Battlefield 2 Performance

Battlefield 2 is still one of the best (and best looking) of the games to come out over the past six months. Popular with just about everyone who can stand to play a first person shooter, and stressful on hardware at the same time, Battlefield 2 is an important game on our list of tests. We use a custom demo and the DICE supplied demo.cmd (modified to suit our needs) in order to benchmark this game. We also manually compute the average framerate based on the useful frames in timedemo_frametimes file rather than relying on the (flawed) summary output. Unfortunately we seem to have some problems testing SLI using this setup, so we have omitted SLI results for this title.

As we can see in our tests without AA, the 7800 GTX is locked in a dead heat with the X1800 XT, and the 7800 GTX 512 simply dominates both by more than 30%. This is a huge win for NVIDIA's new part given the popularity of this game.

Battlefield 2 Performance

The 7800 GTX 512 still leads the way with 4xAA enabled. The X1800 XT makes up quite a bit of ground here as it takes a significantly smaller hit from enabling AA than either the 7800 GTX or the 7800 GTX 512. The new 512 part leads the original 7800 GTX by over 60% at 2048x1536, which is incredible. This indicates that Battlefield 2 is really reaping the benefits of both the increased core and memory clock speed of the 7800 GTX 512 under 4xAA.

Battlefield 2 Performance 4xAA



The Card, The Test, and Power Black & White 2 Performance
POST A COMMENT

97 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gogar - Saturday, November 19, 2005 - link

    The only thing i'm still wondering about is what the performance difference between the 1800XT and the 7800GTX 512 would be if a dual core processor was used.
    Since Nvidia makes use of dual core with their drivers, the gap might be even wider.. but who knows?
    Reply
  • Regs - Friday, November 18, 2005 - link

    I doubt Nvidia cared about it's price/performance one bit. This card is just a spin-off to show what 512 MB's can do....(nothing). You give a GTX a 120 MHz core speed bump with a 200 MHz RAM bump and of course it's going to perform better than the GTX 256. Pure marketing. 700 dollars? What target market is this? And even better that they decided to keep the name to make it more confusing. Let's see how much money we can squeeze out of you by putting in more RAM which Vendors all ready have ordered in Bulk 8 months ago. Reply
  • Regs - Friday, November 18, 2005 - link

    In other words you are paying 300 dollars more for a GTX with a better HSF unit. Reply
  • cryptonomicon - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    awesome card, i'm a bit confused though as to what nvidia was trying to release it as though.

    the boosted clock speeds are typical of the mid-quarter 'refresher' products (same core, with boosted stats) but it also is posing as the same product but in a 512mb variation.

    i think it should have a new model name (*agree* with derek!)
    Reply
  • MadAd - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    LOL! Thats what I thought, I wonder if he read the same review as we did? 2x GTs SLId are either within a couple of fps, or between 10-20 fps higher. Considering the GT is just over 200 here, I can get 2 and add an extra 50 for an sli board (over a non sli) and still save 50 notes.

    As for soundcards, well its not a soundcard review so I dont want sound complicating anything. If I was really perdantic i'd say ATs review of the motherboard showed the a8n32 to be several FPS above all the rest of the mobos currently and would skew the data higher than normal boards, but thats not the point, the point is about comparability on the same platform.

    Finally, another thanks goes to Derek for the higher resolution coverage - although some here are mystified why resolutions above 1600x1200 are mentioned, well some of us have TFTs with native resolutions of 1920x1200 and anything lower has to be either stretched or windowed- thats not what I paid all that money to do, I want fullscreen lovelyness at full res and right now, thanks to Dereks patience, I can see that the minimum setup to enjoy all current games with FSAA at 1920x1200 is 2xGTs. Even the GTX512 isnt quite man enough.
    Reply
  • MadAd - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    OOps, that was in reply to:

    RE: Newegg has it!!!! by viciousvee on: Nov 14, 2005 10:53 PM
    Might want to read the Review again (just a thought) but the GT SLI pretty much beats the GTX 512mb ("NON SLI") by a few FPS... So I stand by what I said, Get "TWO" GT's (7800) and Call it a day....
    Reply
  • Eidolon - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    I am guessing you cannot SLI this card with an existing 7800 GTX 256MB. Is this correct? Reply
  • Fluppeteer - Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - link

    ISTR Tom's tried it, and no, you can't. (Presumably the core is tweaked
    just enough that it doesn't work.)

    Maybe nVidia will fix that in a new driver?
    Reply
  • jeffrey - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Derek,

    I have been an open critic of some of your recent work, but this review was fairly solid. Don't sweat someone saying a sentence was a run-on. The review read as an unbiased work and was inquisitive where it needed to be.

    Thanks for including the disclaimer for multiple-clocks on lowering the core clock. The addition of the 256mb vs. 512mb benchmarks was a welcome addition.

    That's all,
    Jeffrey

    Reply
  • ElJefe - Monday, November 14, 2005 - link

    Eh. I dont see the point of playing at 1600 yet, so I wouldnt be TOO concerned with needing to upgrade. Obviously, this is an amazing card though, so that cant be said enough.

    anything over 300 dollars for a non all-in-wonder vid card is a ripoff though. x800XL is still more than adequate. Dont listen to the hype.

    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now