Rainbow Six: Vegas: A Performance Analysis
by Josh Venning on December 25, 2006 6:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Gaming
Test Setup
As with our last game article, we grouped the performance tests into three different categories: low-end, mainstream/midrange, and high-end graphics performance. However, we only have one benchmark for Rainbow Six: Vegas, which will mean fewer numbers. In two of the three sections, the low-end and mainstream/midrange, we have performance results for the game at both highest and lowest quality settings. We chose the same types of cards from ATI and NVIDIA for testing this game as with Double Agent, and we used these solutions because they cover a broad spectrum of current-generation cards at different performance levels.
The NVIDIA cards we tested Vegas with are the 7300 GT, 7600 GS, 7600 GT, 7900 GS, 7950 GT, 7900 GTX, and the 8800 GTS and GTX. From ATI, we have the X1300 XT, X1650 Pro, X1650 XT, X1900 XT 256, and X1950 XTX. We are happy to report that unlike with Double Agent, Rainbow Six: Vegas runs on the 8800 without any strange graphical artifacts at all. Also, because the game doesn't yet officially support SLI, the 7950 GX2 doesn't see the type of performance in this game that it should, and so it was omitted from our tests. We would have very much liked to have seen how quad SLI handled the game, but unfortunately we will have to wait and hope a patch or driver update will allow this. The 7300 GS performed so poorly with this game that it wasn't included in our tests, and needless to say we don't recommend trying to play Rainbow Six: Vegas on this card. In fact, any current card that costs under $125 is going to have difficulties unless you run at lowest quality settings and a low resolution.
Here is the system we used for our performance tests.
High-End Performance
As we saw with other games like Oblivion and Double Agent, Rainbow Six: Vegas performs better on ATI cards than NVIDIA ones at the same price point. This is something that can possibly change as drivers are updated and game patches are released in the future. Something to keep in mind is in our benchmark for Vegas, average FPS of a little over 20 will mean relatively smooth frame rates throughout most of the game. There will however be times when action gets heated and you will experience choppiness on cards that score less than ~30 FPS in our particular benchmark scenario.
We can easily see from these results how much performance NVIDIA's 8800 series of cards are capable of over the rest of the competition. ATI doesn't actually have any direct competition to the 8800 right now, so those wanting the fastest performance in this or basically any other game will have to go with NVIDIA. (Don't plan on running the beta/release candidate of Vista on 8800 cards right now, however, as the Vista drivers are still not finalized.) This shows how, as we said earlier, the 8800 GTS and GTX are the only two cards that can really run the game smoothly at the highest resolution with the highest quality settings enabled.
The X1950 XTX almost runs the game smoothly at the highest settings, and with some overclocking, Vegas has a good chance of running perfectly fine at maximum details and 1600x1200 with this card. Similarly, the 7900 GTX, as powerful as it is, just can't manage acceptable performance in the game at 1600x1200 at reference speeds, but at one resolution down it looks and plays fine.
As with our last game article, we grouped the performance tests into three different categories: low-end, mainstream/midrange, and high-end graphics performance. However, we only have one benchmark for Rainbow Six: Vegas, which will mean fewer numbers. In two of the three sections, the low-end and mainstream/midrange, we have performance results for the game at both highest and lowest quality settings. We chose the same types of cards from ATI and NVIDIA for testing this game as with Double Agent, and we used these solutions because they cover a broad spectrum of current-generation cards at different performance levels.
The NVIDIA cards we tested Vegas with are the 7300 GT, 7600 GS, 7600 GT, 7900 GS, 7950 GT, 7900 GTX, and the 8800 GTS and GTX. From ATI, we have the X1300 XT, X1650 Pro, X1650 XT, X1900 XT 256, and X1950 XTX. We are happy to report that unlike with Double Agent, Rainbow Six: Vegas runs on the 8800 without any strange graphical artifacts at all. Also, because the game doesn't yet officially support SLI, the 7950 GX2 doesn't see the type of performance in this game that it should, and so it was omitted from our tests. We would have very much liked to have seen how quad SLI handled the game, but unfortunately we will have to wait and hope a patch or driver update will allow this. The 7300 GS performed so poorly with this game that it wasn't included in our tests, and needless to say we don't recommend trying to play Rainbow Six: Vegas on this card. In fact, any current card that costs under $125 is going to have difficulties unless you run at lowest quality settings and a low resolution.
Here is the system we used for our performance tests.
System Test Configuration | |
CPU: | Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz/4MB) |
Motherboard: | EVGA nForce 680i SLI Intel BadAxe |
Chipset: | NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI Intel 975X |
Chipset Drivers: | Intel 7.2.2.1007 (Intel) NVIDIA nForce 9.35 |
Hard Disk: | Seagate 7200.7 160GB SATA |
Memory: | Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 2) |
Video Card: | Various |
Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 6.10 NVIDIA ForceWare 96.97 NVIDIA ForceWare 91.47 (G70 SLI) |
Desktop Resolution: | 2560 x 1600 - 32-bit @ 60Hz |
OS: | Windows XP Professional SP2 |
High-End Performance
As we saw with other games like Oblivion and Double Agent, Rainbow Six: Vegas performs better on ATI cards than NVIDIA ones at the same price point. This is something that can possibly change as drivers are updated and game patches are released in the future. Something to keep in mind is in our benchmark for Vegas, average FPS of a little over 20 will mean relatively smooth frame rates throughout most of the game. There will however be times when action gets heated and you will experience choppiness on cards that score less than ~30 FPS in our particular benchmark scenario.
We can easily see from these results how much performance NVIDIA's 8800 series of cards are capable of over the rest of the competition. ATI doesn't actually have any direct competition to the 8800 right now, so those wanting the fastest performance in this or basically any other game will have to go with NVIDIA. (Don't plan on running the beta/release candidate of Vista on 8800 cards right now, however, as the Vista drivers are still not finalized.) This shows how, as we said earlier, the 8800 GTS and GTX are the only two cards that can really run the game smoothly at the highest resolution with the highest quality settings enabled.
The X1950 XTX almost runs the game smoothly at the highest settings, and with some overclocking, Vegas has a good chance of running perfectly fine at maximum details and 1600x1200 with this card. Similarly, the 7900 GTX, as powerful as it is, just can't manage acceptable performance in the game at 1600x1200 at reference speeds, but at one resolution down it looks and plays fine.
32 Comments
View All Comments
100proof - Thursday, December 28, 2006 - link
Matching statistics to the GamerID alone is useless. So why include the GamerID at all? Is other information related to a Ubisoft GamerID account being shared? birthdate? gender?Anandtech will you investigate this?
BronxBartoni - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
I would really have loved to see the differences, if any, between single and multi core setups.poohbear - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
thanks for the review anandtech, many of us are interested in new graphics engines and how they perform w/ current hardware.:)unclebud - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
"I think the point Anandtech was trying to make is that they hope the performance gap can be reduced somewhat with driver/game updates."yeah, it hurts them so bad to admit it... just look at their past reviews in video for the absolute proof.
i bet if they had their way, amd + ati would have never happened. they probably have nightmares every night about it? just my opinion/observation. the site owner needs to come back and review more! i miss his articles! augh!
CrystalBay - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
Go Sierra, never give in. You Rock Forever, Keep on patchin...BikeDude - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
I don't care about 1600x1200 running full blast with all the settings enabled.Which cards will allow me to run this game at 2560x1600 using reasonable settings? (reasonable=good fps without tangos turning into stick figures)
I have a 7800GTX now... Time to upgrade?
VooDooAddict - Tuesday, December 26, 2006 - link
If you want to run at 2560x1600 then expect to be upgrading to the leading edge frequently. 8800GTX would be a good buy for you if you really want to run at 2560x1600.However, if you run at 1280x800 you'll be at a perfect scaling for that 2560x1600 monitor. (I'm assuming you have the lovely Dell 30") 1280x800 will still look great when it's running smoothly on your 7800GTX.
Spoelie - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
yesJodiuh - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
1. Instead of using the "suggested" scene for benching and telling us to expect worse perf, why not take a look at the most stressful scenarios?2. Would you say there might be more perf/better compat for 88's using the newer 97.02's...97.44's?
3. Are these "ports" running better on ATI because they were deved mainly for 360? Thankfully PS3's out w/ NV inside then?
ariafrost - Monday, December 25, 2006 - link
Looks like with my X850XT overclocked I may be able to run RSV at 1440x900... albeit with medium settings and the widescreen hack from WSGF.Graphics performance can only improve as the Unreal Engine 3 is tweaked/optimized. I wouldn't despair quite yet :P