F.E.A.R. Performance
F.E.A.R. has a built in test that we make use of in this performance analysis. This test flies through some action as people shoot each other and things blow up. F.E.A.R. is very heavy on the graphics, and we enable most of the high end settings for our test.
During our testing of F.E.A.R., we noted that the "soft shadows" don't really look soft. They jumped out at us as multiple layers of transparent shadows layered on top of each other and jittered to appear soft. Unfortunately, this costs a lot in performance and not nearly enough shadows are used to make this look realistic. Thus, we disable soft shadows in our test even though its one of the large performance drains on the system.
Again we tested with antialiasing off and anisotropic filtering at 8x. All options were on their highest quality with the exception of soft shadows which was disabled. Frame rates for F.E.A.R. can get pretty low, but the game does a good job of staying playable down to about 25 fps.
The usual suspects are playable at 1600x1200, with the addition of the X1600 XT which just squeeks by our 25fps cutoff. The 7900 GT and X1900 GT which used to compete in terms of price are neck and neck again, but with the recent price cuts, the X1900 GT leads in value. The 7600 GT is solidly playable at this resolution, so if the budget prohibits the extra cash for the X1900 GT, the 7600 GT at under $200 is a good alternative for F.E.A.R. at 1600x1200.
At the low end, the 7900 GT leads the X1900 GT, but this game shows the ATI cards scaling a little better than the NVIDIA part. The 7600 GT, while neck and neck with the X1800 GTO at the low end, pulls away towards the higher resolutions. Owners of the 6600 GT will either want to upgrade to hit higher resolutions, turn down some settings, or drop to 1280x960 to see playable performance.
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.