View Full Version : Question about review benchmarks and actual game performance
07-23-04, 11:58 AM
In many review sites such as Tom's Hardware Guide or Guru3D, Unreal Tournament is used as a benchmark for the Geforce 6800 GT (which I just recently got). I am confused about the benchmarks listed on pages like this one (http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/135/10) reporting framerates over 120 in botmatches, when on my system I average about 70-80fps, if not less, in my own gameplay. I know these sites are using custom timedemos but even when I start UT2K4 in benchmark mode with no sound and record my own I'm still getting lower than expected framerates (about 80 on DM maps and around 50-60 on Onslaght maps). In these tests I started a 12-bot match as a spectator and switched around. I also turned off Trilinear and Anisotropic optimizations in the driver.
If anyone could let me know if these kind of in-game framerates are consistent with what you're seeing, let me know as I'm a little worried that maybe something's wrong with the card.
I am using the ForceWare 61.76 drivers, have DirectX 9.0b installed, and am running Windows XP Pro SP1. All of my other benchmarks and framerates are consistent with the reviews I was talking about before (my 3DMark03 is around 12100). Please post your average FPS in maps like ONS-Dawn (in an area with a ton of trees) and AS-Convoy with Anisotropic and FSAA set to 8x and 4x, respectively.
It's difficult to compare your card's performance to one done in a review, unless the conditions and settings are specifically stated. Then you have to consider your system to the one used in the review. With the cpu becoming the bottleneck it makes it even more difficult to compare.
In the review excerpt referenced, 3 botmatches were used and the scores averaged...exactly which botmatches was not revealed. I get a wide variance of frame rates between maps in UT2004.
I have been busy testing the eVGA 6800 GT in FarCry and have not gotten into anything else. But, I just ran the card @ 410/1.1 through AS-Convoy at 4xAA/8xAF, with everything set at highest, and the results were 66 to 61 FPS depending on the resolution. Also ran 3DMark2003 and scored 12,314 marks.
Remember, the main thing is that you can run your favorite game at the resolution/settings that you like and the game plays fast and smooth without problems...nothing else really matters unless you are in to benching.
Firingsquad's review seemed to be the closest with my system. They posted 73fps in Halo @ 1280X1024 with the in game benchmark....and I get exactly 73 fps at the same settings/resolution...my farcry benches are a bit faster than there's, but I think that's thanks to the 1.2 patch. Try their review....but like the previous post, I too have to say-not all of them will be identical...too many different systems being tested with these cards...as long as the card is running faster than whatever u previously had...ur alright =)
first of all i just got my 6800GT two days ago and i'm having a blast, but in regards to your question i know that most of the reviews i have read trilinear filtering opt in on and most of there systems are either on a athlon 64 of pentium EE, i haven't installed ut2004 yet to see my fps but i can provide you with my aquamark and 3dmark03 scores as a reference, and also here in nvnews they a review for the gt with a similar system as yours you might want to compare ut2004 scores with that review http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/bfg_geforce_6800_gt_oc/page4.shtml
and yes your system beats the crap out of mine :) can i see your scores?
07-23-04, 02:19 PM
Thanks for your input guys. I did go read that FiringSquad review and the FPS they listed were dead-on for me. I went ahead and ran some Flyby demos and ended up with huge numbers (150+ fps) so I'm guessing that's what some of the sites were doing. Anyway, yes, UT2K4 runs awesome and plays great, only slows down in big Onslaught maps with a lot of players. Trilinear and anisotropic optimizations really help out the framerate in UT also, and I really can't tell the difference, the game's too fast paced.
And dpagan, I'd post links but I haven't published my scores and I'm not at my computer right now...but I can list my 3DMark scores from memory:
2001 SE - 20005
2003 - 12100 (approximately)
These are with optimizations off. Most of the games I play do not gain a noticeable performance increase with the optimizations anyway so I usually just leave them off. What really surprises me is how great Far Cry runs. It never goes below about 30 fps with a ton going but usually stays around 60. This is at 1280x1024 with 4xFSAA and 4xAF.
I haven't decided if I should install DirectX 9.0c and use the SM 3.0 support. I'm kind of hesitant to put it on my system because I'd be up the creek if it screwed up.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.