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.
45 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
First of all, every site uses their own benchmarking techniques and sequences in the games. Numbers between review sites won't be comparable.For Quake 4 we used ultraquality mode, and this seems to give ATI the advantage over NVIDIA. We don't have a problem with this because we would prefer to tip the scales in favor of the product that can deliver the best performance at the highest image quality.
munky - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
Would you rather Ati continued to ship the x1900gt with the original specs, and then a bunch of the cards would have to be RMA'd?DerekWilson - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
We would rather they just run out of x1900 GT cards. They're discontinuing the line anyways, so it seems a little strange to try to increase supply by underhanded means.sri2000 - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
They should ship it under a different model number. Call is the X1900 GTA or something like that (or some other alphabet soup combo that's not already taken) so that people can tell that the different model# = different performance.Goty - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
You guys are ragging on this CF implementation like it's some sub-par solution. The transfer speed may be lower than that used by NVIDIA's SLI bridge, but SLI is simplex while this implementation is full duplex. Being able to send data in both directions at the same time should provide a huge speed boost while using ATi's SuperAA modes.JarredWalton - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
Scalability is the key factory. In most benchmarks, SLI gets more of an improvement than CrossFire, indicating that the compositing engine is not an optimal multi-GPU solution. There's almost certainly a decent amount of overhead involved. We do like the new CF connector, but the proof is in the pudding. If 7900 GS is clearly slower in single card configs but often faster in dual-GPU configs, clearly SLI is scaling better than CF.mesyn191 - Friday, October 20, 2006 - link
I don't think its possible to comment on the new CF at all, they've clearly got screwed up drivers for it ATM, but then its ATi so what else is new...I hope AMD cleans up thier driver team because still even after all these years ATi does a half assed job on its drivers.
Goty - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
Are you guys thinking of doing any testing with any of either vendor's multi-card AA modes any time soon? I really think the full duplex connection would really help there (i.e. the cards may not scale as well with the number of cards, but what about as the image quality increases?)Rza79 - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
The Tech Report had problems with this motherboard and Crossfire which made them switch to the Asus P5W DH.You aren't expiriencing any problems with this board?
Second thing, why no AA with games like B&W2 and FEAR?
DerekWilson - Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - link
No problems with the motherboard.AA performance under Black and White 2 and FEAR were excluded because we decided framerate was already at a minimum for the resolution we were testing.