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
Questar - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
#10,Who told you that? An x700 has twice the pipes of a 9800pro, and is clocked much higher.
bob661 - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Oh and I guess I'll be turning up the settings on my 6600GT.bob661 - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
#15I don't know about bias, but it would defintely not be scientific given the purpose of the article.
Aikouka - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
The point of these articles is to see how well the GPU scales as you change models. The article's focus is not in overall system performance in different price ranges, but how well different video cards perform against eachother and to do that, you kind of have to use the same hardware (with the exception of the card) or you really help to create a thing we like to call "bias."blckgrffn - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
I think that they could do a whole article with this engine and CPU performance + ram usage, let's hope if they do they don't neglect the AXP like they did for the HL2 benchmarks...Nat
jm20 - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
You have just benchmarked the highend, why not now cater to the rest (95%+) of the market. How many people pair a 6200TC with a FX-55? Do some realistic tests with a few different setups.Budget: AthlonXP 2000+, 512Mb ram, 8500/9000 pro
LowMid: AthlonXP-M @ 2.2-2.6Ghz, 512Mb ram, 9800 pro
HighMid: Athlon64 3200-3500+, 1Gb ram, 6800GT
Hacp - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
"(disclaimer: this is not actually possible)"LoL
Backslider - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
My 9600Pro does the job fine with med/high settings. When using 1GB of memory..jkostans - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
The X700 pro is essentially a 9800 pro but pci-e. So there's pretty much no difference in performance.geekfool - Thursday, July 7, 2005 - link
Where does the X800 Pure/XL/Pro fit in? And I'm sure that anyone with an Athlon FX 57 doesn't use GF 6200/ X300.