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
LocutusX - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
I have FEAR, and have been playing it for the past day or so ("sick day" from work).I can't believe AnandTech would consider it good-looking on non-cuttingedge hardware where you have to put the details down. Have you actually played the game for more than 5 minutes? Performance & Graphics Quality in the later levels is CRAP if you're using mostly medium settings, which is a NECESSITY if you're using a slow X800 part or anything worse. (think X800XL)
For the level of graphics you get, the performance of FEAR is unacceptable. Chronicles of Riddick looked much better, and performed slightly better, on my system. That's an OPENGL game on ATI hardware! Significant, no?
BTW I also just tried Quake4... much much better performance than FEAR, and the indoor sequences look better by comparison (since I can afford to increase details in Q4, because the D3 engine actually runs pretty decently on ATI hardware with the most up-to-date drivers and CatalystAI enabled).
Jackyl - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
LOL. He thinks X800XL is "slow"! A few months ago, everybody here was raving the X800XL as being best price/performance that actually beat a lot of higher end Nvidia cards. Ugly on medium textures? Go play the first DOOM or Wolfenstein 3D, and then come back and say Medium textures are ugly on Fear.Some people just won't be satisfied. It's people like you that pay $400-600 for a graphics card, that is causing prices to inflate. I really can't wait until silicon hits the limit where they can't reduce size anymore, and Moore's Law goes obsolete. Then the engineers will have to actually OPTIMIZE the hardware and drivers, instead of just cranking out more raw GPU power. I'm really sick of upgrading, and a lot of my friends have already stopped upgrading their systems, two generations ago. They just gave up.
Tell me something...Everyone sure talks big on here, wanting to upgrade their cards. But why is it when I go to a game store, there are barely any PC games available on the shelves? I don't think a lot of people are buying PC games today, even though ATI and Nvidia would like to say otherwise. The shelves are totally full with console games instead.
LocutusX - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Jackyl, thanks for your totally useless post:"LOL. He thinks X800XL is "slow"!"
Yes, compared to the 7800GTX - which apparently is what you NEED for Fear to run at a decent rate AND look good - the X800XL is slow.
"Ugly on medium textures? Go play the first DOOM or Wolfenstein 3D, and then come back and say Medium textures are ugly on Fear."
Not necessary to go back 10 years, chico. Anyone who has played Doom 3 (August 04), Half-Life 2 (December 04) or even Far Cry (March 04) will agree that Medium textures are "ugly" on Fear, although some may not use such strong language.
"It's people like you that pay $400-600 for a graphics card, that is causing prices to inflate."
Uh, no genius, I paid less than $200 for my X800Pro at a fire sale. And then I overclocked the sh!t out of it, so now it's a little bit faster than a stock X800XL.
"Then the engineers will have to actually OPTIMIZE the hardware and drivers, instead of just cranking out more raw GPU power."
Uh, that's precisely the point of my post - sorta. FEAR is a horribly unoptimized, perhaps even poorly-written, engine. In my opinion, it is unacceptable that an X800XL-class card should have so much trouble with it.
So, what exactly was the point of your post anyways?
Pannenkoek - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
On the esthetics of FEAR: it would have been kind of the article writers to include screenshots to underline their judgement. As one who has seen Unreal2 rendered by a lousy GF2 I can understand the parent poster's point. Also thanks for listening to my request for the absence of subjective opinions on the "playablity" of a game in benchmarks...Kegh - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
I played through the demo and thought the graphics were pretty good (considering my setup - 9700 pro, AMD 2500). But more to your point... I have never been a big fan of the Monolith LithTech Engine, every game or demo I have played which used it always feels clunky, the controls always seem "off" and the general engine performance is generally not on par with the other 3d game engines available. To be fair, I haven't played enough of this game to bash the current engine that much and once the game goes on sale I will probably pick it up. But not until after I buy a new system. :)michal1980 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
common now, high end with no sli, maybe the 7800gt/gtx X 2 could really for the first time shine?Jackyl - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Tried the demo with my 9800 Pro 128MB, 2.2GHz 64-bit proc, 1GB DDR. I ran the game in 1024x768, no soft shadows and no AF/AA, medium textures, and it still ran great on my system. It also still looked great with medium textures and ran smooth.I'm not sure why the X800 GT got such low framerate? Because of high textures? Maybe I'll try that on my card too tonight.
Jedi2155 - Friday, October 21, 2005 - link
At first i was very skeptical that my friends system could handle it but it worked great and was perfectly smooth @ 1024x768 with medium details. And he's only running a AXP 1800+ with a Radeon 9800 pro. So it can still work pretty well on the old systems.xsilver - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
high end textures absolutley kills the 9800pro - killed mine anyways ;)if you let it autodetect the settings it should run smooth, all the tests here were on max settings except for the aformentioned soft shadows and AA/ansio
with your settings in the demo (i had basically the same setup), while the frames were good, it still hitches when there is a lot of enemies/action going on
it would just be good for AT to test it to compare apples with apples :)
Jackyl - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Actually I had ATI's 2x AF turned on in the drivers.