Best offers
|
GeForce GTX 295 Video Card (1.75GB,... | $549.99 Dell Home More info |
|
GeForce GTX 285 Video Card (1GB,... | $279.99 Best Buy More info |
|
GeForce 9800 GTX Video Card (512MB,... | $230.00 ServerSupply.com More info |
|
GeForce GTX 260 Video Card (896MB,... | $229.99 STAPLES More info |
|
Radeon HD 4870 X2 Video Card (2GB,... | $449.99 Dell Home More info |
- directx 10 review
- burnout paradise directx 10
- burnout paradise benchmark
- dead space ambient occlusion
- what does ssao do in burnout paradise
- burnout paradise benchmark 4870
- burnout paradise ssao compare
- what is a reference graphics card
- radeon directx 10
- frame limiting and vsync
- radeon hd 4850 vsync
- video settings burnout paradise
- what is required pc for burnout paradise
- zalman cooling stand review
- will burnout paradise run on a p4
Partners
The Games selection
crazy :
Interactive Boogy
Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
|
violent :
Interactive Buddy
Unwind on your interactive buddy: Do anything you want to him, it will earn you money, and you can buy other stuff to torture him with.
|
Sponsored links
- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (65) |
- Share
Let’s move on to this great racing game, and while it has only recently become available to PC users, it runs on an absolutely gorgeous graphics engine.
First, we’ll try the highest in-game settings, except we’ll disable screen space ambient occlusion (SSAO). We’ll even add 8xAA to the mix, because Burnout Paradise doesn’t seem to have an option to turn off vsync. The high level of anti-aliasing should make it a little more challenging for the frame rates to reach the Vsync limitation of 60 Hz:
Well, it looks like even 8xAA couldn’t pull the pack apart, with incredibly smooth frame rates limited only by vsync. We’re going to have to rely on the SSAO option to really tax these cards and show us a meaningful spread. SSAO isn’t a common option in PC games and has been pioneered by next-generation graphics engines like the one in Crysis. What it does is keep simulated ambient light from shining in places where it should be darker and in doing so adds a lot more realism to the lighting model. On the downside, it’s a very shader-intensive feature, so since we’re turning on SSAO, we’ll also lower the anti-aliasing to 4xAA to help the cards cope:
SSAO is definitely a differentiator between our two competitors. This visual enhancement feature in Burnout clearly has an affinity for the Radeon HD 4850 architecture, and perhaps this is linked to the Radeon’s DirectX 10.1 ability versus the GeForce GTS 250’s DirectX 10 specification. We’ll dig into this in a review later this month.
Unfortunately, it’s somewhat of a pyrrhic victory for the Radeon HD 4850 for two reasons: first, it slows the frame rates down so much that it’s not all that playable except at the lowest resolutions. Secondly, enabling the SSAO option seemed to cause some distracting blur artifacts on telephone and power lines in the game, regardless of the graphics card used. In any case, it provides some interesting food for thought, as SSAO will likely be used more commonly as time goes on.
- A Tale of Two GTs: Radeon X1900GT [Systems]
- Fastest video card [Graphic & Displays]
- Minimum Vid Card Required for Bioshock!!?!?!?!???! [Graphic & Displays]
- Post your Video Card Lineage [Graphic & Displays]
- Best Graphics Cards for the Money (April 2009) [Graphic & Displays]
Questions? Ask Tom's community!
- 1 / 4
- Next
-
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- AMD Appreciation thread!!
- 8800GTS vs x3850.... Which is better?
- Just got The Phenom 9850Be today!!!
- Multi-core CPUs: An Idea
- Workstation video card, choices? - please help
- Asus A8V Deluxe - Random reboots in SP2 (DirectX related)
- Tully Voltage (Benchmarks are in!!!)
- Radeon Sucks!
- Motherboard and RAM compatability (new question)
- 9700pro on va503a
- AGP Performance: 8x vs. 4x
- IBM APTIVA
- Help with <$1k computer
- Need opinions on buying a new gaming rig
Related articles
-
Radeon HD 4850 Vs. GeForce GTS 250: Non-Reference Battle
Tired of bog-standard reference graphics cards differentiated by nothing but a box? We pit Gigabyte's GV-N250ZL-1GI (with Zalman cooling) and Asus' EAH4850 MT (with adjustable voltages) against each other to see if either of these boards stand out.
-
GeForce GTS 250: Nvidia's G92 Strikes Again
You might have heard that the GeForce GTS 250 was a re-badged GeForce GTX 9800+ with 1 GB of GDDR3 memory. That's true. In the following pages, we'll evaluate how it compares to the GeForce GTX 260 and GTX 9800+ along with AMD's Radeon HD 4800-series.
-
A Tale of Two GTs: Radeon X1900GT by Sapphire and Powercolor
ATI's Radeon X1900GT is a new upper mid-range product that packs a punch.
In the second picture of the 4850, the card can be seen bent due to the weight.
The Gigabyte would be more effective with 2 fans.
In the second picture of the 4850, the card can be seen bent due to the weight.
Hi rags_20 -
Actually, the appearance of the card in that picture is caused by barrel or pincushion distortion of the lens used to take the photo. The card itself isn't bent.
/ Tuan
how in the hecka re you guys gettign your averages ... bleeeeh these cards look like a dismal upgrade even for a 9600 gt (512 mg).
Im on a amd athy 64 X2 5000+ BE (oc'ed to 3 ghz)
biostar A770+ MB
3 gigs of ddr2 pc 800 ram
a gf 9600 gt
my monitor maxes out at 1024 x 1280
so im runign with 8X AA and 16 X anth yet your figures are actually lwoer than the averages i get for Left 4 dead (i average between 60 fps and 75 fps) further more i am not overclocking teh gpu at all som how can you get worse frames on these test than my technologicly inferior card ???? this is just amazing at least i know i shan't ever bother with either of these cards when i upgrade. just wow ... i'm gonna look at teh other benches and then comment more.
ok fall otu 3 tst proved a little more useful
i run Fo3 with max res max setrtign and 4x aa with 8x af
my lowest framesseen todate are 25 fps (wich to me is fairly palyable sicne this frame rate rarely occurs for me)
my highest is around 75 fps
with the general average falling in the 50's
so while your cards prove beter with out aa and af , with aa and af i think im fine sticking to what i got . definitely not compellling enough diferece from my card to make me cry for either of these offerings.
btw good article
in note to your conclusion right ON! '
i got a friend that brtags his ass off about hsi monster a--ed gf 280 and how ti whopps the crap outta my older 9600 gt. but im not rich my 19 inch lcd only hits 1024 x 1280 res , i wont replace it till it dies on me, and thus far this old little 90600 gt runs every game out ther with eas at this resolution and at elast 4x aa and 8x af if not 8x aa and 16 x af (some titles i can turn it up on some i cant ) but ther is no game i just cant run eitehr option on even crysis i can run with settigns to high and mdoerate aa and af on it. thanks for this article i can now remind my friend what a rich bitch doucshe he is at times
P.S. now i jsut need a new comp for school work so i can get a decent work station card for 3ds max (my MB only has one pci-e slot)
demonhorde665... try not to triple post.
looks bad... and eratic. and makes the forums/coments system
more clutered than need be.
ps. your not running the same bench markes as Toms so your not really comparable.
yes, same game and engine, but for example in crysis, the frame rates are completely different from the start, through to the snowey bit at the end.
pps. are you comparing your card to there card at the same resolution?
Hi,
I've been looking for a comparison like this for several weeks. Thank you although it didn't help me too much in my decision. I also missed some comments regarding the Physix, Cuda, DirectX 10 or 10.1 and Havok discussion.
I would be very happy to read a review for the Gainward HD4850 Golden Sample "Goes Like Hell" with the faster GDDR5 memory. If it then CLEARLY takes the lead over the GTS 250 and gets even closer to the HD4870 then my decision will be easy. Less heat, less consumption and almost same performance than a stock 4870. Enough for me.
btw. Resolutions I'm most interested in: 1440x900 and 1650x1080 for 20" monitor.
Thank you
Under the test setup section the cpu is listed as core 2 duo q6600, should it not be listed as a quad? Feel free to delete this comment if it is wrong or when you fix the erratum.
Why a Q6600/750i setup? That is certainly less than ideal. A Q9550/P45 or 920/X58 would have been a better choice in my opinion (and may have exhibited a greater difference between the cards).
I have the MSI HD4850 and mine has almost the same identicle cooler as that GTS250, AND it also blows the air OUT the back of the case, unlike either of these cards. Mine also clocks to 690 core (625 stock) and never goes above 55c when gaming. I paid $134.
My MSI HD4850 would clearly come out the winner here.
and no the Q6600 is classified as a C2D. Its two E6600's crammed on one die.
Im stumped by KyleSTL's assumption that a faster processor and different chipset would make a difference in the testing. Neither of those cards would be bottlenecked by a Q6600 so it would make no difference.
and no the Q6600 is classified as a C2D. Its two E6600's crammed on one die.
No, its classified as a C2Q. E6600 is classified as C2D.
ZZFhigh,
Directly from the article on page 11:
Let’s move on to a game where we can crank up the eye candy, even at 1920x1200. At maximum detail, can we see any advantage to either card?
Nothing to see here, though given the results in our original GeForce GTS 250 review, this is likely a result of our Core 2 Quad processor holding back performance.
Clearly this is not an ideal setup to eliminate the processor from affecting benchmark results of the two cards. Most games are not multithreaded, so the 2.4Ghz clock of the Q6600 will undoubtedly hold back a lot of games since they will not be able to utilize all 4 cores.
To all,
Stop triple posting!
Later in the article you write,
Your math is wrong. A claim of 20% over clock on the GV-N250ZL-1GI would equal 885.6 MHz. 10% of 738MHz = 73.8 MHz. So a 10% overclock would equal 811.8 MHz. 815 MHz is nowhere near 20%. In fact, according to your numbers, the GV-N250ZL-1GI barely lives up to its 10% minimal capability.
This whole article is completely invalid and the results are skewed because, as was documented on tweaktown, Catalyst 9.3 performance is much lower compared to 9.2. Catalyst 9.4 reclaims some of those performance losses, but 9.2 is still a bit better, if you compare the two analyses. Redo these tests with 9.2 drivers.
Later in the article you write,Your math is wrong. A claim of 20% over clock on the GV-N250ZL-1GI would equal 885.6 MHz. 10% of 738MHz = 73.8 MHz. So a 10% overclock would equal 811.8 MHz. 815 MHz is nowhere near 20%. In fact, according to your numbers, the GV-N250ZL-1GI barely lives up to its 10% minimal capability.
No what he is saying is this- Gigabyte claims that the extra copper in the PCB will allow for a 10%-30% further increase compared to how much a standard cards speed can be raised by overclocking. So saying that a standard card oc's to 800MHz which is a 62MHz increase, Gigabyte is claiming a 6.2 (10%) to 18.6 (30%) MHz further increase on top of that. So "technically" a 20% increase would have put it at 816.4 MHz, only 1.4MHz more than the 815MHz he acheived.
Time to ban DemonHorde 665, the abuse of the English language is making all dead spelling teachers spin in their graves.
personally I think it's the Zalman accounting for a bulk of the 20% extra and not the couple ounces of copper. That cooler rocks.