ATI Radeon X1950 Pro: CrossFire Done Right
by Derek Wilson on October 17, 2006 6:22 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Performance
While it is disappointing that Oblivion doesn't have a built in benchmark, our
FRAPS tests have proved to be fairly repeatable and very intensive on every
part of a system. While these numbers will reflect real world playability of
the game, please remember that our test system uses the fastest processor we
could get our hands on. If a purchasing decision is to be made using Oblivion
performance alone, please check out our two articles on the
CPU
and
GPU
performance of Oblivion. We have used the most graphically intensive benchmark
in our suite, but the rest of the platform will make a difference. We can
still easily demonstrate which graphics card is best for Oblivion even if our
numbers don't translate to what our readers will see on their systems.
Running through the forest towards an Oblivion gate while fireballs fly by our
head is a very graphically taxing benchmark. In order to run this benchmark,
we have a saved game that we load and run through with FRAPS. To start the
benchmark, we hit "q" which just runs forward, and start and stop FRAPS at
predetermined points in the run. While not 100% identical each run, our
benchmark scores are usually fairly close. We run the benchmark a couple times
just to be sure there wasn't a one time hiccup.
As for settings, we tested a few different configurations and decided on this
group of options:
| Oblivion Performance Settings | |
| Texture Size | Large |
| Tree Fade | 100% |
| Actor Fade | 100% |
| Item Fade | 66% |
| Object Fade | 90% |
| Grass Distance | 50% |
| View Distance | 100% |
| Distant Land | On |
| Distant Buildings | On |
| Distant Trees | On |
| Interior Shadows | 95% |
| Exterior Shadows | 85% |
| Self Shadows | On |
| Shadows on Grass | On |
| Tree Canopy Shadows | On |
| Shadow Filtering | High |
| Specular Distance | 100% |
| HDR Lighting | On |
| Bloom Lighting | Off |
| Water Detail | High |
| Water Reflections | On |
| Water Ripples | On |
| Window Reflections | On |
| Blood Decals | High |
| Anti-aliasing | Off |
Our goal was to get acceptable performance levels under the current generation
of cards at 1600x1200. This was fairly easy with the range of cards we tested
here. These settings are amazing and very enjoyable. While more is better in
this game, no current computer will give you everything at high res. Only the
best multi-GPU solutions and a great CPU are going to give you settings like
the ones we have at high resolutions, but who cares about grass distance,
right?
While Oblivion is very graphically intensive and is played mostly from a first
person perspective (and some third person), this definitely isn't a twitch
shooter. Our experience leads us to conclude that 20fps gives a good
experience. It's playable a little lower, but watch out for some jerkiness
that may pop up. Getting down to 16fps and below is a little too low to be
acceptable. The main point to bring home is that you really want as much eye
candy as possible. While Oblivion is an immersive and awesome game from a
gameplay standpoint, the graphics certainly help draw the gamer
in.
Oblivion finally shows an advantage for CrossFire as compared to SLI at the $200 card pricepoint. It still looks like SLI scales better over all (i.e. 7900 GS SLI is 88% faster than a single card, while X1950 Pro CF is only 66% faster than a single X1950 Pro), but this time even double the performance of a single 7900 GS card wouldn't be enough to beat the X1950 Pro CrossFire. We see the X1900 GT, X1950 Pro and X1900 XT 256MB all clustered together here in a rather unexpected order, but the variance of our oblivion benchmark is the culprit here. We can say that these cards all perform about the same under Oblivion, but pinning it down more than that isn't easy. No matter how we slice it though, ATI owns this benchmark.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Spoelie - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
They're total system power, we're not gonna see 180W gpu's till november :)Aikouka - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
Those cards are going to be so hot.Sorry, that was my one and only bad pun of the day :P.
Aikouka - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
First off, it was an intersting article and it's nice to see that ATi is making changes to "fix" the poor dual-card implementation :).But now akin to my subject line, I was wondering if you [Anandtech] would be keen on adding in a "Performance / Price" sort of chart at the end. The idea would be to keep different quality modes separate (i.e. No-AA/No-AF and #x-AA/#x-AF would need separate charts or only one chart but using one set of data) while ordering cards by their average FPS or "average ranking". Such as, if Video Card A is seen in spot #1 the most, it stays there in the chart regardless of the figure listed. I'd say this is more of a user-friendly idea than anything required to be practical. But here's what I think a typical bar would represent:
[ Video_Card_Name - (Average_FPS/Price) - Average_FPS ]
The idea is that some video cards may be return the same value (i.e. 120/$400 and 60/$200), but listing cards in their typical performance standing allows someone to say "well, hey... I like the performance ratio of this card, and I don't need 120 FPS!"
I think it may provide a way for people who read the benchmarks to get a real world idea of these cards rather than an "in box" idea, because as nice as it is to see a card produce 120 FPS... how much will we have to produce to purchase it ;).
Just something I thought up while looking at pages and pages of charts and not knowing how "worthwhile" the cards really were for the performance.
P.S. I'd love to hear comments!
Spoelie - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
I don't think it'll be very practical for most people. When a graphic card purchase is being considered, most people just have a hard cash target in mind (for example, 200$) and just look for the fastest card at that price point. The only exception to this is when those people notice that a small rise in their budget allows a much more powerful graphic card purchase, e.g. 6600gt for 100$ but 7600gt for 130$So as long as anandtech keeps comparing on pricepoints and of course mentioning any caveats/featuredifferences/possible better deals higher up, there's no real need for such a chart.
but that's just my opinion
Aikouka - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
That's really a view of someone who's looking to spend x amount of dollars trying to find the best item for that price, which is one thing that's kept in focus. My proposed chat method helps to show two things really, what's the best "bang for your buck" and allows you to see if that performance pricing is the level of performance that you want.To go into detail a bit about that, if the best performance ratio was .3 (120fps/$400 or 60fps/$200, etc), someone might go, "Well, hey... I like the performance rating on these two cards, but I don't need something that fast." So, the user would shoot for the 60fps card.
But in your case, you most likely benefit from what's currently done. For me, I could really care less how much a new video card costs me. I got tired of spending smaller amounts on mediocre performance years ago and I've tried to keep my dollars spent in the high-end sector (the range of high-end cards, not necessarily referring to the ultra-high-end-uber cards only) as much as possible to avoid having to perform constant upgrades to keep that level of detail that I like (I can't stand "jaggies" ... I'm just too anal about things like that).
For example, my current 6800GT was the 2nd top performing graphics card when I bought it, but it simply doesn't suit my needs anymore as below 30FPS (in more render-heavy areas) in WoW at 1280x1024 with high graphics settings is just subpar. Now, my card is old and about to be replaced by another generation (the G80). Or maybe I just need one of them Killer NICs (just kidding :P).
I think a good thing to mention is that the bar system that I mentioned may be better for a bulk review more than a single card review. Especially since a lot of people may come into the review of a single card knowing all the information about the other cards, so they're only performing minor mental comparisons. But in a bulk review, there's a lot more information to keep in check, so an overall comparison that takes a couple of the specifics about a card ( average performance and price mainly ) could be beneficial.
Thanks for the comments!
Aikouka - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
"The idea is that some video cards may be return the same value"should be...
"The idea is that some video cards may return the same value"
Stupid me deleting and rewriting so much that I'll leave in a word from a prior revision XD. Oh yeah, and I had to make sure to post this fix before someone sought it upon themselves to ignore the entire post, but to make a comment on my little accident :P.
bupkus - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
With other CrossFire configurations as a guide, we can easily expect X1950 Pro to nearly double its single card performance and put it on par with the 7950 GX2 and 7900 GT SLI configurations. As for single card performance, we see the trend of X1950 Pro domination continuing. Performance greater than that of the 7900 GS and GT for $200 is quite a plus.takumsawsherman - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
Now all ATI has to do is get rid of that Catalyst Control Center. I have been using a Radeon 9700 Pro for two years now, and I have been almost perfectly happy with it except for two problems: It sometimes loses TV mode with no explanation, and I have to remove and re-add the TV in CCC. The other is that CCC takes anywhere from 10-20 seconds to load up on an Athlon XP 2500+. The old control panel set opened within 2 or three seconds (the advanced screens). I've set up a quick profile, but even right-clicking the taskbar icon has a huge delay (often ten seconds or more) before the menu appears, and then sometimes activating the profile doesn't work, and I have to set it manually (sometimes it does work). After initial launch, it does open more quickly (cached, I assume). I assume that this is because of the use of .NET.Also, ZoneAlarm reports that CLI.EXE (listed as various ATI apps) is listening to TCP ports 1052, 1057, and 1058. There are currently three CLI.exe processes running on my system, taking 6,132K, 5,800K, and 3,572K of memory respectively. That is about 15MB of memory, and I don't have CCC open. My old Matrox G400Max had tons of options in the advanced screens, had a better TV output quality, and didn't require all of this garbage. The old ATI control panel even seemed easier to use.
I would love to get a nice new x1950, as Oblivion gets pretty choppy even at fairly low settings. But I really want to get away from these bulky system tray apps. And look at the update process here: https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?de...">https://support.ati.com/ics/support/def...mp;task=...
That is ridiculous. Can they not make an installer that removes their own cruft before installing the new version? It's a chore to put a new driver in, and it shouldn't be.
Zoomer - Thursday, October 19, 2006 - link
I think this is partly microsoft's fault. .Net framework is a POS.ATi should shoulder some of the blame too, for choosing a crappy base to program on. I would think even java based apps are not this bad.
mesyn191 - Friday, October 20, 2006 - link
I dunno...I personally don't like the whole CCC/CP approach to config. the graphics card either, but nV's implementation aint' half bad.