The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Performance

While it is disappointing that Oblivion doesn't have a built in benchmark, our FRAPS tests have proven to be fairly repeatable and very intensive on every part of a system. While these numbers will reflect real world playability of the game, please remember that our test system uses the fastest processor we could get our hands on. If a purchasing decision is to be made using Oblivion performance alone, please check out our two articles on the CPU and GPU performance of Oblivion. We have used the most graphically intensive benchmark in our suite, but the rest of the platform will make a difference. We can still easily demonstrate which graphics card is best for Oblivion even if our numbers don't translate to what our readers will see on their systems.

Running through the forest towards an Oblivion gate while fireballs fly by our head is a very graphically taxing benchmark. In order to run this benchmark, we have a saved game that we load and run through with FRAPS. To start the benchmark, we hit "q" which just runs forward, and start and stop FRAPS at predetermined points in the run. While not 100% identical each run, our benchmark scores are usually fairly close. We run the benchmark a couple times just to be sure there wasn't a one time hiccup.

As for settings, we tested a few different configurations and decided on this group of options:

Oblivion Performance Settings
Texture Size Large
Tree Fade 100%
Actor Fade 100%
Item Fade 66%
Object Fade 90%
Grass Distance 50%
View Distance 100%
Distant Land On
Distant Buildings On
Distant Trees On
Interior Shadows 95%
Exterior Shadows 85%
Self Shadows On
Shadows on Grass On
Tree Canopy Shadows On
Shadow Filtering High
Specular Distance 100%
HDR Lighting On
Bloom Lighting Off
Water Detail High
Water Reflections On
Water Ripples On
Window Reflections On
Blood Decals High
Anti-aliasing Off

Our goal was to get acceptable performance levels under the current generation of cards at 1600x1200. This was fairly easy with the range of cards we tested here. These settings are amazing and very enjoyable. While more is better in this game, no current computer will give you everything at high res. Only the best multi-GPU solution and a great CPU are going to give you settings like the ones we have at high resolutions, but who cares about grass distance, right?

While very graphically intensive, and first person, this isn't a twitch shooter. Our experience leads us to conclude that 20fps gives a good experience. It's playable a little lower, but watch out for some jerkiness that may pop up. Getting down to 16fps and below is a little too low to be acceptable. The main point to bring home is that you really want as much eye candy as possible. While Oblivion is an immersive and awesome game from a gameplay standpoint, the graphics certainly help draw the gamer in.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Oblivion is the first game in our suite where ATI's latest and greatest actually ends up on top. The margin of victory for the X1950 CrossFire isn't tremendous, measuring in at 6.5% over the 7900 GTX SLI.

As a single card, the 7950 GX2 does better than anything else, but as a multi-GPU setup it's not so great. The 12% performance advantage at 2048 x 1536 only amounts to a few more fps, but as you'll see in the graphs below, at lower resolutions the GX2 actually manages a much better lead. A single X1950 XTX is on the borderline of where Oblivion performance starts feeling slow, but we're talking about some very aggressive settings at 2048 x 1536 - something that was simply unimaginable for a single card when this game came out. Thanks to updated drivers and a long awaited patch, Oblivion performance is no longer as big of an issue if you've got any of these cards. We may just have to dust off the game ourselves and continue in our quest to steal as much produce from as many unsuspecting characters in the Imperial City as possible.

Oblivion does like having a 512MB frame buffer, and it punishes the X1900 XT 256MB pretty severely for skimping on the memory. If you do enjoy playing Oblivion, you may want to try and pick up one of the 512MB X1900 XTs before they eventually disappear (or start selling for way too much).

In contrast to Battlefield 2, it seems that NVIDIA's 7900 GTX SLI solution is less CPU limited at low resolution than ATI's CrossFire. Of course, it's the higher resolutions we are really interested in, and each of the multi card options we tested performs essentially the same at 1600x1200 or higher. The 7950 GX2 seems to drop off faster than the X1950 XTX, allowing ATI to close the gap between the two. While the margin does narrow, the X1950 XTX can't quiet catch the NVIDIA multi-GPU single card solution. More interestingly, Oblivion doesn't seem to care much about the differences between the X1950 XTX, X1900 XTX, and X1900 XT. While the game does seem to like a 512MB of onboard memory, large differences in memory speed and small differences in core clock don't seem to impact performance significantly.

Black & White 2 Performance F.E.A.R. Performance
Comments Locked

74 Comments

View All Comments

  • Ecmaster76 - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link

    Is it a GDDR3 or a DDR2 product?

    If the former, any chance it will crossfire with x1600 xt? Oficially I mean (methinks a bios flash might work, though x1650 is maybe a 80nm part)
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link

    No I don't think that would work.

    an X1650 Pro has 600/1400 Speeds so 100% sure is GDDR3, DDR2 doesn't exisit at such high clockspeed.

  • Genx87 - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link

    Some of the other reviews had this x1950XT beating the GX2 almost every time, sometimes by a wide margin.

    I still cant get over the power\transistor\die size to performance advantage Nvidia has over ATI right now.

  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link

    Interesting. The first review I read was at where the X1950XTX beat or equalled the 7950GX2 every time, then here the reverse is true. I think I'll have to read more reviews to decide what is going on (it certainly isn't CPU limitations). Maybe 's focus on optimum quality settings rather than raw framerate is the reason they favoured ATI, and another is the clear fact that when it came to minimum framerates instead of average framerates ( posted both for all tests) the X1950XTX was especially good.

    In other words the 7950GX2 posted great average numbers, but the X1950XTX was playable at higher quality settings because the minimum framerate didn't drop so low. Hopefully some other sites also include minimum framerates along with graphs to clearly show the cards perform.

    I remember a few years ago when ATs graphics card articles included image-quality comparisons and all sorts of other reports about how the cards compared in real-world situations. Now it seems all we get is a report on average framerate with a short comment that basically says "higher is better". Derek- I strongly suggest you look at how test cards and the informative and useful comments that accompany each graph. There may only have been three cards in their comparison but it gave a much better idea of how the cards compare to each other.

    Anyway I'll not be getting any of these cards. My 6800GT has plenty of performance for now so I'll wait until Vista SP1 and the second-generation of DX10 cards which hopfully won't require a 1KW PSU :)
  • PrinceGaz - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link

    It seems the comments system here uses the brackets in HardOCP's abbreviation as some sort of marker. Apologies for making the rest of the text invisible, please amend my comment appropriately. I was talking about HardOCP by the way, when I said they use minimum framerates and optimum quality settings for each card.
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link



    Don't use {H} in the comments, please. Just like {B} turns on bold, {H} turns on highlighting (white text).
  • JarredWalton - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link

    Ah, seems you figured that out already. ;) I need to see if we can disable that feature....
  • haris - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link

    Actually if you look at all of the reviews a bit more closely the sites the scores depend on which processor is being used for the test. It appears that nVidia cards tend to run better on Conroes(probably just means the games are slightly less cpu bottlenecked at the resolutions being tested) while ATi tends to run better on AMD systems(or when the cpu is slowing things down) Of course that is IIRC from the 5 reviews I skimmed through today.
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link

    No just no X1950 XTX alone is not more powerful then the 7950GX2. Only in ATI favourable scenarios or where SLI flat out doesn't work will this occur.



  • UNESC0 - Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - link

    quote:

    You get the same performance, same features and better flexibility with the CrossFire card so why not?


    you might want to run dual monitors...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now