X3: Reunion Performance
For X3, we simply tested with their rolling demo based on the 1.3.0 version of X3: Reunion. Egosoft has traditionally designed their rolling demos to test many aspects of game play in order to accurately show the capability of a system. The rolling demo has the ability to run with an adaptive quality mode that will run the game at consistent framerates. While this is on by default we disabled it for our tests allowing us to test consistent rendering quality on our hardware.
We used the highest settings we could without enabling antialiasing. We also set anisotropic filtering to 8x. While there are some sections of this benchmark with extremely high framerates on all cards, an average of about 25-30 should give playable results without any real hiccuping based on our experience.
The only card that's really not playable at 1600x1200 is the 6600 GT. Everything else runs well enough throughout the demo so as to suggest a smooth gaming experience.
The X1900 GT outperforms the more expensive 7900 GT across the board. While the 7600 GT is just playable at 1920x1440, the X1900 GT runs incredibly smoothly. We really have to recommend the X1900 GT for value and the X1900 XT for performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
DerekWilson - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
look again :-) It should be fixed.pervisanathema - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
You post hard to read line graphs of the benchmarks that show the X1900XT crushing the 7900GT with AA/AF enabled.Then you post easy to read bar charts of an O/Ced 7900GT barely eeking out a victory over the X1900XT ins some benchmarks and you forget to turn on AA/AF.
I am not accussing you guys of bias but you make it very easy to draw that conclusion.
yyrkoon - Sunday, August 13, 2006 - link
Well, I cannot speak for the rest of the benchmarks, but owning a 7600GT, AND Oblivion, I find the Oblivion benchmarks not accurate.My system:
Asrock AM2NF4G-SATA2
AMD AM2 3800+
2GB Corsair DDR2 6400 (4-4-4-12)
eVGA 7600GT KO
The rest is pretty much irrelivent. With this system, I play @ 1440x900, with high settings, simular to the benchmark settings, and the lowest I get is 29 FPS under heavey combat(lots of NPCs on screen, and attacking me.). Average FPS in town, 44 FPS, wilderness 44 FPS, dungeon 110 FPS. I'd also like to note, that compared to my AMD 3200+ XP / 6600GT system, the game is much more fluid / playable.
Anyhow, keep up the good work guys, I just find your benchmarks wrong from my perspective.
Warder45 - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link
The type of chart used just depends on if they tested multiple resolutions vs a single resolution.Similar to your complaint, I could say they are bias towards ATI by showing how the X1900XT had better marks across all resolutions tested yet only tested the 7900GT OC at one resolution not giveing it the chance to prove itself.