ATI's X1000 Series: Extended Performance Testing
by Derek Wilson on October 7, 2005 10:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battlefield 2 Performance
The most requested game that we didn't include in our initial coverage is Battlefield 2. This highly popular game is quite important in comparing performance, as it does an excellent job of setting the standard for first-person shooter quality. The numbers that we attained came from running our custom BF2 demo on the highest quality settings. This means that anisotropic filtering was enabled both with and without AA (as Doom 3's high quality mode also enables AF).
Our "no AA" performance numbers show the X1800 XT performing on par with the 7800 GTX until we move beyond 1600x1200. The 7800 GT has an advantage over the X1800 XL as well. The most important thing to note is that this is the only test that we have run to show the X1600 XT performing on the level of the GeForce 6800 GT. While it is good to see the new mid-range part performing in its price class, one title is not enough to make it worth the $250. The "budget" X1300 doesn't quite perform as well as the 6600 GT, which looks to sell at about the same price.
After enabling 4xAA on Battlefield 2, the X1800 XT really stretches its legs. Likewise, the X1800 XL jumps ahead of the 7800 GT. When we move to the X1600 XT, the numbers show it falling further behind the 6800 GT.
The X1800 XT bearly breaks a sweat when AA is enabled dropping at most 18.3 percent. In fact, at every resolution, the X1800 XT drops about half the percent decrease in performance as seen on the 7800 GTX explaining the change in leadership between our two tests. Dropping more than the 6800 GT and less than the 6600 GT (percentage-wise), the X1600 XT shows different characteristics than its heavier hitting siblings.
Next up is Day of Defeat: Source. We already had a peak at this game's performance earlier this week. Now, let's see if our extended data supports what we saw then.
The most requested game that we didn't include in our initial coverage is Battlefield 2. This highly popular game is quite important in comparing performance, as it does an excellent job of setting the standard for first-person shooter quality. The numbers that we attained came from running our custom BF2 demo on the highest quality settings. This means that anisotropic filtering was enabled both with and without AA (as Doom 3's high quality mode also enables AF).
Our "no AA" performance numbers show the X1800 XT performing on par with the 7800 GTX until we move beyond 1600x1200. The 7800 GT has an advantage over the X1800 XL as well. The most important thing to note is that this is the only test that we have run to show the X1600 XT performing on the level of the GeForce 6800 GT. While it is good to see the new mid-range part performing in its price class, one title is not enough to make it worth the $250. The "budget" X1300 doesn't quite perform as well as the 6600 GT, which looks to sell at about the same price.
After enabling 4xAA on Battlefield 2, the X1800 XT really stretches its legs. Likewise, the X1800 XL jumps ahead of the 7800 GT. When we move to the X1600 XT, the numbers show it falling further behind the 6800 GT.
The X1800 XT bearly breaks a sweat when AA is enabled dropping at most 18.3 percent. In fact, at every resolution, the X1800 XT drops about half the percent decrease in performance as seen on the 7800 GTX explaining the change in leadership between our two tests. Dropping more than the 6800 GT and less than the 6600 GT (percentage-wise), the X1600 XT shows different characteristics than its heavier hitting siblings.
Next up is Day of Defeat: Source. We already had a peak at this game's performance earlier this week. Now, let's see if our extended data supports what we saw then.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
If AT is going to cover that in a later article, then the observations ARE NOT short sighted. Since we're picking nits, if the other sites are giving you ALL the information you require, why do you insist on bagging on AT? Just go to get your info, make your decision, and STFU.tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Because, unlike you, I like to compare the results between all my favorite sites. Maybe you're not mature enough to understand the reasons for that, so I'll fill you in: Humans make mistakes, so trusting one persons judgement or methodology is not an intelligent decision in the real world.Also, it makes no mention in the article that near-term games are to be tested in a future update of this sort. Yes, I expect they'll be around once retail boards are reviewed, but if they plan on continuing tests on IQ, shader abilities, etc then what sense does it make to pass judgement until those tests are complete?
bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Did you not read tfranzese's post that you replied to? Scroll up about 1/2 inch. That quote is from the article. Your quote, , says you like to sample different websites to get whole picture yet you bag on one site (AT) that doesn't give you enough info. If you go to different sites to get the whole picture, why bag on any of them? You're still getting all of the info you need.bob661 - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
LOL...oops..you made that quote yourself. I can't believe you quoted but yet you still imply that AT isn't going to do any furthur testing in the areas you would like to see tested. I quit..lol!tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
The further testing I am referring to are with near-term titles, not SM3.0 analysis. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying or I'm not being clear enough.I also do believe it's short-sighted to judge an architecture before all the tests are complete. Right now I know IQ and SM3.0 examinations are coming up, but it looks like they're done with the game benchmarks until the suite is updated and retail boards are available.
Anyway...
Sure, I can get the majority of my data from a collection of sites, but if I voice my criticism I could hope that someday I may only have to visit three sites instead of ten to confirm and compare results and analysis. Not that I didn't enjoy reading all those articles during my downtime at work.
JarredWalton - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Naw, we're not done. And while it's true that http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=x1800&p...">you can purchase an X1800XL, we're still missing the X1800 XT. $440 or so for the XL http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=7800%20gtx&...">isn't much cheaper than a 7800 GTX, and while the X1800 XT might be faster overall, the 7800 GTX beats the XL in nearly every test.
Also, one big question mark that still remains is SLI vs. Crossfire performance. SLI is here now and working for the 7800 cards. X1800 XT is still a month out, and Crossfire X1800 XT... who knows? Three months, maybe more? After the delays of the X800 Crossfire parts, I'm not even ready to venture a guess on X1800 CF. :|
DerekWilson - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
We will test the near term games along with SM3.0 as many people have asked us for this. Let us know if you need anything else.DigitalFreak - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
What about running EQ2 with AA turned on via the setting in EQ2.ini? I would assume that the results would be similar to the other tests though.Benching the Call of Duty 2 demo would be cool as well. A couple of sites have seen a performance increase when using a 512MB card vs a 256MB one. May actually be the first game where 512MB is worth having.
tfranzese - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
Donka!phaxmohdem - Friday, October 7, 2005 - link
I know all my "gaming" monitors at home run at 1280x1024 What gives with the benchmarks of this uncommon? resolution? Thats 81,920 extra pixels unaccounted for in the graphs for many of us running 17 and 19 inch LCD's.