Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 Performance

Tiger Woods 2005 is similar to Eve in being limited by the CPU. At 1600x1200, we only see an 11% and 13% spread - AA/AF and no AA/AF, respectively - between the various configurations (not counting the 6600GT SLI). Of course, in a golf simulation frame rates aren't nearly as critical as in FPS games, so the 30+ FPS results generated by all contenders are more than acceptable.

Tiger Woods PGA Golf


Tiger Woods PGA Golf


Star Wars: Knights of the old Republic 2 Performance Unreal Tournament 2004 Performance
Comments Locked

127 Comments

View All Comments

  • Regs - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Yikes @ the graphs lol.

    I just came close to pushing the button to order one of these but then I said...what games can't play on a 6800GT at 16x12 res? There is none. Far Cry was the only game that comes close to doing it.

    Bravo to Nvidia, his and boo @ lagging game developers.
  • bob661 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    #19
    Are you new to this market or do you have a short memory? Don't you remember that the initial 6800 Ultra's cost around $700-800? I sure as hell do. Why is everyone complaining about pricing? These are premium video cards and you will pay a premium price to buy them.
  • Barneyk - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Yeah, not a single comment on any of the benchmarks, what is up with that?

    There were alot of wierd scenarios there, why is there NO performance increase in SLI some of the time?
    And why is 6800Ultra SLI faster then 7800GTX SLI??

    Alot of wierd stuff, and not a singel comment or analysis about it, I always read most new tests here on AT first becasue its usually the best, but this review was a double boogey to say the least...
  • Dukemaster - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    @21: The score of the X850XT PE in Wolfenstein still looks messed up to me...
  • shabby - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Ya some of the scores dont make much sense, 7800 sli loosing to a single 7800?
  • yacoub - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Hey, looks great! $350 and you've got a buyer here!
  • Lifted - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Guys, they simply reversed the 6800 Ultra SLI and 7800 GTX SLI in all of the 1600 x 1200 - 4x AA graphs.

    Now everthing is kosher again.
  • Johnmcl7 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    To 18 - I have to admit, I didn't bother looking closely at them, seeing the X850XT supposedly beating all the other cards by such a margin at those resolutions showed they were completely screwed up! I didn't notice the performance increase as you go up the resolution, maybe it's something I missed on my own X850XT? ;) I wish...that would be a neat feature, your performance increases as your resolution increases.

    I agree it needs pulled down and checked, not to be harsh on AT but this isn't the first time the bar graphs have been wrong - I would rather wait for a review that has been properly finished and checked rather than read a rushed one, as it stands it's no use to me because I have no idea if any of the performance figures are genuine.

    John
  • RyDogg1 - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    Wow, who exactly is paying for these video cards to warrant the pricing?
  • Lonyo - Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - link

    To #14, the X850XT performance INCREASED by 33% from 1600x1200 to 2048x1536 according to the grahics, so to me that just screams BULLSH!T.
    I think the review needs taking down, editing, and then being put up again.
    Or fixed VERY quickly.
    AT IMO has let people down a bit this time round, not the usual standard.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now