Powercolor X1650 Pro Review
Quake 4 and F.E.A.R.
Published: 24th August 2006 | Source: Powercolor | Price: |
Author: Matthew Kemp (kempez)
Hardware Acquired: Powercolor
Quake 4
Quake 4 is a game built on the Doom 3 engine. This uses many DX 9.0c features and is a game that has not always ran so well on ATI hardware, being an OpenGL game. I did three two minute runs on Quake 4 and took the average of all my readings from this. I played a fast and furious part of the game that required both internal and external scenes. The same engine used for Quake is being used for several games: Doom 3, Quake 4, Prey and Enemy Territory.
Here are the settings I found to be best for both FPS and quality:
And the FPS results for these settings:
Quake ran very smoothly on the X1650. I experimented with going up a resolution and turning off the ATI high quality settings. This produced a slightly less decent picture than at 1024 x 768 with AAA and HQAF, so I played it at this res. ATI seem to be getting hold of the Doom engine now which is great news.
F.E.A.R.
F.E.A.R. is a game based on an engine that uses many features of DirectX 9.0c.
It has volumetric lighting, soft shadows, parallax mapping and particle effects, with a slow-motion mode that really taxes today's GPU's. I fully patched version the game with the latest patch. I played three two-minute runs on a taxing part of the game with plenty of action, using slow-motion for the full time whilst firing at enemy soldiers and using grenades that produce a cool "blast" contortion effect when blown up.
What settings did I manage to game at? Let's see...
F.E.A.R.
F.E.A.R. is a game based on an engine that uses many features of DirectX 9.0c.
It has volumetric lighting, soft shadows, parallax mapping and particle effects, with a slow-motion mode that really taxes today's GPU's. I fully patched version the game with the latest patch. I played three two-minute runs on a taxing part of the game with plenty of action, using slow-motion for the full time whilst firing at enemy soldiers and using grenades that produce a cool "blast" contortion effect when blown up.
What settings did I manage to game at? Let's see...
And the FPS at these settings:
Once again F.E.A.R. was very very smooth at this res. I played it at 1280 x 1024 with just 4 x AA on and the quality was also pretty good. I chose this resolution as in my opinion it looked slightly better. I think gaming on this card at 1280 x 1024 will be a given for most people, but I am a little picky. You can see by the FPS that there was a lot of headroom in F.E.A.R. as it needs a lot less than 37FPS to play smoothly.
Onto some more game tests...
Onto some more game tests...
Most Recent Comments
As usual a good review kemp, it seems they will be in the competition range of the Nvidia 7600.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='Hyper'
As usual a good review kemp, it seems they will be in the competition range of the Nvidia 7600.
|
Some very impressive in-game results there. Deffo a choice card for the budget caming build.
very good review kemp! looks darn good for a mid range card.
ATi still lacks in the midrange department. Both my old GTO and our new XFX 7600GT XXX beat that thing in 05 by at least 400 points. Regardless, a great review Kempez .
.Nicely done review Kemp
Nice review Kempz. One quick question tho. The card as it stands is it aimed at the mainstream or people who would overclock their system and get such a card?
The reason I ask is that the testings done on a clocked system, is that indicative of the people who would get this? Just wondering as you did all the testing on a clocked system?
Could we see some benchies on a stock and non stock system (like the custom pc magazine) for those of us in phear of clocking?
The reason I ask is that the testings done on a clocked system, is that indicative of the people who would get this? Just wondering as you did all the testing on a clocked system?
Could we see some benchies on a stock and non stock system (like the custom pc magazine) for those of us in phear of clocking?
I actually forgot I had my CPU clocked up during the tests. Regardless the C2D would play the games fast anyway. Unfortunately my test rig has been sold so I could not use that for the tests.
I am going to use the same PC for all my tests from now on so this was a base for future comparison
I am going to use the same PC for all my tests from now on so this was a base for future comparison
Great review Kemp, and it's certainly a nice little card for the budget conscious
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by name='Kempez'
I actually forgot I had my CPU clocked up during the tests. Regardless the C2D would play the games fast anyway. Unfortunately my test rig has been sold so I could not use that for the tests.
|
That setup would be VGA-limited in all games anyway, even a stock Allendale can push a lower-midrange card to its limits.
The X1650pro will be a great alternative to Nvidia's solutions at its level. It has an amazing price/performance ratio: 66€ is even less than what the 7300GTs clocked at 500/1400 are selling for!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vaerilis
Nice review!
That setup would be VGA-limited in all games anyway, even a stock Allendale can push a lower-midrange card to its limits. The X1650pro will be a great alternative to Nvidia's solutions at its level. It has an amazing price/performance ratio: 66€ is even less than what the 7300GTs clocked at 500/1400 are selling for! |
CSS Valid
How does it do when we subject it to the Overclock3D bench suite?
Find out here