PDA

View Full Version : FEAR results for 7800GTX v/s X1800XT


Pages : [1] 2

harshw
10-20-05, 09:11 AM
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575

is the Radeon X1800XT card tested the one with 512MB or the one with 256MB ?

macatak
10-20-05, 09:22 AM
Here's some other benchmarks...

http://www.tbreak.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31600

Lfctony
10-20-05, 10:35 AM
Well, according to the Tbreak tests, the X1800XT is slower than my 7800GTX OC, at 1280x960/4x/16x/HQCP I get 26/39/87. According to the Anandtech tests the 7800GTX is only slightly slower except with soft shadows where it's faster. I wonder why tests vary so much amongst sites.

mustrum
10-20-05, 10:39 AM
Nice read and i can confirm GTX performance since i have a very similar system.

I love high FPS so i play at 1280x960 2X AA 8xAF. Looks extremly nice and runs smooth as hell.

For 1600x1200 + AA you really need 2x GT or GTX SLI or you wont be able to enjoy the game.

SH64
10-20-05, 11:23 AM
I believe its the same X1800XT used in the first set of benchmarks in Anandtech so it must be 512MB.
all the X1800XTs reached the reviewers are 512MBs anyway .. ATi want to show there best afterall.

after seeing these benchmarks i'm glad that i made the right decision & went with th GTX ! :)
as for the softshadows performance its not strange actually .. nVIDIA always had the upper hand when it comes to shadows. now i foresee the fanboys downplaying the softshadows after seeing the benchies :D

Redeemed
10-20-05, 01:06 PM
I'm kind of surprised how heavy FEAR is on current GPUs. Back in the 6800GT and Ultra days, we had DoomIII, FarCry, and HL2. Neither of those games bogged those GPUs down as much as FEAR does yet they all looked great from a visual standpoint. I don't know whether I should be dissappointed with the current GPUs, the programming of FEAR, or what? I probably shouldn't forget about the CPU bottleneck. I'm sure is we had 5GHz A64FX's performance wouldn't be NEARLY this bad- the 7800GT and GTX would become significantly faster than they are now.

Has anybody ever attempted this- oc'ing an A64 FX to it's limit, then doing the same with dual 7800GTs/GTXs and running FEAR to see what the performance gain would be? You know, maybe with water cooling, phase change, or some other EXTREME cooling method?

zoomy942
10-20-05, 01:11 PM
I'm kind of surprised how heavy FEAR is on current GPUs. Back in the 6800GT and Ultra days, we had DoomIII, FarCry, and HL2. Neither of those games bogged those GPUs down as much as FEAR does yet they all looked great from a visual standpoint. I don't know whether I should be dissappointed with the current GPUs, the programming of FEAR, or what? I probably shouldn't forget about the CPU bottleneck. I'm sure is we had 5GHz A64FX's performance wouldn't be NEARLY this bad- the 7800GT and GTX would become significantly faster than they are now.

Has anybody ever attempted this- oc'ing an A64 FX to it's limit, then doing the same with dual 7800GTs/GTXs and running FEAR to see what the performance gain would be? You know, maybe with water cooling, phase change, or some other EXTREME cooling method?


i totally agree with your thoughts. i havent decided if its just not an efficient game engine, or well written and just a beast for GPU's. its still too early to decide that.

macatak
10-20-05, 07:14 PM
FEAR Performance Mainstream Cards (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/fear_performance_mainstream/page2.asp)

ATI_Dude
10-20-05, 08:10 PM
I'd rather see some in-game benchmark results. The built-in benchmark can easiliy be optimized for in the drivers.

shabby
10-20-05, 08:18 PM
Looks like the extra memory on the 1800xt doesnt give it an edge at all, i wonder where ati got the idea that the x1800xt was 80% faster (http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/R5XX/images/X1800-1.jpg) then the gtx before they launched it.

SH64
10-20-05, 08:33 PM
I'm kind of surprised how heavy FEAR is on current GPUs. Back in the 6800GT and Ultra days, we had DoomIII, FarCry, and HL2. Neither of those games bogged those GPUs down as much as FEAR does yet they all looked great from a visual standpoint.

Agreed! .. i remember playing Doom3 & HL2 on a 6800GT@1600x1200 no prob .. heck even FarCry was somewhat forgiving if we compare it to FEAR.
i think the reason behind that is both bad programming & insufficient GPUs , but i'm leaning more toward the poor coding & programming.

suddenly when playing new (or next-gen if thats a correct term) games like FEAR , COD2 & Serious Sam2 i did realize how good was Source , Doom3 & Cry engines in comparsion. they simply produced an amazing graphics & didnt require as much CPU/GPU power.
now imagine that 2 7800GTXs coupled with FX-55 can barely play SS2 or CoD2 @res of 1280x1024 with some AA/AF !! :wtf: & lets no talk about FEAR esp with softshaodws which is ridiculously slow even @1024x768 .. yes thats using 2 damn fast high-end video cards.
& just FYI in Riddick which offers marginally better looking SS (IMO) i'm getting much better performance on same setup.

macatak
10-20-05, 08:56 PM
I'd rather see some in-game benchmark results. The built-in benchmark can easiliy be optimized for in the drivers.

Unfortunately the only way to do that atm is with FRAPS as the game has no recording function

zoomy942
10-20-05, 09:35 PM
Agreed! .. i remember playing Doom3 & HL2 on a 6800GT@1600x1200 no prob .. heck even FarCry was somewhat forgiving if we compare it to FEAR.
i think the reason behind that is both bad programming & insufficient GPUs , but i'm leaning more toward the poor coding & programming.

suddenly when playing new (or next-gen if thats a correct term) games like FEAR , COD2 & Serious Sam2 i did realize how good was Source , Doom3 & Cry engines in comparsion. they simply produced an amazing graphics & didnt require as much CPU/GPU power.
now imagine that 2 7800GTXs coupled with FX-55 can barely play SS2 or CoD2 @res of 1280x1024 with some AA/AF !! :wtf: & lets no talk about FEAR esp with softshaodws which is ridiculously slow even @1024x768 .. yes thats using 2 damn fast high-end video cards.
& just FYI in Riddick which offers marginally better looking SS (IMO) i'm getting much better performance on same setup.


i completely agree. i got my 7800 not knowing that a few weeks later some games would come out that would beat it down. i almost want to play otehr gamnes just cause they look so nice and my pc runs them fine. there is something about having over $1000 investing on a pc and having it run poorly on games thast bugs me. HL2 and doom3 and even quake 4 look amazing and run perfectly.

hemmy
10-21-05, 12:15 PM
I'd rather see some in-game benchmark results. The built-in benchmark can easiliy be optimized for in the drivers.

That almost made sense...both companies optimize their drivers, and both have opts for FEAR, but running the actual game instead of the built in utility would not remove them, because it is still part of the game

Mr_LoL
10-21-05, 12:36 PM
Also Far Cry. I am really suprised that no other game companies have used the Far Cry engine to make their games.

mustrum
10-21-05, 01:35 PM
Also Far Cry. I am really suprised that no other game companies have used the Far Cry engine to make their games.
Indeed a shame. Very pretty engine that doesn't just rely on darkness (Doom 3).
Not a bad hardwarekiller also. I think there's a title or 2 in pipeline basing on the Cry engine though.

rohit
10-21-05, 06:29 PM
6800GT handles FEAR at 1280x1024 (with out softshadows). AWESOME.
Now i can safely get FEAR, without the fear or its performance on my system.:D

Even the 6600GT outperforms the x800 256mb.. while the x800 was considered to be value for money in the same price range.

keith33
10-21-05, 06:56 PM
I'm playing FEAR with everything including softshadows on at 1280x1024 with 2xQ AA multisampling and 16x AF. To be honest I can't visually distinguish it from 4x AA and the performance is much smoother. Great game but I think I enjoy Q4 a little more.

SH64
10-21-05, 07:04 PM
I'm playing FEAR with everything including softshadows on at 1280x1024 with 2xQ AA multisampling and 16x AF.

AFAIK you cant get both SS & AA to work together .. so you might be running at 2xAA+hard shadows actually.

keith33
10-21-05, 07:06 PM
AFAIK you cant get both SS & AA to work together .. so you might be running at 2xAA+hard shadows actually.

Are you serious? I had no idea, it says both are enabled in the settings but I'm not sure. :thumbdwn:

macatak
10-21-05, 07:37 PM
You can get SS and AA to work together, check out page 10 in the FEAR Feedback Thread

Riptide
10-21-05, 07:58 PM
What sort of performance can I expect out of FEAR with a 7800GTX? I want to run it in 1920x1200. I assume I'll have to turn off AA completely and also soft shadows?

Raje
10-21-05, 08:09 PM
Looks like the extra memory on the 1800xt doesnt give it an edge at all, i wonder where ati got the idea that the x1800xt was 80% faster (http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/R5XX/images/X1800-1.jpg) then the gtx before they launched it.

That's what I want to know.

OWA
10-21-05, 08:19 PM
What sort of performance can I expect out of FEAR with a 7800GTX? I want to run it in 1920x1200. I assume I'll have to turn off AA completely and also soft shadows?
Yeah, my guess is that you'll have to leave AA off (and soft-shadows). The soft-shadows in the retail game don't look very good anyway though.

ATI_Dude
10-21-05, 08:27 PM
That almost made sense...both companies optimize their drivers, and both have opts for FEAR, but running the actual game instead of the built in utility would not remove them, because it is still part of the game

I don't agree. It's much easier to optimize the drivers for one particular game script than the whole game. Both ATI and NVIDIA have a past record doing exactly that. Therefore I'd take the in-game benchmark results with a bit of salt.