Gaming
Gaming
Left 4 Dead PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jeff_Tom   
Wednesday, 12 November 2008 20:27

 

 

When a game from Valve is released it is a huge deal. And although with the Episodes being released and other constituents of Valve doing work with TF2, Portal, etc, this seems to be occurring at a quicker pace it still isn't all the time. The newest one is about to come out next week and a demo was released earlier, Left 4 Dead. The project started in the hands of Turtle Rock Studios who have been used by Valve a lot previously but the developer was acquired and is now officially a part of Valve.

Left 4 Dead uses the Source engine and thus benchmarking is very familiar. Simply use record command at the console and then timedemo to play back the demo you recorded. We recorded a section where there are swarms and swarms of zombies attacking you in the streets that don't seem to let up.

Here is our test system.

Mother Board Foxconn 790GX
CPU AMD Phenom 9950 BE
Memory Corsair XMS 4GB
Hard Drive Western Digital SE 16 750GB
Case Tsunami Thermaltake
Display Samsung SyncMaster 30"

Our test system was Windows Vista Home Ultimate SP1 32-bit. ATI Catalyst 8.10 drivers were used and Forceware 180.43.

Our settings were set to the highest possible except we went for 8XMSAA and 16XAF with "Very High" or "High" whichever was the highest where possible.

 

Things fall pretty much where we expect. This is the most advanced Source engine game to date though and it still is a demo so scores might seem a little low for some of the more advanced hardware that we have. There is a gradual step down for all the lower-end cards though until we get the to the GeForce 9500 GT and 8600 GTS which are unplayable at this high settings. However, they should be more than playable at more mid-range settings.

 

The GTX 280 only loses 3fps at 1920x1200 showing that it's probably CPU bound. Cards appear a bit more staggered here and once you hit the Radeon HD 4670 you dip below 30fps if just barely. Again though this was an intense demo and we think it's probably acceptable for most people. So for a $70 card you can play Left 4 Dead basically maxed out at 1920x1200.

 

 

We see a major dip here for the memory limited GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB. There's just no way it can handle this resolution, the same for our GeForce 8600 GTS which only has 256MB of RAM. If you're playing on playing this resolution you'll definitely want a 4800 card or a GTX 260 and up.

 

 

Conclusion:

Left 4 Dead definitely seems to be less forgiving than the previous episode of Half-Life 2 but as with other Source engines this is still one of the faster and more scalable engines on the market due to still being low-tech compared to Unreal 3 or Crysis. That said the art direction and other flourishes make up for that greatly and give the game the patented Valve sense of style.

 

 

 

 

 
Call of Duty: World at War Benchmarks PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jeff_Tom   
Tuesday, 28 October 2008 20:20
 

 

Call of Duty has without a doubt gone from a good franchise on the PC to hitting the absolute mainstream with the success of Call of Duty 4, up there with Halo 3 in sales and awareness. Activision seems to be milking the franchise yearly as well as they tend to do with all their franchises and so far at least it hasn't suffered greatly although Treyarch usually isn't up there with Infinity Ward. Call of Duty: World at War, the follow-up to Call of Duty 4, hits two weeks from now but a multiplayer PC beta was released today. We as usual decided to test it on a range of video cards to see how the latest in the series performs.

 

 
Mother Board Asus Striker II 780i
CPU Intel Q9300
Memory Corsair XMS 4GB
Hard Drive Western Digital SE 16 750GB
Case Tsunami Thermaltake
Display Samsung SyncMaster 30"
 

Our test system was Windows Vista Home Ultimate  SP1 32-bit we used FRAPS on the Makin multiplayer map, running the same path without any other players to have accurate and repeatable results. Catalyst drivers 8.10 were used and the beta 180.43 Forceware drivers.

Graphic settings set to their highest possible settings in all categories except anti-aliasing which was left at 4X.

 

 

There are some definite conclusions we can draw from these early scores. First of all, it looks like this build of the Call of Duty engine is not yet optimized for ATI's graphic cards. Some might recall that originally a while back AMD's Radeon cards struggled with Call of Duty 4 until a better driver release came out. The Radeon 4850 definitely should not be below a GeForce 8800 GT even if it is overclocked. Unfortunately, all of our Nvidia cards are but at most that yields 8-10% gains. The benchmarks are very accurate and it isn't surprising to see that the game isn't fully optimized yet on ATI's front. Call of Duty 4 is one of the games where AMD cards currently excel, whether the 3850 or 4870X2 but here we see the 4870X2 barely stop a GeForce GTX 280. We wonder whether there is Crossfire support in this build of the game yet as well which so far we doubt.

Conclusion:

We'll do more testing tomorrow with some older and not as high-end cards but for now enjoy these. Nvidia is definitely in the driver's seat now with Call of Duty: World at War which could be because of the Big Bang II beta drivers we used or it could be that simply ATI has not yet optimized for Call of Duty: World at War as they had not with Call of Duty 4 at launch. We believe that to be the case and hopefully the 8.11 drivers have some better performance for what is sure to be a popular first-person shooter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last Updated on Wednesday, 29 October 2008 09:14
 
Battlefield Heroes Performance PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jeff_Tom   
Sunday, 24 August 2008 15:23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Battlefield has been one of the biggest gaming franchises of the decade with numerous sequels and incarnations of the game, most recently on the consoles with Bad Company. The latest version for PC Gamers is Battlefield Heroes which is a new take on the game franchise which brings it into the world of web gaming and also simplifies the gameplay significantly to try and cater to casual gamers. The game is currently still in beta testing phase but we were able to get hold of a key and we decided to test the game to see how exactly it performs.

 

 

 
Mother Board Foxconn 790GX
CPU Phenom 9950 BE
Memory Corsair XMS 4GB
Hard Drive Western Digital SE 16 750GB
Case Tsunami Thermaltake
Display Samsung SyncMaster 30"
 

Our test system was Windows Vista Home Ultimate with ATI Catalyst 8.6 drivers and Forceware 177.41.

FRAPS was used for testing and unfortunately on the Village map in the game. Benchmarking FRAPS isn't the most accurate all the time but a multi-player game adds in added variations. We tried to re-produce the same exact results though despite these results we feel are very accurate but take them with somewhat a grain of salt that FRAPS adds.

The game is very limited in graphics options from "High", "Medium", and "Low" being the only options with no details or advanced section. The gameplay matches the engine in it's simplicity so that isn't a big deal, as you'll see the game runs well even on "High" even on older hardware.

 

We start things off at 1680x1050 and tested on value and older cards and as you can see they're all above 30fps even at "High" with the exception of the GeForce 6600 GT and Radeon 2600 XT video cards. The GeForce 7900 GTX hits almost 100fps, which is the limit for the game engine.

 

Bumping up the resolution to that of a 24" monitor we naturally lose performance on value cards but the 9500 GT excels in this game. A 7900 GT gets 50fps and a Radeon X1900 XT brings in 46 with settings maxed.

 

 

2560x1600 is the highest resolution supported by graphics cards and monitors today and luckily Battlefield Heroes supports it. The 7900 GTX which is now years old easily handles it coming in at 44.1fps and the 9600 GT brings in near 70.

 

Battlefield Heroes obviously should have few problems running on most computers. If you have an issue, it'll more than likely be a driver issue than a performance issue. We look forward to the full game being released and thank EA for our beta key. Read on for screenshots.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last Updated on Tuesday, 26 August 2008 06:21
 
Age of Conan Benchmarks PDF Print E-mail
Written by Jeff_Tom   
Tuesday, 24 June 2008 13:04

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Every now and then there's a game that takes the PC gaming community by storm coming out of nowhere to rack up huge sales numbers in what people have been calling a dead market since the days of the PlayStation One and Nintendo 64. The one this year is Age of Conan, the MMORPG from Funcom, which has sold 500,00 copies since it's release to June 1st with undoubtedly many more sold since then. The company was best known for Anarchy Online and clearly have struck MMORPG gold with Age of Conan.

Age of Conan runs off the Dreamworld graphics engine which Funcom originally developed in 2000 for Anarchy Online. Funcom decided with Age of Conan to try and take this further and develop the engine more so to bring it up to date for gameplay, graphics, and more. This includes such things as Cheetah, their own renderer used to apply shadows to everything in game, SpeedTree which works on creating better quality graphics for foliage, and in the future Funcom plans to support Microsoft's DirectX 10 API. Currently Age of Conan only uses Microsoft's DirectX 9 so we'll be looking at that in our performance testing. Consensus all around though is that Age of Conan is a top tier MMORPG with a very advanced graphics engine so it's something we definitely wanted to benchmark.

We used FRAPS through a 40 second run through the game in an area without any other variables to adjust the frames per second. Here is our start position and then end.

 

Here is our test system.

Mother Board Asus M3A32-MVP Deluxe Wi-Fi, Asus Crosshair II Formula
CPU AMD Phenom X4 9850 Black Edition
Video Card Various
Memory Corsair XMS Dominator 2GB
Hard Drive Western Digital Raptor
Case Tsunami Thermaltake
Display Samsung 305T

ATI Catalyst 8.6 and nForce 159.17 drivers were used on Vista Ultimate SP1.

 

Start:

End:

 

 

Here are our graphic settings for the game.

 

 

As you can see we ran at fairly high quality settings.

 

Now onto the benchmark results.

 










 





 

 

In our results we see cards like the 9600 GT or cards from a few years ago such as the Radeon 1950 Pro struggle. The Radeon 1950 Pro isn't playable at any resolution but then again we were running at fairly high settings. We've heard of some problems with Crossfire and SLI with the game but for us it ran excellently and more than doubled scores at times. ATI's new Radeon 4850 is especially powerful and we're interested in how fast the Radeon 4870 will be which we should get soon. Scores from the 4850 to Crossfire more than double. We see similar results from the 9600 GT and 9800 GTX. This game doesn't really seem to prefer one card over the other with the Radeon 3870 and 9600 GT, 8800 GT fairly matched and also with the 4850 against a 9800 GTX. We're looking forward to how DirectX10 might change things and hope Funcom releases a patch soon. To play the game at maximum settings today though you definitely need a fairly high-end card, at least a 9600 GT to 3850 or above in performance.

 

 





 





Last Updated on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 14:10
 
Call of Duty 4 Beta GPU Performance PDF Print E-mail
Written by Chris Tom   
Friday, 12 October 2007 18:43
Jeff has finished his benchmarks of Call of Duty 4 beta. This time around 9 cards are tested with the game, and it certainly is quite GPU intensive.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 17 September 2008 10:21
Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 16

buy viagra buy viagra no prescription buy viagra online buy viagra without prescription cheap viagra buy viagra online discount viagra online viagra order viagra order viagra online purchase viagra viagra no prescription viagra online viagra sale viagra without prescription order soma no prescription order klonopin no prescription order clonazepam no prescription order valium no prescription order diazepam no prescription order alprazolam no prescription order reductil no prescription order meridia no prescription order tramadol no prescription order ultram no prescription order adipex no prescription order prednisone no prescription order topamax no prescription order xanax no prescription order ativan no prescription order lorazepam no prescription order rivotril no prescription order lipitor no prescription order plavix no prescription order flomax no prescription order proscar no prescription