Huge test at Xbit. 17 latest GPUs tested in 30 games!

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Ok I thought you meant super-sampling Trans. AA

Nope. How does that TSAA do in BF2 for you? What settings? I mean the highest quality transparent AA mode. I forgot NVIDIA's term for it.

 

[Polish3d]

Looks good but I can't tell a difference between MSAA (low) and SSAA (high).

About a 0% hit for MSAA I think, around 10fps hit for SSAA.

The thing w/ BF2 again is that at 2AA I am sure I would be getting like 110fps or so because unless the server is laggy I stick at 99.9fps almost the whole time, but when I do 4AA it gets killed, hovering between 60-80fps w/ 99 sometimes, but even 60fps for some periods

Anyway my main thing is whether the 7800GTX literally only does about 10-20fps better than 6800 w/ 4AA or if something else is the cause

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: xtknight
60 FPS still feels very jerky to me...I demand at least 75 in any game I play. 100 FPS avg is definitely preferable, so I have some headroom for intensive scenes. And don't give me the "your eyes can only see 60 FPS" BS.

It's in your imagination, dude. Hate to tell ya.

 

[Todd33]

Great roundup. They probably should have peeled out the SLI number and had them seperate, for ease of reading.

SLI configurations with GeForce 6800 and 6600 GT cards, on the contrary, can?t be considered an optimal solution.

Rollo should chew them out, he knows better.

 

[Polish3d]

Its more the minimum FPS, if you're at 100fps you may drop to 60 or even 50 sometimes, but if youre at 60 you'll likely see 40s and 30s even

 

[supastar1568]

i dont really agree with the article having the 6600gt SLI under "high end"

and the x800xl and 6800gt below it in the "performance-mainstream" catagory

 

[supastar1568]

Originally posted by: xtknight
60 FPS still feels very jerky to me...I demand at least 75 in any game I play. 100 FPS avg is definitely preferable, so I have some headroom for intensive scenes. And don't give me the "your eyes can only see 60 FPS" BS.

you have an extremely small penis

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: supastar1568

Originally posted by: xtknight
60 FPS still feels very jerky to me...I demand at least 75 in any game I play. 100 FPS avg is definitely preferable, so I have some headroom for intensive scenes. And don't give me the "your eyes can only see 60 FPS" BS.

you have an extremely small penis

Whats with all the idiot flames because of his opinion on framerates? Its been clearly determined and discussed to death that individuals have different sensitivety to framerates and refresh rates.

Although I personally think acceptable framerates are different even to any individual depending on what it is you are viewing, his answer sure seems reasonable to me for FPS games.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Some of the benches in there seemed pretty weird, as in the numbers were quite different to the one from AT and etc.

 

[johnnqq]

i too find 100 fps much smoother than 60, but i can stand playing a first person shooter at 30 fps too...

 

[Polish3d]

***** Ammendment


A few posts back I was bitching about poor performance with 4aa in BF2...

well it was becuase I tried the "ultra-high' settings tweak.

I just switched it back to "high" and 4AA and the image quality is waaay better AND I'm getting an avg of about 80fps, often 99, sometimes 70s with 4AA and everything is real smooth...not bad, I could be satisfied with that although I'd still like to see about 10% from driver updates and another 10% from me overclocking it.

Although I still wonder why it only gets 15fps in some comparisons w/ the 6800 ultra

 

[Cookie Monster]

The benches are really weird dont you think. But i guess its due to the cr*p coding of BF2, plus 2gb of ram can also affect performance.

Wait for the 80 drivers before you do anything with the card. Since you have dual core.... expect your performance to go up.


Just to say this, but anyone surprised at the cancellation of the 7800 ultra card from INQ was days after one of the head ATi engineer joined the Nvidia camp?

Strange indeed... what you guys reckon?

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
The benches are really weird dont you think. But i guess its due to the cr*p coding of BF2, plus 2gb of ram can also affect performance.

Wait for the 80 drivers before you do anything with the card. Since you have dual core.... expect your performance to go up.


Just to say this, but anyone surprised at the cancellation of the 7800 ultra card from INQ was days after one of the head ATi engineer joined the Nvidia camp?

Strange indeed... what you guys reckon?

lol...ATI has spies. :Q

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Frackal
***** Ammendment


A few posts back I was bitching about poor performance with 4aa in BF2...

well it was becuase I tried the "ultra-high' settings tweak.

I just switched it back to "high" and 4AA and the image quality is waaay better AND I'm getting an avg of about 80fps, often 99, sometimes 70s with 4AA and everything is real smooth...not bad, I could be satisfied with that although I'd still like to see about 10% from driver updates and another 10% from me overclocking it.

Although I still wonder why it only gets 15fps in some comparisons w/ the 6800 ultra

Ultra-high? I want to try it...how do you go about setting it?

------------------------------------

100 FPS in a game is really different than 100 FPS in a movie. You're controlling the game, so you notice it. My theory (xtknight's Law): the mouse movement isn't synchronized right when the video updates slow, so it annoys you. I'll settle for 90 FPS min. because 100 FPS avg. doesn't really mean anything. BTW, most PS/2 mice run at 120Hz and USB ones even higher. Maybe once it's past your mouse rate you won't notice it? Who knows... I miss playing Quake 2 on my good old (and dead ) CRT at 640x480x32 120Hz. Absolutely smooth as silk, incredible.

I certainly don't mind 75 FPS minimum, but 90-100 is optimal for me. Right now I'm settling with what feels like 40 FPS minimum at mostly high settings. I hate turning down settings. Looks like I'm in for a 7800GT for the holidays.

 

[Polish3d]

Good point cookie.

=
xt

http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6556&highlight=ultrahigh

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: CP5670
Does the standard MSAA work in a similar way?

From what I've (tried to) read, it sounds like the same thing, I'm not sure what's different. All forms of AA involve blending pixels though.

It's not the same thing. MSAA is much more efficient because it detects edges of polygons and only blends the pixels in those areas. SSAA litearally renders the whole scene at a much higher resolution and then samples it down with blending, so it causes a way bigger hit in performance. SSAA does have better IQ, though, and it's the only practical way to do transparency AA.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Insomniak

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Ok, in the very first graph for Battlefield 2. Did anyone notice the X850XT scores?
Check this out.

Battlefield2 Pure speed (no AA no AF)

1024x768............90.7
1280x1024..........82.6
1600x1200..........54.5

Battlefield2 4xAA 16XAF

1024x768............89.3
1280x1024..........72.5
1600x1200..........61.3

Anyone else notice something wrong with this?
They are trying to say that the X850XTPE is faster with 4XAA and 16XAF than without it here. Someone please tell me I am reading this wrong.

I'm not discrediting X-bit because I generally like their reviews. I think they may have made an error though.

I don't really see what the issue is. It's well known that memory bandwidth is not what holds back game performance these days. I mean, the numbers seem a bit high overall, but AA/AF these days should put a minimal hit on FPS with modern cards.


EDIT: Ok, that explains it. They're not testing above 16x12. 7800 Series isn't being pushed yet. Still CPU limited.

It's not cpu limited. If it were, it would be just as fast at 10x7 as it is at 16x12. And the reason you have a bigger difference in >16x12 is because the gf6 series and the x850 are pushed BEYOND their design limit at that resolution - their z-culling algorithm doesnt work with all the pixels at above 16x12.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Why would you say that?

Don't know, just what I've heard. IIRC it was because one graphics card can't access the other's memory (the way SLI is currently set up). But as always I could be wrong. Hopefully someone around here knows for sure.

Each card has it's own job to do. Each has it's own GPU and that GPU works with it's own memory. I don't know what you've heard or from where, but I'm pretty sure all the memory gets utilized. The GPU on one card should not need to access the memory on the other.

Every article I've read on SLI states that you dont get double the memory with SLI. And think about it - each card cant access the other's memory, so each card will have to hold all the texture and vertex data, as well as any other additional data in it's own local memory. So, all the memory does get utilized, but you essentially have a lot of duplicate data in each card's memory, and you still only have 256 mb of effective memory.

 

[Polish3d]

Well I just finished playing BF2 with the 78.03 drivers (new) and 4AA, all settings except dynamic shadows to high, and I must reverse myself and say that I am pretty darn impressed... it was my bad for not immediately realizing what was going on but at least I figured it out.

The ultra-high settings were actually defaulting to like medium or low quality on several settings for me but running WORSE than everything at high quality... which is why I've been pretty disappointed lately

Now fixed I run 4AA/High/1680x1050/MSAA at likely an average of 80fps, goes from 75 to 99 but stays on 75-80 when I'm on the ground and 99.9 when in the air... and its smooth with wwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better graphics.....gorgeous actually especially when you turn on digital vibrance and apply it to all channels...

Anyway if I can manage a 10-15% boost through driver updates and OCing I'll be a happy man as I expect as I said earlier for a GFX card at that price point to hit at least 90-100fps at 1600 res w/ 4AA.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Looks good but I can't tell a difference between MSAA (low) and SSAA (high).

About a 0% hit for MSAA I think, around 10fps hit for SSAA.

The thing w/ BF2 again is that at 2AA I am sure I would be getting like 110fps or so because unless the server is laggy I stick at 99.9fps almost the whole time, but when I do 4AA it gets killed, hovering between 60-80fps w/ 99 sometimes, but even 60fps for some periods

Anyway my main thing is whether the 7800GTX literally only does about 10-20fps better than 6800 w/ 4AA or if something else is the cause

I think you're right. You should sell your 7800GTX and pick up a 6800U. I would if I was as dissappointed as you are. You have a right to be happy with your purchase.

EDIT: Nevermind, I just read your most recent post. Glad your happy with it.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Frackal
Well I just finished playing BF2 with the 78.03 drivers (new) and 4AA, all settings except dynamic shadows to high, and I must reverse myself and say that I am pretty darn impressed... it was my bad for not immediately realizing what was going on but at least I figured it out.

The ultra-high settings were actually defaulting to like medium or low quality on several settings for me but running WORSE than everything at high quality... which is why I've been pretty disappointed lately

Now fixed I run 4AA/High/1680x1050/MSAA at likely an average of 80fps, goes from 75 to 99 but stays on 75-80 when I'm on the ground and 99.9 when in the air... and its smooth with wwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better graphics.....gorgeous actually especially when you turn on digital vibrance and apply it to all channels...

Anyway if I can manage a 10-15% boost through driver updates and OCing I'll be a happy man as I expect as I said earlier for a GFX card at that price point to hit at least 90-100fps at 1600 res w/ 4AA.

Glad to hear. That makes me feel a little better about my near-future 7800GT purchase as well. I need to pick up a 20" LCD some holiday, and I can't do it the same time as the graphics card. So if I get 7800GT now and the 20" LCD (or SED?!) next year then I'll be happy.

I tried the ultra-high quality but I can't notice the difference.

 

[ssvegeta1010]

Originally posted by: Kalessian
I agree with the xtknight. I don't think it works just like that... I mean having 256x2=512. Right, they wouldn't have to access each other's memory.

But in AFR, for example, one card would have 256MB for one frame, then the other card has 256 for the next. This would be 512MB over 2 frames.... but it still isn't 512mb effective.

Just guessing, though.

But SFR, each frame would have 512. Right?

 

[Maluno]

Thanks for the link, interesting for sure!!!

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ssvegeta1010
But SFR, each frame would have 512. Right?

Nope. Read Munky's post.

 

[BFG10K]

Each card shares the load and each card has 256MB of memory

Yes but each card has to duplicate the data so the memory is not combined.

And the reason you have a bigger difference in >16x12 is because the gf6 series and the x850 are pushed BEYOND their design limit at that resolution - their z-culling algorithm doesnt work with all the pixels at above 16x12.

Actually the X800 series handles up to 1920x1020 and even above that it still fits in as much as possible. This is the reason why the card does so well at high resolutions and detail levels.