Tech-Hounds.com

Scaling: GeForce 7900GS vs Radeon X1950 Pro

With a new platform, we think the time has come to establish a new base of performance. Something to compare to for future reviews. The move to the new platform brought about several changes - moving from AMD to Intel, the use of dual core processors, a new motherboard and chipset, DDR2-SDRAM and onboard sound. Though the advantages are many and significant, we're still in the process of getting used to this new system. Our last article delves on our experiences with the Core 2 Duo E6300 and the Intel P965 chipset. Now it's time to look at other components of the system.

Of course, the next important component crucial to gaming performance is the graphics card. After all, what's the point of having a new fast system - processor, chipset and memory - if you do not have a powerful enough graphics card to keep up with the processor or vice versa. Now, every gamer knows that choosing a graphics card is a little harder than choosing a processor. Unlike a processor, graphics card have some 'influence' on output quality. With a processor, the main concern is usually just how fast the processor can run games or benchmarks. Output quality between one processor and the other are identical down to the last bit. With graphics cards, we have a lot more to be concerned about: raw performance, performance at higher resolutions, performance with and without anti aliasing (AA) and anisotropic filtering (AF), image quality, graphical features, shader support etc. That's outside the many hardware oriented nature like heat dissipation, temperature, noise levels and power consumption that also applies when we're choosing a processor.

The introduction of a new operating system - Windows Vista - also brought on a new graphics API - DirectX 10. At the moment, the only add-on graphics cards supporting DirectX 10 are NVIDIA's GeForce 8 series, all of which cost above USD 350, including the newly launched GeForce 8800GTS 320 MB. ATI have yet to release their DirectX 10 lineup. However, it will be a while before DirectX 10 (and Vista) games start to emerge and possibly even longer for DirectX 10 compliance hardware to become the requisite.

Vista only complicates matters further because the new operating system needs a new set of drivers and writing good, stable and high performing drivers is never an easy task. It's only just recently NVIDIA released WHQL drivers for Vista. From early previews, there are some notable features missing from these drivers - the most glaring is the lack of SLI support for all GeForce 6, 7 and 8 series of cards. In addition to that, performance with Vista can vary widely between faster, similar to lower than Windows XP. So, for the time being we've decided  not to use Vista, prefering to give it and the drivers more time to mature.

Despite all of that, the arrival of a new API and products supporting it always complicates the decision of which graphics card we should buy (even if we're still using Windows XP). Do you buy the latest, greatest hardware and become an early adopter, paying a premium for that part or do you stick to the tried and true older hardware, costing less but may not be up to the task of running newer games? These are the question we have to ask ourselves when we were choosing the graphics card to use for our new platforms. More likely than not, these are also the questions facing gamers everywhere right now. NVIDIA past mistake - the GeForceFX - still haunts gamers everywhere and the manufacturer themselves to this day. This is why some gamers choose to adopt a 'wait-and-see' position on DirectX 10 and the new GeForce 8 series.

Of course, there's also those who just like to keep their options open. Rumors of ATI's first DirectX 10 line of products, from the high-end R600 to the entry level RV610 are swarming the web as we speak. The latest news as of the time of this article reveal that AMD have changed its plans and will launch their products on the second quarter rather than Q1 as originally planned. Perhaps waiting for Vista demand to pickup (contrary to what Bill Gates are saying, Vista have not prove to be a sales driver for new PCs and components).

We think that for the moment, the toughest competitors to the GeForce 8 series is not ATI's next generation of cards, but their current X1900 series. Contrary to what some people believe, most users do not buy high end graphics cards such as the GeForce 8800. Mainstream cards costing about USD 200 - 250 with just the right mix of price and performance are the mainstay of both manufacturers sales. NVIDIA still retains the GeForce 7900 / 7950 series for this market, just like ATI still has the Radeon X1950 Pro / GT. Rumors are already circulating that NVIDIA plans to release mainstream DirectX 10 parts very soon. Performance reviews of the Radeon X1950 Pro puts in par with the GeForce 7900 / 7950 series of cards, of which the GeForce 7900GS shares pretty much the same price.

So today, we will be running test on both the GeForce 7900GS and the Radeon X1950 Pro to see which card provide the more 'omph' for your hard earned, gaming dollars. However, since these cards are basically derivatives of the GeForce 7900GTX (some of us like to think 7800GTX is more appropriate) and Radeon X1900XT, we won't be doing any iamge quality tests today. Image quality output from these cards should be the same as their high end siblings. Today's article will focus on scalability or the scaling capabilities of these two cards (in addition to seeing their performance in games).

Driver Problems

Before we begin, we have several issues we have to get out of the way first. During the process of testing for this article, we've encounter several problems and annoyances with graphics card drivers from both ATI / AMD and NVIDIA. We briefly mentioned the Catalyst 7.1 bug with Homeworld 2 in our last article. This bug causes huge performance drops when we enable Shadows with Homeworld 2. NVIDIA's current drivers - Forceware 93.71 do not have this problem, but we think to make comparison possible we should be using the same settings for both cards / drivers. We also mentioned another performance limiting bug on both drivers with F1 Career Challenge that makes it impossible to use this benchmark for today's test.

There are some other performance 'aspects' we're still trying to figure out. It could be the drivers or related to the new platform we're using. While running F.E.A.R's Performance Test, we notice minimum frame rates with the new platform are actually lower than waht we got with our old platform - the single core Athlon 64 3500+ at default clocks with the NForce 4 SLI chipset. Our first thought was this is a driver related matter, but this behavior is present on both cards. Our second suspect is the onboard audio drivers, which we're still looking into. However, the load should be negligible with dual core processor such as the Core 2 Duo E6300, particularly if it's running at 7 x 400 MHz. This was not the case - both cards scored lower minimum fps on F.E.A.R Performance test although we're running the E6300 at 2.8 GHz. We're pretty sure it's not due to graphical limitations of the card since the same card - GeForce 7900GS - did offer higher minimum frame rates with our old platform.

Another performance 'aspects' we saw was some very annoying stuttering in some games (F.E.A.R, Serious Sam II) with the Radeon X1950 Pro. We also saw no stuttering before when we paired this card with our old platform. With 2 GBs of RAM, there should not be any memory or storage related stuttering, so we were very puzzled by this. Thankfully, we found what was causing the stuttering, which we will elaborate further later on. Although newer drivers are already available from both manufacturers (Catalyst 7.2 and Forceware 9x.xx WHQL), the bulk of testing we're already finished by the time these drivers are out, so we will be sticking to the older drivers for this article.

Catalyst AI Peculiarities

After some additional testing, we found that the culprit for the second problem we descibred above (stuttering on the Radeon X1950 Pro) was actually Catalyst AI. As you may know, Catalyst AI enables some performance enhancing application specific optimizations. From past experiences, not all application profiles offer a performance increase in our benchmarks. If you look back at our Crossfire article (which you can read here), we found the embedded profile for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic was actually producing slightly lower performance. This again seems to be the case with the stuttering / choppiness problems we're having today with F.E.A.R and Serious Sam II.

So, we reran the test both with Catalyst AI set to standard (the default setting) and disabled. You can see the results below. In case you're wondering, the settings and resolution are chosen because they prove to be the crossover point between graphics and system limitations. This means with we can still see some gain with a higher clocked processor without hitting the limits of the graphics cards.

	Catalyst AI Disabled	Catalyst AI Standard	Catalyst AI Advanced
Call of Duty - 1600 x 1200
Min	126	137	141
Avg	253.448	275.286	279.026
Max	525	642	552
Homeworld 2 - 1600 x 1200
Min	164	165	159
Avg	382.762	387.768	387.181
Max	675	679	679
SW: KOTOR - 1024 x 768
Min	49	36	44
Avg	98.284	85.646	89.560
Max	121	110	110
Richard Burns Rally - 1024 x 768
Min	183	184	184
Avg	277.039	276.854	277.085
Max	387	393	393
F.E.A.R - 1024 x 768
Min	46	48	41
Avg	103.032	117.813	116.495
Max	243	289	289
Quake 4 - 1024 x 768
Min	83	97	96
Avg	144.825	164.524	165.405
Max	227	234	238
Serious Sam II - 1024 x 768
Min	74	72	60
Avg	89.924	90.523	87.291
Max	114	117	114
Oblivion - Tree Test - 1024 x 768
Min	39	39	39
Avg	44.852	44.292	44.305
Max	56	54	54
GTR 2 - 1024 x 768
Min	61	61	60
Avg	154.420	154.644	153.821
Max	260	261	261
NFS: Carbon - 1024 x 768
Min	43	43	40
Avg	56.253	56.141	55.081
Max	70	75	74

We can all see that the embedded profile for SW: KOTOR still offer slightly lower performance. Other notable differences between the settings, particularly between disabling and enabling Catalyst AI are Call of Duty, F.E.A.R and Quake 4. You can also see the differences for these games between 'Standard" and "Advanced" are minimal and not significant. What's significant is that running F.E.A.R and Serious Sam II with Catalyst AI set to "Standard" fixed all or most of the stuttering problems. For the rest of the article, we will be setting Catalyst AI to "Advanced", mostly to keep consistency if we were to benchmark any Crossfire configurations later on. Since performance differences are minimal, the results taken should not be any different if we were to set Catalyst AI to "Standard".

CPU and GPU Scalability

What do we mean when we talk about scalability, be it on the CPU and GPU? Well, simply put, scalability is the rate at which performance scales with clock increases. For example, Core 2 Duo scales well with clock increases.However, when we talk about CPU and GPU scalability, we're not talking about increasing their clocks - we're talking about will the graphics card be able to keep up - offer a performance increase - if we were to use a higher clocked processor. The overclocking potential of Core 2 Duo platforms allows us to test GPU scalability. If a card performs better - offer higher frame rates - with a higher clocked processor, it means the benchmark is still system limited. Another, more interesting way of looking at this is that we have not hit the graphical limits of that particular graphics card.

Why is that important? Well, that's related to the next question - why do we care about scalability at all. Well, the answer is again very simple. Having a graphics card that scales nicely means we will still be able to enjoy higher frame rates should we opt for a processor upgrade down the road. So, there's still a valid reason to hang on to that graphics card. With multirendering solutions like Crossfire and SLI, we can opt to get a second card similar to what we have rather than buying a new, faster card.

Generally, articles about scalability only uses average fps to measure performance and increase in performance. We don't think this approach offer a complete picture of scalability. Games and benchmarks vary in loads, sometimes we are more system bound, other times we are more graphics bound. There will be cases where the average frame rate will fail to indicate any increase from the use of a higher clocked processor. However, when we also look at the minimum and maximum fps, chances are we can see a difference. If minimum fps increase with the use of a higher clocked processor, then that benchmark still scales well - assuming the point where we experience minimum fps are the same. After all, having higher minimum fps usually means higher low frame rates, which should help the gaming experience considerably.

Performance

We ran tests with three different configurations - at Core 2 Duo E6300's default clock (1.86 GHz), then overclocking it to 2.4 GHz (6 x 400 MHz) and 2.8 GHz (7 x 400 MHz). Memory clocks were set to DDR2-800 and timings used were SPD timings. To keep relevance to actual gaming settings, we benchmark the games using our usual graphical test settings, not lowered settings to 'induce' system limited situations. Older games like Call of Duty, Homeworld 2 and Richard Burns Rally are very system limited with fast graphics cards, even with cards such as NVIDIA GeForce 7900GS and ATI / AMD Radeon X1950 Pro. This represent the 'optimal' scaling test. Newer games such as F.E.A.R, Quake 4, Serious Sam II may behave differently as we will see later on. We also included two new games in addition to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - the arcade favorite Need for Speed: Carbon and the heavily simulation oriented GTR 2.

Graphical settings for these games are set to their highest possible values. Notable differences are F.E.A.R where we disable "Soft Shadows", Quake 4 where we use High Quality - not Ultra Quality - but anisotropic filtering was set to "1" for default tests and "16" for AA / AF tests. We used Serious Sam II built in "Maximum" quality preset then change resolution and AA / AF settings accordingly. All of these settings can be seen here. Our TES IV: Oblivion settings are as close as we can get to Ultra High Quality - you can see our test settings here. For Need for Speed: Carbon, we used the game's "Maximum" video quality preset, but change the filtering to "Trilinear" for default tests - AA AF tests are run with "4x" and "Anistropic" (talk about your typos, come on EA!!). NFS: Carbon test were done with the Sprint Race on Lincoln Boulevard. Below are the settings we used for GTR 2 Clear weather was used for our run of Monza GP tests.

Image quality settings in the Forceware driver for the NVIDIA GeForce 7900GS was set to "High Quality". We did leave the "Threaded Optimization" on, but all other optimizations are turned off (trilinear, anisotropic sample and mip filter optimizations). Based on past experience, at these settings image quality is comparable to ATI's default image quality settings. V-sync was turned off on both cards via the driver control panel and also through in game settings whenever possible. For some games (Call of Duty, Homeworld 2, Richard Burns Rally,GTR2), we force AA and AF through the driver's control panel. 



Our test setup
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 socket LGA-775
4 x 512 MB A-DATA Vitesta 5-5-5-18 PC6400 DDR2-SDRAM
Gigabyte Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB graphics card
Leadtek PX7900GS GeForce 7900GS 256 MB graphics card.
Gigabyte P965-DS3P Intel P965 motherboard
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9 80 GBs Serial ATA 8 MB buffer
LiteOn 1673S DVD-RW
Tagan TG530-U15 530 watts ATX/BTX power supply

Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 installed
ATI Catalyst 7.1 reference driver
NVIDIA Forceware 93.71 reference driver
Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility 8.1.0.1006
DirectX 9.0c
all respected games used for benchmarks have been updated to their latest, final builds.

We'd like to thank Gigabyte for providing the Gigabyte P965-DS3P motherboard and the Gigabyte Radeon X1950 Pro graphics card for this test. We'd also like to thank Leadtek for providing the PX7900GS TDH and Tagan for the Tagan TG530-U15 power supply.

The results:

X1950 Pro 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	40.20%	41.41%	42.42%		38.61%	12.00%	8.05%
Average	32.16%	27.09%	19.40%		18.11%	10.81	6.59%
Maximum	19.74%	25.97%	11.87%		13.20%	0.88%	0.56%

7900GS 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	39.22%	41.58%	40.59%		40.20%	-0.99%	0.00%
Average	30.94%	21.50%	12.34%		6.57%	2.44%	0.16%
Maximum	15.85%	14.93%	0.45%		0.00%	0.47%	0.69%

We chose to use a table instead of graph to show the scalability of these two graphics cards. If we were to use a graph, we would be forced to make separate graphs for minimum, average and maximum fps - a table is much easier to do and can be just as easy to read. The first row is for minimum fps, the second is for average fps and the third is maximum fps. By providing all three, we can see at what points these benchmarks scale. For the Call of Duty - Dawnville demo, we can see that for the most part it is on the lower frame rates we see the biggest boost - so those parts in the benchmark are heavily system limited. We're seeing something in the area of 40 % increase on both graphics cards. Notice how the Radeon X1950 still manage a 12 percent boost of minimun fps at 1280 x 960 with AA and AF enabled while the GeForce 7900GS frame rates hardly change at all. Another proof of more pixel processing headroom is the 13 percent boost in maximum fps at 1024 x 768 with AA and AF.


Call of Duty - Dawnville 1600
(click here for a more detailed graph)

	1.8 X1950 Pro	2.8 X1950 Pro	1.8 7900GS	2.8 7900GS
<30 fps	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0
45-60 fps	0	0	0	0
60-90 fps	0	0	0	0
90-120 fps	8	0	8	0
>120 fps	68	76	68	76
Total	76	76	76	76

results are in seconds

The table above don't really show anything, but it sure is breath taking. We spent most of our time at above 90 fps, running at 1600 x 1200. At this resolution, the GeForce 7900GS experience a performance penalty so the Radeon X1950 Pro was noticeably faster for most of this benchmark. This is true most the time at 1.8 GHz, but only about half the time at 2.8 GHz. The second half of the benchmark are the most system bound - we saw a 50 to 75 fps increase at one point by overclocking the processor to 2.8 GHz. However, we don't see any difference between the two cards. Graphical wise, the first parts of the benchmark are the part that's particularly interesting. It would seem that the GeForce 7900GS already hit its graphical limits while the Radeon X1950 Pro prove it can still offer higher frame rates with a higher clocked processor.


X1950 Pro 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	87.21%	107.14%	111.25%		106.98%	104.65%	55.42%
Average	31.13%	32.07%	26.39%		30.04%	25.76%	5.89%
Maximum	24.20%	29.52%	32.34%		25.37%	27.44%	4.41%

7900GS 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	150.00%	105.05%	74.74%		57.29%	54.69%	57.14%
Average	31.60%	26.69%	6.09%		0.30%	-1.45%	-1.30%
Maximum	27.70%	26.12%	8.20%		0.85%	0.00%	-0.54%

First, let's look at default test results where AA and AF is not a factor. Frame rate wise, the GeForce 7900GS is the better card here. We experienced notably higher frame rates with it than with the Radeon X1950 Pro. The GeForce 7900GS is faster all the way up to 1600 x 1200, though the difference decreases with each increase in resolution and higher processor clocks. The situation is reversed when we enable AA and AF. The Radeon X1950 Pro simply leaves the GeForce 7900GS way, way behind. The frame rate differences at 1600 x 1200 AA AF shows this very clearly - we're seeing practically a 100 percent higher minimum fps and 125 percent higher average fps with the Radeon X1950 Pro and an 6300 running at 2.8 GHz.

From the table we can see the Radeon X1950 Pro scalability persist even when AA and AF is enabled. It does hit its graphical limits at 1600 x 1200 with AA and AF, but that's still much better than the GeForce 7900GS which already hit its limits at 1024 x 768 AA AF. We can also see how heavily system limited this benchmark really is - minimum fps increase with the use of a 2.8 GHz E6300 are phenomenal. Average frame rate wise, the Radeon X1950 Pro only began to slow scaling at 1600 x 1200, while the GeForce 7900GS don't have any extra headroom anymore.


Homeworld 2 - Vaygr Bomber Strike 1600
(click here for a more detailed graph)

	1.8 X1950 Pro	2.8 X1950 Pro	1.8 7900GS	2.8 7900GS
<30 fps	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0
45-60 fps	0	0	0	0
60-90 fps	0	0	0	0
90-120 fps	0	0	0	0
>120 fps	70	70	70	70
Total	70	70	70	70

results are in seconds

Looking at the graphs, it became clear that the Radeon X1950 Pro offer the better performance with a higher clocked processor - it scales better. On the first parts of the benchmark, we see the use of a higher clocked processor allows the Radeon X1950 Pro to offer a similar level or significantly higher frame rates than the GeForce 7900GS. The GeForce 7900GS do have the tendency to lose steam at 1600 x 1200, so we have to take that into account. We do think the GeForce 7900GS performed better on the middle parts of the benchmark, offering consistently higher frame rates. The last parts of the benchmark is not very useful - the Radeon X1950 Pro is slightly faster because of higher maximum fps.


X1950 Pro 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	10.00%	-3.23%	4.55%		2.94%	0.00%	50.00%
Average	29.06%	18.33%	16.74%		20.57%	13.24%	25.49%
Maximum	31.76%	24.71%	24.68%		27.50%	18.99%	35.90%

7900GS 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	-3.85%	-3.03%	3.85%		3.13%	-16.00%	-5.56%
Average	26.90%	27.91%	10.46%		14.33%	-5.77%	-1.77%
Maximum	25.90%	42.37%	19.66%		16.22%	-5.10%	-4.29%

Our KOTOR benchmark is a very different beast - the most graphically intense parts are the ones with the lowest frame rates. So, system bound situations occur on the high frame rate parts of the benchmark. The GeForce 7900GS excel in this benchmark, offering consistently higher average and maximum fps with higher processor clocks than the Radeon X1950 Pro. The average frame rate differences are significant - 25 to 50 percent higher depending on the resolution and processor clock (at default settings without AA AF). We don't really recommend enabling AA and AF above 1024 x 768 on both cards, seeing frame rate drops below 30 fps occur more frequently at 1280 x 1024 and 1600 x 1200. Even with AA and AF enabled, the GeForce 7900GS is definitely faster than the Radeon X1950 Pro.

Scalability wise, the GeForce 790GS is also the better card here. Remember, here we need to pay more attention to average fps than minimum fps. Without AA and AF, the GeForce 7900GS scored more than 25 percent increase in performance at 1024 x 768 and 1280 x 1024 when paired with a higher clocked processor. We could argue the Radeon X1950 Pro offer slightly higher increase in performance at 1600 x 1200 and when AA AF is enabled, but the nominal frame rates are still not close enough to GeForce 7900GS frame rates. No ball.


SW: KOTOR - Endar Spire 1024
(click here for a more detailed graph)

	1.8 X1950 Pro	2.8 X1950 Pro	1.8 7900GS	2.8 7900GS
<30 fps	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	1	1	0	0
45-60 fps	2	2	1	0
60-90 fps	22	7	3	3
90-120 fps	0	16	25	9
>120 fps	0	0	0	11
Total	25	25	29	23

results are in seconds

Do remember that our choice to use "Advanced" for Catalyst AI caused lower frame rates in this benchmark. However, disabling Catalyst AI will not help the Radeon X1950 Pro reach GeForce 7900GS frame rates. Pairing the card with an E6300 running at 2.8 GHz does allow higher frame rates and a better gaming experience - 7 seconds spent on 60 - 90 fps compared to 22 seconds with an E6300 running at default clock speed. However, at the same settings, we also see a much substantial increase with the GeForce 7900GS - 9 seconds spent on 90 - 120 fps compared to 25 seconds. The Radeon X1950 still dropped to 30 to 45 fps with a 2.8 GHz E6300 while the GeForce 7900GS practically never dropped to below 60 fps .


X1950 Pro 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	33.33%	3.62%	0.00%		0.83%	0.00%	0.00%
Average	43.10%	31.31%	10.55%		5.64%	0.30%	0.06%
Maximum	43.70%	29.10%	25.49%		31.76%	3.36%	0.00%

7900GS 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	17.32%	2.54%	-0.99%		0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average	38.83%	21.94%	5.73%		1.80%	0.08%	0.01%
Maximum	41.01%	35.16%	25.90%		23.57%	0.00%	-0.65%

Both cards seems to trade places back and forth. In this benchmark, the Radeon X1950 Pro tries to prove its case that it is the better card. Let's look at default test results first. Minimum and average fps are definitely higher on the Radeon X1950 Pro and the rate of increase - scalability - is higher. Moving on to higher resolutions, the situations don't change all that much. Even at 1600 x 1200, the Radeon X1950 Pro still manage to offer higher frame rates when paired with an E6300 running at 2.8 GHz. AA and AF results are also interesting. At 1024 x 768, the GeForce 7900GS results are pretty much constant while the Radeon X1950 Pro results are higher when the E6300 processor is running at 2.4 and 2.8 GHz. The table confirms what we already seen in the graph - in addition to offering higher frame rates, the Radeon X1950 Pro scales better in this benchmark.


Richard Burns Rally - Harwood Forest 1024
(click here for a more detailed graph)

	1.8 X1950 Pro	2.8 X1950 Pro	1.8 7900GS	2.8 7900GS
<30 fps	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0
45-60 fps	0	0	0	0
60-90 fps	0	0	0	0
90-120 fps	0	0	0	0
>120 fps	259	259	259	259
Total	259	259	259	259

results are in seconds

We're not seeing that much of difference at 1024 x 768 with the processor running at default clocks. We can pretty much say both graphics cards are practically offering the same level of performance, just like what the table shows. However, when we crank up the processor clock to 2.8 GHz, the differences become more apparent. Just look at the graph above. The GeForce 7900GS consistently have much lower fps on frame rate drops, easily seen on the second half of the benchmark. At some point, the differences can range from 50 to 75 fps. The Radeon X1950 Pro is the better choice for this game.


X1950 Pro 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	18.92%	20.00%	12.50%		10.71%	9.09%	0.00%
Average	15.43%	8.25%	1.28%		4.48%	0.78%	4.97%
Maximum	14.01%	1.00%	0.00%		1.55%	0.00%	0.00%

7900GS 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	13.64%	-2.56%	7.14%		3.33%	-8.33%	5.88%
Average	1.37%	-1.58%	3.86%		-0.09%	0.42%	4.28%
Maximum	-1.78%	-1.31%	0.96%		0.68%	-1.94%	29.41%

Keep in mind that our decision to use "Advanced" for Catalyst AI caused some stuttering in this benchmark, leading to slightly lower minimum fps on the Radeon X1950 Pro. Not surprisingly, average fps are higher on the Radeon X1950 Pro than on the GeForce 7900GS. However, minimum fps are higher on the GeForce 7900GS. Looking default test results at the 1024 x 768, we see the Radeon X1950 Pro is slightly faster in average fps (10 percent with the E6300 at 2.4 GHz and 17 percent at 2.8 GHz). Compare that to the GeForce 7900GS results - there's not much of a difference between average fps at 1.8, 2.4 and 2.8 GHz. The Radeon X1950 Pro still have more graphical punch in reserve, which become more apparent at 1280 x 960. At 1600 x 1200, the benchmark turned completely graphics bound, much like AA and AF results - they're not really useful at this point.

Looking at the table, it's clear scalability occurs mostly on the lower frame rates - minimum fps. Another way of looking at it is that the lower frame rates in this benchmark is more system related than graphically related. We're still able to scale all the way up to 1280 x 960 at default settings with the Radeon X1950 Pro while the GeForce 7900GS minimum fps stays constant at 1280 x 960. However, the GeForce 7900GS minimum fps are nominally higher than the Radeon X1950 Pro at 1024 x 768 and 1280 x 960.


FEAR Performance Test 1024
(click here for a more detailed graph)

	1.8 X1950 Pro	2.8 X1950 Pro	1.8 7900GS	2.8 7900GS
<30 fps	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	2	0	1	0
45-60 fps	10	5	7	4
60-90 fps	17	16	25	27
90-120 fps	15	18	9	13
>120 fps	11	15	12	11
Total	55	54	54	55

results are in seconds

When we look at the graph, we can actually see areas where the GeForce 7900GS provide a much better gaming experience. Look closely and you'll see parts where the GeForce 7900GS offer consistent frame rates and where the Radeon X1950 Pro frame rates took a slight dip. In short - stuttering. Most if not all these stutters will disappear if you set Catalyst AI to "Standard" or disable it completely. Let's focus our attention elsewhere. Most of the average frame rate differences between the Radeon X1950 Pro and GeForce 7900GS seems to occur on the second part of the benchmark, which isn't that good since these are basically empty corridors filled with boxes. On the first part, the differences are not significant. So, despite the nominal higher average fps and better scaling on the Radeon X1950 Pro, both cards are pretty much neck to neck in this benchmark.The GeForce 7900GS have higher minimum fps and doesn't suffer from any stuttering.


X1950 Pro 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	1.04%	-1.47%	0.00%		0.00%	0.00%	3.57%
Average	3.54%	0.40%	0.47%		0.35%	0.50%	-0.05%
Maximum	3.48%	3.30%	3.42%		-1.75%	3.01%	4.55%

7900GS 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	13.51%	1.20%	0.00%		-7.94%	-7.32%	-10.34%
Average	7.89%	0.83%	1.67%		-8.17%	-6.60%	-6.92%
Maximum	4.67%	0.00%	-0.64%		-6.54%	-6.03%	-5.68%

On the Radeon X1950 Pro, this game is more graphically bound than system bound. The GeForce 7900GS is the better card here, offering not just higher nominal frame rates, but can still scale at 1024 x 768 with default settings. The higher frame rates of the GeForce 7900GS persist all the way up to 1600 x 1200. Even enabling Catalyst AI didn't help the Radeon X1950 Pro get close. As is the case, when AA and AF is enabled, the tide turns and the Radeon X1950 Pro began to show its prowess. Frame rates from both cards are on a similar level at 1024 x 768 AA and AF. At 1280 x 1024 and 1600 x 1200, the Radeon X1950 Pro offer higher average frame rates than the GeForce 7900GS. Minimum fps from the two are pretty much the same.


Quake 4 - Data Processing Terminal 1024
(click here for a more detailed graph)

	1.8 X1950 Pro	2.8 X1950 Pro	1.8 7900GS	2.8 7900GS
<30 fps	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0
45-60 fps	0	0	0	0
60-90 fps	0	0	0	0
90-120 fps	6	5	0	0
>120 fps	18	19	22	22
Total	24	24	22	22

results are in seconds

The fps progress graph and table above are not showing anything we do not already know. At 1024 x 768 with default settings, the GeForce 7900GS is the better card. Not only do we spend more time above 120 fps, we also see a frame rate increase when we pair the GeForce 7900GS with an E6300 running at 2.8 GHz.


X1950 Pro 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	65.79%	54.05%	28.57%		41.67%	20.59%	28.00%
Average	37.12%	21.94%	5.58%		11.62%	4.13%	1.91%
Maximum	24.73%	8.14%	4.41%		11.54%	2.99%	3.92%

7900GS 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	39.58%	-5.56%	0.00%		-4.17%	0.00%	0.00%
Average	22.24%	-0.19%	-0.90%		-1.56%	-1.32%	-1.35%
Maximum	8.51%	0.00%	-1.61%		-1.56%	-2.13%	-2.94%

On our old platform - the Athlon 64 3500+ - Serious Sam II is very system limited. With the Core 2 Duo E6300, this game become graphics bound, more so when we crank the processor up to 2.8 GHz. From testing, we've seen this game run more smoothly with Catalyst AI set to "Standard". That may contribute to the low minimum fps we're seeing. Now let's look at nominal frame rates first. At 1024 x 768, we can see minimum  fps are generally higher on the GeForce 7900GS than on the Radeon X1950 Pro, but average fps are higher on the Radeon X1950 Pro. We're still seeing low minimum fps at 1280 x 960, but pairing it with an E6300 running at 2.8 GHz seems to help the Radeon X1950 Pro overcome that problem. The situation is similar at 1600 x 1200 and when AA AF is enabled.

The advantage the Radeon X1950 Pro offer can clearly be seen on the table above. With a higher clocked processor, you gain significantly higher minimum fps than with the GeForce 7900GS. The increase is still present when you enable AA and AF, though the card's graphical limit is starting to show its influence.


Serious Sam II - Greendale 1024
(click here for a more detailed graph)

	1.8 X1950 Pro	2.8 X1950 Pro	1.8 7900GS	2.8 7900GS
<30 fps	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0
45-60 fps	25	0	16	0
60-90 fps	38	40	47	52
90-120 fps	0	23	0	11
>120 fps	0	0	0	0
Total	63	639	63	63

results are in seconds

If you look closely at the graph, you can see two areas where the Radeon X1950 Pro experience a stutter. Except for these two areas, the Radeon X1950 Pro paired with an E6300 running at 2.8 GHz offer consistently higher frame rates than the GeForce 7900GS with the same processor. Now, compare that the Radeon X1950 Pro and the GeForce 7900GS with a default clocked E6300 - the GeForce 7900GS didn't stutter and offer consistently higher frame rates.

The table above shows the test results more clearly. By pairing the Radeon X1950 Pro with an E6300 running at 2.8 GHz, we effectively spend most of the time running this benchmark above 60 fps, of which a third of it is above 90 fps. If we were to run the processor at default clocks, we would see a reversal of that situation - 25 seconds between 45 to 60 fps and 38 seconds above 60 fps. The GeForce 7900GS don't offer the same increase. Although it manages frame rates above 60 fps, only 1/6 of it are above 90 fps.


X1950 Pro 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	18.18%	3.13%	0.00%		3.23%	0.00%	-4.55%
Average	23.95%	1.18%	-1.10%		2.22%	-8.05%	-1.39%
Maximum	18.60%	0.00%	-8.11%		9.30%	8.57%	10.00%

7900GS 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	4.00%	-4.17%	0.00%		-5.56%	-7.14%	0.00%
Average	2.83%	-0.91%	2.41%		-1.89%	0.52%	1.72%
Maximum	5.71%	-5.56%	11.11%		-7.14%	0.00%	13.33%

Just by looking at the 1024 x 768 results, we can already see where this is going. Our Oblivion benchmark is not scaling at all with the GeForce 7900GS, but at 1024 x 768 the Radeon X1950 Pro managed to squeeze higher frame rates. However, we have to point out the Radeon X1950 Pro was not able to keep up with the E6300 running at 2.8 GHz. If you're running a Core 2 Duo processor at 2.8 GHz or higher, better choose a much higher performing card.


Oblivion - Grass Test 1024
(click here for a more detailed graph)

	1.8 X1950 Pro	2.8 X1950 Pro	1.8 7900GS	2.8 7900GS
<30 fps	0	0	6	5
30-45 fps	19	13	14	15
45-60 fps	0	7	0	0
60-90 fps	0	0	0	0
90-120 fps	0	0	0	0
>120 fps	0	0	0	0
Total	19	20	20	20

results are in seconds

Basically, the fps progress graph shows us that using a 2.8 GHz (and 2.4 GHz) E6300 processor with the Radeon X1950 Pro allows you to experience 5 fps higher frame rates. This test was meant to be a graphical test, so this is good news for the Radeon X1950 Pro. It clearly shows the graphics card still have the ability to keep up with high performance processors.


X1950 Pro 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	52.50%	14.00%	6.25%		10.42%	-12.77%	-4.88%
Average	32.50%	16.67%	6.34%		12.48%	5.46%	1.17%
Maximum	32.65%	15.98%	4.76%		8.15%	2.74%	-0.85%

7900GS 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	5.88%	0.00%	0.00%		2.38%	0.00%	0.00%
Average	27.99%	14.36%	2.33%		2.54%	-0.14%	0.11%
Maximum	28.48%	12.34%	-0.76%		0.00%	1.06%	1.41%

GTR 2 marks the return of an official FIA racing simulation game in several years. It does not disappoint, walking away with Gamespy's Simulation Game of the Year award. From the results, you can see which card is the better choice for this game - definitely the Radeon X1950 Pro. Higher nominal minimum and average fps, scaling all the way up to 1600 x 1200 with AA and AF. It's graphics bound at that resolution, so we don't see any difference running it with an E6300 running at default clocks and 2.8 GHz. The sweet spot for scaling seems to be 1024 x 768 (though it still scales pretty well at 1280 x 1024), where we saw a jump of 38 fps from 117 to 155 fps in average fps and 20 fps from 40 to 60 fps in minimum fps. The GeForce 7900GS doesn't scale as well, offering 28 fps higher frame rates in average fps and 3 fps higher in minimum fps.


GTR 2 - Monza GP 1024
(click here for a more detailed graph)

	1.8 X1950 Pro	2.8 X1950 Pro	1.8 7900GS	2.8 7900GS
<30 fps	0	0	0	0
30-45 fps	0	0	0	0
45-60 fps	3	0	5	3
60-90 fps	18	9	40	9
90-120 fps	60	13	74	54
>120 fps	51	110	13	66
Total	132	132	132	132

results are in seconds

Seeing the fps progress graph, we see the GeForce 7900GS with an E6300 running at 2.8 GHz performs on the same level as a Radeon X1950 Pro with the same E6300 running at default clocks. On the bright side, it did spend less time between 60 to 90 fps, meaning its slightly faster at some points. Clearly, the GeForce 7900GS have no chance to stand up to the Radeon X1950 Pro when both are paired with the E6300 running at 2.8 GHz.


X1950 Pro 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	37.93%	16.67%	-5.56%		12.90%	26.32%	6.25%
Average	5.01%	3.32%	1.55%		3.75%	5.33%	2.16%
Maximum	11.94%	2.13%	0.00%		-11.11%	5.13%	0.00%

7900GS 1.8 GHz to 2.8 GHz

	1024	1280	1600		1024 AA AF	1280 AA AF	1600 AA AF
Minimum	5.00%	0.00%	12.50%		21.43%	0.00%	0.00%
Average	0.81%	-0.49%	-9.78%		4.35%	1.08%	0.61%
Maximum	5.88%	-4.17%	-33.33%		14.81%	-4.76%	0.00%

Obviously, this game runs very well on ATI / AMD Radeon cards, which is another way saying it really sucks on NVIDIA GeForce cards. Well, except the GeForce 8 series. Despite the lack of replay, the results from repeated runs are fairly consistent and constant. The game is also very graphically intensive, making it a good graphics benchmark. We saw no difference in average frame rates between using a 1.8 GHz and 2.8 GHz processor (in this particular race) with both graphics card. However, at default settings we saw quite an increase in minimum fps - from 29 to 40 fps - definitely significant. Since it's graphically intensive, upping the resolution have a detrimental effect on frame rate.


NFS: Carbon - Lincoln Boulevard Sprint 1024
(click here for a more detailed graph)

	1.8 X1950 Pro	2.8 X1950 Pro	1.8 7900GS	2.8 7900GS
<30 fps	0	0	89	97
30-45 fps	12	6	15	2
45-60 fps	78	72	0	0
60-90 fps	15	27	0	0
90-120 fps	0	0	0	0
>120 fps	0	0	0	0
Total	105	105	104	99

results are in seconds

Because this is not a replay, there's no guarantee the frame rate on the graph occur on the same part of the test. So don't look for specifics, but rather try to spot the general trend. It looks like our initial assesment of higher minimum fps on a 2.8 GHz E6300 might be wrong - or is it? We certainly do not see frame rates go down to the level we saw on the previous graph. However, the table above shows there IS a difference between 1.8 and 2.8 GHz with the Radeon X1950 Pro.

Conclusion:

Scalability testing adds a new dimension to graphics card reviews. In short, they allow a glimpse of what the graphics card can do when the processors no longer become the bottleneck. This is not the same as using higher resolutions or turning graphical features such as anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering. Modern graphics card utilizes performance enhancing features to minimize performance penalty from the use of higher resolutions and graphical features. One way to look at it is that graphical test (higher resolutions, AA and AF tests) shows how much performance we lost, scalability test shows us how much performance we (can) gain. However, the two are related to one another. Games and benchmarks both run on the processor and graphics cards, the two needs to be in sync for the most optimal performance - usually measured as the highest frame rate. Use a too slow processor and the graphic card will never be able to reach its full potential (unless you're pushing high resolutions with AA and AF). Using a processors that can process data faster than the graphics is not necessarily ideal either - at some point the graphics card itself may become the bottleneck. It won't scale because the graphics card simply can not render any faster.

We set out to see which card scales best: the GeForce 7900GS or the Radeon X1950 Pro. Judging from what we saw, it really depends on the game / application and the settings used. The less graphical intensive settings we use, the better we can see the influence of higher performance system when paired with these two graphics cards - scalability. For now, let's only consider results from default settings.

If we were only to look at scalability rates as increase in performance, the Radeon X1950 Pro scales better than the GeForce 7900GS in most applications. The GeForce 7900GS did scale better with Quake 4 and at least the same with SW: KOTOR. However, we also have to note that in several games, the GeForce 7900GS scored the higher nominal frame rates. The table below summarizes this fact.

	1024 x 768	1280 x 960 / 1024	1600 x 1200
Call of Duty	higher
Homeworld 2	higher	higher
SW: KOTOR	higher	higher	higher
Quake 4	higher	higher	higher

However, there are other influencing factors in play here. Three of these games are OpenGL based games (Call of Duty, Homeworld 2 and Quake 4). It is generally accepted that NVIDIA have the better or more efficient OpenGL ICD than ATI. SW: KOTOR was a game port from the original Xbox, making use of proprietary custom extensions NVIDIA used on the Xbox graphics chip that's also available on their add-on cards (but not documented) - an extension that ATI hardware lack. So, while the Radeon X1950 Pro scales better, it's not necessarily the best graphics card.

That is, until you put AA and AF performance into play.

From the Radeon 9700 onwards, ATI hardware pushed the envelope as far as AA and AF is concerned. The Radeon X1950 Pro is no different. AA and AF performance penalty have always been smaller with ATI hardware than NVIDIA's. Or you could view it from a different prespective - AA and AF performance penalty on NVIDIA hardware are bigger than with ATI hardware. This is still true for the GeForce 7900GS. Almost all the games we tested here today runs faster with AA and AF on the Radeon X1950 Pro than the GeForce 7900GS (SW: KOTOR is the exception). In all these games, the Radeon X1950 Pro scales better than the GeForce 7900GS when AA and AF are enabled, at least until we hit the graphical processing limits.of the card.

AA and AF performance on the Radeon X1950 Pro is good enough, that you're actually missing out if you're using it only at default settings. Of all the games we tested today, some games are still very much playable with the Radeon X1950 Pro at 1280 x 1024 or even 1600 x 1200 with AA and AF enabled, except for SW: KOTOR, TES IV: Oblivion, Need for Speed: Carbon and F.E.A.R where playable frame rates are pretty much restricted to 1024 x 768. The same can't be said for the GeForce 7900GS. Frame rates at 1024 x 768 are too low to be really playable in TES IV Oblivion, Need for Speed: Carbon that not only do you have to run at default settings, you have to scale down the level of detail as well. The best the GeForce 7900GS has to offer is 1280 x 960 / 1024 with AA and AF on newer games. Older games such as Call of Duty, Homeworld 2 and Richard Burns Rally are fast enough at 1600 x 1200 with AA and AF, but frame rates are lower than on the Radeon X1950 Pro. A much 'balanced' competitor for the Radeon X1950 Pro is actually the GeForce 7950GT, which cost more but still have problems with Need for Speed: Carbon and still lacks the ability to run AA with SM 3.0 HDR enabled games.

Go to top