Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Prototype Performance Analyzed

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
July 8, 2009 6:20:35 AM

I don't see anyone upgrading from a C2Q to an i7 for a game that's just not all that great looking on high settings, the performance discrepency there was odd. The gameplay itself looks like it might be interesting though.
July 8, 2009 6:20:54 AM

Already beat the game a week ago, but it was a thrill-ride. Not sure why the article's so late getting up though.

At the least, it'll convince people that their older rigs -can- run it. It's basically an optimized and mostly un-buggy Web Of Shadows engine; I'd expect a 7800GT could probably run it okay.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
July 8, 2009 6:28:34 AM

Wayoffbase...just not all that great looking on high settings,...


In action it's much better than these screenshots. It pulls a lot of the same tricks MGS4 does on the PS3, where you can tell it's not actually doing that much processing but it looks like it is. Screenshots don't do the game justice because you rarely see a texture or polygon for more than a few seconds at most; in action the particle effects are actually pretty impressive.

July 8, 2009 8:08:21 AM

could this be the first game that takes full advantage of an i7's 8 threads?
July 8, 2009 9:20:22 AM

Hmm.. all its takes is an XBOX 360! $200.00 It is a great game.
July 8, 2009 10:16:51 AM

What happends if you add 8gb ddr2-1200 (ballistix or similar) to the old quadcore ? the i7 had 50% more memory available as well after all - if the game's 64 bit enabled, perhaps the difference isn't the cpu alone - since even at 2.4 the difference is huge.
Even saints row, which has shit for graphics, runs close to the 2gb memory limit of 32bit games all the time - so perhaps this actually uses whatever is available?

I saw this game a few weeks ago running great on a laptop that usually does inventor stuff ... I don't know what processor was in it, but I bet no more than an old dualcore T something processor
July 8, 2009 10:48:20 AM

My Q6600 @ 3.0 Ghz and Geforce GTS 512 runs this game flawless on high settings. I've tried with aa on 4x but found it runnign at 20fps sometimes. It's a fun game. And not to hard on resources.
July 8, 2009 11:14:17 AM

p.s. not so great difference between i7 and core2quad on that site..
July 8, 2009 11:20:48 AM

my Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz and 8800GT 512mb run the game smoothly at 1980x1080 with anti-aliasing x4 and high details.. I actually don't mind the graphics so much, i think they are better than GTAIV's..

One of the best games ever BTW!!
Anonymous
July 8, 2009 12:07:25 PM

Apache Lives: It barely takes advantage of more than 2 real threads on the Core2 quad, why do you think it's using all 8 virtual threads on the i7? It seems Intel want's to push i7 as a gaming CPU(even though everyone knows that C2Q and PhII are just fine), perhaps they struck some kind of deal with the devs? There's no logical reason for how such a CPU spread could happen.
July 8, 2009 12:11:58 PM

chovavmy Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz and 8800GT 512mb run the game smoothly at 1980x1080 with anti-aliasing x4 and high details.. I actually don't mind the graphics so much, i think they are better than GTAIV's..One of the best games ever BTW!!


It's not fair to compare a pc game with graphics from a pocket calculator. gta if anything sports only gameplay. Graphics aren't a selling point for that title.
July 8, 2009 12:53:16 PM

I see on this page you were a bit stumped by the poor showing of the 8800GT/9800GT when the 9600GT was out preforming it.

I think the answer is the lack of VRAM on the 8800GT which I believe only had 512Mb where as the 9600GT has a full 1Gb which eliminated any bottlenecks when processing all those textures with 4x AA being applied.
July 8, 2009 1:13:02 PM

Should throw in a phenom II 940 or 955 as well as test SLI and Crossfire cards. I want to see how well the game scales using SLI
July 8, 2009 1:14:58 PM

Well, I can run the game maxed with my core 2 at 2.8 ghz and a 512 4870, including 4xaa at 1680x1050. I wasn't impressed with the graphics at all though. I think GTA looks much better. The gameplay didn't do anything for me, but I only gave it about ten minutes of my time, in which it had already felt repetitive. However, maybe I'll go back and give it a longer try.

Anyway, keep articles like these coming.
July 8, 2009 2:01:51 PM

4870 512, pII 720 black, 4 gig 1066 memory no over clocking - game runs maxed out with v sync enabled. I have yet to find a game that needs more with the exception of Crysis and maybe Far Cry 2. Crysis was good, but not great. Far Cry 2, well... it kinda sucked. I couldn't justify the hundreds of dollars more it would cost to get a good 50fps with max settings out of these 2 games.
July 8, 2009 2:15:36 PM

Directx 10.1 vs 10.0 anything interesting in that aspect like CPU usage, frame rate...etc?
July 8, 2009 3:04:00 PM

I have a phenom II Triple core AM3 running on an AM2+ mobo with 4gigs of ram (really less since its XP 32bit) and an 8600GTS videocard and with high detail and medium shadow at 1680 x 1050 the game runs flawlessly (no AA) and fast. I don't think the frame rate has ever dropped past 25fps.

So unless this CPU is the business (which it isn't on this platform), anyone with a computer that made in the last 3 years can run this game no problem.
July 8, 2009 3:05:07 PM

btw, I'm not really impressed by the game as I thought Infamous was more engaging.
July 8, 2009 4:22:43 PM

I have a Core 2 Quad (Q9550 @ 3.6GHz), 8GB of RAM, and two GTX 275s. I should be able to play this game maxed out no sweat. It is fine but I drop below 60FPS at many points in the game and I tried using FRAPS to record and it is unplayable, like 5fps. I can in-game record for Left 4 Dead and even GTA IV but this game is unbearable! With my setup, Prototype should be crushed!
July 8, 2009 4:24:24 PM

Just as a note, the Core 2 Quad I tested with is a Q6600. Remember, it's only running at 2.4 GHz... there are a lot of faster Core 2 Quads out there, if they're closer to 3 GHz it would likely perform a lot better.
July 8, 2009 5:05:19 PM

doomtomb

The most likely reason you have issues with prototype is that even the most recent nvidia drivers you can get do NOT support sli for this game. So you just have to download the most recent 186 driver and then if you have evga cards you can go download the sli evga enhancement patch that includes support for prototype and hopefully it will fix that dip in fps :) 

Or you can just wait for nvidia to put sli support for prototype into its next driver version and get that if you don't want to deal with the enhancement patch

great article toms
July 8, 2009 5:20:15 PM

Quote:
While the GeForce 9600 GT is notably slower than the rest of the pack, it's still able to muster a minimum frame rate of about 27 FPS, which is not perfect, but very playable.


i would hardly call 27fps as "very playable"
July 8, 2009 6:02:37 PM

this game was entertaining for about 2 hours
July 8, 2009 6:15:30 PM

this game sounds too easy. i prefer a good challenge like stalker or even l4d, but jesus, whats the fun in playin a game where your invincible? the graphics arent even great, looks like halflife2 on all low
July 8, 2009 7:06:45 PM

goalguy02Should throw in a phenom II 940 or 955 as well as test SLI and Crossfire cards. I want to see how well the game scales using SLI

I concur. Even if you guys didn't want to go through the hassle of all that, is it really that hard to get a hold of single cards with multiple GPUs like the X2 series or the higher-end NVIDIA?
July 8, 2009 7:09:08 PM

yahh i would have been interested to know if this game's graphics engine scales well with multicard solution.... not like i'll ever play it though :p 

but it would have made it more interesting in the tests
July 8, 2009 7:13:00 PM

What is interesting is seeing that a single 4850 able to pull the same result as a GTX260.

Dual GPU is now more and more a mainstream option that should be analyze way more often... bet we already know that this game largely favor ATI cards.
July 8, 2009 7:27:16 PM

Can we get some AMD CPU scaling in this? Not all of us have the $/need/want to switch to Intel.

Maybe an all AMD/ATI platform can pull some extra frames.
July 8, 2009 7:48:08 PM

the graphic on protptype is as good as my grandma's face . the story suck , the gameplay is clumsy , the dialog is a mess and beside the killing , there's nothing else to do . nothing in the game even make sense . suddenly , he just know how to glide , cut , slash ,absorb . by some weird reason , the virus made an imitation of alex mercer . people in the city even after being attacked , killed and seperated from the rest of the world still continue their life like normal . i dont get why even benchmark this game while there are many other games that actually ultilizing something . my pc can even handle the game on highest setting even tho it's barely playable on fallout 3 high setting without AA .
July 8, 2009 8:12:24 PM

ITT:

Disillusioned "hardcore gamers" that watch too much Zero Punctuation and don't believe any game except their personal favorite is worth ten cents.

It's a perfect example of a game that is better than the sum of its parts.

I do second the motion for more AMD chips. Or did the weird nvidia/intel frame loss finally go away?
July 8, 2009 9:25:43 PM

I just want to remind people, with turbo on, the i7 is actually a 3Ghz processor. So, a true showing of any i7 benefits over a 2.4 C2D would be to downclock the i7 to 2.4, and turn turbo off. Need to mention that from now on
July 8, 2009 11:28:51 PM

bah, i'm sorry, a game needs good GFX to go with its good game play. I'm glad to see games being more cpu intensive, cause this almost always means more/better gameplay. sadly, the reason for the poor gfx is its console roots, for instance, a GeForce 250 GTS has roughly 10x the fill rate of the PS3 and 360. it was good to see both consoles come out with interesting CPU solutions that actually surpassed what was available for PCs, but for gaming, ESPECIALLY when making the push for 1080p gaming, the gfx solutions are laughably poor in both consoles.
July 8, 2009 11:31:23 PM

jaydeejohnI just want to remind people, with turbo on, the i7 is actually a 3Ghz processor. So, a true showing of any i7 benefits over a 2.4 C2D would be to downclock the i7 to 2.4, and turn turbo off. Need to mention that from now on


this is true. but trust me, for math performance at least, the i7 is still lots better clock for clock, core for core
July 9, 2009 12:06:45 AM

LOL @ C2Q performance
July 9, 2009 1:01:05 AM

avericiadoomtomb The most likely reason you have issues with prototype is that even the most recent nvidia drivers you can get do NOT support sli for this game. So you just have to download the most recent 186 driver and then if you have evga cards you can go download the sli evga enhancement patch that includes support for prototype and hopefully it will fix that dip in fps Or you can just wait for nvidia to put sli support for prototype into its next driver version and get that if you don't want to deal with the enhancement patchgreat article toms

Ok, thanks for the suggestion
July 9, 2009 1:46:38 AM

trkoreckyI concur. Even if you guys didn't want to go through the hassle of all that, is it really that hard to get a hold of single cards with multiple GPUs like the X2 series or the higher-end NVIDIA?


It's not about difficulty, it's about relevancy.

How many of you guys have 2560x1600 monitors? Because a single 4870 or GTX 260 will play at 1920x1200 max settings and 4xAA with no trouble at all. They'll both even play atv 2560x1600 with no trouble as long as AA is off.

Heck, the 1GB 4870 will play 4xAA at 2560x1600 very smoothly.

What would be the point of SLI/Crossfire tests when a single $150 1GB 4870 plays the game fine at the highest settings, 2560x1600 at 4xAA? I don't know what it would prove.

If I test a game that's taxing the graphics system, then you guys'll see the SLI/Crossfire benches come out of the woodwork.
July 9, 2009 1:47:57 AM

rambo117i would hardly call 27fps as "very playable"


Then you haven't experienced a *minimum* fps of 27 fps.

Note minimum, not average.
July 9, 2009 1:49:26 AM

playa-wit-gameWow. Another Don Woligroski article, another unbelievable, unexplainable, implausible win for the Core i7, by a margin too big to be believed.


Wow. Another goof who can't wrap their heads around an i7 processor being faster than a Core 2 or Phenom II. *yawn*
July 9, 2009 2:45:16 AM

There's CPU-limited and then there's this.
July 9, 2009 3:55:15 AM

OK. Really guys; when on earth are you going to start including the HD4890s in your benchmarking? And what about the Nvidia GT280 & 285? Where are they? Surely you have something available in your test labs, right? By the benchmarking, the high-end cards would clearly perform well enough for this game, but by how much?

It's becoming more difficult to make an informed decision based on Tom's reviews; please provide more comprehensive reports for gamers will all types of budgets.
July 9, 2009 4:03:25 AM

masterwhitmanOK. Really guys; when on earth are you going to start including the HD4890s in your benchmarking?


When a 4870 isn't able to muster high framerates at 2560x1600 with 4xAA, I reckon.

I don't have two weeks to spend benchmarking a single title but I benchmarked a heck of a lot of cards, and I tried to benchmark the ones that mattered.

If you guys want me to drop every second card in order to include the higher eschelons then I'll be happy to accomodate, but I was trying to keep the results relevant instead of benching a whole bunch of uber-cards that offer no benefit in this CPU-limited title.
July 9, 2009 4:52:37 AM

*sigh*

Sorry for the confusion, the above post is mine. Didn't realize my son was logged in on my machine when I replied.

Just one of the many joys of having a 15-year old around. Nothing is your own anymore.
July 9, 2009 5:20:34 AM

Just wanted to add that I am making my way through this game currently, on the following rig:

C2Q 6600 OC'd 3.24 GHz
4 GB (2 x 2) OCZ ReaperX HPC PC8000 DDR2
2 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 500 GB w/ 32MB Cache
2 x eVGA GTX260 SLI OC'd to 636 / 1371 / 1107
2 x Acer X213w 21.6" widescreen monitors 2500:1 contrast ratio @ 1680 x 1050 res max

The game ran great when I first started playing, but CPU bottlenecking was obvious - if I left Thunderbird running, for example, and Growl popped up a notification, poof, instant (but temporary) slowdown.

Upon installing the 186.18 along with the eVGA SLI patch (which seems no different than the nVidia SLI patch) the game started running a bit more smoothly, but the best feature I like is that the drivers allow for multiple monitors even with SLI enabled.

The game may not be the best storyline of the year, or the best graphics of the year, or best technical design, etc...but the sum total is still one of the top titles thus far of this year.

I have a Core i7 965 EE waiting or a home (mobo and RAM) and then I can fully explore the differences (to a point - the RAM will be faster, and more than likely, as someone noted in earlier comments, I'll have the same issue as here - notably that there is more RAM on the i7 system than there is on the current C2Q system....

But as it is I experience no lag whatsoever, and this is making the game play extremely fun. It is also a game that I am going to replay a few times, and that is the true test of whether I like a game or not - re-play-ability. This is going in my cache of recent games like Mass Effect (going through it for the 4th time) and Toca's Race Driver G.R.I.D. (going through it with my 7th profile). A definite keeper.
July 9, 2009 11:39:53 AM

Very nice benchmarks in this article although it might have been nice to see something a little more powerful than a 4870 just for a comparison.

Good work though.
Anonymous
July 9, 2009 12:32:22 PM

"Wow. Another goof who can't wrap their heads around an i7 processor being faster than a Core 2 or Phenom II. *yawn* "


Wow, resorting to childish name-calling, very professional. The people who reviewed PhenomII vs. i7 when it first came out pretty much concluded that it wasn't much faster. Then you showed up late to the party with your sloppy Cyberpower review to enlighten us to just how much faster i7 really is. Now we have this article, with a CPU dependent benchmark spread unrivalled in the history of gaming. Perhaps you just have a rare talent for getting the most out of the i7, Intel should put you on their payroll if they haven't already.
July 9, 2009 2:48:02 PM

I understand some benchmarks (3DMark Vantage) still run their tests @ 1280x1024, but is this still a main-stream resolution? I would think 1680x1050 would be a good mid-pack scale, since wide-screen is 'where it's at' these days. 1920x1080 even. A lot of us run 1920x1200, and not a few run higher than that because they can deal with larger LCD screens in their set-up (I'd have to run that 30" on a wall or something to game with, lol at least if I'm having to react fast to anything on the screen).

It does seem to make a significant difference with how well CPUs and graphics adapters perform. they seem to have different 'sweet spots'.

;) 
July 9, 2009 4:19:23 PM

propaganda_payzIntel should put you on their payroll if they haven't already.


Brilliant observation!

Only a keen mind like yours could have seen the conspiracy; when the *Intel* Core 2 Quad demonstrates poor performance, *Intel* must be pleased as punch!

/sarcasm

Yeah, the Core 2 Quad I have is a Q6600, I mention that - it's only running at 2.4 GHz. I also mention that it's quite playable, and that if you can find a Core 2 Quad or Phenom II closer to 3 GHz it'll likely perform much more satisfactorily.

You're going to have to stretch even further outside of reality to drum up a conspiracy theory this time. But thanks for coming out! Watching you try to perform mental gymnastics is always a treat, and your posts make it pretty obvious that your motivation is a personal vendetta. :D 
!