Tom's Hardware Charts: 2009 Mainstream Graphics Update

Two Settings For Graphics Cards

To enable comparisons for the High and Low Settings tests, we tested a batch of graphics cards for both categories. We chose the Radeon HD 3850 and HD 4670, along with the GeForce 8600 GTS and 8800 GTS 320 models for this head-to-head. While the Radeon HD 4670 works well with DirectX 10 and our higher-end settings, the GeForce 8800 GTS proves something of a problem child. With a game's graphics quality slider set to high, this card’s 320 MB of RAM is improperly optimized, very slow, and unusable at 8x AA. When Low Settings are in effect, this card is much faster, if not under-utilized in light of significant CPU limitations.

Our small test table shows total results in frames per second (FPS) and should shed some light on differences and distinctions in performance. The GeForce 8600 GTS works well at lower graphics quality settings, but when asked to deliver higher graphics quality in a DirectX 10 environment, it just barely limps along. This also applies to the Radeon HD 3850, which is designed more for use with DirectX 9 and somewhat lower graphics quality settings. The Radeon HD 4670 functions well in both categories and is noticeably stronger and more capable as graphics quality increases. In fact, it’s surpassed only in the Low Settings tests by the GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Overall Performance ResultsLow SettingsHigh Settings
GeForce 8800 GTS (320 MB)3,247.8 FPS533.1 FPS
Radeon HD 4670 (512 MB)2,458.6 FPS608.5 FPS
Radeon HD 3850 (512 MB)2,281.1 FPS454.7 FPS
GeForce 8600 GTS (512 MB)1,737.8 FPS384.9 FPS

In the real world, you’d probably boost the graphics quality slider somewhat for the GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB. For our charts, we were forced to use a setting with medium graphics quality, which didn’t really pay off because it makes the basis for comparison with other chipsets questionable. We also include 3DMark06 tests in our suite, which are independent of graphics chipset speed because we always use the default graphics quality at a 1280x1024 resolution. This too provides a direct basis for comparison across all tests.

  • rambo117
    no stalker cs, wth. thats a new graphically demanding title.
    Reply
  • haplo602
    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.
    Reply
  • haplo602
    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.
    Reply
  • Shouldn't the mainstream segment go a little past the 8800GTS and the HD4670 at this point?
    Reply
  • anamaniac
    Exodite3Shouldn't the mainstream segment go a little past the 8800GTS and the HD4670 at this point?
    The 4670/8800 are still powerful cars and will meet basic gamer needs. Hell, fallout 3 at high is playable for me on my pentium D, so what more do I need? (HD4670 underclocked by the way.)
    Reply
  • amnotanoobie
    anamaniacThe 4670/8800 are still powerful cars and will meet basic gamer needs. Hell, fallout 3 at high is playable for me on my pentium D, so what more do I need? (HD4670 underclocked by the way.)
    I also think the 4670, 9600GT, and 3870 are proper mainstream cards. The Old 8800GTS 320MB for me is a little bit questionable though.
    Reply
  • Onus
    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.

    Reply
  • belial2k
    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.
    Reply
  • invlem
    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.
    Reply
  • oldscotch
    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/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161276
    The 260 seems a little high too.
    Reply