Prototype Performance Analyzed

Benchmark Results: Medium Detail

Medium detail affords us the luxury of shadows. In addition, the game will swap high-detail 3D props (like the cars) for low-detail versions of the same props when the object is farther away from the player's viewpoint when compared to the low-detail setting. Because of the inclusion of shadows, if your graphics card can handle it, we highly recommend the medium detail setting at the very least.

We begin with 1280x1024, and can see that the Radeon HD 4650 is already out of the running as a contender with its minimum frame rate of 22 FPS. The game is playable, but it's far from ideal. Meanwhile, all of the other cards are once again bottlenecked by the CPU. Only the GeForce 9600 GT is struggling to reach the average 65-75 FPS the other cards enjoy.

Upping the resolution to 1680x1050, the situation remains the same.

Even at 1920x1200, the CPU bottleneck is asserting itself as the primary performance limitation instead of the graphics cards.

At 2560x1600 we can see some definite leaders and followers in the range, but the margins are still surprisingly close. The GeForce 9600 GT has been slowed to choppy performance, but all of the higher-tier cards are averaging over 40 FPS and about 30 FPS minimum, which is still very smooth.

At this point, it is obvious that the game is extremely dependant on the speed of the platform and not on the speed of the graphics system. As long as a minimum level of graphics power is available, performance is very close across the spectrum. 

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
62 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • Wayoffbase
    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.
    4
  • Ramar
    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.
    0
  • Ramar
    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.
    3
  • apache_lives
    could this be the first game that takes full advantage of an i7's 8 threads?
    0
  • mcbowler
    Hmm.. all its takes is an XBOX 360! $200.00 It is a great game.
    -3
  • neiroatopelcc
    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
  • radium69
    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.
    0
  • Tknockers
    p.s. not so great difference between i7 and core2quad on that site..
    1
  • chovav
    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
  • Anonymous
    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
  • neiroatopelcc
    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
  • JeanLuc
    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.
    0
  • goalguy02
    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
    2
  • San Pedro
    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
  • cracklint
    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
  • fadirocks
    Directx 10.1 vs 10.0 anything interesting in that aspect like CPU usage, frame rate...etc?
    0
  • jp182
    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
  • jp182
    btw, I'm not really impressed by the game as I thought Infamous was more engaging.
    0
  • doomtomb
    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!
    0