ATI Radeon X800 GT: A Quality Mid-range Solution
by Josh Venning on September 28, 2005 12:05 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Unreal Tournament 2004 Performance
Qualifying as our oldest entry in the benchmarks, there are still quite a few people playing Unreal Tournament 2004, and there are also many licensees of the Unreal Engine technology. However, UT2004 is one of those games that is very CPU-limited, so we won't see much difference in framerates at all.
Qualifying as our oldest entry in the benchmarks, there are still quite a few people playing Unreal Tournament 2004, and there are also many licensees of the Unreal Engine technology. However, UT2004 is one of those games that is very CPU-limited, so we won't see much difference in framerates at all.
As expected, the frame rates are all close, even with the higher-end X800 XT. With AA enabled, the numbers spread out a little, and we see that the X800 GT again does slightly better than the 6600 GT. Without AA enabled, at 1280x1024, the 6600 GT gains a few frames over the X800 GT. But at 1600x1200, the X800 GT is the one with the advantage. Because of how CPU-limited this game is without AA enabled, the framerates don't really give a clear picture of how each of these cards perform in relation to each other. Basically, any of the tested cards is more than capable of running UT2004 – provided that you have a fast CPU, of course!
48 Comments
View All Comments
bupkus - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
What would be a good minimum fps for UT2004?tuteja1986 - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
I saw the X800GTO selling at $280AUD which is cheap since 6600GT sell arround $250 - $300AUD in australia. Anyways I read the X800GTO review "http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review...">http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review... i thought X800GTO was great for its price in australia anyways. Anyways if i do upgrade in end of this year it would either X1600XT or 7600GT when ever they come out.AtaStrumf - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Man, you guys sure take your time (probably all those useless 7800 GTX reviews took their toll). At least you could have included the X800 GTO (and 9800 Pro for reference - same spec old tech), but that said it is one of the better GPU reviews lately. Just one gripe. You shold have made it VERY CLEAR that 128 MB X800 GT is much slower frequency wise than the 256 MB one.I must say I'm more than a bit dissappointed in X800 GT. It sure looked better on paper. 6600 GT still seems to be the better card overall (1280x1024 no AA -- which is what the great majory uses)
Here's hoping that the X1600 brings something better.
arturnow - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
ATi respond to GeForce 6600GT after one year. Congratulation !!!CrystalBay - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
For $200 , FTW...DerekWilson - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
we're waiting for one ... but you might end up looking in another direction before we get to it.imaheadcase - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
"several titles coming out in the near future that will use the same engine. Quake 4 and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars"Of which are terrible examples, thats one way to not get on doom 3 side. lol
Case in point download the multiplayer video of Quake 4...you will laugh so much you wonder if its still quake 2 engine. It does not even look changed from last quake
Pete - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
One note, I think you listed the effective rather than actual RAM speed for the 6600GT in the table on p.2.DerekWilson - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
first, josh wrote this one (though jarred did some editing)second, I just fixed the problem -- you were correct.
Pete - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
Josh! I meant Josh! :)