Rainbow Six: Vegas: A Performance Analysis
by Josh Venning on December 25, 2006 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Gaming
Final Words
Rainbow Six: Vegas has all the elements of a great tactical shooter, with great graphics and very realistic AI. Your teammates are very handy and can take care of themselves, doing what you tell them while taking cover and engaging hostiles at their own discretion. As with any game AI they aren't perfect and sometimes they die for very stupid reasons, but mostly they are incredibly useful in clearing rooms and getting your missions accomplished. Similarly, the enemy AI is deadly at the "realistic" difficulty setting, and they will actively seek you out and try to flank your team while taking cover and using grenades or flashbangs. Clearing a room full of tangos requires the use of sound tactics, such as suppressing your enemy and sending a team or yourself to flank them while they hide behind cover. This element of realism that we've seen in games like Brothers in Arms is a nice touch and makes the game a lot more fun.
Gameplay aside, the game shows off the new Unreal Engine 3 nicely, and there are a lot of excellent graphical elements to the game. The smoke effect is good when you or an enemy pops a smoke grenade for cover, and the way explosions and gunfire interact with the environment causing damage to things like slot machines and glasses at adds a nice element of chaos to the action. As we've seen though, these graphical elements come at a high price, and Rainbow Six: Vegas is by no means a game for those with a low-end graphics solution.
Our performance tests show that in order to play this game smoothly with the resolution and quality settings at their highest, you will need at least an NVIDIA 8800 GTS (or possibly an overclocked X1950 XTX). The X1950 XTX and 7900 GTX at reference speeds can run the game at these settings without too much trouble, but they still see some choppiness when in a large firefight with a lot of stuff going on. Fortunately, the game still looks and plays well with the resolution and quality settings turned down, so don't despair if you aren't an owner of an 8800 yet and want to get a hold of this game. We still don't recommend playing Rainbow Six: Vegas on a low end card like the 7300 GT, because even at the lowest resolution and settings you will still probably run into choppy gameplay at certain points in the game, and the action can be fast-paced enough that this is a real problem. At this point in time, to really enjoy this game at a decent resolution you will probably want to go with at least a 7600 GT from NVIDIA or better yet an X1650 XT from ATI if you can get your hands on one. GeForce 7900 GS and Radeon X1900 GT are also good options.
Even though Rainbow Six: Vegas uses the Unreal Engine 3, something it shares with Epic's Gears of War for the Xbox360, its graphics don't really compare to Gears, and there are some places where the environments in Vegas could look better. One example is during the helicopter flight over Las Vegas at night. Overall though, Vegas' graphics are very impressive, and they certainly represent a significant improvement compared to other games like another Ubisoft title we may have mentioned a few times.
Hopefully we will see some improvements in performance for Vegas on NVIDIA's hardware soon, because as it stands, the game clearly favors ATI parts, with the obvious exception of the 8800. That is a trend we've seen more of over time, however: G70 series hardware does very well at DX8 graphics, but when more DX9 effects are enabled the pixel shaders on many NVIDIA chips don't seem to do as well as ATI's hardware. We might have liked to see the kind of control over graphics quality in Vegas that we've seen in games like The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, especially considering that maximum detail settings result in performance that is often lower than what we saw with Oblivion. Still, kudos to Ubisoft on this nice addition to the Rainbow Six series, and we look forward to further enjoying this game, as well as seeing what else comes along using the Unreal Engine 3 in the near future.
Rainbow Six: Vegas has all the elements of a great tactical shooter, with great graphics and very realistic AI. Your teammates are very handy and can take care of themselves, doing what you tell them while taking cover and engaging hostiles at their own discretion. As with any game AI they aren't perfect and sometimes they die for very stupid reasons, but mostly they are incredibly useful in clearing rooms and getting your missions accomplished. Similarly, the enemy AI is deadly at the "realistic" difficulty setting, and they will actively seek you out and try to flank your team while taking cover and using grenades or flashbangs. Clearing a room full of tangos requires the use of sound tactics, such as suppressing your enemy and sending a team or yourself to flank them while they hide behind cover. This element of realism that we've seen in games like Brothers in Arms is a nice touch and makes the game a lot more fun.
Gameplay aside, the game shows off the new Unreal Engine 3 nicely, and there are a lot of excellent graphical elements to the game. The smoke effect is good when you or an enemy pops a smoke grenade for cover, and the way explosions and gunfire interact with the environment causing damage to things like slot machines and glasses at adds a nice element of chaos to the action. As we've seen though, these graphical elements come at a high price, and Rainbow Six: Vegas is by no means a game for those with a low-end graphics solution.
Our performance tests show that in order to play this game smoothly with the resolution and quality settings at their highest, you will need at least an NVIDIA 8800 GTS (or possibly an overclocked X1950 XTX). The X1950 XTX and 7900 GTX at reference speeds can run the game at these settings without too much trouble, but they still see some choppiness when in a large firefight with a lot of stuff going on. Fortunately, the game still looks and plays well with the resolution and quality settings turned down, so don't despair if you aren't an owner of an 8800 yet and want to get a hold of this game. We still don't recommend playing Rainbow Six: Vegas on a low end card like the 7300 GT, because even at the lowest resolution and settings you will still probably run into choppy gameplay at certain points in the game, and the action can be fast-paced enough that this is a real problem. At this point in time, to really enjoy this game at a decent resolution you will probably want to go with at least a 7600 GT from NVIDIA or better yet an X1650 XT from ATI if you can get your hands on one. GeForce 7900 GS and Radeon X1900 GT are also good options.
Even though Rainbow Six: Vegas uses the Unreal Engine 3, something it shares with Epic's Gears of War for the Xbox360, its graphics don't really compare to Gears, and there are some places where the environments in Vegas could look better. One example is during the helicopter flight over Las Vegas at night. Overall though, Vegas' graphics are very impressive, and they certainly represent a significant improvement compared to other games like another Ubisoft title we may have mentioned a few times.
Hopefully we will see some improvements in performance for Vegas on NVIDIA's hardware soon, because as it stands, the game clearly favors ATI parts, with the obvious exception of the 8800. That is a trend we've seen more of over time, however: G70 series hardware does very well at DX8 graphics, but when more DX9 effects are enabled the pixel shaders on many NVIDIA chips don't seem to do as well as ATI's hardware. We might have liked to see the kind of control over graphics quality in Vegas that we've seen in games like The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, especially considering that maximum detail settings result in performance that is often lower than what we saw with Oblivion. Still, kudos to Ubisoft on this nice addition to the Rainbow Six series, and we look forward to further enjoying this game, as well as seeing what else comes along using the Unreal Engine 3 in the near future.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
32 Comments
View All Comments
ariafrost - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
Well forget about running it on my X850XT, apparently RSV *requires* a Pixel Shader 3.0 video card. If anyone could confirm/deny that information it'd be great, but for now it looks like a lot of ill-informed customers may end up buying a game their "128MB/256MB" video cards can't support.justly - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
Anandtech always seems to have a problem when ever it can't recomend NVIDIA as the best solution in every senerio. What is so wrong with the idea that ATI hardware performs better than NVIDIA hardware of the same generation? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought even Anandtech expected ATI might do better in newer games.
Personally I'm not much of a gamer so it really doesn't matter to me, but fot the sake of the people using your articles to choose hardware why give them expectations that might not materialize?
Maybe because I am not engrosed in the gamming experiance I have a different perspective, but considering a lot of games are ported over from consoles (or at least designed with consoles in mind) wouldn't it be reasonable to expect any game designed around a console using ATI graphics to favor ATI graphics on the PC? It wouldn't surprize me in the least to see games favoring (or at least more competitive) on hardware built around ATI for the next year or two.
Jodiuh - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
Because it's happened before. Remember Oblivion?munky - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
Nothing happened. The 7-series still has much worse performance in Oblivion in outdoor scenes with foliage than equivalent Ati cards.http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce...">http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce...
Frumious1 - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
Try not to be so easily offended, Justly. I think the point Anandtech was trying to make is that they hope the performance gap can be reduced somewhat with driver/game updates. There are other games where NVIDIA outperforms ATI, but overall the 7900 GTX offers similar performance to the X1900 XT and not too much worse than the X1950 XT/XTX cards (I think). Another way of looking at this is that perhaps they just hope SM3 support doesn't turn into a GeForce FX fiasco again.So far, looks to me like ATI has better shader hardware. Ever read any of the stuff on the folding at home forums by their programmers? Basically, they have stated that G70 really has poor performance on their SM3 code even with optimizations... and it doesn't even look like G80 will be all that great. All that said, I still don't like ATI's drivers. CCC(P) is so sluggish it's pathetic, and that's after performance improvements since it first cam out.
jediknight - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
I was hoping to see some of the last gen cards (err.. now with the 8800, I guess two gens old..) - as that's what I'm running with (with no hope of upgrading - as I'm with AGP right now.. )Specifically, if future reviews would consider the performance of the X800XL running at 1280x1024, I'll be happy :->
Spoelie - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
you need to have a SM3 card to play this game, as such, it won't even start on your card.not that I agree with that policy, they should have provided a SM2 path, not everybody has a ~1/1.5 years old card.
jkostans - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
I think its pretty clear you'll be needing to run at 800x600 with med graphics, or 1024x768 with low graphics settings in order to get around 20 fps.Tanclearas - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
At 1600 x 1200, the 7900GTX runs at 19.8 and the X1950XTX runs at 20.4 FPS. Given those numbers, the above quote doesn't really make much sense. Did I miss something?
And just so people don't think I'm whining, or a fanboy, or whatever, I have an X1900XT (512MB). I am just honestly confused by the conclusion that the X1950XTX could handle 1600 x 1200 and the 7900GTX could not.
Josh Venning - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
Thanks for the comment. The paragraph has been tweaked a little so that it's a little more clear. The fact is that both the X1950 XTX and 7900 GTX at reference speeds experience a little choppiness in the game at the highest resolution and quality settings. With some overclocking, either of these cards could run the game at these settings smoothly. Sorry for the confusion.