ATI's X1000 Series: Extended Performance Testing
by Derek Wilson on October 7, 2005 10:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Everquest II Performance
If we had to choose a game that has the potential to stress the GPU more than anything else, it would be Everquest 2. The Extreme Quality mode is currently not worth testing as no one has a system capable of running the game at that mode smoothly enough. Very High Quality mode (which we run in our tests) is demanding enough as it is. The cut-off in playability with this game is also much lower than an FPS style game; it isn't until dropping below 20 frames per second that playability starts to degrade. We were unable to enable AA here, so we will have to settle for just looking at performance with everything else cranked up.
At the high end, it looks like we are limited to near 50 frames per second. Our high end cards are all crowded together at 1280x960, but increasing resolution serves to separate them pretty well. The 7800 series parts maintain a lead over the X1800 cards with which they compete. The 6800 GT and X850 XT do a good job of keeping up with the X1800 XL for the tests we ran.
While the X1600 XT does a good job of performing at X800 levels and staying playable up to 1600x1200, it does not come close to performing near the 6800 GT. X1300 Pro users will have to stick with 1024x768 for playability, but those with 1280x1024 flat panels will probably just want to sacrifice some visual effects.
If we had to choose a game that has the potential to stress the GPU more than anything else, it would be Everquest 2. The Extreme Quality mode is currently not worth testing as no one has a system capable of running the game at that mode smoothly enough. Very High Quality mode (which we run in our tests) is demanding enough as it is. The cut-off in playability with this game is also much lower than an FPS style game; it isn't until dropping below 20 frames per second that playability starts to degrade. We were unable to enable AA here, so we will have to settle for just looking at performance with everything else cranked up.
At the high end, it looks like we are limited to near 50 frames per second. Our high end cards are all crowded together at 1280x960, but increasing resolution serves to separate them pretty well. The 7800 series parts maintain a lead over the X1800 cards with which they compete. The 6800 GT and X850 XT do a good job of keeping up with the X1800 XL for the tests we ran.
While the X1600 XT does a good job of performing at X800 levels and staying playable up to 1600x1200, it does not come close to performing near the 6800 GT. X1300 Pro users will have to stick with 1024x768 for playability, but those with 1280x1024 flat panels will probably just want to sacrifice some visual effects.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Are they fully DX10 or partially? If partially, will that be enough to be Vista compliant?Clauzii - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I´m pretty amased that ATI despite the higher clockrate can acomplish almost the same as a 7800GTX although with 2/3 the Pipelinecapacity.I´ll look even more forward to R580.
MemberSince97 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Ahh Thank You Derek, this is much more AT style.Madellga - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Derek, nice update. Thanks for including 1920x1200 in the benchmarks, it is a good move and I hope that other sites follow AT on that.It is interesting to see how the performance of some higher level cards fall after 1600x1200. Anyone buying WS monitors should pay attention to this.
I was not conviced that the X1800XT was better performer than the 7800GTX, but looking at the WS high resolutions and AA+AF that pretty much settles the discussion.
Don't let the critics bug you. Use it as feedback and source of ideas for future reviews.
On the next article, please do not forget to check the famous "shimmering" effect.
Does the R520 family handles this issue better than the G70?
Take care
JNo - Monday, October 10, 2005 - link
Well put! This is extremely helpful for 1920x1200 LCD ownerserinlegault - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I think important point that is missing from all reviews is the importance of a Vista compatible graphics crad. The x1xxx's are the first graphics cards compatible with the new spec.So the price premium may be worth while if you are interested in upgrading the Vista, when ever it is finally released.
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
All you need is DX9 to be Vista compatible.bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Oops, DX8.tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
From the article:Yet you guys tested none. I think benchmarking available versions of FEAR, Call of Duty 2, Serious Sam 2, Black and White 2, etc would be much more enteresting than some of the choices made here. All the cards tested handle todays games well, but I would expect most who buy these cards are buying these for games that are soon-to-be released or coming in the next one or two quarters.
karlreading - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
i must admit it seems to me everyones just giving anadtech a hard time. the review seemed prtty reasonable, they responded to the massive backlash they got from there first review, and i think thats where the deserve the credit. sheesh guys! givem a break!karlos