Unreal Tournament 3 Beta Demo: Top to Bottom GPU Analysis
by Derek Wilson on October 18, 2007 4:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Low End GPU Performance
For our low end parts, we will mainly focus on NVIDIA's 8500 and AMD's 2400 parts. This is budget bin hardware that offers the feature set of the latest generation without the price premium (and without the performance necessary for gamers). We've included some older hardware for reference here, as well as he next step up in the current lineup for AMD and NVIDIA.
Looking at 1024x768, it is clear that if the final game is any more taxing than these flyby benchmarks we would want to run at a lower resolution with the 8500 GT or the 2400 XT. The 2600 Pro and the 8600 GT are a very clear step up from this category. The 7600 GT and the X1650 XT serve to fill in the gap between these price points.
The 8500 GT and 2400 XT are well matched in terms of performance here. The 8600 GT leads the 2600 Pro (which essentially ties the x1650 xt in performance).
For our low end parts, we will mainly focus on NVIDIA's 8500 and AMD's 2400 parts. This is budget bin hardware that offers the feature set of the latest generation without the price premium (and without the performance necessary for gamers). We've included some older hardware for reference here, as well as he next step up in the current lineup for AMD and NVIDIA.
Looking at 1024x768, it is clear that if the final game is any more taxing than these flyby benchmarks we would want to run at a lower resolution with the 8500 GT or the 2400 XT. The 2600 Pro and the 8600 GT are a very clear step up from this category. The 7600 GT and the X1650 XT serve to fill in the gap between these price points.
The 8500 GT and 2400 XT are well matched in terms of performance here. The 8600 GT leads the 2600 Pro (which essentially ties the x1650 xt in performance).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
View All Comments
jmvillafana - Saturday, October 20, 2007 - link
I greatly appreciate the large scope of your comparison. As new boards come out, they are just compared to their close competitors. I am out to buy a board and after reading your article I am sure I will make the best decision.GlassHouse69 - Friday, October 19, 2007 - link
that crap was boring.it's so kiddie like.
where is quake 5 arena?
segask - Friday, October 19, 2007 - link
what about DX10? The X1950 is a DX9 card isn't it?Sunrise089 - Thursday, October 18, 2007 - link
1) Next gen cards finally coming into their own - the 8600 series is beating the old high-end 7900 series, and the HD 2600 series is very close to the X1950pro.2) ATI looks great - HD 2900XT way better than the 8800GTS parts, HD 2600 XT way better than the 8600 parts.
3) X1950XTX is the exception to surprise 1, and seems to be holding up spectacularly well.
aka1nas - Friday, October 19, 2007 - link
The 2900 is only doing so well because there is no AA in the demo.cmdrdredd - Saturday, October 20, 2007 - link
At playable resolutions the HD2900 can do AA well enough.ChrisSwede - Thursday, October 18, 2007 - link
If I have an ATI 9800 Pro, what card would that be comparable to? ...or is it too old to even compare to any of these?Spoelie - Friday, October 19, 2007 - link
it's performance would be slightly slower than a 6600gt, which itself is >~30% slower than the 7600gtSunrise089 - Thursday, October 18, 2007 - link
First of all it won't be able to run all of the effects...even all of the DX9 effects. Then it also may be limited by it's small memory size. Barring those points though, I'd compare it to the 2400XT, but I wouldn't count on matching the performance.punko - Thursday, October 18, 2007 - link
I'm running that card with an ancient AMD XP 1800+ at 1024x768 at detail level 5Am I missing graphics & performance? Yes.
But I agree, I have no idea what I'm missing.
Running about inside the dark walker is great fun.