Mid-range Performance Tests
Leading off our Mid-range Performance tests, we'll see what happens with 1024x768 and AA and AF turned up. For the 6600/x700 class, the NVIDIA part has a slight (negligible) lead, while the x850 does offer higher performance than the 6800 Ultra. This setting is playable for all these cards.
As for our next test, mid-range cards still run 1280x1024 very well, though we would recommend against enabling AA for anything beyond 1024x768 without a higher end part. This really seems to be the sweet spot for this range of performance, but we have tests reflecting higher resolutions as well. For the higher end cards, the 7800 obviously leads the pack while the SLI solution is still CPU limited without AA/AF turned up. The ATI x850 XT leads the 6800 Ultra, and only increases its lead when we look at AA/AF numbers. But that's not to say that one or the other feels better when playing at this resolution.
Moving up to 1600x1200 puts performance in a tight position. The mid-range cards become unplayable with AA/AF turned up, and even without filtering extras, the frame rate is a little too low for a serious gamer. The high end cards are pushed a little harder here and we see more separation between the 7800 GTX and everything else. This time, the battle between the X850 XT and the 6800 Ultra is closer, but AA/AF still pushes the numbers in favor of the ATI part.
We are going to reiterate our assessment that mid-range cards be run at either 1024x768 with AA/AF or 1280x1024 (1280x960 for a 4:3 res) without AA. Personal preference will come into play here, but the playability of either offers no tangible advantage in our experience.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
78 Comments
View All Comments
jkostans - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Yeah the 9800 pro runs fine at 1024x768 with graphics high on my barton 3000+ (2.2ghz). Oh yeah and a gig of pc2700 ram. I would compare the framerate to CS:S but a tad slower in some areas. Oh and for people wanting to find out how their computer performs, there is a demo available. Yeah it's 500mb but it's good.Xenoterranos - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Where's the Voodo 3 2000/K62 test setup? Come on guys, cater to the poor b@stards out here... :pWileCoyote - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
For you 9800 Pro owners this game runs pretty well on a 3ghz p4 with 2gb of ram.I run BF2 at 1024x768, medium, 4xAA and it runs very smooth. I'm sure you could even bump up some of the medium settings to high.
Aikouka - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
#16:I mean bias as in a statistical bias, not a personal preference.
Jep4444 - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
how bout we seem some tests from either an X600Pro/XT or a 9600Pro/XT, these cards are extremely common and personally i'd like to know how my card fairs in BF2, i don't want to have to wait until the X550 comes out(basically a 9600Pro with 500mhz RAM instead of 600mhz) to find out how my card should performyacoub - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Oh I see now. FX-55 system. Heh.yacoub - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Sweet so if I get an X800XL card for around $300 (the most anyone should have to pay for a GPU to play the latest games smoothly), I can just about handle 1280x1024 with 4xAA/High quality at around 50fps. That's not toooooooo bad.Oh wait, I wonder what the rest of the test system's specs are (I didn't see them on any of the pages). If it's like an FX-57 or something then that's not exactly promising for the majority of us running 3000+-3700+ A64 systems who will clearly experience a bit lower performance. =/
Avalon - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
#18,An X700 does not have twice the pipes of a 9800 pro, it has the same exact ammount. It also is not clocked much higher. The x700pro is clocked at 425/860 compared to a 9800pro at 380/680. As you can see, core speeds are fairly close, and memory speeds...well, the 9800pro is 256bit while the x700pro is 128bit, so despite the clockspeed advantage, the x700 should actually have less memory bandwidth in the end. This puts the cards roughly equal.
OrSin - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
the x700pro is clocked a little higher but has the same number of pipes and only 128 bus where the 9800pro has 256 bus. In truth the 9800pro is faster then the x700 and might be about the same as the 700pro or just little faster.coldpower27 - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Questar, X700 is the RV410 chip which is 8X1/6 vs the the 9800 Pro R350 chip with 8X1/4. Though the X700 Pro has the advanatge of being clcoked a little higher.The X700 Pro should be close to the 6600 GT. And certainly does not have twice the pixel pipes or vertex pipes of 9800 Pro.