no stalker cs, wth. thats a new graphically demanding title.

hmmm ... weird choice of options ...

I would consider low as medium detail settings with no AA/AF up to 1680x1050 and 1900x1200 at low again without AA/AF ... any card that cannot meet this at playable fps is HTPC material at best.

also can you please PLEASE finaly implement multiple criteria selects ?

I just wanted to have a look at the 9800GT in all the benchmarks at 1900x1200 no AA/AF. however I can either select the cards or only the benchmark for all cards. any fine tuning is not possible.

Shouldn't the mainstream segment go a little past the 8800GTS and the HD4670 at this point?

Wow, great article; affirming and eye-opening. It affirms what I've thought for a long time, that surely many games are quite playable on cards like the HD4670. For players interested in the mechanics of the gameplay and/or the story line, this card is entirely suitable. I would like to have seen the HD4650 on the charts also, do you have benches for it?
Eye-opening too, in that I can see why those who absolutely must have the eye candy, and might not care about other aspects of the game, want to spend $500, $600, or even more on graphics cards (and a PSU to support them!). While I hope they earned that money themselves, I can see much more clearly why they want to spend it.

it would be nice to know the reference system the cards were tested on. Unless I missed it someplace I didn't see it listed.

I have an 8800 GTS 320 and a p4 3.6 GHz and it works fine at high/max settings @ 1920x1200 (no AA) for most games. It doesn't do well in new RTS games due to the single-core CPU, and it can't handle something like Crysis maxed out (though it's very playable at a mix of tweaked medium/high settings at 1680x1050). However it can handle Oblivion, or any game built on either the Source or Unreal 3 engines perfectly fine at near max settings at that resolution.

I'm currently running a Core2Duo 6600 (2.4Ghz) with an old 8800 GTS 640,

up to this point I have yet to find a game it cant handle at my resolution of 1680x1050, which I would consider to be the mainstream resolution for gaming.

So using the 8800 series, 4670 series is more than adequate for mainstream as far as I'm concerned.

Moving into the 1900x1200 and above resolutions, the 9800 / 4850 series would probably be better suited.

Might want to update the cost of the 4890. Newegg has one on sale now for $180 with a list price of $200.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814161276
The 260 seems a little high too.

I don't really the meaning of this article.
Where is the chart?

This look like a study report who refine all term before given the result.
But with no result at the end.

to add a little to the "you don't need monster GPU's"
i played Fallout 3 on a X1300 Pro not that long ago. Far cry 2 was the only game it could not play anymore. that's why i moved to an HD 4670 which lets me play all games, mostly at highest setting, sometimes even with AA. i have to admit that i play on 1280*1024 but still immpresive for a budget card from January 2005. it even sported acceptable framerates.

The HD4670 is even better, a recomendation i would have given to everyone. not anymore though as the prices of the 4850 are so low at the moment and it IS a better card.

Last Remnant? Seriously?

btw, which mod boots fallout 3 graphics to almost photo realistic? Leaving it up to me to search for it amongst a sea of mods...

I think, in general - the chart was problematic before, and now its even a bigger mess than ever before!

The BASE model GPUs are fine. Any gamer who knows ANYTHING about the cards will know that there is a bit more performance with OC. But most people buy 8600s are not as interested in OC as someone who buys a GTX 285... so maybe 1 or 2 OC cards for reference.. but over all, its not
needed.

By separating the bottom end cards out from the top, you guys (THG) make it more difficult for low-end game card owners to visualize the difference between a $40 card and a $400 one.

We DON'T need 4 versions of the GTX 285! What are you guys doing, Advertising in the Charts NOW?! Between these 4 GTX 285 cards, the that the slowest is 90.2fps and the fastest is 91.0fps!

The chart is harder to find what you want, the text is tiny with mesess off the various brands and their model numbers.

The chart has 15 Brand specific cards that show nominal differences from the reference cards at stock speed.

DUMP THEM!

Here is an exmaple of junk:
Sapphire HD4850 1G
(HD 4850 1024 MB)

Its no faster than the stock card. Make the chart better by saying:
ATI HD4850 1024 MB (i)

Make the Card type BOLD, tad bigger font. Memory size the font you use not. the (i) can be a graphic or word for "Product details". That's it.

The colors should be:
RED = ATI
Green = Nvidia
Dark Red = ATI Cross Fire
Dark Green = Nvidia SLI

No blue, no name brands.

Include pretty much ALL current cards - so we can use them for reference... which is THE POINT of the chart.

For some older cards, include base 8x & 7x series and HD 2 series.
Because some people still use older cards, just include a handful of popular cards as long as they're PCIe like a X1900, X1600 and a 6600GT.
And to really help out people, as horrible a they are:
IGPs like an Intel GMA and and ATI & Nvidia (1 of each from current boards)

Older or lower cards:
GTX 2* (all of them)
GTS 250
GTS 150 (Find OEM card so a 150 owner knows how they scale)
9800 GX2
9800 GTX
9800 GT
9600 GT
9500 GT
9400 GS
8800 Ultra
8800 GTX & SLI
8800 GT 512
8800 GT & SLI
8800 GTS 640
8600 GT & GTS
8400 gs
8200 IGP
7900 GT
7600 GT
6600 GT
6150 IGP (if the 8200 IGP is any faster)
5200 (There is a PCIe version - a very popular useless card)

ATI:
48x0 cards - ALL (CF on 50/70/90)
4770
4670 + CD
4650
4550
4350
3870 + CF
3850 + CF (And the X2)
3650
3450
3200 IGP (On board)
2900
2600 XT
2600 Pro
2400 Pro
1900 XT (A single 1900 is fine)
1550 (Current Low profile)

Intel Onboard.

Oops, I forgot to change title to Nvidia for that group... I was on a roll.

Currently THG has 67 total cards, 50 in the "high" end area. None of them in SLI/CF mode (in their own chart with direct comparisons with their single card variants is good)

In my list above, 28 cards (none in SLI), 20 ATI and and a single Intel = 49 cards. It would be CLEANER than what we have now and have a bigger variance than have 2~4 cards that are the same here and there.

Find a GTS 150... someone should have one. It should be on par with the 9500GT... and when a owner of a 150 comes to the site, they can see where they are on the list.

Don't need both versions of the original 8800gts.

I know the 6150, 8200 and 1550 are very low end, but they are used in lots of computers and people do ask "Why do my games suck on my $800 computer"? This will show why.


Please clean this up.

I personally am not amused to see brand names on a chart that should give us objective information and not put 'some' brands on it with their sooped up cards. Any one that would buy those knows how they perform.
It's sad to see that it isn't what it used to be and too bad not someone like belardo, who does seem to understand how it should be done, works here...
Big miss here although the games are better chosen I think. More differences in engines and waiting for the next crysis lookalike it is what engines are used now for gaming.
Though I must say that stalker should be in it for the dx 10.1 benches too. I don't agree with it being unfair to nvidia that does not have dx10.1, hell there slacking on the job! Too bad they don't have it but let's not complain then when their benchresult suck in comparison to amd/ati's offering...

What I did notice is how well that rusty trusty old 8800 ultra is doing! Man it beats the sh*t out of most mainstream cards that are a full YEAR younger... Should say something about nvidia and working on getting better results outside of the gtx 400 + regions...

Why isn't the radeon 4770 crossfire setup on any of the charts?