Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Tim S, 9 Aug 2005.
As usual Gainward Pwning
But does this Card measure up to the XFX 7800GTX "Extreme Edition"
There's no doubt that XFX's Extreme Gamer Edition will be faster, but worth an extra £50 for the extra 20MHz clock speed? I don't think it is worth it right now.
I've got an XFX sitting here by the way...
What's interesting is that under Far Cry, you get a 12% average FPS speed boost for only a 9% increase in clockspeed. Plus, the minimum is up a massive 50%!
thank you for the review! im pretty damn sure alot of people curious about this card will finnally have something to go by with, maybe...the first english review of this card?
*sigh* ...my 9800pro is getting older everytime i read that kind of review
wtf, my x800xl plays fear at 1024, 4xaa, 4xaf, no softshadows fine (30-40fps), how does an x850xt need AA off
Possibly, according to what you were saying earlier. Either way, expect it to be be at the top of Google within 24 hours
Erm, due to the extreme lagginess of the game (due to drivers) and I set out the following conditions for 'playable'
If you can find another way for me to get a minimum frame rate of around 15fps and an average of over 60fps I am happy to listen to your concerns. Don't forget that a single 6800 GT will be slower than the X850 XT PE and I am quite sensitive to the game lagging - it is far from smooth when it drops to 15 frames per second so I'm not willing to let it drop further. I am using a portion of the demo that does not have any auto saves in it, so the lag is from the game lagging, not from the slowness of the hard drive or other parts of the system.
I will play on an X800 XL later, for comparison purposes, and a single 6800 GT too (if you want me to) to show you what my opinion of 'playable' settings and frame rates are on those cards.
why do you set a target average of > 60fps, its smooth (apart form the driver causing the jerky spots) at 40fps
i get about 30-40 with my x800xl, but thats not including the bits where it stalls for a second going round a corner, i cant get rid of that no matter what settings i run so im not counting it in the average
guess we just have different definitions of playable
although in MP games i like to have ~80fps if possible, which is why i run BF2 with no aa etc
Incidentally, a quick Google revealed at least one other English-language review. Strangely, their card was clocked at 480/1300 - UPDATE - I spoke to my inside guy at Gainward, who told me that the other review was *very* early on (the review isn't dated), and then decided to ease back the clocks to 470/1300 for higher yield - obviously not EVERY card will leap from 430 core to 480 core!
There is, of course, the CoolFX watercooled version to follow - rumoured to be 500/1400 - try THAT in SLI baby!
In BF2 anything above 60-70fps is good going - in some cases 90fps. It is all down to the minimum frame rate being above 30fps in that game though.
Seeing as you can't get the minimum respectably high in F.E.A.R. at the moment, and pausing when going round corners is what I'd call 'hitching'. Geoff found that he could play F.E.A.R. at 1280x960 2xAA 2xAF with all details on - I tried that to see if I was missing something, but the hitches when going around corners get annoying and in firefights it was dropping in to single figures and all the way to zero in some instances too.
I used to play a lot of Counter-Strike and dropping below 60fps was 'bad' in that game and I'd trade image quality for added smoothness. Ok it gets to a point where the trade off is too great, but I think that F.E.A.R. looks good at 1024x768 with DX9 shaders no matter what card you're running. If you can get to that setting, you've got a pretty nice looking gaming experience considering how taxing the game's engine is.
thing is the frame rate stays about 30 during the firefights (when i have a chance to look ) and is about 40ish just walking around
but then i go around certain corners (and its replicable, only certain corners, not all of them) and i get hitching
hehe i used to be a big RTCW mp player, and everyone would be trying to get to either 86 or 120fps because being Q3 based it'd let you jump slightly higher so you could get on the roof in mp_depot
ended up looking horrible, barely any textures, just coloured slabs of walls
Interesting... I'm definitely seeing huge drops in frame rate - down in to the teens
In a competitive game like CS (/spits) I don't disagree Tim. But for a romp in the dark singleplayer like FEAR, it bothered me less. Perhaps over the distance of the full game, it might get to me, so I could drop the detail. But having completed Far Cry on my 9700Pro, I wouldn't mind playing it all over again at Max Detail now I have the X850XTPE. And that's something I'd rather avoid the first time here s'all
simple answer is for ATI and NVIDIA to work on optimising the game so that the hitches don't happen - that way we can determine smooth game play and not debate about how many hitches are fair and not fair
Every other game I benchmark goes by the same principles to be honest - it just happens that this one really bitches with your system. I've looked at second by second FPS analysis too and the frame rate is often dropping in to the 20's for 10 seconds at a time, so that prooves that I'm already on the edge of what I'd determine as smooth.
are you sure the hitching is gfx and not ram? your test rig and mine both have 1gig
my 2gig just arrived, ill try it out later see if it helps
I tried 4x512MB @ 2.0-2-2-10-2T and it was slower than 2x512MB @ 2.0-2-2-10-1T
ok fair enough
see what 2x1gig does
It might be related to perf, I'll be interested to know - as I could do with 2x1GB modules for high-end testing nowadays.
Separate names with a comma.