Low-End Performance

Low End


At 640x480, Rainbow Six: Vegas is technically playable, but a lot is lost graphically and we would recommend at least a resolution of 800x600 to really enjoy the game. At highest quality settings however, you won't have much luck playing Vegas on a low end card at any resolution, with perhaps the exception of the X1300 XT (which is simply a renamed X1600 Pro).

Low End


Turning the quality settings down boosts performance a bit for these cards, but we can see how the amount of performance gain we see doesn't provide a lot of flexibility for these cards, particularly with NVIDIA hardware. It's very evident looking at all of these tests how Rainbow Six: Vegas tends to favor ATI hardware, but again, keep in mind that because of patches and updates this may not (and hopefully won't) be the case for long.

Mainstream/Midrange Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

32 Comments

View All Comments

  • 100proof - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link

    Matching statistics to the GamerID alone is useless. So why include the GamerID at all? Is other information related to a Ubisoft GamerID account being shared? birthdate? gender?

    Anandtech will you investigate this?
  • BronxBartoni - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link

    I would really have loved to see the differences, if any, between single and multi core setups.
  • poohbear - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link

    thanks for the review anandtech, many of us are interested in new graphics engines and how they perform w/ current hardware.:)
  • unclebud - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link

    "I think the point Anandtech was trying to make is that they hope the performance gap can be reduced somewhat with driver/game updates."

    yeah, it hurts them so bad to admit it... just look at their past reviews in video for the absolute proof.
    i bet if they had their way, amd + ati would have never happened. they probably have nightmares every night about it? just my opinion/observation. the site owner needs to come back and review more! i miss his articles! augh!
  • CrystalBay - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link

    Go Sierra, never give in. You Rock Forever, Keep on patchin...
  • BikeDude - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link

    I don't care about 1600x1200 running full blast with all the settings enabled.

    Which cards will allow me to run this game at 2560x1600 using reasonable settings? (reasonable=good fps without tangos turning into stick figures)

    I have a 7800GTX now... Time to upgrade?
  • VooDooAddict - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link

    If you want to run at 2560x1600 then expect to be upgrading to the leading edge frequently. 8800GTX would be a good buy for you if you really want to run at 2560x1600.

    However, if you run at 1280x800 you'll be at a perfect scaling for that 2560x1600 monitor. (I'm assuming you have the lovely Dell 30") 1280x800 will still look great when it's running smoothly on your 7800GTX.
  • Spoelie - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link

    yes
  • Jodiuh - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link

    1. Instead of using the "suggested" scene for benching and telling us to expect worse perf, why not take a look at the most stressful scenarios?
    2. Would you say there might be more perf/better compat for 88's using the newer 97.02's...97.44's?
    3. Are these "ports" running better on ATI because they were deved mainly for 360? Thankfully PS3's out w/ NV inside then?
  • ariafrost - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link

    Looks like with my X850XT overclocked I may be able to run RSV at 1440x900... albeit with medium settings and the widescreen hack from WSGF.

    Graphics performance can only improve as the Unreal Engine 3 is tweaked/optimized. I wouldn't despair quite yet :P

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now