High End Performance Tests

And now, we come to the extreme tests. Unfortunately, we couldn't push our tests beyond 2048x1536 this time around, so the 7800 GTX SLI setup is still not stretching its legs to its full potential (which is extremely impressive). For our 1920x1440 test (a little larger than HDTV's 1080p), the trend continues from the previous tests. This time around, we see that the SLI setup is steadily becoming less CPU bound under our AA/AF test. Without turning these features on, we do still bump into the CPU limit, however.

Battlefield 2 Performance


Battlefield 2 Performance


And our current highest end test, 2048x1536 still shows an incredible frame rate under the 7800 GTX SLI. Increasing AA/AF settings still can't hurt it too much, and even the single 7800 GTX is playable with all the options on at the highest resolution test that we ran. The 6800 Ultra and X850 XT are only playable at this resolution without AA enabled (though, the ATI part comes closer to being playable). It should go without saying that the mid-range cards are unplayable here.

Battlefield 2 Performance


Battlefield 2 Performance


For high end cards paired with a monitor that can handle it, 1920x1440 offers good AA performance. If the investment in a 7800 GTX seems worth it, nothing looks better than 2048x1536 with 4xAA/AF. Oddly enough, we can still see the difference between aliased and antialiased game play at these huge resolutions. Of course, the problem is only obvious on near vertical or near horizontal lines and is much less of an issue at huge resolutions than at, say, 1024x768.

Mid-range Performance Tests Final Words
POST A COMMENT

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. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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
    Reply
  • 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? Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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? Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • Questar - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link

    My bad, I thought the 9800 was a four pipe card. Reply
  • 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
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now