Mid-range Performance Tests
Leading off our Mid-range Performance tests, we'll see what happens with 1024x768 and AA and AF turned up. For the 6600/x700 class, the NVIDIA part has a slight (negligible) lead, while the x850 does offer higher performance than the 6800 Ultra. This setting is playable for all these cards.
As for our next test, mid-range cards still run 1280x1024 very well, though we would recommend against enabling AA for anything beyond 1024x768 without a higher end part. This really seems to be the sweet spot for this range of performance, but we have tests reflecting higher resolutions as well. For the higher end cards, the 7800 obviously leads the pack while the SLI solution is still CPU limited without AA/AF turned up. The ATI x850 XT leads the 6800 Ultra, and only increases its lead when we look at AA/AF numbers. But that's not to say that one or the other feels better when playing at this resolution.
Moving up to 1600x1200 puts performance in a tight position. The mid-range cards become unplayable with AA/AF turned up, and even without filtering extras, the frame rate is a little too low for a serious gamer. The high end cards are pushed a little harder here and we see more separation between the 7800 GTX and everything else. This time, the battle between the X850 XT and the 6800 Ultra is closer, but AA/AF still pushes the numbers in favor of the ATI part.
We are going to reiterate our assessment that mid-range cards be run at either 1024x768 with AA/AF or 1280x1024 (1280x960 for a 4:3 res) without AA. Personal preference will come into play here, but the playability of either offers no tangible advantage in our experience.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
78 Comments
View All Comments
yanman - Sunday, July 10, 2005 - link
When I tried out BF 1.0 with 77.72 drivers and 2 Galaxy 6600GTs in SLI i had major issues in 1920x1200. I had to revert to 1600x1200 or another square res to fix this. Any idea why I'd have these problems? (basically the image was skewing everywhere at half-way point so obviously a SLI issue)xtknight - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link
And I almost forgot to mention...great little review/test here.xtknight - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link
I would have liked to see some 6800 Non-Ultra benchmarks...the AGP version of this card is a much hotter deal then the 6600GT...I saw one for $156 the other day.DanDaMan315 - Saturday, July 9, 2005 - link
Honestly this is the most incomplete GPU preformance test review I have ever seen out of AT. I am disappointed.bobsmith1492 - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link
What I get out of this is that ATI cards struggle at higher resolutions, but thrive with AA; Nvidia is the opposite.It makes sense for ATI to go for the AA since most people have smaller monitors, although higher resolution is really better all around.
dornick - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link
Thumbs up for updating with x800xl and 6800gtPastuch - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link
Canadian Graphics Card Pricing:
ATI x800xl: $329 AGP (www.canadacomputers.com) $379 PCIE (NCIX)
6800gt: $379 at NCiX if you can catch a sale.
$400 PCIE (NCIX) Basically if you want a 6800gt you have to spend $400.
X850XT: $499 (Bestbuy Sale - It just started today and until now this card cost $650)
Asus 7800GTX: $669 (NCIX sale)
ss284 - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link
BTW, x850xt's are hitting closer to the 375-400 price mark now. The 7800 is still 550-600.yacoub - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link
"...it has been a constant struggle to ... properly render resolutions above 1600x1200 on analog monitors."Everyone should be running LCDs for high resolutions these days anyway. Much easier on the eyes and weigh maybe a tenth as much as some giant friggin' CRT.
Thanks for adding the X800XL and 6800GT to the comparisons, they were much desired. Now if only the tests were done on more common systems so we could actually expect to get the same FPS results as your tests (FX-55).
tgjp - Friday, July 8, 2005 - link
Just like to say, I've bought a system with 7800GTX in SLi and I am very excited about using this machine, and perhaps playing battlefield2.