Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: World In Conflict

Part 2: Building A Balanced Gaming PC
By

World in Conflict

We use the game’s built-in benchmark for testing World in Conflict. While you'll often hear that an RTS is playable at 25-30 FPS, we set our average target at 35 FPS to better cope with the minimum frame rates experienced in the game.

The Radeon HD 4850 does fine at 1280x1024, but enabling 4x AA exceeds its limits. As in Part 1, the GeForce cards are more limited by the processors in this game. While the GeForce GTX 260/Phenom II X2 550 BE combination reaches the target, it’s hard to ignore the added performance gained by stepping up to the Radeon HD 4890. Nvidia's GeForce GTX 285 is able to match the HD 4890 when paired with the Phenom II X4 955 BE, but doesn’t get anywhere near the 57 FPS it reached with the Core i7-920.

Besides seeing the bottom three GPUs slide down a bit, not a whole lot changes at 1680x1050, and the GeForce GTX 260/Phenom II X2 550 BE remains our cheapest AM3 platform to reach the target.

Again, at this resolution, World in Conflict paints an interesting look at platform balance. While graphics cards like Nvidia's GeForce GTX 260 and GTX 285 surely benefit from pairing with additional processing cores, CPUs like the Phenom II X2 550 BE and X3 720 BE also benefit significantly from stepping up to a Radeon HD 4870 X2. At this resolution, we clearly see both CPU and GPU limitations coming into play.

At 1920x1200, the GeForce GTX 260 falls a bit and, just as in Part 1, requires a quad-core CPU to remain above target. The Radeon HD 4890 is the sweet spot for a balanced and least-expensive minimum recommendation. 

Deciding where to spend extra money for World in Conflict gaming isn’t easy based on the average FPS. Sure, a quad-core processor helps, but look how well the Phenom II X2 550 BE performs when paired with AMD's Radeon HD 4870 X2. Even divulging the minimum fps reported by the built-in benchmark adds very little to this picture.

At 2560x1600, the picture becomes clearer. Only the dual-GPU solutions remain playable. The Phenom II X2 550 BE is sufficient, but more processor provides added performance. Plotting Core i7-920 results to this chart, the Radeon HD 4870 X2 only manages one additional FPS, while the GeForce GTX 295 manages an additional five FPS. The Socket AM3 platform would, of course, come in at a significant savings, although it’s less apparent when you factor in the additional cost of buying a 30” LCD and a graphics card capable of pushing 2560x1600.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 117 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 10 Hide
    1898 , December 1, 2009 6:24 AM
    BlackDays:
    Please, if you want to criticise something make sure you've understood it (read in this case) thoroughly. Otherwise you'll look like an idiot.

    Anyway, this series is made out of win!
    Thank you.
Other Comments
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , December 1, 2009 5:43 AM
    What effect does having a motherboard that unlocks the 4th core on the X2 and X3 have? In power consumption and overall performance? I'm not asking a redo of all the data, just asking for speculation by someone more knowledgeable, if I can get it.
  • 1 Hide
    winner4455 , December 1, 2009 5:57 AM
    YAAAAAAAAAAAY part 2!
  • 10 Hide
    1898 , December 1, 2009 6:24 AM
    BlackDays:
    Please, if you want to criticise something make sure you've understood it (read in this case) thoroughly. Otherwise you'll look like an idiot.

    Anyway, this series is made out of win!
    Thank you.
  • 3 Hide
    knightmike , December 1, 2009 7:08 AM
    This article truly is revolutionary. I have been waiting for an article like this since I began building my own PCs ten years ago. This article coupled with your CPU and GPU hierarchy chart will go a long way towards eliminating CPU/GPU bottlenecks. This article truly is the first of its kind and I hope to see it at least twice a year if not four times a year. Thank you.
  • 8 Hide
    ibnsina , December 1, 2009 7:18 AM
    Great article, it's educational, looking forward to ATI’s 5000’ series comparisons.
  • -4 Hide
    knightmike , December 1, 2009 7:21 AM
    In your conclusion, you state that a $100 CPU does a far better job than a $100 GPU when it comes to maxing out a low resolution like 1280x1024. Can you elaborate?
  • 3 Hide
    amnotanoobie , December 1, 2009 7:47 AM
    Hooray! Now this is a good reference on the forums when people ask for bottlenecks
  • -6 Hide
    scrumworks , December 1, 2009 8:24 AM
    How can this take weeks to plan? Perhaps if one works 15mins a day.

    Good to see vanilla HD4890 puts up a serious fight for GTX 285. Not that it gets any credit for that.

    You should stop using Vista. It's dead already.
  • 0 Hide
    astrodudepsu , December 1, 2009 9:07 AM
    Good article. Will read parts 3&4.
  • 6 Hide
    sheol , December 1, 2009 9:24 AM
    So now comes the next point - why are nvidia's GPU-s consistently requiring a faster CPU to show what they can do, while Radeons perform very well even with a dual core?
    Best example of course is the GTX295 - are nvidia-s drivers really that lousy, or is there something else at play?
  • -3 Hide
    cypeq , December 1, 2009 11:54 AM
    howray at last :D 
  • 2 Hide
    KT_WASP , December 1, 2009 12:01 PM
    Good article. I was awaiting the part 2 showcasing AMD's line-up. I was starting to think you guys at Tom's forgot about it ;) 

    Overall a good article. But,I think these charts can be deceiving though to someone who is not well versed in PC gaming and the hardware involved.

    For example,I have a HD4850 paired with an aging system that incorporates an Athlon64x2 5200+ 2.6GHz Windsor(2x1MB L2 model), 2GB of DDR2 800 (5-5-5-15 timings) and using XP Home with the latest service pack.

    I have yet come across a game I cant play at acceptable frame rates. Granted, I'm not using an ultra-high resolution, but I do up the graphic settings to high/max. I play modern games, some of which are on these charts, and they all play just fine.

    By setting an arbitrary number of frame rates.. some at 40, and some at 45, as "acceptable" can be somewhat misleading. I think that if your gaming using the two of the lower resolutions represented in this article, then I think you'll be happy with one of the lower tiered CPUs and GPUs paired together. Those combination's will get you very played frame rates at the lower resolutions.

    If your going for the higher resolutions, then of course you would have to up the power of the system.. but, I contend that at the lower resolutions, the cheaper hardware will do just fine, and any more money spent is for benchmark numbers alone.

  • 4 Hide
    AZRAELCRUZ , December 1, 2009 12:54 PM

    Clearly the Phenom IIX3 720 is the Core 2 Duo annihilator because the advantage of its extra core...
  • 4 Hide
    Anonymous , December 1, 2009 12:58 PM
    I'm returning my cards just bought on black friday pny gtx 260 core 216 and pny gtx 275 and exchange them for radeons 4890 and 5850. I'm definitely not going to pay for a new ring around i7-920 to get real benefits.
  • 5 Hide
    superpowter77 , December 1, 2009 1:07 PM
    Interesting article, I'm still shock about nvidia video card limitations, I can't understand why green cards are so CPU dependable. Are those expensive GPU not suppose to offload graphic tasks from CPU's? Why we have to spend more on GPU than a CPU?. I'm building a new ring only to play crysis and farcry2 and will not be spending more than $300 for CPU/motherboard/memory. Now 4890 It's on my list as first choice($179 on sale now), will avoid gtx285 even if they sell it for $200.
  • -6 Hide
    verrul , December 1, 2009 1:48 PM
    look at the 5700 series really close really impressive cards starting to get some in stock paired with the 720 you really cant beat the price/performance combo. and the 5750 will nearly match a 4890 overclocked. under 300 with either card.
  • 1 Hide
    Kelavarus , December 1, 2009 2:05 PM
    I'm in agreement with KT_Wasp here. I've got a friend running a Core 2 Quad, one of the lower versions, not sure which but I think it's around 2.3 Ghz, and they've got a 4850, and they run all their games with the exception of Crysis at all high with no problems. I'm not sure what resolution they play at, but they've got a 1920x1080 screen, so it's definitely not 1024x768. But anyway, completely playable on games like Shattered Horizon and Dragon Age. I don't know what the actual framerates are, but it doesn't stutter at all with no dips and plays very smoothly.
  • 1 Hide
    dark_lord69 , December 1, 2009 2:07 PM
    I wish you did the 4870, cause the 4890 is expensive (Well, more than I want to pay). And I already knew the 4850 wasn't good enough for what I want to run/do.
Display more comments