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
carl0ski - Sunday, October 23, 2005 - link
I think this is an EXTREMELY bad reviewwhat card do you own?
i know i own a ATI 9600XT bought 12 months ago and runs BF2 really well at medium-high
but why dont Article like this include that info??
Either these sites have lost the plot
Or ATI and Nvidia dont want us to know that older/cheaper cards are still capable
Yes because we all just happen to be playing FEAR with Drivers not yet available.
And WHat is wrong with this list?
alot at first glance for starts ATI Radeon X1800 XT (not yet available)
ATI Radeon X1600 XT (not yet available)
dont exist on the market yet. So yes just happen to be running those on FEAR already.
This articler is to sell VIdeo Cards not fear.
Pythias - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
"This has become a never ending process that is wearing thin on me."Amen. If it wont run on whay I have now, I simply wont buy it. The software/hardware gouging can continue on without me. At least with a console, you know the games you buy are going to run on your machine.
DerekWilson - Friday, October 21, 2005 - link
The games will run fine if you turn off maximum detail setting. There still isn't a card that can run EQ2 at extreme quality mode.I see this as a good thing because games out there are finally making use of the high end hardware some people have invested in. Until this half of the year there really hasn't been much out that could really make use of high end hardware.
This is quite different than requiring high end hardware.
xsilver - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
you should have forewell known that the computer industry moves very fastif you want a bugdet gaming experience, I suggest a ps2/xbox....
no one is telling you to toss your 6800gt, its just that if you WANT to run high resolutions with AA/ansio enabled then you need the latest/greatest card, its ALWAYS been like that
deathwalker - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
xsliver...I fully understand all of what you are saying...Im 58 yrs old and have been building customs systems for about 12 years...and...I "have" by in large kept up with new technology at all of my upgrade intervals. Perhaps in my position and at my age the payback just isn't what it use to be.bob661 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Sounds like you aren't having fun with todays games. I choose to stick to the old stuff until I see a game I like then I'll switch. I don't play new games just because they're new. I play BF2, UT2004 (the funnest game of these 3) and sometimes COD (and probably COD2 when I have a chance to play the demo). I don't play anything else because I don't like anything else. Also, my hardware upgrade path is solely dictated by the games I play.arswihart - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
i agree the x800xt/xl should be included, i can't understand why they would beChronoReverse - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
I must have missed it, but what were the other settings used for each card?I'm particularly curious about the shader level used and the texture detail level.
Le Québécois - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Everything was set to maximum except for the soft shadow, AA and AF.capslock99999 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
I was thinking about hte RAM issue too. I used 1GB for the demo, then I upgraded to 1.5GB. It removed a lot of stuttering and felt a whole lot smoother.This was the demo, of course.
Why are 6800GTs used and not Ultras? I've found this trend recently, a little puzzling.