Video Card Ranking List : IV - Oblivion

» Fri May 27, 2011 7:35 am

Looks like ATI is jumping on the rebadging of old hardware too. Guess they didn't want to feel left out.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11867&Itemid=1

» Fri May 27, 2011 1:24 am

I have the ATI 4650 (basically the 4670's little brother). Anyway, it is not on the list that I can see. I think it should be on the very high category as it runs Oblivion on high settings very well usually in the 40+ FPS. Haven't actually tried Ultra High with it but I think it would do that as well though at lower FPS. This is, by the way, on 1280x1024 resolution. I would do higher but that is the highest my current monitor will go. Anyway, thanks for the great list! This post should be stickied in my opinion.

» Fri May 27, 2011 10:47 am

Where would the GeForce 8700GT fit in? I would assume it's better than the 8600GT, but exactly how much better?

Also, which is better to run oblivion:

NVIDIA GeForce 9800
or
ATI Radeon 3870
?

One more question: Exactly how would dual GPU's (i.e. 2x ATI Radeon 3870's) affect gameplay? Could I play at higher settings or get more FPS?

» Fri May 27, 2011 12:59 am

Where would the GeForce 8700GT fit in? I would assume it's better than the 8600GT, but exactly how much better?

Also, which is better to run oblivion:

NVIDIA GeForce 9800
or
ATI Radeon 3870
?

One more question: Exactly how would dual GPU's (i.e. 2x ATI Radeon 3870's) affect gameplay? Could I play at higher settings or get more FPS?

GeForce 9800 is better than a 3870.

Dual GPUs will only yield better performance at screen resolutions at 1920x1080 or higher. Anything lower and you will only see a gain of a few FPS.

» Fri May 27, 2011 2:57 am

Where would the GeForce 8700GT fit in? I would assume it's better than the 8600GT, but exactly how much better?

Also, which is better to run oblivion:

NVIDIA GeForce 9800
or
ATI Radeon 3870
?

One more question: Exactly how would dual GPU's (i.e. 2x ATI Radeon 3870's) affect gameplay? Could I play at higher settings or get more FPS?

This chart is mainly for desktop GPUs...there is no 8700GT desktop card. There is the 8700M GT, which is mobile existing only in notebooks....the 8700M GT is about equivalent to the desktop 8600GT, maybe even the 8600GTS.

» Fri May 27, 2011 10:05 am

My graphics card is a 280 GTX and while technically it chews up oblivion and spits it out faster than a minigun...but there's the old issue of the cell loading judder and lack of occlusion culling (mostly noticeable around the imperial city) which causes low fps in areas where there clearly shouldn't be.

After a nice break with Fallout 3 coming back to Oblivion is a judderfest, it shows you how much optimisation has actually been done on the engine in the last couple of years.

Eitherway you cut it though you probably don't need much better than an 8800 to enjoy this game to its maximum potential. (unless you're gaming at silly resolutions :mohawk: )

» Fri May 27, 2011 5:45 am

Would a laptop with a ATI Radeon 3200 graphics card work out to play Oblivion?

» Fri May 27, 2011 2:42 am

Looks like this thread is dead. GTX 285, GTX 295, GTS 250, HD 4830, HD 4850 X2 all missing. Or course almost no site is using Oblivion for a benchmark anymore, so its based on assumption (which landed the 9800 GTX+ below the HD 4850, which I still say is patently wrong).

» Fri May 27, 2011 12:45 am

All of those mentioned cards would fit in egad except the 4830 which is extreme

» Fri May 27, 2011 10:40 am

Would a laptop with a ATI Radeon 3200 graphics card work out to play Oblivion?

As already mentioned to you, it will play...but it's a low-settings card. You may get a touch of medium, but will be borderline playable.

» Fri May 27, 2011 12:17 am

Since it's pretty much equal to the 8400M GS, as I mentioned in your thread aswell.

» Fri May 27, 2011 11:08 am

Looks like this thread is dead. GTX 285, GTX 295, GTS 250, HD 4830, HD 4850 X2 all missing. Or course almost no site is using Oblivion for a benchmark anymore, so its based on assumption (which landed the 9800 GTX+ below the HD 4850, which I still say is patently wrong).

No, I don't think you're quite right there.

I agree that the 9800GTX+ and HD 4850 are more or less identical. HOWEVER, the way he has it is that the 4850 is only one spot above the 9800GTX+, which I'd say is correct. This is because the 4850 handles AA much better than the GTX+ does.

However, I do think that he should place them both either in extreme or egad...not different categories.

» Fri May 27, 2011 1:31 am

wderanged said:

My graphics card is a 280 GTX and while technically it chews up oblivion and spits it out faster than a minigun...but there's the old issue of the cell loading judder

wderanged,

Have you always used a card with that 512mb memory bus width with your Oblivion? My 880GT just died and I'm back to a backup X1900XT.

I'm looking at an upgrade but the AMD's have all stayed at 256Mb memory bus width. The Nvidia's have stayed 448/512.

I was just wondering if (granted not as much optimization as you say) 256Mb is going to be even worse than your 512mb. I'm running 1680x1050 but I've got QTP redimized plus portions of AEVWD.

Thanks if you have time and see this.

» Thu May 26, 2011 9:24 pm

No, I don't think you're quite right there.

I agree that the 9800GTX+ and HD 4850 are more or less identical. HOWEVER, the way he has it is that the 4850 is only one spot above the 9800GTX+, which I'd say is correct. This is because the 4850 handles AA much better than the GTX+ does.

However, I do think that he should place them both either in extreme or egad...not different categories.

I just got the 9800GTX+ and I am loving it!!! Running on Core2duo 2.66, 6gb RAM, on Vista64bit. I have everything maxed with tons of mods and it's FLAWLESS. I highly recommend it. (Just adding my 2 cents) :foodndrink:

» Fri May 27, 2011 7:25 am

wderanged said:

wderanged,

Have you always used a card with that 512mb memory bus width with your Oblivion? My 880GT just died and I'm back to a backup X1900XT.

I'm looking at an upgrade but the AMD's have all stayed at 256Mb memory bus width. The Nvidia's have stayed 448/512.

I was just wondering if (granted not as much optimization as you say) 256Mb is going to be even worse than your 512mb. I'm running 1680x1050 but I've got QTP redimized plus portions of AEVWD.

Thanks if you have time and see this.

Bus width doesn't matter so much as how fast you can get data in and out of memory. The ATI/AMD cards make up for the narrower bus width by using extremely fast memory (GDDR5 on the 4870). That gives the 4870 an edge over the GTX 260 in memory bandwidth, but the GTX 280 and up still rule that particular spec.

» Thu May 26, 2011 11:45 pm

Stange, none of them mention the GeForce GTX 260 896mb...

» Thu May 26, 2011 9:26 pm

Stange, none of them mention the GeForce GTX 260 896mb...

AFAIK ALL of the GTX 260s are 896MB. However, it doesn't mention the 216 because Nottheking has not been on in a long time to update the list.

» Fri May 27, 2011 6:15 am

However, from my incredibly short experience that lead to my weakling computer crashing just because the stupid power supply couldn't svck in a few more volts *Dropkicks PSU box w/old PSU in it out window*, the 260 seems to tear through OB on max settings.

» Thu May 26, 2011 10:30 pm

However, from my incredibly short experience that lead to my weakling computer crashing just because the stupid power supply couldn't svck in a few more volts, the 260 seems to tear through OB on max settings.

...Which is why it's in the highest category

.

» Fri May 27, 2011 12:19 am

How about Ati Radeon HD 2600. I didn't see that in the list, all the ones close to it had somthing like "pro" after the 2600.

» Fri May 27, 2011 5:42 am

How about Ati Radeon HD 2600. I didn't see that in the list, all the ones close to it had somthing like "pro" after the 2600.

Mine is EXACTLY the same, except mine is Radeon HD 3200. The ones closest to mine seem to be in the "extreme" region. :hubbahubba:

Just would like to see what everyone else says.

» Thu May 26, 2011 10:09 pm

The list hasn't been updated since september of last year, so, it is a wee bit out of date, NotTheKing hasn't been on since May 24th, this year. I think this list is also duplicated in the FO3 H/S PC issues forum, but, I haven't checked yet to see if that one has been updated recently.

2600, and 3200 video solutions are going to fall firmly in the mid range of video cards. performance is going to be pretty close, with the 2600 perhaps being a bit faster on the draw. Pun Intended.

» Fri May 27, 2011 3:13 am

T performance is going to be pretty close, with the 2600 perhaps being a bit faster on the draw.

No.

XD

I'm certainly going to upgrade when I come into some money.

Have mercy... Just one coin...

» Fri May 27, 2011 2:56 am

The Radeon 2600 is an actual card...the 3200 is a chipset. These are not even close to each other performance-wise...the 2600 will blow the 3200 away in everything.

» Fri May 27, 2011 1:48 am

The Radeon 2600 is an actual card...the 3200 is a chipset. These are not even close to each other performance-wise...the 2600 will blow the 3200 away in everything.

Son of a... :brokencomputer:

Good God, did I waste my money buying Oblivion for the PC?