Thoughts on Oblivion benches(aka 7900gt vs x1800 256mb)

[morgash]

Review

Ok i realize the review was already posted, these are just my thoughts on what is happeneing here. Not flaming at all, just rationalizing the apparent "defeat" of the 7900gt by a older x1800

if i had to throw a guess after lookin at the review, i would say the MAIN reason for the results would be texture thrashing aka the 256mb video cards not having enough VRAM to hold everything and being forced to use the system RAM. it's quite obvious when u look at it, the framerates drop off HORRIBLY after the x1800xt because it is the last 512mb card. the 7800gtx is NOT a much slower card and the 7900gt is a little faster. the only real expanation is that the VRAM is just 2 small thereby leading us to the conclusion that a 256mb x1800xt would infact NOT be a better choice than a 7900gt becasue its gonna do the exact same thing.

This becomes especially obvious when u throw the really high resolution and detail in where not even 512mb is enough. at this point the 512mb x1800 slows down to the 7800-7900 range becasue despite its higher RAM, its just not fast enough to hold with 24 pipes when memory size is no longer an issue. Pulling even frames with a card with half the VRAM capacity on a game this demanding should tell ya something, the G70/71 series is NOT showing its age, 256mb o VRAM IS

Morgash

 

[professor1942]

Yeah I think you're on to something, but I also think the high-end ATI cards just happen to handle this particular game better (outdoors at least).

 

[morgash]

oh no doubt about outdoors on this game workin better on ATI, my whole point in this post tho is to try and stop the bashing of the 7900gt's vs the x1800 256. with the VRAM required by todays best games its simply impossible to say that a x1800 256 will run better than a 7900gt simply because the 512mb version does. until actual benches come out for the 256 version i think we just just sit back, take a deep breath, and wait. the 7900gt OC's like a dream on good air and i think its gonna end up being the better card. only time will tell, someone tell ANAND to get us a review!

 

[morgash]

ttt

 

[Cookie Monster]

Im actually interested about this. Would be great if there was a X1800XT 256mb review to show the difference. But i read somewhere that the X1 series benefit more from having 512mb vs 256mb compared to NV.

 

[RussianSensation]

7900GTX = 650/1600
7900GT = 450/1320
Theoretical difference: 44% gpu, 21% memory. Average is 32.5%

Benches:
mountain - 1600x1200 4AA/16AF
7900GTX = 41
7900GT = 31.1
Difference = 31.8%
Nothing odd here, seems no benefit from 512mb

foilage - 1024x768 4AA/16AF
7900GTX = 35.9
7900GT = 25.6
Difference = 40% (higher res benches show greater difference - possible disadvantage with 256 ram)

indoors - 1600x1200 4AA/16AF
7900GTX = 85.2
7900GT = 71.6
difference = 19% (nothing unusual, no benefit, especially since X1800XT is slower than X1900XT/X by a lot and both have 512mb ram)

I think the main reason is that ATI cards are just faster in all games where FSAA and shader intensity is most important - ie. Oblivion. To begin with 7900GT = 7800GTX 256mb which lost 85% of all benchmarks to X1800XT from the start. The only time 7900GT is even faster than X1800XT is when it is overclocked to 540/1600+.

Also if you look at the differences in speed between 7900GT and 7800GT, they are very large, 25-35% (especially with foilage 4AA/16AF). It seems this game really cares about gpu power in shader intensive situations. This again explains why X1900XT series is faster than X1800XT by a lot more than the mhz gpu speed variation. Once you consider that X1800XT with 512mb costs $329 on newegg ($40 more than 256mb version), and 7900GTs are hard to find, it becomes an attractive card. But again, unless you buy videocards for 1-2 games, 7900GT is still better if you plan on overclocking across wider variety of games.

Finally, 16 pipe 500/1000 X1800XL with 256mb which usually lost to 7800GT outperforms it in Oblivion:
Benches - 22 vs. 19 frames
7800GTX 256mb only gets 1 frame rate more! X1800XT ties 7900GTX while having 8 less pipelines. NV is out of luck in this game.

 

[PingSpike]

I to would like to see the benchmarks from before done with a x1800xt 256mb. While I personally think ati just has a better suited architecture for this game, the 512mb of ram advantage is certainly a valid point that I would like to see investigated. I've been thinking of picking up a x1800xt 256mb at some point in the future, I don't run my games above 1024x768 myself so I never really considered extra video ram much of a boon. But Oblivion is a beast of a different color, and since it seems like the 256mb version is more common it would be nice to see the exact same card compared as what most people will likely buy.

Some one posted an excellent piece on the effect of vram between identical cards, and it showed that in most games 512 only came in handy at 1600x1200 with full AA/AF and max everything on, and that even then the effect was neglible. The only time it really pulled ahead was when they were both playing at unplayable framerates, which enforced the point about decent cards always being equiped with enough video ram from the get go. Doom3 was the only exception, when using its "Ultra High" quality mode it actually did use like 400+mb of ram. All other games showed differences between 0-1.5fps at playable framerates.

Another thing that was interesting is that nvidia seemed to have the advantage indoors against ATIs outdoors. Of course, this advantage was less signifigant since both companies cards were offering up nice, high playable framerates indoors whereas the advantage would be more tangible outside. We'll see if nvidia can pull some tricks with driver optimizations to get things evened out...since ati kind of had the leg up on this game. Isn't the 360's graphics processor made by ATI...and I know the developers started out developing on ATI hardware.

 

[morgash]

yeah i think we are finally seeing the the push that will shove the standard to 512mb, even if it is only because of badly coded, yet beautiful, games. i guarantee if someone ran a memory usage test on oblivion with several different cards it would show that with all the STUFF the game displays (especially outside) its just too much for the 256mb. i remeber fondly my 16mb voodoo 3 (my first AGP card hehe) and i thought it was kick ass. now i thinkin about tradin off my 7900gt 256mb for a x1800 512 just because it will be more future proof even tho its older oh well

 

[Munky]

If a 256mb x1800xl beats a 256mb 7800gt, then a 256mb x1800xt will beat a 7900gt. Especially given that the x1800xl was about even with a 7800gt in most other games, while the x1800xt was usually faster than a 7800gtx, which is equivalent to a 7900gt.

*edit: and, technically, the 7900gt is an older architecture than a x1800xt, because it's a rehash of the 7800 series that was launched last summer.

 

[santz]

all of us are a bunch of F@@@#$, instead of spending carp loads on video card, and then realizing m we do not have enough power, and spending on that, and then realizing, oh no ram is too little, and spending on that, and then realizing my cpu is bs, and spending on THAT, why dont we just go for the 260 and get the oblivion on that, WHY WHY WHY..OH GOD WHY?

ps- I BOUGHT X1900XT AND DID ALL THAT AS MENTIONED ABOVE JUST TO PLAY OBLIVION...........HEHE

 

[43st]

512Mb doesn't have much to do with it, unless you're 1600x1200 plus resolution with FSAA. It's the shader efficency that's key in this game. Also remember that Nvidia has always had problems writing a good d3d driver which may also play into this a bit.