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
ssidbroadcast - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Actually, me too. Now that the 8000 series is on a uniquely (to PCs, anyhow) unified-shader architecture, it seems that nVidia has a chance to re-invent SLi.Imagine an SLi engine that didn't simply split workload into half-frames or every-other frame. What if it simply pooled the shader resources for each frame? DX10 seems to give programmers a high degree of freedom (threading physics to the GPU, storing entire programs on the onboard memory, etc) maybe nVidia could fashion a special version of SLi geared for DX10?
I dunno. Just an idea. I realize such engineering is much easier said than done.
PrinceGaz - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Pooling the shader-resources of a pair of 8600GT/GTS cards would still only give 64 shaders in total, compared with the 96 of a single 8800GTS. No amount of improving pixel-shader efficiency in SLI is going to make a pair of 8600's faster than the 8800GTS.Sunrise089 - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Much worse than the 8800GTS it would be priced against, plus requiring a more expensive MB, showing lack of performance improvements in some games, and probably making more heat and noise. SLI is ideal for the top end, not midrange.Live - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Good reading always nice to see a follow up. I hope Nvidia gets the message and lowers the price and don't starve the memory in the future.Sh0ckwave - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
In other words, right now these cards suck for gaming. If prices dropped considerably and dx10 content was available it might be a different story.But I get the feeling these cards might not be fast enough to run dx10 features at decent framerates anyway.
yyrkoon - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
The thing I thought of was: 'wow, it took this long for nVidia to make a card that performed on par with the ATI 1950's ?'Yes, I understand the NV 8800 series is top dog, but look at the price difference right_now.
Anyhow, I would have to agree, these comparred to the older 8800's are much weaker, but there is a niche for everyone/everything, as not everyone can afford $300+ for a good video card, and these seem like they would fill the general purpose niche very well, not to mention play back HD content decently also.
After seeing how many NV 6200's have come through our shops here, I have very little doubt, that Dell/eMachine owners nation wide will be gobbling these up left and right . . .
Griswold - Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - link
I'm inclined to agree. Garbage often sells like gold. But then again, there are rumors that the Dells, Lenovos and FSC's of the world have a new lovechild with a different name.I expected more from a line-up that is the bread and butter of a company in this business.
DerekWilson - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
If we were looking at $130 - $150 and $170 - $200 I'd say that the 8600 series would look better.We will also be looking at overclocked hardware -- if we see cards with a nice healthy overclock at $150 or $200 (depending on the card) they might then be worth the price.
We'll have to test that before we can know though.
kilkennycat - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
FYI:-The MSI 8600GTS OC was in stock @$189.99 on ZipZoomFly the day of release and still available from stock. (The MSI 8500GT was also in stock at ZZF the day of release of these cards @ $99.99, but is now out of stock.)
Spoelie - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
The stalker page of the article just turns up a message reading:"We apologize for the inconvenience, but you have encounted an error. The error has been logged and sent to the web master."
I hope spiderman got the message