S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Performance
NVIDIA has been pushing this game since the GeForce FX days, and now it is finally here. We have to use FRAPS to benchmark it even though a demo_play feature is included. Apparently the demo_record facility had to be removed at the last minute.
Interestingly, at 1024x768, both the 8600 GTS and 8600 GT perform well compared to their competitors. The 8600 GTS manages to beat the X1900 XT 256MB while the 8600 GT keeps up with the X1950 Pro. Unfortunately, the new hardware can't keep its lead beyond 1024x768, as moving up to 1280x1024 gives us a much sharper drop on G84 than on other hardware.
With the added texture address capability per shader and drastically reduced memory bandwidth compared to other 8 series hardware, the problems we are seeing could be related to memory pressure. This would also help to explain the poorer than expected performance in older games that rely more heavily on lots of textures rather than shader speed. We would need to do many more synthetic tests to really get to the bottom of this issue though.
At 1280x1024, a resolution many midrange gamers run, the new 8600 series just isn't able to handle S.T.A.L.K.E.R. with all the settings turned up except grass shadows. Some settings will need to be lowered a bit to achieve better performance at higher than 1024x768.
NVIDIA has been pushing this game since the GeForce FX days, and now it is finally here. We have to use FRAPS to benchmark it even though a demo_play feature is included. Apparently the demo_record facility had to be removed at the last minute.
Interestingly, at 1024x768, both the 8600 GTS and 8600 GT perform well compared to their competitors. The 8600 GTS manages to beat the X1900 XT 256MB while the 8600 GT keeps up with the X1950 Pro. Unfortunately, the new hardware can't keep its lead beyond 1024x768, as moving up to 1280x1024 gives us a much sharper drop on G84 than on other hardware.
With the added texture address capability per shader and drastically reduced memory bandwidth compared to other 8 series hardware, the problems we are seeing could be related to memory pressure. This would also help to explain the poorer than expected performance in older games that rely more heavily on lots of textures rather than shader speed. We would need to do many more synthetic tests to really get to the bottom of this issue though.
At 1280x1024, a resolution many midrange gamers run, the new 8600 series just isn't able to handle S.T.A.L.K.E.R. with all the settings turned up except grass shadows. Some settings will need to be lowered a bit to achieve better performance at higher than 1024x768.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
Imnotrichey - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Are you going to include any heat, power usage, or noise levels in this eventually? Or is there a future article coming soon?Very dissapointed in the 8600 :( But still interested to see how it compares heat, power, and noise to the 8800. Also why no 8800 GTX or GTS 640 in the benchmarks? It would be interesing to see how much more you get in games for spending 2 times the money
strikeback03 - Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - link
there are already Anandtech articles comparing the GTS 320MB to the other 8800 cards. Plus an 8800GTX would have squashed the scale of the cheaper cards too much to see the differences in the graphs.Sunrise089 - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Normally Anandtech will talk about heat, power, and noise when they review a specific manufacture's card, rather than a reference design. We all know most retail parts will use the same cooler nVidia supplies with the reference part, but some might not, and that (or overclocking) would change the results.bearxor - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Derek,How much longer until we get video benchmarks? Also, PLEASE include a 8500 in that roundup. I've no interest in any kind of 3D capability from the 8500. It will be put in a HTPC to only run Vista MCE and no other games or anything running on it.
I've been holding off on buying one until I can see how one performs in a HTPC enviorment, please make that happen, even if you have to buy one off of the egg or something.
Thanks!
Ajax9000 - Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - link
Seconded!BTW, some preliminary benchmarks at http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/msibfg8600/med...">http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/msibfg8600/med... ... but they use a high-end system -- really, who on earth is going to put a US$900+ 130W TDP processor into an HTPC if they can use (say) an E6420 and not have the same problems keeping it cool and quiet.
Anandtech, please do the upcoming video benchmarks on a "mid"-spec system.
SniperWulf - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
<rant>would it really have killed you to add 1 more SP cluster? i mean 192-bit path to memory would have helped these benches quite a bit.
</rant>
psychobriggsy - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
I paid £72 for a Sparkle 8600GTS, which after tax and conversion is ~$122. Admittedly I ordered an 8600GT and they shipped sent me the GTS by mistake ... but graphics cards have been notoriously overpriced in the UK so it was by far the best option regardless.As I'm upgrading from a Radeon 9500 system, I don't think I'll be too upset, and the video offload will be very much appreciated.
But yes, the prices should have been lower, and the suffixes different.
8600GT should have been a GS @ $129. 8600GTS should have been the GT @ $169, and there should have been a 256bit memory bus GTS at $199 (with 48 or 64 shaders).
Regardless I think the cards will be at these price points within a couple of months, with either an 8800GS or an 8600GTX card added. It's just a complete non-upgrade option for 7600 owners.
Genx87 - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
With ATI's lack of a high end card, their high end card has been pushed into the mid ranged pricing model.The bottom line is the 8600GTS is a replacement for the 7600GT in Nvidia's line up for the mid range. Both cards debuted in the same price range and both performed nearly as well as last generations high end.
In a perfect world the X1900 wouldnt be in that price range, but this is all they have to offer. Comparing the 8600GTS to the 7600GT, which this card was designed to replace. It is a no brainer which one wins. The market situation will correct itself once the 7900s flush out of the channel and AMD comes out with their own mid range card and drop the X1900s from their lineup.
That being said, i think Nvidia most likely has a card to fill the performance gap between the 8600GTS and the 800GTS 320.
munky - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
The x1900xt 256 has been available for a little over $200 even before the release of the 8800 series, nevermind the 8600 series. Nvidia must take its competitors products into account, because DX10 capability alone will not sell these cards.The reason the 6600gt was such a success is not because it compared favorably to the mediocre fx5700, but mainly because it offered better performance than anything else in its price range, even more expensive cards like the 9800pro. This is clearly not the case with the 8600gt and gts. The fact that it beats a 7600gt is nothing excetional.
blckgrffn - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
AMD/ATI did the same thing the last time around - they left a huge gap between midrange and high end that nvidia handily filled with the 7600 series, and one they barely filled (X1600XT) before moving on to a whole new generation. It really hurt AMD/ATI last time around, and nvidia isn't careful, they could get burned this generation too.Heres to hoping AMD/ATI and nvidia both have great ~$130 DX10 cards later this year...