Quake 4 & Mainstream Video Cards Compared

[RajunCajun]

If this is a repost forgive me, but I did a quick search and couldn't find anything, so here is the article done 10/26:

Linky!

Quote for the impatient people:

Looking over the performance results, it definitely looks like NVIDIA has the edge in Quake 4 at the mainstream price point.

The memory controller tweaks found in ATI?s beta driver add up to at best, 15% in additional performance. This was found in Quake 4 at 800x600x32 with no AA or AF applied. In no other case did we see a double-digit increase in performance, with most gains in the 3-5% range. This is hardly enough for the RADEON X1600 XT to overtake its primary competitor (for now at least), the GeForce 6800. While the X1600 XT does become competitive with the GeForce 6800 once 4xAA is applied, it still finishes behind the 1.5 year old GeForce 6800 card for the most part, and even falls behind the performance of the X800 in some cases.

This is hardly what most people expected from the X1600 XT, especially in light of ATI?s more recent mainstream offerings, the X800 GT and X800 GTO, but as we mentioned in our X1600 XT performance article, the final design of its RV530 core was finished well before these faster X800 variants ever hit retail. ATI will likely have to cook up a stripped X1800 variant (most likely sporting the ?SE? or ?LE? moniker), in order to compete with NVIDIA?s higher end mainstream offerings like the GeForce 6800.

At the higher end of the mainstream segment, the GeForce 6800 GT reigns supreme. ATI?s RADEON X800 XL typically finishes 6-9% behind the GeForce 6800 GT in performance. And as we saw in the 256MB versus 512MB testing, the additional memory found in the RADEON X800 XL 512MB plays no dividends at the settings we tested. Like DOOM 3, the additional memory likely won?t play a role until the ultra quality mode is used. We also found that the performance between the X700 PRO 128MB and 256MB was largely identical, but we?d still suggest a 256MB card as most games are beginning to take advantage of the additional memory found on 256MB cards.

In summary, with its DOOM 3 roots, Quake 4 largely mimics the performance of its older sibling. If your system was capable of handling DOOM 3 last year, it?ll probably hold up well in Quake 4 as well. With mainstream GeForce cards steadily falling in price, they are the cards we?d recommend at the $150-$300 price point, with the GeForce 6800 GT obviously the king of the hill. ATI?s X1600 family boasts impressive clock speeds, but for now their performance just isn?t as competitive as the X1800 family right now. Perhaps that will change in future driver updates, but that?s where things stand right now at least.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Sorry, to lazy to check prices. 6800 costs less, correct?

 

[RajunCajun]

Last time I checked 6800nu was ~ $175-200, 6800GT can be had ~ $275-300.

 

[Duvie]

The x1600XT kinda blows...It better not ccost more then 100 bucks cause the 6600GT I bought would lay the smack down for the 130 I paid for it...

 

[route66]

WTH, they compared 256MB vs 512MB at Medium Quality???

 

[lifeguard1999]

Originally posted by: route66
WTH, they compared 256MB vs 512MB at Medium Quality???

Overall they did a good job, though I agree with your comment above.

 

[xtknight]

Wow, the X1600XT is as good as worthless here. I'd be downgrading from my GeForce 6800? No thanks. The GF6800 beats or matches the X1600XT in EVERY benchmark on that site. Why can't ATI deliver some decent midrange solution? They did good with the X800 XL and X800 GTO, now where the hell are their next-gen equivalents? Not that NVIDIA has any midrange now either, but at least the prices on their cards are plummeting fast. $250 for the X1600XT or $289 for a 7800GT? Well, that was hard. Not.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Wow, the X1600XT is as good as worthless here. I'd be downgrading from my GeForce 6800? No thanks. The GF6800 beats or matches the X1600XT in EVERY benchmark on that site. Why can't ATI deliver some decent midrange solution? They did good with the X800 XL and X800 GTO, now where the hell are their next-gen equivalents? Not that NVIDIA has any midrange now either, but at least the prices on their cards are plummeting fast. $250 for the X1600XT or $289 for a 7800GT? Well, that was hard. Not.

:thumbsup:

 

[lifeguard1999]

Well, the 6600GT still puts up some decent numbers and costs less than $150. The X1600XT loses to the 6600GT.

 

[A554SS1N]

Excellent, I'm pleased with the 6600GT performance!

 

[Rage187]

The 6800nu can be had for $149-$169 from normal online dealers like newegg.

 

[Paratus]

The X1600XT crushes the 6800 interms of Pixel and Vertex power but is completly crippled by its 4 texture units. It's like a 12x1/3 pipe design

However for me IF it comes in AGP and IF it can transcode Mpeg2 to Mpeg 4 or H.264 I might get it as its performance is fine for my 1280x1024 LCD. Much better than my current 9600XT

 

[Dribble]

See the new ati driver hits image quality - look at the loss of detail in the floor in these two screen shots from the review:
old driver:
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp?fs_article_id=1742&pic_id=07
new driver:
http://www.firingsquad.com/media/article_image.asp?fs_article_id=1742&pic_id=08

 

[Paratus]

Ummm
The new driver looks better just like they said in the reveiw.........