HDR Performance
OK. We saw that anti aliasing is a big no-no on the GeForce 8600 series. That is actually in NVIDIA's favor. More and more games coming out these days still does not allow HDR rendering and MSAA to be used at the same time. Even with Oblivion we have to resort to driver 'hacks' to allow HDR and AA. How do these GeForce 8600 series cards handle HDR and HDR with AA? We re-ran the Serious Sam II Greendale demo, but this time with HDR rendering enabled.Serious Sam II - Greendale
High Dynamic Range Rendering, 4xAA 16xAF
| 1024 x 768 | 1280 x 960 | 1600 x 1200 | |
| GeForce 8600GTS | |||
| Mininum fps | 40 | 31 | 21 |
| Average fps | 49.23 | 38.22 | 26.35 |
| Maximum fps | 63 | 50 | 35 |
| GeForce 8600GT | |||
| Mininum fps | 33 | 23 | 16 |
| Average fps | 40.77 | 28.99 | 19.89 |
| Maximum fps | 54 | 39 | 27 |
| Radeon X1950 Pro | |||
| Mininum fps | 34 | 27 | 18 |
| Average fps | 47.07 | 36.9 | 24.47 |
| Maximum fps | 63 | 50 | 34 |
Hmm, surprisingly good. Remember, 4x MSAA is basically limited to 1024 x 768 with the GeForce 8600 series and it would seem both cards manage just fine at that resolution. In fact, if you look at the numbers, the GeForce 8600GTS still offers playable frame rates at 1280 x 960 with HDR and 4x MSAA and 16x AF, better than the Radeon X1950 Pro (which dips below 30 fps but maintain about the same average fps. The performance penalty of HDR rendering seems to be around 20 percent. What if we emphasis on straight HDR rendering and 16xAF?
8600GTS
| 1xAF (Trilinear) | 2xAF | 4xAF | 8xAF | 16xAF | |
| 1024 | |||||
| Min | 70 | 69 | 68 | 66 | 65 |
| Avg | 81.32 | 81.16 | 78.77 | 76.79 | 75.5 |
| Max | 101 | 99 | 95 | 92 | 90 |
| 1280 | |||||
| Min | 50 | 50 | 48 | 48 | 42 |
| Avg | 59.13 | 58.48 | 56.72 | 55.33 | 54.11 |
| Max | 73 | 72 | 69 | 66 | 65 |
| 1600 | |||||
| Min | 35 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 32 |
| Avg | 41.18 | 40.64 | 39.49 | 38.66 | 37.81 |
| Max | 51 | 51 | 48 | 47 | 46 |
8600GT
| 1xAF (Trilinear) | 2xAF | 4xAF | 8xAF | 16xAF | |
| 1024 | |||||
| Min | 54 | 54 | 53 | 52 | 51 |
| Avg | 64.13 | 63.42 | 61.4 | 60.44 | 59.08 |
| Max | 80 | 79 | 75 | 73 | 71 |
| 1280 | |||||
| Min | 39 | 39 | 37 | 37 | 37 |
| Avg | 46.37 | 45.94 | 44.34 | 43.38 | 42.8 |
| Max | 59 | 58 | 55 | 54 | 52 |
| 1600 | |||||
| Min | 27 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 25 |
| Avg | 32.23 | 31.89 | 30.9 | 30.26 | 29.56 |
| Max | 42 | 40 | 39 | 38 | 36 |
The faster GeForce 8600GTS understandly fares better than its slower sibling. You can actually have playable frame rates up to 1600 x 1200 with HDR and 16x AF with the GeForce 8600GTS. That doesn't mean the GeForce 8600GT is a slouch. You can push it to 1280 x 960 / 1024 with HDR and 16x AF and have very playable frame rates. Not bad for a card that cost about half the price of a GeForce 8600GTS. However, we must also note that the same behaviour does not apply to all HDR enabled games. For example, Oblivion is still too much for the GeForce 8600 series with HDR. Its pretty likely the card must have high enough frame rates first when running at default (no HDR), typically 20 percent above average and minimum playable frame rates (typically 36 and 45 fps) so that it will still be playable with HDR enabled.
Conclusion:
When we initially ran the benchmarks, we were more than a little bit disappointed with the GeForce 8600GTS and GT. After all, coming from such higly regarded pedigree like the GeForce 8800 series, we expect much better performance. Anti aliasing is not the GeForce 8600 series forte. While the card can still provide high enough frame rates with 4x anti aliasing at 1024 x 768 with some games, it's not able to do so with newer games or shader laden games like F.E.A.R, Oblivion and Need for Speed: Carbon. So, it's unable to compete in that settings with the GeForce 7950GT and Radeon X1950 Pro. Turning down AA to 2x does push frame rates a bit, but that comes at a price - image quality. Thankfully, NVIDIA in their right mind choose not to comrpomise on anisotropic filtering. Even with a budget card, you can still enjoy pretty much penalty free, high quality angle independent anisotropic filtering.If we were to 'push' AA and AF as the only setting for performance metric, the GeForce 8600GTS and GT is certainly no competitor to the GeForce 7950GT and Radeon X1950 Pro. Take anti aliasing out and you get a more affordable offering high enough frame rates, even excelling when HDR comes into play. Of course, this is not a general rule. To get high enough frame rates with HDR, you first have to have very high frame rates without HDR. HDR's performance penalty is about the same as 2x AA, so if the game doesn't support HDR, you can always turn on 2x AA. Is this ideal? Hell no in our opinion, but it's better than no AA at all.
With that in mind, is the GeForce 8600GTS worth the price? We think not - you can easily buy the Radeon X1950 Pro that support many of the same features except DirectX 10 support. The Radeon X1950 Pro is also very likely better suited for newer crop of games, though just like the GeForce 8600GTS (and GeForce 7950GT), it's limited to 1024 x 768 with 4x AA and 16x AF not to mention It also sells for less. However, that's not true for the GeForce 8600GT. Although slower, in most cases its still fast enough to provide playable frame rates - particularly for older games like F.E.A.R, Quake 4 and Serious Sam II or less graphically demanding games like GTR2. Naturally, it also stumbles on newer games like Oblivion and NFS:Carbon but remember, it sells for about the price of a GeForce 8600GTS and still lower the price of a Radeon X1950 Pro. The compromise is a bit easier to swallow, but that's the price you pay with a budget, mainstream card.
[Previous Page]
[Go to top]
[Home]