F.E.A.R. Performance
F.E.A.R. has a built in test that we make use of in this performance analysis. This test flies through some action as people shoot each other and things blow up. F.E.A.R. is very heavy on the graphics, and we enable most of the high end settings for our test.
During our testing of F.E.A.R., we noted that the "soft shadows" don't really look soft. They jumped out at us as multiple layers of transparent shadows layered on top of each other and jittered to appear soft. Unfortunately, this costs a lot in performance and not nearly enough shadows are used to make this look realistic. Thus, we disable soft shadows in our test even though its one of the large performance drains on the system.
Again we tested with antialiasing off and anisotropic filtering at 8x. All options were on their highest quality with the exception of soft shadows which was disabled. Frame rates for F.E.A.R. can get pretty low, but the game does a good job of staying playable down to about 25 fps.
The usual suspects are playable at 1600x1200, with the addition of the X1600 XT which just squeeks by our 25fps cutoff. The 7900 GT and X1900 GT which used to compete in terms of price are neck and neck again, but with the recent price cuts, the X1900 GT leads in value. The 7600 GT is solidly playable at this resolution, so if the budget prohibits the extra cash for the X1900 GT, the 7600 GT at under $200 is a good alternative for F.E.A.R. at 1600x1200.
At the low end, the 7900 GT leads the X1900 GT, but this game shows the ATI cards scaling a little better than the NVIDIA part. The 7600 GT, while neck and neck with the X1800 GTO at the low end, pulls away towards the higher resolutions. Owners of the 6600 GT will either want to upgrade to hit higher resolutions, turn down some settings, or drop to 1280x960 to see playable performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
jcbennett - Wednesday, September 6, 2006 - link
I've been unable to find these cheap prices for a x1900gt (nor can I find the card being sold in many places). The cheapest I see anywhere is on newegg for open box products - ~$220. For new products, their prices are ~$300. The 7900gt on the other hand I've found at Tiger Direct for $250 or less, including overclocked versions for ~$10 more.VooDooAddict - Saturday, August 12, 2006 - link
It's nice to see that really any of the new "midrange budget" solutions would work well for someone. Decissions can be made more on the details then on the raw speed. Most people would be very happy with 7600GT or better. None of the cards being pushed in this price range are really lemons. (Unlike the the GeforceFX 5xxx Series)Shader Model 3 is also supported across the X1xxxx or the 7xxx series lines.
blondeguy08 - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
since amd has aquired ati it is pointless to get a video card from them especcialy high end because amd has stomped out the ati name along with some of its name brand technologies meaning no support for the old............hello nvidia is th eonly way to go at this day and time maybe not tomorrow cause amd might potentially create a duo of the two companies products that could smoke intels relations with nvidia since they havent merged in retailation to amds move....arturnowp - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
AMD said there won't discontinue ATi and Radeon brand...Josh7289 - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
Yeah, and there isn't going to be any real products of this takeover until 2008 or so.arturnowp - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
I think 6600GT stands out in Quake 4 is because of its memory amount - it has only 128MB which isn't enough for Q4/D3. This card should be tested in medium. And even though Doom 3 give nice ave. framerate with 6600GT hiccups occurs with high quality textures.arturnowp - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
I wonder why those resolutions 'casue midrange gamers mostly use 1280x1024 and equivalentJarredWalton - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
We also show the various lower/higher resolutions, and basically chose a top resolution that shows how the cards begin to separate as the GPU is stressed more. At 1280x1024, some games begin to become CPU limited. It's also worth mentioning that 1600x1200 is relatively close to 1680x1050 in terms of GPU requirements, and 1920x1400 is close to 1920x1200 - the WS resolution will typically be ~10-20% faster in both instances (more at 19x12, less at 16x10). I would say a lot of people are moving to 1680x1050 these days, even in the mid-range.DerekWilson - Saturday, August 19, 2006 - link
also, if you just want to play at 1280x1024, I'd recommend going with the 7600 gt at this point ... the very low end of midrange cards can handle 12x9 and 12x10 resolutions.Egglick - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link
Where the heck is the 256MB X1800XT?? You can get it for http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82...">only $199 and it offers equal or better performance than the X1900GT.Why do review sites continually ignore this card??