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
crazyeddie - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
I would like to add that I don't understand omitting X800XL from comparisons. It's ATI's most popular mid-range video solution.yacoub - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Add me to the list of people looking forward to a more complete article with CPU scaling and a 9800 Pro and an 800XL included in the tests.formulav8 - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
I just bought a Regular 6800 Vanilla AGP and thought/hoping that should/would be included.I am happy that mine unlocks the pipes and shader just fine! (Well, so far anyways)
I ran 3DMark03 and got 8086 with stock pipes and got 8778 with 16x6x pipes. Not to bad with a fairly slow cpu. Thats a 8% increase with no oc or anything, and with a fairly slow cpu that is bottlenecking most likely.
I will try ocing it next week when I get a cpu/mobo that will push it alittle more.
I am running a Athlon XP with 128KB L1 and 128KB L2 Cache at 2ghz. And yes, that IS the right L2 Cache numbers on this cpu :)
Are there any instructions that I can find to run my own benchmark numbers for BattleField2?? Anyone know???
Jason
pcfountain - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
And while I'm on the subject of price/performance, how about a graph of street price vs. FPS for each card, so we can see the "value" of each card visually? The more I think about what information this article *should have* presented, I come to realize that it is just fluff. The basic conclusion is that higher-priced cards get better FPS. No duh?pcfountain - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
I agree with many others, leaving the X800XL out of this roundup (and in fact EVERY X800-series card) is a HUGE oversight. The X800XL a very popular card and probably the best price/performance ratio for the high-end right now. IMO the article is useless without this comparison.dornick - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Only the X700 and the X850XT tested in the high-end!? What about the half-dozen other cards in between?Killrose - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Can we get off this FX-55 addiction and use a lower RANGE of CPU's to see how the game scales with a lower class CPU?A 6200 or X300 GPU being crappy is really a no-brainer. And pairing it with a world class FX-55 CPU is senceless.
L3p3rM355i4h - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
9600 and 8500 are 4 pipes.My winnie @ 2.5 1GB of RAM and 9800@ 480/375 runs 10x7 everything on high very well. No lag what so ever. Granted, I have a sign. advantage over a x700pro and a 6600gt.
Questar - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
My bad, I thought the 9800 was a four pipe card.drizek - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
i have a 6600gt, gig of ram @360, amd 3200+ and i can play it at 1600x1200 with 2xAA and medium everything else(around 40fps).from all the guides ive seen, there is a very small difference in graphics by moving to High settings from medium, but you see a big performance hit. You should tested the low/midrange cards using medium, because i doubt many people are going to crank it up to high and then play at 1024x768.
here are some screenshots comparing low/medium/high settings
http://www.tweakguides.com/BF2_5.html