2900XT / 8800GTS Oblivion bench = On Par

[willhub]

Hi.


Well I just been benchmarking Oblivion and got Tom NBK to do the same benchmark at 1280x1024 16xAA/AF, reason why its 1280x1024 is becayse my old monitor only supports 1440x1050 max.

I just thought I would like to share the results, as you can see the HD2900XT and 8800GTS are on par I would say:

Tom's:
1280x1024
16AA/AF

Min Max Avg
35, 96, 55.559

Will's:
1280x1024
16AA/AF

Stock:
Min, Max, Avg
35, 114, 50.492

OC (650/2.2Ghz)
Min, Max, Avg
41, 126, 62.467


Now I'm just showing results, not trying to create another bad full on flame war Vs thread.

I know its one game but I can try to get some more benchmarks for other games.

 

[willhub]

Not really a fair comparison though is it as you are using different rigs.
I was expecting the two cards to at least have been benched in the same system.

What we really need is a proper review site to churn out some numbers using the latest beta driver sets from both sides.

Well It's something at least, it gives an idea, I dont think the 200Mhz difference in mine and tom's CPU will make much difference.

With dual monitors I think the best I can get is 1600x600 or 2560x1050 or something like that.

 

[willhub]

Can you run at high resolutions would be nice to see how they compare at something 1920x1200, also try and stick them on a graph would look nicer

My C2D is at 3.2Ghz and I cant get 1900x1200 results, if I had both card here I would do a propor benchmark with full detail and graphics but I dont, allthough I can buy one, dont wanna end up with 2 card and 1 PCI-E system though

 

[willhub]

What settings exactly? Multi, Coverage, Supersample AA, Which transparency? Optimizations? Mipmaps ? All in game settings maxed? Box, tent, wide filters?

I don't see the point of 16xAA. Its hardly a direct comparison after 4xMSAA.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/radeon-hd-2900xt/index.x?pg=6

I have gamma correction, transpaprency, SS.MS off, just 16xAA, I dont see what its got to do with this, do I look like i'm comparing it to that, I was comparing the GTS to the HD2900XT at the same res/AA/AF....

 

[willhub]

Right, transparency, gamma correction turned off, 16xCSAA or 8xAA? at 1280x1024, I am just trying to get some damn close comparisons here, I'm even upping my cpu to 3.4 at 1.55V to make it even more fair.

 

[willhub]

Lol, thanks Tom. I know how it works and the two implementations are not directly comparable, other than graphically sort of. If you want to go frame to frame stick to 4xMSAA.

As for as most people are concerned it is since if someone wants to use 16xAA on either card they aint gonna use 4xMSAA.

With my 8800 2xMSAA gives about the same performance hit as 16xAA

 

[willhub]

Well anyway on my pc, increasing the CPU to 3.4 got these:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
4883, 92863, 32, 97, 52.583

So CPU aint much good been increased.

The 2900XT will proberbly be better at higher res, but I'm sorry, I wont be going out and buying a better monitor, I cant afford it.

 

[willhub]

It dont look much different on either card unless you take screenshots and zoom in to see which aint got as much jaggys

 

[willhub]

I prefer ATi's as you can see the jaggies are almost none existant and blended as the sampling goes up with the CFAA. NV's are still slightly visible.

Maybe my eye's are not as good as yours, but I see no jaggys with 16xAA.