Race Driver GRID Analysis

This game can really hammer graphics memory at high resolution, but in general performance is very good with GRID across the board. This is a short FRAPS test on a straight section of track at the beginning of a race from the back of the pack.




1680x1050    1920x1200    2560x1600


All cards are playable below 2560x1600 with ultra quality settings in GRID. Moving up in resolution really benefits from more than 512MB of RAM, especially with multiGPU options. 9800 GTX+ SLI, the 9800 GX2, 4870 512MB CrossFire and 4850 CrossFire really tank in performance with the two ATI solutions even providing a negative "improvement." We'd love to see ATI and NVIDIA detect negative performance impact from multiGPU systems and automatically revert to a single GPU, but it's clear from today's tests that neither NVIDIA nor ATI have anything like that going on.

At 2560x1600, any single GPU except for the 9800 GTX+ can handle 2560x1600. We strongly recommend cards with more than 512MB of memory for running at this resolution though, as navigating the menu suffers quite dramatically inspite of playable performance on the track.




1680x1050    1920x1200    2560x1600


We see really good performance scaling in this game, especially from NVIDIA hardware. From 77% to 100% scaling at 1680x1050 and mid to high 80% scaling for 1920x1200 is very imprssive. The best AMD can muster under 2560x1600 is 69% scaling with the 4850. Of course, AMD single GPU options do provide higher performance than their competition from NVIDIA, but the scaling advantage does help the case for SLI here. Looking at 2560x1600, the two 512MB CrossFire options tank completely and 4870 1GB scaling increases to over 73%. SLI still looks better here with 82% to 90% scaling on GT200 based parts. The 9800 GTX+ still scales, but it's low memory and already low single card performance at 2560x1600 make it not a viable solution.




1680x1050    1920x1200    2560x1600


All this translates to our value data as well. Single GPU AMD solutions live up near the top of the chart at all resolutions, while SLI doesn't drop off in value as much as CrossFire (though CrossFire, because of the higher baseline performance and lower cost, tends to accumulate more value than SLI). The 9800 GTX+, because of it's low cost and high scaling, is the exception posting good value numbers for NVIDIA until we hit 2560x1600 (at which point it drops way off).

Left 4 Dead Analysis Power Consumption
Comments Locked

95 Comments

View All Comments

  • makdaddy626 - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    I really appreciate the article and all the research and work that went into it. Kudos to you for it.

    A small suggestion would be to take into account a minimal playable frame rate in the value and performance per dollar data, where a ZERO would be substituted for the frame rate in instances where a card failed to reach a playable rate for a given game/resolution. I feel this would more accurately reflect the value of the card(s) as 15 FPS in most games presents no value.
  • Mastakilla - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    I agree

    Minimum framerates should be more important then average ones even...

    Interesting article though! I didn't know the 4850x2 was so competitive...

    Only in Crysis it does worse the the 285, which I had in mind for my new pc...
    That does make me wonder if the 285 might be a more future proof investment...
  • makdaddy626 - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    Yes, But I meant "minimum" in the sense of what the game needs to be played at, even you measure "average" - I just don't think it's fair to say that the 9800 GTX shows the highest performance per dollar on the Crysis Warhead 2560x1600 chart when it turns in frame rates of 13.5. To me that is ZERO value for the money because it's not playable. Someone wanting to play at those settings would be wasting EVERY dollar spent on the 9800 GTX.
  • 7Enigma - Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - link

    Completely agree. Statistics mean nothing when not taken in a proper context. Zero, NA, or just leaving it blank would be much better. Someone looking to use that card would then click on a lower resolution and see if it is a viable choice. It would reduce the amount of data that needed to be compared as the reader of the article, and make caveats like in the explaination section about comparing between cards/resolutions etc. almost moot.
  • Spivonious - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    The framerate charts are all but worthless if you're focusing on how performance scales. Why not some line graphs with all three resolutions shown and card models along the x-axis? Then the reader could see how performance is affected by the lower memory of some models and how it scales linearly with the higher-end cards.
  • 7Enigma - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    I would have to agree with this. I always enjoyed the broken line graphs that show multiple resolutions and framerates in the same graph. It makes comparisons very easy and more importantly allows EVERYONE to see their particular resolution without having to click on a link for a separate graph.

    It's fine to keep your specialized performance/$ and % increase from a single card the way you have it as I understand what you mean about not comparing between resolutions but for the general frame rate comparisons I preferred the old way.

    One thing I failed to see which I have seen in previous reviews with X-fire/SLI (or was it with tri/quad setups?) is the stuttering that can be present. I thought it was an Anand article but could have been from another site.
  • SiliconDoc - Wednesday, March 18, 2009 - link

    The charts are designed to autopop to 2650x - and we all know the red ragers have screamed the ati cards are great there.
    EVERY CHART pops to the favored ati $2,000.00 monitor resolution.
    It's not an accident, Derek made them.
  • C'DaleRider - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    Derek, if you want to impress, and this article does with its research, please invest in some writing manuals and learn some grammar.

    Take this sentence:
    "This unique card really shined and held it's own all the way up to 2560x1600."

    Your use of "IT'S" in this instance is incorrect. IT'S is a contraction for IT IS, not a possessive word, which is ITS.


    Or take this passage, "It's very surprising to us that AMD hasn't pushed this configuration and that Sapphire are the only manufacturer to have put one of these out there."

    Sapphire is a company or organization, I realize that. But in this instance, you're referring to a group in its singular fashion, or as a single unit. That context is seen by the only manufacturer in the sentence.

    That sentence should have read. "It's very surprising to us that AMD hasn't pushed this configuration and that Sapphire IS the only manufacturer to have put one of these out there."

    Here's the rule for that (taken from both MLA and APA handbooks): If the action of the verb is on the group as a whole, treat the noun as a singular noun. If the action of the verb in on members of the group as individuals, treat the noun as a plural noun.

    This means companies, such as Microsoft, IBM, Sapphire, Ford, etc., when being referred to the company as a whole collective, single entity, has to have a singular verb.

    But, if you are referring to pieces of the whole, such as "the engineers of Ford are.....", or "The programmmers at Microsoft are.....".

    Please invest in some proper English grammar texts and take time to read and learn from them. Your error laden grammar you write and use is quite distracting and detracts from what is supposed to be a professionally run hardware site.

    Hire a proofreader or good copy editor if learning proper grammar is too difficult.

    Otherwise, this was a great article!
  • The0ne - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    I don't really mind Anandtech articles as much in terms of presentation, spelling and graphics. Other sites such as Ars Technica, x-bit labs, and so forth are much worst. The first is first since they've started writing articles concerning everything, it seems.

    If I did mind, I say stick to the general guidelines writing manuals, procedures, pamphlets, technical docs, etc. But being online, this isn't the case and won't ever be. Again, I don't mind as much because I do the same thing myself where I hardly pay attention to spelling or grammar when writing online. It's only when I write short stories or for work that I pay attention. Strange but comfortsure does make one do these things :)

    And yes, I do write all sorts of articles daily.

  • oldscotch - Monday, February 23, 2009 - link

    "Your error laden grammar you write and use is quite distracting and detracts from what is supposed to be a professionally run hardware site."

    That should read "The error laden grammar you use is quite distracting..." or just "Your error laden grammer is quite distracting..."
    "Your error laden grammam you write and use..." is redundant.

    Perhaps you should learn some grammar yourself before criticizing others about theirs.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now