Battlefield 2 Performance
This benchmark is performed using DICE's built in demo playback functionality with a few added extras built in house. When using the built in demo playback features of BF2, frames rendered during the loading screen are counted in the benchmark. In order to get a real idea of performance, we use the instantaneous frametime and frames per second data generated from a benchmark run. We discard the data collected during the loading screen and calculate a result that represents the actual gameplay that was benchmarked. While DICE maintains that results over 100fps aren't reliable, our methods have allowed us to get useful data from high performing systems.
During the benchmark, the camera switches between players and vehicles in order to capture the most action possible. There is a lot of smoke and explosions, so this is a very GPU intensive Battlefield 2 benchmark. The game itself is best experienced with average in-game framerates of 35 and up.
We ran Battlefield 2 using the highest quality graphics settings we could (excluding antialiasing). Shadows, lighting, and especially view distance are very important in order to best play the game. In our opinion view distance should never be set to less than the max, but other settings can be decreased slightly if a little more performance or a higher resolution is required.
At 1600x1200, the 6600 GT, stock X800 GTO, and X1600 XT just aren't able to hit playable frame rates, while everything else is quite capable of running at this sweet spot resolution. Dropping lower than 1600x1200 without enabling AA is generally not desired, as the game has many high contrast edges in many of the urban desert settings. The motion issues caused by aliasing can sometimes be very distracting when searching for approaching enemies.
In this game, we even see a hard CPU limitation coming in at 800x600 with our Core 2 Extreme X6800 running at 2.93GHz with the X1900 XT. The stock 7900 GT does lead the X1900 GT at every resolution in this test, but with the recent price cuts pushing the X1900 GT down to about $230, the added performance gain of the 7900 GT might not be worth the money in this case. Overclocked 7900 GT parts will perform much better in BF2, but stay tuned for our look at factory overclocked performance.
The 7600 GT is definitely a better card for Battlefield 2 than the X1600 XT performing on par with the X1800 GTO. For about $60 more, an X1900 GT could bring a lot more performance to the table, but at a bare minimum price point the 7600 GT is the way to go.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
Sharky974 - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
I tried comparing numbers for SCCT, FEAR and X3, the problem is Anand didn't bench any of these with AA in this mid-range test, and other sites all use 4XAA as default. So in other words no direct numbers comparison on those three games at least with those two Xbit/FS articles is possible.Although the settings are different, both FS and Anand showed FEAR as a tossup, though.
It does appear other sites are confirming Anand's results more than I thought though.
And the X1900GT for $230 is a kickass card.
JarredWalton - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
The real problem is that virtually every level of a game can offer higher/lower performance relative to the average, and you also get levels that use effects that work better on ATI or NV hardware. Some people like to make a point about providing "real world" gaming benchmarks, but the simple fact of the matter is that any benchmark is inherently different from actually sitting down and playing a game - unless you happen to be playing the exact segment benchmarked, or perhaps the extremely rare game where performance is nearly identical throughout the entire game. (I'm not even sure what an example of that would be - Pacman?)Stock clockspeed 7900GT cards are almost uncommon these days, since the cards are so easy to overclock. Standard clocks are actually supposed to be 450/1360 IIRC, and most cards are at least slightly overclocked in one or both areas. Throw in all the variables, plus things like whether or not antialiasing is enabled, and it becomes difficult to compare articles between any two sources. I tend to think of it as providing various snapshots of performance, as no one site can provide everything. So if we determine X1900 GT is a bit faster overall than 7900 GT and another site determines the reverse, the truth is that the cards are very similar, with some games doing better on one architecture and other games on the other arch.
My last thought is that it's important to look at where each GPU manages to excel. If for example (and I'm just pulling numbers out of the hat rather than referring to any particular benchmarks) the 7900 GT is 20% faster in Half-Life 2 but the X1900 GT still manages frame rates of over 100 FPS, but then the X1900 GT is faster in Oblivion by 20% and frame rates are closer to 40 FPS, I would definitely wait to Oblivion figures as being more important. Especially if you run on LCDs, super high frame rates become virtually meaningless. If you can average well over 60 frames per second, I would strongly recommend enabling VSYNC on any LCD. Of course, down the road we are guaranteed to encounter games that require more GPU power, but predicting what game engine is most representative of the future requires a far better crystal ball than what we have available.
For what it's worth, I would still personally purchase an overclocked 7900 GT over an X1900 GT for a few reasons, provided the price difference isn't more than ~$20. First, SLI is a real possibility, whereas CrossFire with an X1900 GT is not (as far as I know). Second, I simply prefer NVIDIA's drivers -- the old-style, not the new "Vista compatible" design. Third, I find that NVIDIA always seems to do a bit better on brand new games, while ATI seems to need a patch or a new driver release to address performance issues -- not always, but at least that's my general impression; I'm sure there are exceptions to this statement. ATI cards are still good, and at the current price points it's definitely hard to pick a clear winner. Plus you have stuff like the reduced prices on X1800 cards, and in another month or so we will likely have new hardware in all of the price points. It's a never ending rat race, and as always people should upgrade only when they find that the current level of performance they had is unacceptable from their perspective.
arturnowp - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
I think another advantage of 7900GT over X1900GT is power consumption. I'm not checking numbers of this matter so I am not 100% sure.coldpower27 - Saturday, August 12, 2006 - link
Yes, this is completely true, going by Xbitlab's numbers.
Stock 7900 GT: 48W
eVGA SC 7900 GT: 54W
Stock X1900 GT: 75W
JarredWalton - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
Speech-recognition + lack of proofing = lots of typos"... out of a hat..."
"I would definitely weight..."
"... level of performance they have is..."
Okay, so there were only three typos that I saw, but I was feeling anal retentive.
Sharky974 - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
Not too beat this to death, but at FS the X1900GT vs 7900GT benchmarksX1900GT:
Wins-BF2, Call of Duty 2 (barely)
Loses-Quake 4, Lock On Modern Air Combat, FEAR (barely),
Toss ups- Oblivion (FS runs two benches, foliage/mountains, the cards split them) Far Cry w/HDR (X1900 takes two lower res benches, 7900 GT takes two higher res benches)
At Xbit's X1900 gt vs 7900 gt conclusion
"The Radeon X1900 GT generally provides a high enough performance in today’s games. However, it is only in 4 tests out of 19 that it enjoyed a confident victory over its market opponent and in 4 tests more equals the performance of the GeForce 7900 GT. These 8 tests are Battlefield 2, Far Cry (except in the HDR mode), Half-Life 2, TES IV: Oblivion, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, X3: Reunion and both 3DMarks. As you see, Half-Life 2 is the only game in the list that doesn’t use mathematics-heavy shaders. In other cases the new solution from ATI was hamstringed by its having too few texture-mapping units as we’ve repeatedly said throughout this review."
Xbit review: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/pow...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/pow...
Geraldo8022 - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
I wish you would do a similar article concerning the video cards for HDTV and HDCP. It is very confusing. Even though certain crds might state they are HDCP, it is not enabled.tjpark1111 - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
the X1800XT is only $200 shipped, why not include that card? if the X1900GT outperforms it, then ignore my comment(been out of the game for a while)LumbergTech - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
so you want to test the cheaper gpu's for those who dont want to spend quite as much..ok..well why are you using the cpu you chose then? that isnt exactly in the affordable segement for the average pc user at this pointPrinceGaz - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
Did you even bother reading the article, or did you just skim through it and look at the graphs and conclusion? May I suggest you read page 3 of the review, or in case that is too much trouble, read the relevant excerpt-