iD Software Rage Video Card Requirements & (Fermi) OpenGL

[nenforcer]

Minimum:
OS: Win XP SP3, Vista, Win 7
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo or Equivalent AMD
Memory: 2GB
Hard Disk Space: 25GB
Video Card: GeForce 8800, Radeon HD 4200

Recommended:
OS: Win XP SP3, Vista, Win 7
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad or Equivalent AMD
Memory: 4GB
Hard Disk Space: 25GB
Video Card: GeForce 9800 GTX, ATI Radeon HD 5550

We know the iD Tech 5 Engine on the PC is OpenGL based on what appears to be strictly OpenGL 3.x. Both the minimum and recommended video cards from nVidia are 3-4 year old DirectX 10 class cards with no more than 512MB of memory.

My question is, as I want to upgrade to a DirectX 11 based GTX 400 or 500, is the OpenGL performance of these newer Fermi cards really no better than the previous generation, of which I still own? Or is it more to do with the design of the iD Tech 5 engine?

Obviously these older cards don't support DirectX 11 or OpenGL 4.x features, and the engine certainly doesn't use any cutting edge features (tesselation) in order to maintain compatibility with the consoles.

I will definitely need to upgrade for BF3 and possibly COD : MW3, but Rage doesn't appear to require any upgrading of my 2 X 9800 GT in SLI.

Unfortunately there aren't really any other OpenGL based games on the PC for comparison.

 

[Elixer]

My question is, as I want to upgrade to a DirectX 11 based GTX 400 or 500, is the OpenGL performance of these newer Fermi cards really no better than the previous generation, of which I still own? Or is it more to do with the design of the iD Tech 5 engine?

Eh? How do you come up with that logic ?
Isn't Quake 1/2/3 (and all engines using id's engine) pretty much always faster on newer generation of cards ?

This is also highly engine dependent.

 

[Karl Agathon]

I miss Quake 3 :'(

 

[toyota]

that info came out 3 weeks ago and I still cant wrap my brain around it. how the heck is a freaking integrated 4200 even remotely in the same category as any 8800? a 4200 cannot even play hardly any modern games at all even on the lowest possible settings. I think on average, I was getting like 10-15 fps in most games with a 4250 using lowest settings and 800x600 or even 640x480 when possible.

 

[nenforcer]

Eh? How do you come up with that logic ?
Isn't Quake 1/2/3 (and all engines using id's engine) pretty much always faster on newer generation of cards ?

This is also highly engine dependent.

Sorry, I forgot to mention this, but I brought this thread up because of all of the complaints people had with the latest generation of nVidia Fermi cards in regards to OpenGL performance.

Apparently the design of the Fermi (GTX 400 and GTX 500) series makes some architectural changes which results in a SLOWER performing OpenGL card than the previous generation.

http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=292025

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=339877

Yes, you would now expect 700+ fps in Quake 3 but this is not what happened when Fermi cards were first released. There were also numerous 3D Rendering and Content Creation applications which were performing better with the older GTX 285 cards. I am hoping these issues have been resolved but wanted to ask other people.

 

[nenforcer]

that info came out 3 weeks ago and I still cant wrap my brain around it. how the heck is a freaking integrated 4200 even remotely in the same category as any 8800? a 4200 cannot even play hardly any modern games at all even on the lowest possible settings. I think on average, I was getting like 10-15 fps in most games with a 4250 using lowest settings and 800x600 or even 640x480 when possible.

Yeah, I guess we are going to have to wait to see the benchmarks, as I really want to see how the Radeon HD 4200 does perform.

I had heard that AMD's OpenGL performance in the HD 58XX and 68XX series had surpassed nVidia's but it can't possibly be equivalent in the HD 4200.

Here is a previous thread on AT which I probably should have necro'd.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2147540

 

[Skurge]

BFG did a test on a 6850 and it really was quite a bit faster than the 470.

http://alienbabeltech.com/main/amd-radeon-6850-performance-test/all/1

 

[timma]

i miss Quake 3 and DOOM 3,too~
buy GTX 560 is a good choice,becasue AMD OpenGL 4.2 support not like NVIDIA have full support.

 

[WMD]

It maybe Dx9 instead of openGL on PC.

 

[BFG10K]

My question is, as I want to upgrade to a DirectX 11 based GTX 400 or 500, is the OpenGL performance of these newer Fermi cards really no better than the previous generation, of which I still own?

If you want a performance upgrade in OpenGL you have to get a 480/570/580 if you had a 280/285 before. Other Fermi cards will be slower.

Of course ATi’s cards are much faster in OpenGL gaming, especially in Doom 3 engine games. I’m talking about a 6850 being faster than a GTX480 in some cases.

nVidia’s drivers might improve when Rage comes, but so far there’s been no change.

 

[BFG10K]

The OpenGL performance problems section on wikipedia’s Fermi page has vanished. How interesting.

 

[wahdangun]

yup, thats right its quite ironic, in the FX 5800 days nvdia have superior openGL performance, but now even HD 6850 can outperform GTX 480.

 

[Grooveriding]

The OpenGL performance problems section on wikipedia’s Fermi page has vanished. How interesting.

Rollo must of been doing some edit work. I have no idea myself how OpenGL performs on Fermi. I don't play any games that make use of it.

Likely they will perform not so well in Rage, but we'll see.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I still have a 5850 if my GTX580 can't give me enough performance for RAGE, but I doubt I'll care about the game enough to want to bother, there are just too many other good games coming out around the same time, although ideally AMD would get SI out by the end of the year.

 

[Barfo]

The OpenGL performance problems section on wikipedia’s Fermi page has vanished. How interesting.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2192721

 

[TheMeanestGuest]

That is incredibly bizarre. What is up with the NV/AMD disparity here? I totally don't get it.

 

[Red Hawk]

The Nvidia requirements are actually quite sensible; it's the AMD requirements that are nonsensical. Taken at face value it bodes very well for AMD users and shouldn't really hurt Nvidia users. But then, I would rather bet on the AMD requirements being type-os than being accurate.

 

[Lonyo]

Apparently all the problems about the OGL problems were on forums and blog posts, so the issues weren't suitably referenced and some people removed the stuff about it, which is fair enough as per Wikipedia guidelines.

 

[notty22]

Ryan mentions openGL with every past gpu review, and mentions the upcoming Rage, to me the performance does not seem that out of line.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4344/nvidias-geforce-gtx-560-top-to-bottom-overclock/13
Wolfenstein
Finally among our benchmark suite we have Wolfenstein, the most recent game to be released using the id Software Tech 4 engine. All things considered it’s not a very graphically intensive game, but at this point it’s the most recent OpenGL title available. It’s more than likely the entire OpenGL landscape will be thrown upside-down once id releases Rage later this year.

 

[tviceman]

Ryan mentions openGL with every past gpu review, and mentions the upcoming Rage, to me the performance does not seem that out of line.

Looks like AMD 6900 cards perform slightly better than expected on the pecking order, but overall nothing out of the ordinary on either side. This being an ID game, and with Carmack being the optimizer that he is, I'm sure the game will run at 60 fps on a gtx260/hd4870 @ 1920x1080 resolution and max in game graphical settings.

Likely they will perform not so well in Rage, but we'll see.

It must absolutely be KILLING you to be running with those cards still. Why don't you sell them and grab a couple of 6970's? At least then you'll sleep better at night.

 

[BFG10K]

Ryan mentions openGL with every past gpu review, and mentions the upcoming Rage, to me the performance does not seem that out of line.

Try looking at these:

Also in Doom 3 at 2560x1600 with 8xMSAA we have:

5770:  79.4 FPS.
6850: 128.8 FPS.
470:   77.5 FPS.
580:  112.2 FPS.

The GTX580 result was done right now and the 6850 beats it. Should a mid-range ATi part with one power connector beat nVidia's flagship? I think not.

There are severe performance problems on Fermi's parts in OpenGL gaming at the moment, to the point where ATi's parts are a magnitude faster in some situations.

 

[happy medium]

Are there any OpenGL games that dont average over 70 fps out now on lower end Gpu's.?
What was the last decent opengl game released?

I guess what I'm getting at is "who cares" until now?

 

[notty22]

It's not breaking news that sometimes a certain setting especially in older games, can lead to performance anomalies.
Here when TPU still tested Quake 4, the 5870 was faster than the gtx 480.
Shockingly bad ? You can be the judge.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_465_Twin_Frozr_II/18.html

 

[BFG10K]

It's not breaking news that sometimes a certain setting especially in older games, can lead to performance anomalies.

This is not an anomaly or a certain setting, it's consistent across OpenGL games at a range of settings; it's especially bad in Doom 3 engine titles.

It also happens in source-ports where even elementary rendering such as basic smoke/sparks/particles can cause severe slow-downs.

Here when TPU still tested Quake 4, the 5870 was faster than the gtx 480.

I've already posted Quake 4 scores, but thanks for reminding me to put up some Prey scores (2560x1600 with 8xAA):

5770: 45.0 FPS.
6850: 71.9 FPS.
470:  57.2 FPS.
480:  74.1 FPS.

The 6850 thrashes the GTX470 and almost matches the GTX480. Again, there's absolutely no good reason why that should happen, especially since both nVidia parts sound like jet engines and are absolute furnaces in comparison.

I play these games regularly so I know how to benchmark them to accurately reflect what I see during actual gameplay.

 

[StrangerGuy]

I thought Nvidia OpenGL performance was supposed to be a tier above their AMD counterparts? What gives?