![[H]ardOCP](/images/blank.gif){kind=small}
- Date:
- Monday , June 28, 2004
- Author:
- Brent Justice
- Editor:
- Sean Quinn
- Google +1
CPU Scaling ATI’s and NVIDIA’s Best
Wondering how ATI’s and NVIDIA’s latest video cards stack up on different platforms and CPU speeds? We use real-world gameplay in FarCry, Battlefield Vietnam, and Flight Simulator 2004 to find out just how much of a factor CPUs are in today's gaming.
For each game in each section we have six graphs total, which compare the three video cards on each of the CPUs tested. In light of the large number of graphs, 36 total, we will make each graph clickable thumbnails under each games section.
We first have a Highest Playable section which concentrates on finding the highest quality settings that were playable on each card with each CPU. We then have an Apples-to-Apples section which compares the video cards at the same resolution, AA, and AF setting on each CPU.
Highest Playable
FarCry
(DirectX 9)
We are using the full version game of FarCry with patch 1.1 applied. We set the in-game advanced video quality settings manually to find the best playable performance on each card, as we will note below under each CPU.
For the ATI cards we set the AA and AF level from within the driver control panel. For the GeForce 6800Ultra we set the AF level through the control panel, but we had to set the AA level through the game in order to enable AA in FarCry.
We graphed a manual run-through using the “Fort” level in all graphs.
AMD Systems
On the AMD platforms we do notice a pattern right off the bat. Performance improves so much in this game with faster CPUs that we are able to run at higher resolutions and in-game settings as the CPU speed scales up.
Let’s first take a look at the graph representing performance on the AthlonXP “Barton” 2500+ platform. All three of these video cards were severely being held back in this game with this CPU. Not only did we have to drop the resolution on each video card, but we also had to lower the in-game settings in order to get playable performance on this platform.
With the GeForce 6800Ultra we had to set the in-game settings of Particle Count, Environment, and Shadows to “High” instead of “Very High”. We also had to turn down the water from “Ultra High” to “Very High”. With these settings at 1024x768 2XAA/8XAF, we achieved playable performance in this game.
We also found setting Particle Count, Environment, and Shadow quality to “High” and Water on “Very High” were the best settings for the Radeon X800XT-PE as well. However, the X800XT-PE was able to run at 1280x1024 with 2XAA and 8XAF smoothly. Basically at the same performance of the 6800Ultra, the X800XT-PE was able to run with a higher resolution setting.
With the X800Pro we had to set Particle Count and Environment to “High”, but for the Shadows we had to set them to “Medium” and set Water to “Very High”. At these settings we found 1024x768 with 2XAA and 8XAF to be the best settings in this game, and performance was generally faster than a 6800Ultra, though the shadows are one notch below the shadow level on the 6800Ultra.
On the Athlon64 platforms we were able to run the game at its maximum in-game settings on all three cards. Looking at the Athlon64 3000+ at 2.45GHz, the results we see are a large improvement over the AthlonXP 2500+. We are able to run the 6800Ultra and X800Pro at 1280x1024 with 2XAA and 8XAF and experience higher performance compared to the results we saw on the AthlonXP 2500+. The X800XT-PE is able to run at 1600x1200 with 2XAA and 8XAF. Basically what we have with the X800XT-PE is the same performance of the 6800Ultra at a higher resolution.
On the Athlon64 3500+ Socket 939 system the same pattern remains, with the X800XT-PE able to run at a higher resolution and the 6800Ultra being on par with the X800Pro.
Intel Systems
Now we will look at performance on the Intel side of things. Just like we had to do on the AthlonXP 2500+ with the Pentium4 2.4C, we had to set some of the in-game quality settings down in order to maintain playable performance. With the GeForce 6800Ultra we set the Particle Count, Shadows, and Environment to “Medium”. At 1024x768 2XAA/8XAF we achieved performance overall that was higher than the AthlonXP 2500+. With the Radeon X800XT-PE and X800Pro we also had Particle Count, Environment, and Shadows set to “Medium” on this CPU. Performance was all around faster with these cards on the P4 2.4C versus the AthlonXP 2500+ in FarCry. The Radeon X800XT-PE also managed to play at one resolution higher than the 6800Ultra and the X800Pro with this CPU.
With the Pentium4 3.0C we were able to raise all the in-game settings to their maximum values and raise the resolutions for each card. With the 6800Ultra we found 1280x1024 with no AA and 8XAF to be the highest playable setting in this game, which also matches the settings we found playable on the X800Pro. The X800XT-PE was able to run at 1600x1200 2XAA/8XAF just barely with this CPU.
When we went to the Pentium4 3.4C we found the power was there to increase IQ again, allowing us to enable 2XAA on the 6800Ultra and X800Pro. The Radeon X800XT-PE now provided us with better performance in this game at 1600x1200 2XAA/8XAF, with performance only dropping below 30fps twice in our manual run-through.