Battlefield 2 Performance

Battlefield 2 is a game that needs no introduction, still being one of the most popular first-person shooters out right now. This game is so popular among FPS fans, it has more often than not been the reason for a graphics card upgrade. Not since Halo have game developers managed to integrate flying and driving vehicles into an already decent shooter so well, and we look forward to seeing how much farther this is taken in Battlefield 2142, the next installment in the series. (Ed: Actually, some of us are rather disappointed with the changes brought on by the "2142 mod pack", but that's a story for another day....)

Our benchmark for this game consists of a third-person view of various players in the game on foot and in different vehicles, including a jet. The demo contains a lot of action (i.e. smoke, explosions, etc.) so it makes for a good test of the GPU. Since this is a fairly fast-paced first-person shooter, the average frame rate you want to look for is around 35 FPS and up to get the most out of this game. This particular benchmark uses the Daqing Oilfield map, however, which is not the most taxing BF2 map, so overall look for 45+ FPS as an indication that BF2 will run well on any map. Performance across other maps is similar, so a card that is twice as fast on one map will usually still be twice as fast on other maps.

Our settings for this benchmark are with the highest quality settings available, with view distance set to "max" and all the shadows lighting and other effects enabled. This is so that we can get the best idea of how well each of these cards runs this game.

Battlefield 2


As we mentioned before, we want to pay close attention to how the X1650 XT compares in performance with the 7600 GT. We see here in our first test that the X1650 XT does in fact get similar frame rates to the 7600 GT, getting slightly higher performance in the lower resolutions, and slightly lower performance in the higher resolutions. Generally though, we see only a few frames difference here at the most in each of the resolutions between the X1650 XT and the 7600 GT, which is interesting.

When we compare the X1650 XT to the X1600 XT, we can see what those extra pipelines give us in performance. At the highest resolution, 1920x1440, we see an FPS increase of 70% from the X1650 XT over the X1600 XT. You easily get another resolution increase out of the X1650 XT over the X1600, and sometimes almost two bumps in resolution.

Test Settings Black & White 2 Performance
POST A COMMENT

33 Comments

View All Comments

  • guidryp - Thursday, November 02, 2006 - link

    They spec like this:

    1650XT: 8 vertex Pipes, 24 pixel pipes, 8 Raster pipes, 575MHz, Mem 675MHz X 128 bus.
    7600GT: 5 vertex Pipes, 12 pixel pipes, 8 Raster pipes 560MHz, Mem 700MHz X 128 bus.

    And the ATI card barely holds it's own? I was expecting a walkaway after reading the specs.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Saturday, November 04, 2006 - link

    It should be 24 Pixel Shaders vs 12 Pixel Shaders.

    while both have 8 ROP's, it is probably the X1650 XT only has 8 TMU while the 7600 GT has 12 as both are half their flagship derivatives. Ignore vertex amounts those tpyically aren't half and don't contribute to much on the most part to performance it seems anyway.

    X1900 XTX 48 Pixel Shaders, 16 Rasterization Operators, 650MHZ, Mem 775MHZ x 256 Bit Bus
    7900 GTX 24 Pixel Shaders, 16 Rasterization Operators, 650MHZ, Mem 800MHZ x 256 Bit Bus

    The X1900 XTX doesn't walkaway from the 7900 GTX on the whole either.
    Reply
  • trinibwoy - Wednesday, November 01, 2006 - link

    Do you guys do other testing that you comment on that is not represented by the graphs? The numbers show a 1 fps difference, yet you use terms like "significant" and "clearly beats". Maybe some median low fps numbers would help demonstrate what you're saying.

    quote:

    An interesting thing about Oblivion is that it favors ATI hardware over NVIDIA, and this is evident here when we look at the X1650 XT compared with the 7600 GT. In this case, the X1650 XT has a small but significant performance lead over the 7600 GT. Because of this, the X1650 XT is more likely to be playable at 1024x768 than the 7600 GT. This is one case where the X1650 XT clearly beats the 7600 GT just in terms of performance. Oblivion players may want to consider this card once it's available, but only assuming the price is reasonable.
    Reply
  • soydeedo - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    hey i know i can make an educated guess as to where the x1650xt would end up on q4 benches compared to nvidia's offerings, but i'm still curious why this game was not included in the testing? with quakewars around the corner i think people are still interested in doom 3 engine performance. Reply
  • johnsonx - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    I suppose this name is part of ATI's general trend lately. It used to be that the XT moniker meant the same GPU with slightly higher clocks. Now it seems like the XT parts are a separate family. The X1300XT has nothing to do with the other X1300's (rather it's a rebadged X1600Pro), the X1900XT has more pipes than non-XT members of the X1900 family, and now the X1650XT has nothing to do with the rest of the X1600/1650 family.

    It all makes it a bit hard to choose.
    Reply
  • Kougar - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    On page 10 it is mentioned that

    quote:

    Something that jumps out at us here is that the X1650 XT got slightly better performance than the 7600 GT in both of these games with 4xAA enabled. Without AA enabled, the 7600 GT did better than the X1650 XT in these games. The amount of difference between the performance of both of these cards is about the same with and without AA.


    This is completely going against the bar graphs, specifically the HL Episode One graph. The x1650XT got up and began walking away from the 7600GT without AA, but with AA it tripped and slide into place just behind the 7600GT. At resolutions below 1600by1200 it even began losing by a sizeable margin.
    Reply
  • Josh Venning - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    This paragraph has been tweaked a little bit. In HL2 Episode one the X1650 XT only does better than the 7600 GT at the highest resolution with AA enabled, but in Battlefield 2 it performs a little better over most of the resolutions. Reply
  • Cybercat - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    How many vertex units does this thing have? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    See (updated) table on page 2: it has 8 vertex units, 24 pixel pipes, and 8 ROPs. Basically, lots more power than the X1600 XT. I would guess the pixel pipes are more like R580 pipes (i.e. more shader power, but not necessarily the same as an NVIDIA pixel pipeline in raw power). Reply
  • Cybercat - Monday, October 30, 2006 - link

    Alright, cool. I keep a chart with stats of graphics cards, so I'm just making sure I have the vertice throughput correct. Other than the useless X1650 Pro, ATI seems to have a much more competitive mainstream line now. There is now more confusion than ever, though. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now