F.E.A.R. GPU Performance Tests: Setting a New Standard
by Josh Venning on October 20, 2005 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
As we said in our introduction, FEAR does indeed set a new standard for games, and there is no denying the quality of its graphics. Perhaps there could have been more variety in some areas, but the beauty of the action sequences can't be matched in any first-person shooter that we've seen. For graphics, FEAR paves the way for a new generation of games, and is also the first game able to bring the highest powered cards available to their knees when played at its full graphical potential.
We feel that it is important to note that we tested with products unavailable at this time. We feel that it is important to look forward at what we might be able to expect from ATI in terms of performance. At the same time, we feel that that gap between launch and availability of product at this point in the game is a huge mistake. All we need to say about the subject is that there is no reason to wait for these cards to become available based on our performance analysis.
This game alone gives players without high end monitors a real reason to justify saving up for a 7800 GTX. Those who want to play FEAR at the highest resolution and settings with AA enabled (without soft shadows) will basically have to use the 7800 GTX, as no other card available gets playable framerates at those settings, and the 7800 GTX does just barely (if uncomfortably). If you have to play at 1600x1200 and you don't care about AA, then the 7800 GT and possibly the 6800 GT will play well, as will ATI's X1800 XL. However, don't run out and buy an X1800 XL just yet because the 7800 GT runs the game better, and right now, you can buy the NVIDIA darling for less money than the X1800 XL (about $340 as opposed to $390).
FEAR looks good enough that people will enjoy the game at even the lowest resolutions, and all of the cards that we've tested will run the game fine at resolutions as high as 1024x768 without AA and soft shadows, with the exception of the X1300 PRO. This card performed the worst overall, but it still runs FEAR fine (without AA and SS) at 800x600. If you are on a shoestring budget, but need to buy one of these cards to play FEAR, a good choice would be the X800 GT for $130, or even better, the 6600 GT for about $15 more. That's not much more money considering the 6600 GT gets 31 fps at 1280x1024 compared to only 25 fps on the X800 GT, which we wouldn't waste our time. With the MSRP on the X1300 Pro sitting at about $150, we can't see how the part will sell at all given its competition.
If you are looking for a good middle-of-the-road card that could handle 1024x768 with AA enabled, the 6800 GT might be a good choice, but at $280, it might be nice to save up and get the 7800 GT ($340). Overall though, given performance and price, you'll want to stay away from both the X1800 XL and the X1300 PRO, as they just aren't practical. Keep in mind, however, that these are still very new graphics cards and prices change.
This is very old news by now, but we have to mention it yet again. The fact that ATI still has no competitor for the 7800 GTX yet means that lots of FEAR players will be looking to NVIDIA for their graphics solution. This puts ATI behind again, and with games like Quake 4 coming out soon, things are looking even worse for ATI than they already have been. We were happy to see that ATI is at least coming out with high end parts, but where is the 7800 GTX competition? We need to see the X1800 XT on shelves with a competitive price soon, or there won't be much that can help ATI, especially with the rumors about what's coming down the pipe from NVIDIA.
All that aside, our focus here is on FEAR, and while we aren't saying that this is the best game out now by any means, we are saying that it is probably the most significant, given how graphically demanding it is. Be assured that we will be giving it a much more thorough testing on the "fun-ness" factor for a while to come.
As we said in our introduction, FEAR does indeed set a new standard for games, and there is no denying the quality of its graphics. Perhaps there could have been more variety in some areas, but the beauty of the action sequences can't be matched in any first-person shooter that we've seen. For graphics, FEAR paves the way for a new generation of games, and is also the first game able to bring the highest powered cards available to their knees when played at its full graphical potential.
We feel that it is important to note that we tested with products unavailable at this time. We feel that it is important to look forward at what we might be able to expect from ATI in terms of performance. At the same time, we feel that that gap between launch and availability of product at this point in the game is a huge mistake. All we need to say about the subject is that there is no reason to wait for these cards to become available based on our performance analysis.
This game alone gives players without high end monitors a real reason to justify saving up for a 7800 GTX. Those who want to play FEAR at the highest resolution and settings with AA enabled (without soft shadows) will basically have to use the 7800 GTX, as no other card available gets playable framerates at those settings, and the 7800 GTX does just barely (if uncomfortably). If you have to play at 1600x1200 and you don't care about AA, then the 7800 GT and possibly the 6800 GT will play well, as will ATI's X1800 XL. However, don't run out and buy an X1800 XL just yet because the 7800 GT runs the game better, and right now, you can buy the NVIDIA darling for less money than the X1800 XL (about $340 as opposed to $390).
FEAR looks good enough that people will enjoy the game at even the lowest resolutions, and all of the cards that we've tested will run the game fine at resolutions as high as 1024x768 without AA and soft shadows, with the exception of the X1300 PRO. This card performed the worst overall, but it still runs FEAR fine (without AA and SS) at 800x600. If you are on a shoestring budget, but need to buy one of these cards to play FEAR, a good choice would be the X800 GT for $130, or even better, the 6600 GT for about $15 more. That's not much more money considering the 6600 GT gets 31 fps at 1280x1024 compared to only 25 fps on the X800 GT, which we wouldn't waste our time. With the MSRP on the X1300 Pro sitting at about $150, we can't see how the part will sell at all given its competition.
If you are looking for a good middle-of-the-road card that could handle 1024x768 with AA enabled, the 6800 GT might be a good choice, but at $280, it might be nice to save up and get the 7800 GT ($340). Overall though, given performance and price, you'll want to stay away from both the X1800 XL and the X1300 PRO, as they just aren't practical. Keep in mind, however, that these are still very new graphics cards and prices change.
This is very old news by now, but we have to mention it yet again. The fact that ATI still has no competitor for the 7800 GTX yet means that lots of FEAR players will be looking to NVIDIA for their graphics solution. This puts ATI behind again, and with games like Quake 4 coming out soon, things are looking even worse for ATI than they already have been. We were happy to see that ATI is at least coming out with high end parts, but where is the 7800 GTX competition? We need to see the X1800 XT on shelves with a competitive price soon, or there won't be much that can help ATI, especially with the rumors about what's coming down the pipe from NVIDIA.
All that aside, our focus here is on FEAR, and while we aren't saying that this is the best game out now by any means, we are saying that it is probably the most significant, given how graphically demanding it is. Be assured that we will be giving it a much more thorough testing on the "fun-ness" factor for a while to come.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
117 Comments
View All Comments
dashrendar - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
I'm the only person on the face of the planet who's going to be able to play this game at 1600x1200 with everything set to max, with min 60 fps, and enjoy every dpi of its beauty... a year from now that is.Icehawk - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Personally I don't think the game looks all that great and once I set it so it is playable it looks pretty bad IMO - Quake 4 looks better and runs smoother at higher rez with more options.P4 3.4ghz, 1gb ram, 6600GT - I need to run it at 8x6 with everything on medium, no AA - it's fugly man.
I'm sick of reviews with only the highest end gear - the 6600GT #s mean almost nothing to an actual owner, who has an FX processor and "only" a 6600?! Please start using TWO machines for these tests, one super mega rig for getting absolute #s and one average machine so users can see what they will REALLY get.
mostlyprudent - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
I have to agree with what others have said. Where are the X800 Pro/XL and X850 XT? Why test with ATI's new (unavailable) cards at the expense of the currently available ones and then dismiss tham as options because of availability issues? If you feel so strongly about it, refuse to test with them until they become available. Then we can all complain about the absence of testing with forthcoming cards! :) Sucks to be a reviewer and have to test 15 different cards to please most of us.Which brings me to my industry issue: How long can NV and ATI realistically continue to crank out new architectures every 6 months? Something has got to give. I think the worst case scenario is ending up in a single manufacturer situation. I keep hoping ATi pulls something out of their hat just for competition sake.
Are the days of passively cooled cards over?! I haven't even gotten around to picking up Gigabyte's passively cooled X800XL and it's already becoming outdated :(
flexy - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
>>>I have to agree with what others have said. Where are the X800 Pro/XL and X850 XT? Why test with ATI's new (unavailable) cards at the expense of the currently available ones and then dismiss tham as options because of availability issues? If you feel so strongly about it, refuse to test with them until they become available.
>>>
i totally agree. I just stuningly overflew the article and the charts where in the AA/AF tests (which are the ones which count) the 1800XT CLEARLY comes out a TAD faster than the 7800GTX.
THEN - below i read: "We can only recommend 'saving up for a 7800GTX'.
a)if you recommend 'saving for a 7800GTX' then i dont understand that you dont mention that the 1800XT might be available the same time when this person saved it's money going out for a GTX - and then XT would be faster
b) having the XT in the charts and then dismiss it in the recommendations because availability is WEIRD. I UNDERSTAND, and we're all frustrated by ATI's paper launches and non-existing fantasy cards.....but, still..i THINK you would have done better if you'd waited a bit longer 'til the XT is an available product...instead of showing it in the graphs and then forget about it because it might take a few more weeks 'til they're available.
ALSO - you as testers HAD one (XT)....so it doesnt make sense because you HAD the product in hands and compared it - and this was a real product which will be available soone (ehrm, i hope :) )and not some calculated "benchies" based on a totally differnt hardware.
c) X850PE: For sure. Miss the numbers becausew i have one
d) i think it would be worth to mention that, amongst all the hype, a engine which runs BARELY 40FPS on super-duper high-end cards realle "does not make much sense" - especially if opinions are split whether the gfx in it are REALLY *that* ground breaking. MAYBE - maybe this game engine is just really BAD and inefficient. Sorry...we're talking about high-end machines here with 2GB ram and top-notch gfx cards in the $500 range...and a mediocre resolution like 1280x doesnt get better than 40FPS ??? Not really a reason to rave.
And as some said, there are similiar titles out with (subjective seen) on par (or even better) graphics which runs WAY faster.
OrSin - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Why are review impressed when games need more graphic power? Can we be impressed with good graphics and lower requirements. It a shame when a $50 game need a $500 video card. And whats worste is that in year another will need the next $500 card. And all this to play maybe 5 FPS at most in the next year.bob661 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Don't play the game or turn your settings down! It's pretty simple. I've been doing it for a long time as until last year, I couldn't even afford a midrange video card.Pythias - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Don't play the game or turn your settings down! It's pretty simple. I've been doing it for a long time as until last year, I couldn't even afford a midrange video card.Thats a great idea, except I just purchased an lcd. Mine doesnt play well with anything other than its native resolution.
bob661 - Friday, October 21, 2005 - link
Well then you need to get crackin on that new video card! :)antiprnt - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Seemed like it was more of a 1800xt vs 7800 gtx article..all the other stuff mentioned was just a bonus, maybe thats why they didnt include sli in the mix..latino666 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/fear_performan...">They use the X800 XL . Not only that but when they review a game they do it in two different articles. One for mainstream and another for high-end. I would like to see Anandtech do the same.