Fall '06 NVIDIA GPU Refresh - Part II: GeForce 7950 GT and SLI
by Derek Wilson on September 14, 2006 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
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 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 it's one of the large performance drains on the system.
Again we tested with anisotropic filtering at 8x, and 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 for a first person shooter, but the game does a good job of staying playable down to about 25 fps.
All the cards we tested are playable at 1600x1200 under the settings we tested with F.E.A.R. In this case, the 7950 GT performs significantly better than the $200-$250 cards, but the X1900 XT series both have NVIDIA beat at the higher price point. While not necessary at this resolution, multi-GPU configurations scale very well under F.E.A.R.
When looking at multiple resolutions, nothing really changes. Relative performance is very consistent with 1600x1200. Everything remains playable up to 1920x1440, so with most of the tested GPUs enabling 2x/4xAA is definitely an option even at the highest resolutions. The three slowest cards will really struggle with 4xAA at 1920x1440, but the higher end cards along with the multi-GPU configurations should handle that setting.
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 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 it's one of the large performance drains on the system.
Again we tested with anisotropic filtering at 8x, and 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 for a first person shooter, but the game does a good job of staying playable down to about 25 fps.
All the cards we tested are playable at 1600x1200 under the settings we tested with F.E.A.R. In this case, the 7950 GT performs significantly better than the $200-$250 cards, but the X1900 XT series both have NVIDIA beat at the higher price point. While not necessary at this resolution, multi-GPU configurations scale very well under F.E.A.R.
When looking at multiple resolutions, nothing really changes. Relative performance is very consistent with 1600x1200. Everything remains playable up to 1920x1440, so with most of the tested GPUs enabling 2x/4xAA is definitely an option even at the highest resolutions. The three slowest cards will really struggle with 4xAA at 1920x1440, but the higher end cards along with the multi-GPU configurations should handle that setting.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
31 Comments
View All Comments
Calin - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
Maybe they just ignore some visual artifacts if the playing experience is good.DerekWilson - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
winners don't use drugs :-Palso, I'm not trying to imply that we would like more fps for free -- just that (with oblivion) turning up the settings offers better playability (things don't pop out of no where right next to you) and a better visual experience than a higher framerate with less eye candy.
plus, my wife hates jaggies. jaggies and bad anisotropic filtering. I've not seen her react to lag, as she doesn't usually play games where lag is a factor. but she definitely hates waiting for anything, so I'd guess she'd hate lag too.
LoneWolf15 - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
Personally, I hope the Frag Dolls kick your butt for that remark. I'd pay money to see it.yacoub - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
PASSIVELY-COOLED top-tier GPU?! SWEET. Finally. :)goatfajitas - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
I would really like to see the 256mb version of 7950GT tested against the 512mb version (biostar makes both, but clocks are easy enough to adjust on any card) at various resolutions with and without 4xAA to see when/if the 512 megs helps speed things up.tuteja1986 - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
7950GT availability is terrible.. its looks like a 7800GTX 512MB launch.. few card released on day and none to seen for weeks ?Surprising I see ATI not having a paper launch with the X1950XTX which is amazing if you see ATI track record with delays after delays
At the moment i don't think its wise to buy them , as i hear G80 product start next month and early November launch.
I also hear that R600 has run in some trouble and i don't think they will be out this year and will lag 3months behind G80 launch. I would say Mid Jan if they fix what ever problem the engineers are having at ATI.
DerekWilson - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
a 256mb version should really be branded as an overclocked 7900 GT, but I won't argue that too much :-)we are planning on doing a roundup of 7950 Gt cards, and we will address this issue at that time.
thanks,
Derek Wilson
goatfajitas - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
Thanks. I should have guessed something like that would be coming from AT.retrospooty - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
cool. thanks.R3MF - Thursday, September 14, 2006 - link
i wonder if its possible?that with a Core 2 Duo 6600 would be a hell of a SFF combination!