Oblivion finally benchmarked!

[professor1942]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: professor1942

Originally posted by: Zebo

Don't get me wrong, it's great to see a game really stress hardware, but this is insane. We thought that F.E.A.R. was a stressful game, but this just tears it to shreds.

Truth! I don't even turn on AF with 7800GTX, suposedly a fast card. As far as FEAR - personally I never could fiqure out why it used so much resources since the game looked worse than much faster games - but Oblivion really shows you on screen whats bringing system to knees.

I agree, FEAR looks just like Chaser with the brightness turned to zero, and it only offers about 10% of the gameplay. Most overrated game of 2005 IMO.

That's because you've never played it. Play a game like Morrowind or Oblivion, then tell me it's "overrated". Perhaps you think it stinks because you dont want to use your head and play only mindless FPS.......

Why would I call something overrated if I'd never played it? Of course I played it... for about 4 hours, and I found it excruciatingly boring.

 

[darXoul]

I wonder how much Oblivion benefits from dual core CPUs. The German PC Games claims that an X2 4800+ is 40% faster than single core 3800+ in 1024*768 with no AA/AF. I'd like to see some more representative benchmarks like eye candy 1600*1200 or 1280*1024/960.

It would be cool to finally see reliable SLI vs. single card benchmarks now. According to PC Games, in the a/m settings, performance doesn't really improve with SLI. Again, it would be worth seeing more representative benchmarks.

Preferably:

1 MB cache single core A64 @ 2.4 GHz with 7900 GTX and SLI 7900 GTX vs.
2 x 1 MB cache dual core A64 @ 2.4 GHz with 7900 GTX and SLI 7900 GTX

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: professor1942

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: professor1942

Originally posted by: Zebo

Don't get me wrong, it's great to see a game really stress hardware, but this is insane. We thought that F.E.A.R. was a stressful game, but this just tears it to shreds.

Truth! I don't even turn on AF with 7800GTX, suposedly a fast card. As far as FEAR - personally I never could fiqure out why it used so much resources since the game looked worse than much faster games - but Oblivion really shows you on screen whats bringing system to knees.

I agree, FEAR looks just like Chaser with the brightness turned to zero, and it only offers about 10% of the gameplay. Most overrated game of 2005 IMO.

That's because you've never played it. Play a game like Morrowind or Oblivion, then tell me it's "overrated". Perhaps you think it stinks because you dont want to use your head and play only mindless FPS.......

Why would I call something overrated if I'd never played it? Of course I played it... for about 4 hours, and I found it excruciatingly boring.

Well, then I guess you have..... different tastes. What exactly is boring about it? I could see the beginning dungeon getting boring if you're stuck in it or something, but once you get out into the free-roaming world........ never a dull moment.

WAIT- are you talking about FEAR being overrated, or Oblivion?

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Shadowmage
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2006/03/31/elder_scrolls_oblivion/4.html

They were testing the stock X1900XTX vs an OCed 7900GTX 512MB running at 670/1640

They tested the cards for MAX PLAYABLE SETTINGS. The X1900XTX could play at maximum settings with HQ 16xAF, while the 7900GTX could only do mid-high settings at 1280x1024 resolution.

fanboys have poor reading comprehension?

The difference between the image quality on the Radeon X1900XTX and GeForce 7900 GTX wasn't noticeable, even with Grass Shadows turned off - all that seemed to do was darken the grass texture a little.

and lie?

The BFG Tech GeForce 7900 GTX OC wasn't quite as fast as the Radeon X1900XTX, as we were unable to run the game at its maximum settings. We were able to use almost maximum settings and high quality drivers too

like people wouldn't actually read? :roll:

The X1900 XTX had grass shadows enabled in addition to HQ AF (something nVidia can't even reproduce) and it STILL beat out the 7900 GTX in Oblivion, that's pretty significant. If they did an apples to apples comparison and turned off grass shadows for the XTX and used standard AF it would've stomped the 7900 GTX; the GTX went from a minimum of 12 fps to 17 fps by shutting off grass shadows.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Sonikku
I'm enjoying the PQ and the performance on my $400 machine a great deal. Currently running it at 1280x720.

blows me away that it runs great on my $200 Video card [x850xt].

it is a SUPERB game . . .
:thumbsup:

that "commercial" brought to you - by me

now back to Oblivion . . . . aloha

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: professor1942

Originally posted by: Zebo

Don't get me wrong, it's great to see a game really stress hardware, but this is insane. We thought that F.E.A.R. was a stressful game, but this just tears it to shreds.

Truth! I don't even turn on AF with 7800GTX, suposedly a fast card. As far as FEAR - personally I never could fiqure out why it used so much resources since the game looked worse than much faster games - but Oblivion really shows you on screen whats bringing system to knees.

I agree, FEAR looks just like Chaser with the brightness turned to zero, and it only offers about 10% of the gameplay. Most overrated game of 2005 IMO.

Have you seen FEAR's physics engine? Have you seen the AI in action. They are UNREAL! I have never seen anything that good!

As for Oblivion, those screenshots are absolutely incredible. Im not one for games like Elder Scroll's but that looks fantastic. The only thing is, why do they just give us what they believe. Give us the benchmarks and let us determine what is playable. Not only that what is with the SM2.x path. First off, why would one card be running .b while the other runs .a (Is it because the Nvidia cards do not support 'B', they only support 'A' and 3.0?). Additionally, for a game this new, why in the world is it not using the SM3.0 path; something that both cards support.

-Kevin

ATi introduced SM2.0b and nVidia stuck with SM2.0a and then jumped to SM3 with the 6800 series. ATi made the SM2.0b sepcs for the X800 because SM3 was supposedly too much add to the card at the time of designing.

But still the X800 are actually getting better gaming (well i dont know for sure, but looking at the shader path its using) than the 6800, but i doubt its anywhere near noticeable.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Perhaps you think it stinks because you dont want to use your head and play only mindless FPS.......

FYI, lots of FPS far from mindless. Especially team oriented ones. If you have not played a competition FPS.. then I guess you wouldnt have a clue.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Shadowmage
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2006/03/31/elder_scrolls_oblivion/4.html

They were testing the stock X1900XTX vs an OCed 7900GTX 512MB running at 670/1640

They tested the cards for MAX PLAYABLE SETTINGS. The X1900XTX could play at maximum settings with HQ 16xAF, while the 7900GTX could only do mid-high settings at 1280x1024 resolution.

fanboys have poor reading comprehension?

The difference between the image quality on the Radeon X1900XTX and GeForce 7900 GTX wasn't noticeable, even with Grass Shadows turned off - all that seemed to do was darken the grass texture a little.

and lie?

The BFG Tech GeForce 7900 GTX OC wasn't quite as fast as the Radeon X1900XTX, as we were unable to run the game at its maximum settings. We were able to use almost maximum settings and high quality drivers too

like people wouldn't actually read? :roll:

The X1900 XTX had grass shadows enabled in addition to HQ AF (something nVidia can't even reproduce) and it STILL beat out the 7900 GTX in Oblivion, that's pretty significant. If they did an apples to apples comparison and turned off grass shadows for the XTX and used standard AF it would've stomped the 7900 GTX; the GTX went from a minimum of 12 fps to 17 fps by shutting off grass shadows.

I don't understand these sites "new" way of doing things. Oranges to apples like this. I missed that detail until you pointed it out just now...

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Shadowmage
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2006/03/31/elder_scrolls_oblivion/4.html

They were testing the stock X1900XTX vs an OCed 7900GTX 512MB running at 670/1640

They tested the cards for MAX PLAYABLE SETTINGS. The X1900XTX could play at maximum settings with HQ 16xAF, while the 7900GTX could only do mid-high settings at 1280x1024 resolution.

fanboys have poor reading comprehension?

The difference between the image quality on the Radeon X1900XTX and GeForce 7900 GTX wasn't noticeable, even with Grass Shadows turned off - all that seemed to do was darken the grass texture a little.

and lie?

The BFG Tech GeForce 7900 GTX OC wasn't quite as fast as the Radeon X1900XTX, as we were unable to run the game at its maximum settings. We were able to use almost maximum settings and high quality drivers too

like people wouldn't actually read? :roll:

The X1900 XTX had grass shadows enabled in addition to HQ AF (something nVidia can't even reproduce) and it STILL beat out the 7900 GTX in Oblivion, that's pretty significant. If they did an apples to apples comparison and turned off grass shadows for the XTX and used standard AF it would've stomped the 7900 GTX; the GTX went from a minimum of 12 fps to 17 fps by shutting off grass shadows.

I don't understand these sites "new" way of doing things. Oranges to apples like this. I missed that detail until you pointed it out just now...

Yeah unfortunately with these type of reviews, important details tend to get missed because people are so used to seeing comparisons using equal settings rather than "best playable". However, like I pointed out above, if you take into account that the XTX used settings that cause a noticeable decrease in fps (grass shadows) as well as HQ AF and it still beat the GTX, then it clearly would stomp the GTX in an equal settings comparison. Looks like ATi was wise to go with a shader heavy architecture.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: Drayvn
As i found out in the other thread Oblivion Tweaks.

The X1900 is using the SM2.0b path while the 7900 only uses the SM2.0a path, which seems concurrent that the game uses the SM2.0b as performance enhancments.

IIRC, PS2a is actually more capable in some ways than PS2b. "b" was just named as such b/c it arrived with the X800, after "a" with the FX5800.

Not sure if it's anything more than a technicality with Oblivion, though. It may allow for small speedups thanks to fewer passes, similar to PS3 and PS2b in Far Cry. OTOH, maybe PS2b's extra temp registers are significant with Oblivion's shaders.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
The X1900 XTX had grass shadows enabled in addition to HQ AF (something nVidia can't even reproduce) and it STILL beat out the 7900 GTX in Oblivion, that's pretty significant. If they did an apples to apples comparison and turned off grass shadows for the XTX and used standard AF it would've stomped the 7900 GTX; the GTX went from a minimum of 12 fps to 17 fps by shutting off grass shadows.

a feature with no benefit is hardly a feature:

The difference between the image quality on the Radeon X1900XTX and GeForce 7900 GTX wasn't noticeable, even with Grass Shadows turned off - all that seemed to do was darken the grass texture a little.

it's pretty pathetic when ppl have to grasp at every little straw to try and claim an advantage. while i'd have to agree the xtx has an edge (also cost more, btw), the reality is they offer the same gameplay and same iq (tho you have to "suffer" with a little lighter grass texture if you have a GTX).

 

[professor1942]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
WAIT- are you talking about FEAR being overrated, or Oblivion?

lol, FEAR. Oblivion rocks!

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
The X1900 XTX had grass shadows enabled in addition to HQ AF (something nVidia can't even reproduce) and it STILL beat out the 7900 GTX in Oblivion, that's pretty significant. If they did an apples to apples comparison and turned off grass shadows for the XTX and used standard AF it would've stomped the 7900 GTX; the GTX went from a minimum of 12 fps to 17 fps by shutting off grass shadows.

a feature with no benefit is hardly a feature:

The difference between the image quality on the Radeon X1900XTX and GeForce 7900 GTX wasn't noticeable, even with Grass Shadows turned off - all that seemed to do was darken the grass texture a little.

it's pretty pathetic when ppl have to grasp at every little straw to try and claim an advantage. while i'd have to agree the xtx has an edge (also cost more, btw), the reality is they offer the same gameplay and same iq (tho you have to "suffer" with a little lighter grass texture if you have a GTX).

Who said anything about image quality? My post was very clear: The XTX has a heavier workload with HQ AF and grass shadows turned on. Set it to standard AF and no grass shadows and the GTX would've gotten stomped on even harder. You reposting what bit-tech just reinforces what I said. If there was no noticeable IQ difference with grass shadows turned ON, then they should've disabled it for the XTX as well - of course if they did that the poor old GTX would've lost even worse.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
The X1900XTX is arguably superior than a 7900GTX in a single card config, but I want to see benches for dual graphics cards. Maybe SLi will be able to edge out Crossfire with its greater efficiency.

i belive i read somewhere crossfire doesn't work on it atm; needs a driver update. not optimized for dual cpu either.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Who said anything about image quality? My post was very clear: The XTX has a heavier workload with HQ AF and grass shadows turned on. Set it to standard AF and no grass shadows and the GTX would've gotten stomped on even harder. You reposting what bit-tech just reinforces what I said. If there was no noticeable IQ difference with grass shadows turned ON, then they should've disabled it for the XTX as well - of course if they did that the poor old GTX would've lost even worse.

like i said, a feature which offers no benefit is hardly a feature... not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Who said anything about image quality? My post was very clear: The XTX has a heavier workload with HQ AF and grass shadows turned on. Set it to standard AF and no grass shadows and the GTX would've gotten stomped on even harder. You reposting what bit-tech just reinforces what I said. If there was no noticeable IQ difference with grass shadows turned ON, then they should've disabled it for the XTX as well - of course if they did that the poor old GTX would've lost even worse.

like i said, a feature which offers no benefit is hardly a feature... not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

So what's your point? If the grass shadows offers no noticeable IQ gain yet incurs a noticeable performance penalty then it should've been turned off for the XTX as well. The GTX benefitted by having it turned off because it went from a min fps of 12 to 17. How hard is that for you to grasp? Do I need to send smoke signals to you so it finally gets through to you?

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: RobertR1

Originally posted by: Spamdini
there are much better looking games out there.

Screen shots don't do it justice. Playing this game in motion with everything turned up + the ini tweaks is quite breath taking. Take into account the perfect day/night cycles and it's something else.

This is without even touching on the fantastic gameplay.

I personally think Splinter Cell with parallax mapping on looks nicer. For some reason, for me the textures in Oblivion look like crap. I turned uGrids to 9 and it still looks like crap, at least the close up ones do.

 

[mazeroth]

it's pretty pathetic when ppl have to grasp at every little straw to try and claim an advantage. while i'd have to agree the xtx has an edge (also cost more, btw), the reality is they offer the same gameplay and same iq (tho you have to "suffer" with a little lighter grass texture if you have a GTX).

Actually, the 7900 GTX is CONSIDERABLY more expensive than the X1900XT. Yes, I know the review used the X1900XTX, but I've never seen an X1900XT that can't reach XTX speeds, ever. The X1900XT can be had for $100 less than a 7900 GTX, so the comparison is way more in favor of the ATI. No, I'm not a fan of either as I have a 7800GT and an X1900XT.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: mazeroth

it's pretty pathetic when ppl have to grasp at every little straw to try and claim an advantage. while i'd have to agree the xtx has an edge (also cost more, btw), the reality is they offer the same gameplay and same iq (tho you have to "suffer" with a little lighter grass texture if you have a GTX).

Actually, the 7900 GTX is CONSIDERABLY more expensive than the X1900XT. Yes, I know the review used the X1900XTX, but I've never seen an X1900XT that can't reach XTX speeds, ever. The X1900XT can be had for $100 less than a 7900 GTX, so the comparison is way more in favor of the ATI. No, I'm not a fan of either as I have a 7800GT and an X1900XT.

yes, i stated that as an XTX was reviewed, not an XT.

but using your logic, would it not be true the GTX could be overclocked as well (they use stock speeds on a BFG GXT)? heck, XFX ships with 700mhz core (BFG is 670mhz).

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
...

yes, i stated that as an XTX was reviewed, not an XT.

but using your logic, would it not be true the GTX could be overclocked as well (they use stock speeds on a BFG GXT)? heck, XFX ships with 700mhz core (BFG is 670mhz).

Yes, and XT(X) can go higher than 650. So what's your point?

 

[Bull Dog]

To the whole mess of people posting above please keep in mind these facts:

A. The 7900GTX is running slighty OVERCLOCKED (4.6core OC and 2.5% memory OC, probably provides a 2% increase in FPS)
B. The X1900XTX is using 16xHQ AF (This causes a very measureable performance hit)
C. The X1900XTX has grass shadows turned on (On the GTX, this caused the minimum FPS to take a 5FPS hit/gain 5FPS)

Cliff notes: The X1900XTX gives the 7900GTX a nice thrashing.

Edit: Hit post too soon.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Who said anything about image quality? My post was very clear: The XTX has a heavier workload with HQ AF and grass shadows turned on. Set it to standard AF and no grass shadows and the GTX would've gotten stomped on even harder. You reposting what bit-tech just reinforces what I said. If there was no noticeable IQ difference with grass shadows turned ON, then they should've disabled it for the XTX as well - of course if they did that the poor old GTX would've lost even worse.

like i said, a feature which offers no benefit is hardly a feature... not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

So what's your point? If the grass shadows offers no noticeable IQ gain yet incurs a noticeable performance penalty then it should've been turned off for the XTX as well. The GTX benefitted by having it turned off because it went from a min fps of 12 to 17. How hard is that for you to grasp? Do I need to send smoke signals to you so it finally gets through to you?

it's not me who doesn't "get it" bud.

it's just hilarious (as well as annoying) to see the "technicalites" you have to reach for in order to make the 1900 superior. kinda like rollo used to do on behalf of nvidia...

like i stated earlier, the x1900xtx seems to have the edge, but for all intensive purposes they offer similar play/IQ.

as for "why" they did it, it's pretty simple. they were reaching for the highest "playable" setting. this isn't a "who has the highest fps" comparison or e-penis measuring stick, rather a hardocp style "best playable setting" comparison which tries to reflect "real life" gaming scenarios.

i personally don't like the methodology, but the review still shows that both cards offer comparable quality/performance curve.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Janooo

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
...

yes, i stated that as an XTX was reviewed, not an XT.

but using your logic, would it not be true the GTX could be overclocked as well (they use stock speeds on a BFG GXT)? heck, XFX ships with 700mhz core (BFG is 670mhz).

Yes, and XT(X) can go higher than 650. So what's your point?

how many? and how high?

how about the GTX, what do they all OC to? should we use the 800mhz GT? where do we stop?

the point is we can speculate all we want. i'm not the one speculating. the review was the review and it uses what it used, and i made statements based on that.

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
...

i personally don't like the methodology, but the review still shows that both cards offer comparable quality/performance curve.

I assume you would see the difference if the grass shadow is present or not. It means XT is giving you more realistic iamge. That's a quality difference right there.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Who said anything about image quality? My post was very clear: The XTX has a heavier workload with HQ AF and grass shadows turned on. Set it to standard AF and no grass shadows and the GTX would've gotten stomped on even harder. You reposting what bit-tech just reinforces what I said. If there was no noticeable IQ difference with grass shadows turned ON, then they should've disabled it for the XTX as well - of course if they did that the poor old GTX would've lost even worse.

like i said, a feature which offers no benefit is hardly a feature... not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

So what's your point? If the grass shadows offers no noticeable IQ gain yet incurs a noticeable performance penalty then it should've been turned off for the XTX as well. The GTX benefitted by having it turned off because it went from a min fps of 12 to 17. How hard is that for you to grasp? Do I need to send smoke signals to you so it finally gets through to you?

Agreed. Whether or not grass is a useful feature is totally irrelevant in this context. The important thing is that grass shadows induces performance hit.