impact of AA better than any other card. The added memory bandwidth is likely the reason why we keep seeing such good handling of AA. The 7800 GT and 7800 GTX both handle AA almost as well as the X1800 XL (and finally over-take the new ATI part at 2048x1536).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
If AT is going to cover that in a later article, then the observations ARE NOT short sighted. Since we're picking nits, if the other sites are giving you ALL the information you require, why do you insist on bagging on AT? Just go to get your info, make your decision, and STFU.tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Because, unlike you, I like to compare the results between all my favorite sites. Maybe you're not mature enough to understand the reasons for that, so I'll fill you in: Humans make mistakes, so trusting one persons judgement or methodology is not an intelligent decision in the real world.Also, it makes no mention in the article that near-term games are to be tested in a future update of this sort. Yes, I expect they'll be around once retail boards are reviewed, but if they plan on continuing tests on IQ, shader abilities, etc then what sense does it make to pass judgement until those tests are complete?
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Did you not read tfranzese's post that you replied to? Scroll up about 1/2 inch. That quote is from the article. Your quote, , says you like to sample different websites to get whole picture yet you bag on one site (AT) that doesn't give you enough info. If you go to different sites to get the whole picture, why bag on any of them? You're still getting all of the info you need.bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
LOL...oops..you made that quote yourself. I can't believe you quoted but yet you still imply that AT isn't going to do any furthur testing in the areas you would like to see tested. I quit..lol!tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
The further testing I am referring to are with near-term titles, not SM3.0 analysis. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying or I'm not being clear enough.I also do believe it's short-sighted to judge an architecture before all the tests are complete. Right now I know IQ and SM3.0 examinations are coming up, but it looks like they're done with the game benchmarks until the suite is updated and retail boards are available.
Anyway...
Sure, I can get the majority of my data from a collection of sites, but if I voice my criticism I could hope that someday I may only have to visit three sites instead of ten to confirm and compare results and analysis. Not that I didn't enjoy reading all those articles during my downtime at work.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Naw, we're not done. And while it's true that http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=x1800&p...">you can purchase an X1800XL, we're still missing the X1800 XT. $440 or so for the XL http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=7800%20gtx&...">isn't much cheaper than a 7800 GTX, and while the X1800 XT might be faster overall, the 7800 GTX beats the XL in nearly every test.
Also, one big question mark that still remains is SLI vs. Crossfire performance. SLI is here now and working for the 7800 cards. X1800 XT is still a month out, and Crossfire X1800 XT... who knows? Three months, maybe more? After the delays of the X800 Crossfire parts, I'm not even ready to venture a guess on X1800 CF. :|
DerekWilson - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
We will test the near term games along with SM3.0 as many people have asked us for this. Let us know if you need anything else.DigitalFreak - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
What about running EQ2 with AA turned on via the setting in EQ2.ini? I would assume that the results would be similar to the other tests though.Benching the Call of Duty 2 demo would be cool as well. A couple of sites have seen a performance increase when using a 512MB card vs a 256MB one. May actually be the first game where 512MB is worth having.
tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Donka!phaxmohdem - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I know all my "gaming" monitors at home run at 1280x1024 What gives with the benchmarks of this uncommon? resolution? Thats 81,920 extra pixels unaccounted for in the graphs for many of us running 17 and 19 inch LCD's.