PDA

View Full Version : x-bit labs benching S.T.A.L.K.E.R


Pages : [1] 2

DMA
01-04-04, 03:29 AM
x-bit article (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/editorial/display/stalker.html)

Dunno know what build they are using though. Maybe it's the leaked beta?
9800 Pro/XT doing great as always. 5700 Ultra is looking pretty good against 9600 XT. Kinda surprised me though, considering this should be a DX9 game.

Anyway, relax, drink some coffee and read it. :cool:

killermmn
01-04-04, 03:42 AM
i played the alpha leaked!!
1024 x768 on my radeon i got like 100fps stable!!:bugeyes:
and 1280 x 1024 i got like 70 fps stable!!:super:

it a game that lot player i will play!!
but the sound like cs!!:wtf:

cthellis
01-04-04, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by DMA
Kinda surprised me though, considering this should be a DX9 game.

Remember, this is also coming from a developer that moved to a heavy focus on nVidia support, and received much in return, so they are concentrating heavily on making sure performance is acceptable, as well as taking advantage of idiosyncracies of the FX cards. Rather confirms, though, that no one is getting "shafted" on performance, and in a way reinforces that ATi's baseline is that much more solid. (As they're focusing on nVidia's cards.)

The 5700U does give an awfully good showing even in comparison to the 5900--which is rather funky--but I do feel a bit sorry for 5600U owners... :p Regardless, it has far-reaching support and acceptable performance capable from a broad set of cards, so on that front it's looking good.

Soylent
01-04-04, 07:43 AM
but the sound like cs!!

That shows you just how early a build this is. They where probably using the CS sounds as a placeholder, and the enemies are complete idiots, and the physics system is not used in this build and alot of weapons are missing, and no vehicles etc. Sure looks nice though.

SH64
01-04-04, 10:16 AM
WoW .. look at the difffrenece between the 5950ultra & the non-ultra 5900!!
the same goes with the 9800pro & the XT . thats some huge diffrenece shows how stalker can benefit from each card capability /Memory BW / core clock ..etc .

thanks for posting this article . interesting read :)

GlowStick
01-04-04, 11:55 AM
I gotta give Xbit labs some creidt for haveing the balls to bench pirated software heh.

over all good read the 5700ultra is looking pritty good right now.

euan
01-04-04, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by GlowStick
I gotta give Xbit labs some creidt for haveing the balls to bench pirated software heh.

over all good read the 5700ultra is looking pritty good right now.

It does look good, but the only real advantage is in non AF + AA modes compared to the 9600XT. All cards seem to have exceptionally high framerates (except maybe the 5600). I guess there is plenty of room for higher detail levels, and player model poly counts when the final version ships.

GlowStick
01-04-04, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by euan
It does look good, but the only real advantage is in non AF + AA modes compared to the 9600XT. All cards seem to have exceptionally high framerates (except maybe the 5600). I guess there is plenty of room for higher detail levels, and player model poly counts when the final version ships. Yeah i noticed that, even at high res with AA and AF on MOST cards seem to be doing very very well. Im also assumeing when it ships they will have more optmizations to the engine and it will be even faster.

Seems to be a pritty solid engine.

emotionstation
01-04-04, 02:47 PM
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/editorial/display/stalker_2.html

ATi's highend cards (9800 Pro/XT) are slightly faster than Nvidia's in most benchmarks, while being quite a bit faster with IQ settings (AA/AF) enabled.

Towards the end, the last few pages of benchmarks, the ATi highend cards pull away even more.

I'm very ****ing happy this game wasn't neutered for ATi cards.

astroguy
01-04-04, 05:03 PM
what surprises me most is that 5950 is almost 2x faster than 5900 with 4xAA and 8xAA on 1600x1200. Only 75MHz core clock difference and 100MHz memory difference, total of 18% clock speed difference was able to deliver 250% more performance with 1600x12004xAA8xAF! The extra 128MB memory on 5950 must be making this difference. First game that gives a big performance gain from 128 to 256?

cthellis
01-04-04, 05:17 PM
You tend to see similar big hops from the 9800XT to the 9800Pro, so yes I assume we're seeing some big advantages from the extra RAM kicking in. You tend to see a lot MORE loss going to the 5900, though, and in those situations it's going down to even or UNDER the 5700U's performance, which still makes for some curious interaction going on there.

astroguy
01-04-04, 05:41 PM
Yeah it really stresses the memory bus and size. The 5900 memory is clocked at 850 while the 5700memory is 900, and the 5700 is able to beat the 5900 despite its much weaker core.

SH64
01-04-04, 06:14 PM
Update : Volari Duo V8 ultra benchies added!
damn it cant even keep up with the 5600u ! .. thats too bad considring the Duo V8 is the highest-end gfx card for XGI lineup .

Deathlike2
01-04-04, 06:20 PM
I thought the FX 5700 had a 128-bit memory bus, in comparison to the FX 5900's 256-bit memory bus.

Am I wrong?

SH64
01-04-04, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Deathlike2
I thought the FX 5700 had a 128-bit memory bus, in comparison to the FX 5900's 256-bit memory bus.

Am I wrong?

Thats right , but i think they are talking about the memory size not the bit interface .

cthellis
01-04-04, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by SH64
Thats right , but i think they are talking about the memory size not the bit interface .

We are by comparing the top model to the next one down (so 9800XT to Pro, 5950 Ultra to 5900), but the 5900 and 5700U both have 128 megs of RAM as well, yet its bus width advantage is proving to be of no help in this situation which is... curious.

SH64
01-04-04, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by cthellis
We are by comparing the top model to the next one down (so 9800XT to Pro, 5950 Ultra to 5900), but the 5900 and 5700U both have 128 megs of RAM as well, yet its bus width advantage is proving to be of no help in this situation which is... curious.

maybe the DDR2 in the 5700u is what closing the gap ?! ..

Deathlike2
01-04-04, 06:48 PM
Having a bigger memory bus increases fillrate (256-bit memory buses have a 2x advantage on fillrate than 128-bit)

Having more memory has an influence over FSAA. There would be an obvious performance problem if you don't have enough memory.

Memory size is a different concept than memory buses.

DDR2, if I'm not mistaken, is just a marketing term for faster DDR memory. They still provide 2x output over SDRAM (clock speeds). DDR2 will most likely be a standard soon for regular memory, but it will be a different interface. DDR2 also has a few design tweaks over DDR...

Hellbinder
01-04-04, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by Deathlike2
Having a bigger memory bus increases fillrate (256-bit memory buses have a 2x advantage on fillrate than 128-bit)

Having more memory has an influence over FSAA. There would be an obvious performance problem if you don't have enough memory.

Memory bus has nothing to do with Fill rate. Fill rate deals directly with Pixels per Clock processed. Memory bus Does affect FSAA as that is Directly impacted by Bandwidth between the GPU and the Ram.

Deathlike2
01-04-04, 07:24 PM
Meh... oh well.

In any case, there's just too many factors that doesn't seem to add up in regards to the FX5700 equaling/beating a FX5900....

aapo
01-04-04, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Deathlike2
Having more memory has an influence over FSAA. There would be an obvious performance problem if you don't have enough memory.

Yes. And remember, we are talking about an alpha version of the game. The memory usage of the game engine is probably almost completely unoptimized, since these kind of optimisations are usually not important in the development phase. So I'd expect the performance gap between 128MB and 256MB to be minimal in the final version.

GlowStick
01-05-04, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by aapo
Yes. And remember, we are talking about an alpha version of the game. The memory usage of the game engine is probably almost completely unoptimized, since these kind of optimisations are usually not important in the development phase. So I'd expect the performance gap between 128MB and 256MB to be minimal in the final version. I think you have a very good point, the trend so far is 256video memory dosent really do squat.

StealthHawk
01-05-04, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by GlowStick
I think you have a very good point, the trend so far is 256video memory dosent really do squat.

It helps at high resolution with FSAA. 256MB ATI cards show some improvement with 6x FSAA versus 128MB cards, but only at high resolution I believe.

bkswaney
01-05-04, 01:59 AM
It's nice to see these DX9 titles running well on NV hardware.

This part of the writeup speaks on the 5700, 9600 deal...

__________________________________

The game will hardly run much slower on the GeForce FX or RADEON graphics cards unless the developers will enable more Pixel Shaders or Vertex Shaders, therefore, if you already own one of such products you acquired in 2003 you should hardly go for 2004 parts to play the game we tested today. Still, the game will benefit from additional geometry power, that is a reason why the RADEON 9600-series as well as the GeForce FX 5600-series with their 2 Vertex Shader pipelines will hardly run as fast as the GeForce FX 5700 and 5900 GPUs with 3 VS processors as well as RADEON 9800-series boasting with 4 vertex shader blocks.

___________________________________

So it seems in DX9 the 5700U is is going to run very well with out AA/AF.

I tell ya what.... If I was not a big AA/AF fan for 200 bucks the 5700U
is a bad @ss little card.

Nothing new on the high end side we did not already know.
9800 is the clear leader.

But with that said the 5900/5950 cards have plenty of FPS
to run with all eye candy.
So if u r looking for a high end card it's a toss up.
If u like ATI cards buy one. If u like NV cards buy one.
You cannot go wrong. ;)

To me for mid range the 5900SE/XT is the way to go.
Or the 5700U is my second pick. :)

Grechie
01-05-04, 03:27 AM
damn i ran the alpha on my rig and i was getting 40-60fps :) thats a good sign!