The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Performance
While it is disappointing that Oblivion doesn't have a built in benchmark, our FRAPS tests have proven to be fairly repeatable and very intensive on every part of a system. While these numbers will reflect real world playability of the game, please remember that our test system uses the fastest processor we could get our hands on. If a purchasing decision is to be made using Oblivion performance alone, please check out our two articles on the CPU and GPU performance of Oblivion. We have used the most graphically intensive benchmark in our suite, but the rest of the platform will make a difference. We can still easily demonstrate which graphics card is best for Oblivion even if our numbers don't translate to what our readers will see on their systems.
Running through the forest towards an Oblivion gate while fireballs fly by our head is a very graphically taxing benchmark. In order to run this benchmark, we have a saved game that we load and run through with FRAPS. To start the benchmark, we hit "q" which just runs forward, and start and stop FRAPS at predetermined points in the run. While not 100% identical each run, our benchmark scores are usually fairly close. We run the benchmark a couple times just to be sure there wasn't a one time hiccup.
As for settings, we tested a few different configurations and decided on this group of options:
| Oblivion Performance Settings | |
| Texture Size | Large |
| Tree Fade | 60% |
| Actor Fade | 20% |
| Item Fade | 10% |
| Object Fade | 25% |
| Grass Distance | 30% |
| View Distance | 100% |
| Distant Land | On |
| Distant Buildings | On |
| Distant Trees | On |
| Interior Shadows | 45% |
| Exterior Shadows | 20% |
| Self Shadows | Off |
| Shadows on Grass | Off |
| Tree Canopy Shadows | Off |
| Shadow Filtering | High |
| Specular Distance | 80% |
| HDR Lighting | On |
| Bloom Lighting | Off |
| Water Detail | Normal |
| Water Reflections | On |
| Water Ripples | On |
| Window Reflections | On |
| Blood Decals | High |
| Anti-aliasing | Off |
Our goal was to get acceptable performance levels under the current generation of cards at 1280x1024. For the most part we succeeded, but the X1600 XT just wasn't up to the task. Reducing settings for one consistently underperforming card wasn't worth it to us. These settings are also very enjoyable and playable. While more is better in this game, no GPU or CPU is going to give you everything.
While very graphically intensive, and first person, this isn't a twitch shooter. Our experience leads us to conclude that 20fps gives a good experience. It's playable a little lower, but watch out for some jerkiness that may pop up. Getting down to 16fps and below is a little too low to be acceptable. The main point to bring home is that you really want as much eye candy as possible. While Oblivion is an immersive and awesome game from a gameplay standpoint, the graphics certainly help draw the gamer in.
At our target resoltuion, the 6600 GT is utterly unplayable, but the 7600 GT falls into our passable performance range when running on a Core 2 Extreme X6800. Other than the X1600 XT, ATI cards sweep this test in terms of performance and value. In fact, at 1280x1024, we would recommend turning up a few more settings under the X1900 GT and X1900 XT.
For those of you who want higher settings than what we picked, a lower resolution is likely in order. At 1024x768, the 7900 GT and X1800 GTO gain enough head room to increase their load and remain playable, while an overclocked 7900 GT may be able to handle a little more at a higher resolution. Generally, resolution matters less than effects in this game, so we would certainly suggest it. The exception to the rule is that 800x600 starts to look a little too grainy for our tastes. It really isn't necessary to push up to 1600x1200 or beyond, but the X1900 XT does make it possible for those interested.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
augiem - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
I wonder which of these cards would accelerate Maya's 3D viewport performance the most...PrinceGaz - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
If you're a casual Maya user, then look at the OpenGL performance (Quake 4) for a rough guide. I'm tempted to think though that the GeForce cards should still have the edge in most OpenGL situations so Quake 4 might not be representative.If you use Maya professionally, then none of the cards looked at are for you. A good Quadro or FireGL card will render scenes far faster than any consumer card, and as time is money, will more than pay for itself despite their high cost if that is what you do for a living.
Calin - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
There was a time when it was possible (although not very easy) to mod a Radeon 9700 into the corresponding FireGL card. This would have been great for you (but now a FireGL based on 9700 could be slower than consumer cards)PrinceGaz - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
I've only read the first two pages of the article up to and including the list of prices for the various cards at the bottom of the second page, and haven't read any comments here, but it seems pretty obvious already that the X1900GT is going to be the obvious winner in terms of value for money.I'll be back in half an hour or so after I've read the rest of it.
Gondorff - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
Indeed, the X1900GT looks very good... which makes me very happy b/c I just bought it a week or so ago (damned slow shipping though...). For those who do care about rebates, the x1900gt can be had on newegg for $200 right now (a connect3d one). I was lucky and got it at $175 before they raised the price... for $15 more than the 7600gt I was going to get otherwise, that's pretty damn good if I may say so myself.Anyway... excellent article; if only it were out earlier so I could worry less about a slightly blind choice... but c'est la vie and it turned out well anyway :).
Kougar - Thursday, August 17, 2006 - link
Good grief, I just found it for $199... and it was previously $175!? Incredible... :(PrinceGaz - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
Yep, pretty much as I suspected- the X1900GT is best at stock speeds. Things become a little blurred when factory-overclocked 7900GTs are brought into the picture but while they're faster, they're also more expensive by a similar amount. Both offer great value for money if you need to buy a card now.One thing the article seemed to overlook is that many people who visit sites like this will overclock cards themselves, factory overclocked or not, and this is likely to reduce the advantage of already overclocked cards like the 7900GTs you recommend. I imagine there is a bit more headroom in a stock X1900GT than a factory overclocked 7900GT (especially a 7900GT with a core clock of 580 like you used). Those of us willing to take a chance on how much extra a card has available may well find a user-overclocked X1900GT to be a match for what an overclocked (user or factory) 7900GT can achieve.
coldpower27 - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
The problem with this is that your using assume performance vs guranteed performance of factory overclocked units, so they aren't comparable.
The point provided is something to keep in mind, but shouldn't be recommended for anyone other then those who know what they are doing. Not to mention the voiding of the warranty when you do when you suggest.
DerekWilson - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
Also, if you look around, increasing voltage and cooling for 7900 GT cards can yeild results better than a 7900 GTX. Buying a factory overclocked 7900 GT gives you a card that a manufacturer binned as a part that is able to hit higher than stock clocks at stock voltage and temperature. So you should get a more easily overclockable card if you really want to push it to its limits.Genx87 - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
2nd from the top for ATI is considered mid grade?Guess that 7950GX2 is pushing them down from the top.