Fall '06 NVIDIA GPU Refresh - Part II: GeForce 7950 GT and SLI
by Derek Wilson on September 14, 2006 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battlefield 2 Performance
This benchmark is performed using DICE's built in demo playback functionality with a few added extras built in house. When using the built in demo playback features of BF2, frames rendered during the loading screen are counted in the benchmark. In order to get a real idea of performance, we use the instantaneous frametime and frames per second data generated from a benchmark run. We discard the data collected during the loading screen and calculate a result that represents the actual gameplay that was benchmarked. While DICE maintains that results over 100fps aren't reliable, our methods have allowed us to get useful data from high performing systems.
During the benchmark, the camera switches between players and vehicles in order to capture the most action possible. There is a lot of smoke and explosions, so this is a very GPU intensive Battlefield 2 benchmark. The game itself is best experienced with average in-game framerates of 35 and up.
We ran Battlefield 2 using the highest quality graphics settings we could. Shadows, lighting, and especially view distance are very important in order to best play the game. In our opinion view distance should never be set to less than the max, but other settings can be decreased slightly if a little more performance or a higher resolution is required.
At our median resolution of 1600x1200, the 7950 GT splits the difference between the two flavors of X1900 XT. We see just slightly higher numbers for 7950 GT SLI than for the 7950 GX2 setup, while the 7900 GS SLI just leads the single 7900 GTX.
The CPU limit for multi-GPU setups is a little lower than with the single cards, and we do begin to see this at 1280x1024. At the same time, without AA, there really isn't a resolution here that any of these cards will have trouble with. All of our tests fall above 50fps even at the highest resolution.
Enabling AA gives ATI a boost in performance relative to NVIDIA under BF2, so this time we see the 7950 GT losing to the X1900 XT 256MB. 7950 GT SLI increases its margin over the 7950 GX2, while the 7900 GS SLI configuration manages to hang on to the performance spot between singe GPU cards and multi GPU configurations.
CPU limitedness is not a factor with 4xAA turned on. There are three classes of performance that are clearly visible here with the X1900 GT, 7900 GT, and 7900 GS making the lowest performance group. 7950 GT SLI, 7900 GTX SLI, and the 7950 GX2 command the lead, while the rest of the cards fall both well above the lower end cards and well below the higher end multi-GPU configurations.
This benchmark is performed using DICE's built in demo playback functionality with a few added extras built in house. When using the built in demo playback features of BF2, frames rendered during the loading screen are counted in the benchmark. In order to get a real idea of performance, we use the instantaneous frametime and frames per second data generated from a benchmark run. We discard the data collected during the loading screen and calculate a result that represents the actual gameplay that was benchmarked. While DICE maintains that results over 100fps aren't reliable, our methods have allowed us to get useful data from high performing systems.
During the benchmark, the camera switches between players and vehicles in order to capture the most action possible. There is a lot of smoke and explosions, so this is a very GPU intensive Battlefield 2 benchmark. The game itself is best experienced with average in-game framerates of 35 and up.
We ran Battlefield 2 using the highest quality graphics settings we could. Shadows, lighting, and especially view distance are very important in order to best play the game. In our opinion view distance should never be set to less than the max, but other settings can be decreased slightly if a little more performance or a higher resolution is required.
At our median resolution of 1600x1200, the 7950 GT splits the difference between the two flavors of X1900 XT. We see just slightly higher numbers for 7950 GT SLI than for the 7950 GX2 setup, while the 7900 GS SLI just leads the single 7900 GTX.
The CPU limit for multi-GPU setups is a little lower than with the single cards, and we do begin to see this at 1280x1024. At the same time, without AA, there really isn't a resolution here that any of these cards will have trouble with. All of our tests fall above 50fps even at the highest resolution.
Enabling AA gives ATI a boost in performance relative to NVIDIA under BF2, so this time we see the 7950 GT losing to the X1900 XT 256MB. 7950 GT SLI increases its margin over the 7950 GX2, while the 7900 GS SLI configuration manages to hang on to the performance spot between singe GPU cards and multi GPU configurations.
CPU limitedness is not a factor with 4xAA turned on. There are three classes of performance that are clearly visible here with the X1900 GT, 7900 GT, and 7900 GS making the lowest performance group. 7950 GT SLI, 7900 GTX SLI, and the 7950 GX2 command the lead, while the rest of the cards fall both well above the lower end cards and well below the higher end multi-GPU configurations.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
31 Comments
View All Comments
Genx87 - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
In this price category it is hard to justify Nvidia here. Nvidia's pressure from the top with the GX2 has pushed ATI's 2nd best card into this price range. The X1900XT is faster and better compared to this card IMO. It needs to be dropped to the 280-300 range and let it settle in around the 250 if it wants to compete with the X1900XT.ieskorp - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
What is the added value of a review/test when you are comparing Nvidia SLI configurations with single ATI 19k cards????JarredWalton - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
We've looked at the CF performance in the recent past, and nothing has changed. You'll notice in the conclusion that we really don't recommend getting two new current gen GPUs regardless of manufacturer. If you look at the X1950 XTX article, you can see where CrossFire sits in the performance ladder. Basically, it's competitive with SLI, though most will agree the SLI bridge is far more elegant than the CF dongle. Basically, the graphs were already crowded, and adding more cards/configurations just gets really messy. We included SLI numbers for the new cards mostly to show where they fall, i.e. 7900 GS SLI about equals 7900 GTX, while 7950 GT SLI is slightly faster than 7950 GX2.Quick summary of CF vs. SLI:
ATI "owns" Quake 4 now, along with Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. NVIDIA still clearly leads in Black and White 2. Performance in most of our other tested titles is very close. Price performance is more difficult to call, as X1950 are in very limited availability with no CF cards currently showing up, and prices are thus quite inflated. You can get Quad SLI for the cost of X1950 CrossFire... and neither one support the DirectX 10 feature set.
yacoub - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
Would really appreciate temperature testing of the XFX card idel and under full 3D load. Passively-cooled cards notoriously run hot so it would be nice to know ahead of time just how well it's cooled. Additional overclocking potential would also be nice to know.DerekWilson - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
we are working on a 7950 gt roundup that will address this and other issuesyacoub - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
Great thanks.Looks like the traditional 10-15 degrees Celcius for passive cooling holds true by Guru3D's review:
Card Temperature in idle (Celsius) Temperature at 100% load in (Celsius)
GeForce 7950 GT 45 64
XFX 7950 GT Extreme 64 81
I can't fathom allowing a GPU to run at over 60-65C. That's REALLY hot. 81C is downright dangerous and life-sapping for sure.
SniperWulf - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
It's pretty gratifying to see that the card I bought at the beginning of the year is still holding its own pretty good (X1900XT)DerekWilson - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
X1900 XT has been a good performer. It's also be a much better value than the X1900 XTX for its entire lifetime. Definitely a good purchasing decision.Tilmitt - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
You'd have to be stoned off your head to find 20FPS "a good experience" in any game. Unless you're a girl...they can't see lag or jaggies.VooDooAddict - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
I greatly disagree. Most casual girl gamers that I've had sit down and play a PC game are MORE distracted by and less tolerable of lag and low framerates then guys who game frequently. Those of us who play often know it's a fact of life and can tolerate it. New PC gamers (male and female) who may be more used to console systems are frustrated easily by the little things we putup with in the PC gaming world.