The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Performance

While it is disappointing that Oblivion doesn't have a built in benchmark, our FRAPS tests have proven to be fairly repeatable and very intensive on every part of a system. While these numbers will reflect real world playability of the game, please remember that our test system uses the fastest processor we could get our hands on. If a purchasing decision is to be made using Oblivion performance alone, please check out our two articles on the CPU and GPU performance of Oblivion. We have used the most graphically intensive benchmark in our suite, but the rest of the platform will make a difference. We can still easily demonstrate which graphics card is best for Oblivion even if our numbers don't translate to what our readers will see on their systems.

Running through the forest towards an Oblivion gate while fireballs fly by our head is a very graphically taxing benchmark. In order to run this benchmark, we have a saved game that we load and run through with FRAPS. To start the benchmark, we hit "q" which just runs forward, and start and stop FRAPS at predetermined points in the run. While not 100% identical each run, our benchmark scores are usually fairly close. We run the benchmark a couple times just to be sure there wasn't a one time hiccup.

As for settings, we tested a few different configurations and decided on this group of options:

Oblivion Performance Settings
Texture Size Large
Tree Fade 100%
Actor Fade 100%
Item Fade 66%
Object Fade 90%
Grass Distance 50%
View Distance 100%
Distant Land On
Distant Buildings On
Distant Trees On
Interior Shadows 95%
Exterior Shadows 85%
Self Shadows On
Shadows on Grass On
Tree Canopy Shadows On
Shadow Filtering High
Specular Distance 100%
HDR Lighting On
Bloom Lighting Off
Water Detail High
Water Reflections On
Water Ripples On
Window Reflections On
Blood Decals High
Anti-aliasing Off


Our goal was to get acceptable performance levels under the current generation of cards at 1600x1200. This was fairly easy with the range of cards we tested here. These settings are amazing and very enjoyable. While more is better in this game, no current computer will give you everything at high res. Only the best multi-GPU solutions and a great CPU are going to give you settings like the ones we have at high resolutions, but who cares about grass distance, right?

While Oblivion is very graphically intensive and is played mostly from a first person perspective (and some third person), this definitely isn't a twitch shooter. Our experience leads us to conclude that 20fps gives a good experience. It's playable a little lower, but watch out for some jerkiness that may pop up. Getting down to 16fps and below is a little too low to be acceptable. The main point to bring home is that you really want as much eye candy as possible. While Oblivion is an immersive and awesome game from a gameplay standpoint, the graphics certainly help draw the gamer in.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Performance


The GeForce 7950 GT hits our playable framerate mark at 1280x1024 with a comfortable 23.4 fps. While the X1900 XT does outperform the 7950 GT by a good margin, for the price we still see acceptable performance from NVIDIA's new part.



From the NVIDIA camp, the 7950 GT and 7900 GTX are barely playable at 1600x1200. While the 7900 GS isn't as capable, adding a second card for SLI is a viable option to support this resolution if necessary. Owners of higher end LCD panels will benefit from lower resolutions in spite of the scaling, as the effects are more important in this game. In order to run anything higher than 1600x1200 with these settings, the minimum requirement is a 7950 GT SLI setup. An X1900 / X1950 CrossFire setup is the absolute best option in the case of Oblivion though.

Black & White 2 Performance F.E.A.R. Performance
Comments Locked

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 issues
  • yacoub - 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.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now