Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Image Quality: Radeon Versus GeForce

Prototype Performance Analyzed
By

We scrutinized both GeForce and Radeon screen captures and came to the following conclusion: the image quality is close between the two competitors, but the Nvidia drivers and hardware generate darker shadows than their ATI counterparts, which is a difference we also  observed in our Burnout Paradise analysis.

Which is better? That's certainly subjective. And to be honest, we didn't notice the difference until we directly compared screenshots. After we realized the difference, we noticed that the Nvidia cards would give us nice depth when the sun was in a position to provide good shadows. Alternatively, when we were deep within the cityscape and under the shadows of buildings, the Nvidia cards delivered a darker city with less contrast and definition compared to the Radeon cards.

However, neither of these issues is a game-changer. And as we said above, we never really noticed them until we directly compared the screenshots. We'd be happy to play the game on either camp's hardware from an image quality point of view.

But what about performance? To answer that question, let's move on to the benchmarks.

Display all 62 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 4 Hide
    Wayoffbase , July 8, 2009 6:20 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.
  • 0 Hide
    Ramar , July 8, 2009 6:20 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.
  • 3 Hide
    Ramar , July 8, 2009 6:28 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.

  • 0 Hide
    apache_lives , July 8, 2009 8:08 AM
    could this be the first game that takes full advantage of an i7's 8 threads?
  • -3 Hide
    mcbowler , July 8, 2009 9:20 AM
    Hmm.. all its takes is an XBOX 360! $200.00 It is a great game.
  • 0 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , July 8, 2009 10:16 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
  • 0 Hide
    radium69 , July 8, 2009 10:48 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.
  • 1 Hide
    Tknockers , July 8, 2009 11:13 AM
    http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,688240/Prototype-CPU-Benchmarks-System-Requirements-and-Screenshots/Practice/
  • 1 Hide
    Tknockers , July 8, 2009 11:14 AM
    p.s. not so great difference between i7 and core2quad on that site..
  • 0 Hide
    chovav , July 8, 2009 11:20 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!!
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , July 8, 2009 12:07 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.
  • 0 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , July 8, 2009 12:11 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.
  • 0 Hide
    JeanLuc , July 8, 2009 12:53 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.
  • 2 Hide
    goalguy02 , July 8, 2009 1:13 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
  • 0 Hide
    San Pedro , July 8, 2009 1:14 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.
  • 0 Hide
    cracklint , July 8, 2009 2:01 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.
  • 0 Hide
    fadirocks , July 8, 2009 2:15 PM
    Directx 10.1 vs 10.0 anything interesting in that aspect like CPU usage, frame rate...etc?
  • 0 Hide
    jp182 , July 8, 2009 3:04 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.
  • 0 Hide
    jp182 , July 8, 2009 3:05 PM
    btw, I'm not really impressed by the game as I thought Infamous was more engaging.
  • 0 Hide
    doomtomb , July 8, 2009 4:22 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!
Display more comments