X-bit labs

Started by: BorgDrone | Date 09/21/07

Comments: 14 | Last Comment:  11/28/07

[1-9]

1. Testing Entry Level and Mainstream cards on resolutions like 1600x1200 with 16X aniso is simply wrong.

No it's not. The idea is similar to performance and load testing on any application.

2. I read about 10 hardware/game review sites a week for about 5 years from now and for sure Xbit-labs is the BEST review site. Always up to date, unbiased and extremely detailed. Thanks!

then you havent read many reviews
probably youre a 10 yo

3. I was going to say something clever about AMD sucking ass but I just didn't bother. Benchmarks speak for themselves.

4. Who games with 16x Ansio?? This is a bit unbalanced reviewing isn't it?

It's unfair and unrealistic to say the entry level cards are two slow to play ETQW, they do well considering utterly maxed out detail and notorious system killing 16x AF.

One needs to bare in mind the 2400 8500 and 8600, 7600 etc are very common, and will represent what the vast majority of card sales and what gamers will be playing on quite happily. It would have been nice to see how these cards perform with more realistic game settings, rather than all sliders maxed out, and brutal AF settings.

Backing off a bit of detail, dropping to 4x AF, would massively increase FPS with these cards and give them a fair showing. Frankly I'm impressed that this game performs as well as it does, I had my doubts about megatexture performance and memory issues, but wow - full credit to what ID have squeezed out of GPU hardware!

16AF is indeed a huge performance impact in the past with a relative minor visual improvement.
Personally, I think the table has been turned nowaday, However. It is very easy to distinguish between 16AF and 4AF even in the old fashioned WoW:BC, not alone if no AF was applied, i don't know how terrible the object in the distance looks like.

Test entry card with 16xAF may be way too serious, but, when most user have a 19"+ with 1280x1024 as the standard resolution, it is unrealistic to claim that a card is able to handle this title with low AF or low resolution either.(I serious doubt 24/85 can handle this under 1280x1024 and 4xAF even no AF)

Additionally, according to John Peddie research, ENTRY LEVEL CARD has standed under 10% of market at least since 2006

5. i thought there was a fix for quake wars from amd,so that they delivered better performance
maybe that explains the bad scores?

6. Gaming is possible using a P4 3.0Ghz HT with 1GB DDR400 RAM and a GeForce 6800GT 256 MB AGP8x @ 1024x768x32 Med-Balanced settings no AA 4xAF hitting the 30+ FPS barrier. Not bad for outdated hardware

Gaming is possible using a P4 2.4GHz 512MD of RAM, and a 9800pro but it sure does suck ass, NITWIT.

7. Not true, you dont need 16 anisotropic or all on high to enjoy the game.

With medium setings 8500gt runs fine, and the game is fun.

8. You're much too restrictive about graphics quality being required for enjoyment. Outside the PC space, the PS2 , Wii and DS are massively popular (and in my experience a lot of fun to play with) but are utterly graphically inferior to even the cheapest card discussed here.

You would be doing a service to potential purchasers of lower-end cards by, instead of insisting on maximum image quality, simply lowering the settings until you achieve 30 fps and posting comparison screenshots or video to show the visual difference.

Totaly agree. I can enjoy gaming even with my Geforce 6100 onboard, why I would not with an HD2400XT? Graphics quality don't have an linear relation with fun, and some people may chose pay less for lower quality, if they cant justify to buy an $80 + card for ocasional gamming, or simply can't afoard.

9. Good one

[1-9]