Battlefield 2 Performance

Battlefield 2 has been a standard for performance benchmarks here in the past, and it's probably one of our most important tests. This game still stands out as one of those making best use of the next generation of graphics hardware available right now due to its impressive game engine.

One of the first things to note here is something that is a theme throughout all of our performance tests in this review. In all our tests we find that the X1900 XTX and X1900 XT perform very similar to each other, and in some places differ only by a couple of frames per second. This is significant considering that the X1900 XTX costs about $100 more than the X1900 XT.

Below we have two sets of graphs for three different settings: no AA, 4xAA/8xAF, and maximum quality (higher AA and AF settings in the driver). Note that our benchmark for BF2 had problems with NVIDIA's sli so we were forced to omit these numbers. We can see how with and without AA, both ATI and NVIDIA cards perform very similar to each other on each side. Generally though, since ATI tends to do a little better with AA than NVIDIA, they hold a slight edge here. With the Maximum quality settings, we see a great reduction in performance which is expected. Something to keep in mind is that in the driver options, NVIDIA can enable AA up to 8X, while ATI can only enable up to 6X, so these numbers aren't directly comparable.

Battlefield 2 - No AA

Battlefield 2 - 4X AA

Battlefield 2 - Maximum Quality

The Performance Breakdown Black and White 2 Performance
Comments Locked

120 Comments

View All Comments

  • tuteja1986 - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    wait for firing squad review then :) if you want AAx8
  • beggerking - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Did anyone notice it? the breakdown graphs doesn't quite reflect the actual data..

    the breakdown is showing 1900xtx being much faster than 7800 512, but in the actual performance graph 1900xtx is sometimes outpaced by 7800 512..
  • SpaceRanger - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    All the second to last section describes in the Image Quality. There was no explaination on power consumtion at all. Was this an accidental omit or something else??
  • Per Hansson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Yes, please show us the power consumption ;-)

    A few things I would like seen done; Put a low-end PCI GFX card in the comp, boot it and register power consumption, leave that card in and then do your normal tests with a single X1900 and then dual so we get a real point on how much power they consume...

    Also please clarify exactly what PSU was used and how the consumption was measured so we can figure out more accuratley how much power the card really draws (when counting in the (in)efficiency of the PSU that is...
  • peldor - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    That's a good idea on isolating the power of the video card.

    From the other reviews I've read, the X1900 cards are seriously power hungry. In the neighborhood of 40-50W more than the X1800XT cards. The GTX 512 (and GTX of course) are lower than the X1800XT, let alone the X1900 cards.
  • vaystrem - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Anyone else find this interesting??

    Battlefield 2 @ 2048x1536 Max Detail
    7800GTX512 33FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 32.9FPS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 29FPS
    -------------------------------------
    Day of Defeat
    7800GTX512 18.93FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 35.5PS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 35FPS
    -------------------------------------
    Fear
    7800GTX512 20FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 36PS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 49FPS
    -------------------------------------
    Quake 4
    7800GTX512 43.3FPS
    AIT 1900XTX 42FPS
    ATI 1900XTX Crossfire. 73.3FPS


  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    Becareful here ... these max detail settings enabled superaa modes which really killed performance ... especially with all the options flipped on quality.

    we're working on getting some screens up to show the IQ difference. but suffice it to say that that the max detail settings are very apples to oranges.

    we would have seen performance improvements if we had simply kept using 6xAA ...
  • DerekWilson - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    to further clarify, fear didn't play well when we set AA outside the game, so it's max quality ended up using the in game 4xaa setting. thus we see a performance improvement.

    for day of defeat, forcing aa/af through the control panel works well so we were able to crank up the quality.

    I'll try to go back and clarify this in the article.
  • vaystrem - Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - link

    I'm not sure how that justifies what happens. Your argument is that it is the VERY highest settings so that its ok for the 'dual' 1900xtx to have lower performance than a single card alternative? That doesn't seem to make sense and speaks poorly for the ATI implementation.
  • Lonyo - Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - link

    The XTX especially in Crossfire does seem to give a fair boost in a number of tests over the XT and XT in Crossfire.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now