How is this possible?

**PROFESSORPAUL** · April 06, 2006, 06:40 PM

Ok, the computer I currently have has:

ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum 256 MB
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.4 GHZ
1 GB Ram

The other computer has:

Nvidia Geforce 7900 GTX 512 MB
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4 GHZ
1 GB Ram

I tested out some benchmarks like Aquamark on both computers, and the computer with the ATI X800 got a higher score. I ran both tests on the lowest possible, and the Nvidia computer got 125 FPS, and the ATI X800 got 127 FPS. Of course, I'm also slightly overclocking the ATI Radeon, but you kind of expect a 7900, that came out recently, to be faster than an X800, which came out a long time ago.

What's goin on? Should I of gone with the ATI 1900 instead?

**Garbarsardar** · April 06, 2006, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by PROFESSORPAUL

Ok, the computer I currently have has:

ATI Radeon X800 XT Platinum 256 MB
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ 2.4 GHZ
1 GB Ram

The other computer has:

Nvidia Geforce 7900 GTX 512 MB
AMD Athlon 64 3800+ 2.4 GHZ
1 GB Ram

I tested out some benchmarks like Aquamark on both computers, and the computer with the ATI X800 got a higher score. I ran both tests on the lowest possible, and the Nvidia computer got 125 FPS, and the ATI X800 got 127 FPS. Of course, I'm also slightly overclocking the ATI Radeon, but you kind of expect a 7900, that came out recently, to be faster than an X800, which came out a long time ago.

What's goin on? Should I of gone with the ATI 1900 instead?

If you ask RTW-wise, the game is more CPU intensive than RAM intensive and for psychophysical reasons unknown, "likes" Nvidia better...

**PROFESSORPAUL** · April 06, 2006, 11:56 PM

I just did a battle in RTW with about 15,000 men... and believe this.... the ATI X800 actually did BETTER than the 7900.

What the heck is going on? I didnt even have the resolution on 1600x1200 on the 7900 comp, while on the X800 I did, and it still had better FPS than the comp with the 7900.

**Ahiga** · April 07, 2006, 12:21 AM

Well, your system must be different than mine. My X800 256 MB SUCKS at RTW. I can hardly even run RTW at 6,000 men when the graphics are only mildly turned up, and my RAM is higher than yours, but I dont know about processor (3.0 Ghz pentium 4)

**Zuwxiv** · April 07, 2006, 12:24 AM

Spyware, background processes, my guess is that there is a software issue.

Or it could be possible that, just the way the Rome engine works, even the inferior card is better designed to process that information. Unlikely, and I'm not sure technically how this works, but it could be it.

**DarkKnight** · April 07, 2006, 12:38 AM

Did you update the Nvidia drivers? There are a couple of drivers that have problems with RTW.

**PROFESSORPAUL** · April 07, 2006, 01:01 AM

Well, it doesn't just do it for RTW, it does it for most games. The only game I've played that seems to run faster on 7900 than the X800 is Oblivion. My Nvidia drivers are 83.91, but I'm not sure if thats old or new.

**fatsheep** · April 07, 2006, 01:44 PM

GENERALLY: Nvidia is better with opengl games (Doom 3) and ATI is better with directX games (Rome: Total War) which could explain why an ATI card could beat a more powerful Nvidia. You'll see alot of lower end Nvidia cards destroy more pricey ATIs in Doom 3 benchmarks, and the ATI cards will return the favor in Half Life 2.

**PROFESSORPAUL** · April 07, 2006, 03:01 PM

Is there anyway to make the 7900 run DirectX games well too? Cause it kinda makes me wanna cry to see a 7900 be beaten by an X800.

Plus, I got a whole new problem. I just tested Doom 3 on both computers, and not only did the X800 run the same as the 7900 in terms of performance, but it looked much better and crisper. Let's just say I could actually see the individual keys on a keyboard in Doom 3 with the X800, and with the 7900, it looked like a blurred mess, and they were both running on highest settings. And other things like less jaggies on edges, clearer faces on people, etc. Can anyone explain why this is happening now?

**westy159** · April 07, 2006, 06:11 PM

hey profpaul this off topic sos but arent you at the gamespot.com PC forums as well?

ontopic i think Nvidia rushed the 7900. They are in hot competition with ATi and i think their strategy to beat them is to churn out card after card after card fooling people into buying them by making them think its better becuase its new. Maybe thats completely wrong im just throwing a guess to explain the situation we have here.

**Aristocrat** · April 07, 2006, 07:38 PM

Try the new beta drivers that have been tweaked to suit the newer NVIDIA cards better, remove your old drivers with driver cleaner first.
THe 7900 should be better than that....my 6800GT is better than what you decribe (though it runs at 6800 Ultra speeds,,,,that shouldn't matter).

In fact, I'm beginning to think my 6800GT is charmed in some way, it continually runs all the newest games at max settings better than the newer cards (see Oblivion...then see all the christmas time games such as FEAR, etc).

Back on topic, do as I said and clean your drivers, even if they are the newest, just do it and reinstall them for testings sake.

**ferres** · April 09, 2006, 01:03 PM

Consider the Mboard as well. A bad one can put a system to a crawl regardless of processor and Vcard.

**General Sun** · April 09, 2006, 01:18 PM

I see a difference of 2 fps? That is well within the margin of error... Your bottle neck aren't the cards, it's the way the rome engine handles CPU resources, which right now is pretty crap I think. The 7900 is definitly faster than the X800, everybody can confirm that, but I heard that the x1900 is superior to the 7900

**Incinerate_IV** · April 09, 2006, 02:11 PM

Well since your 3200 is overclocked to 2.4 ghz while your 3800 runs at stock speed, the FSB for the 3200 is going to be higher than the 3800, hence the OCed 3200 actually performs better.