- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (56) |
- Share
In the previous performance benchmarks, Resident Evil 5 demonstrated a GPU dependency. Let's see how the older Core 2 Quad stacks up against the Core i7 in this game:
While the Core i7-920 shows a notable performance gain over the Core 2 Quad Q6600, all of the frame rates are smooth--the i7's advantage is more theoretical than practical. Aside from that, the game doesn't seem to be all that dependent on clock speed, with the Q6600 at a low 1.86 GHz still able to deliver 60 FPS.
How does the game perform with different numbers of CPU cores?
Resident Evil 5 seems extremely happy with at least three CPU cores, and performance drops sharply down when two cores are utilized. Gamers with single-core CPUs who wish to play Resident Evil 5 should probably consider an upgrade.
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- Random Odd Computer Lock Ups (Vista)
- What computers did you own in the old days? Share your story!
- Time to go Quad/Nehalem?
- AMD releases Barcelona specs
- Please take out Dr. Phil next
- Trouble overclocking Q6600 G0 on EP45-UD3P?
- water cooler radiator in a mini fridge....would it work??
- Adding extra memory problem
- Intel D845GE BV2 Extreme Graphics
- Hybrid HTPC/light gamer
- Please Rate my PC - Will this rig last 2-5 years?
- Please critique GIGABYTE GA-EP35-DS3P, Q6600 system before I order.
- second attemp at computer build..having problems again!!!
- Matx Gaming Build
Related articles
-
You’ll need to take our Resident Evil 5 numbers with a grain of salt if you can’t help comparing ATI to Nvidia. After all, the game doesn’t launch in North America until mid-September, and was only released as a benchmarkable demo by Nvidia to...
-
Test HardwareProcessorsIntel Core i7-920 Extreme (Bloomfield) 2.66 GHz, LGA 1366, 4.8 GT/s QPI, 8 MB L3, Power-savings enabledIntel Core i7-870 (Lynnfield) 2.93 GHz, LGA 1156, 8 MB L3, Power-savings enabledIntel Core i5-750 (Lynnfield) 2.66 GHz, LGA...
-
System Hardware CPU I Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (45 nm, 2.53 GHz, 3MB L2 Cache) CPU II AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400+ (65 nm, 2.8 GHz, 1MB L2 Cache) Intel Chipset: GeForce 9300MSI P7NGM-Digital, Rev. 1.1 Intel Chipset: G45 Intel DG45ID, Rev....
Best offers
|
GeForce GTX 295 Video Card (1.75GB,... | $559.99 TigerDirect More info |
|
GeForce 9800 GTX Video Card (512MB,... | $129.99 TigerDirect More info |
|
GeForce GTX 260 Video Card (896MB,... | $214.99 Newegg.com More info |
|
Radeon HD 4870 Video Card (1GB,... | $179.99 CDW.com More info |
|
Radeon HD 4890 Cyclone OC Video Card... | $209.99 Directron More info |
Partners
The Games selection
crazy :
Interactive Boogy
Pick one of the 3 songs, hit on the correct keys matching this boy's dance moves.
|
action :
Yoyo the Star
Yoyo is a young girl who recently graduated and dreams to become a movie star (don't we all). You'll have to guide her on the path to stardom,...
|
Does this imply that game developers in general dint even utilize the full potential of DirectX 9 and jumped on DirextX 10 bandwagon and now to DirextX 11?
i've tried the benchmark before. the dx 10 produce slightly better frame rate than dx9. this game have better performance in dx 10 compared to dx 9 in my machine
Am I going blind or is there no HD4890
or is this just a quick benchmark before the HD5*** series
@yellosnowman: there is a 4890, but it's been downclocked to 4870 levels (read the article) to be used as reference for Radeon performances (tests on Radeon wasn't too extensive, as the benchmark is optimized for Nvidia hardware). And yes, with HD 5xxx almost there, doing complete benchmarks here is pretty much useless: the game is playable with everything at full on a Radeon HD 4770 up to Full HD quality.
Can you test it on Larrabee plz, ty
Gkay09, Direct X 10 was a failure because Vista was a failure. DX 9 has been thoroughly utilized - there has been no other choice.
On the variable benchmark @ 1680 x 1050 2x AA my Phenom II x4 955 and Radeon 4870 pulls and average of 80 fps in directx 9. I'm happy and have the game pre-ordered on Steam
Gkay09, Direct X 10 was a failure because Vista was a failure. DX 9 has been thoroughly utilized - there has been no other choice.
Wasn't it more of because the mainstream DX10 cards (8600GT and 2600XT) didn't really perform well, and even some were beaten by previous generation cards. As such, pushing the detail level higher might mean fewer sales as fewer people had the cards to play the games at decent levels (8800GTS 320MB/640MB or 2900XT).
DX10 isnt really a failure .. if programmer take time to really work on DX10 optimisation .. more on SM4.0. remember Assassins creed? ubisoft take time to work on SM4.0 and the game work better in D10 than 9 ... higher framerate with better shadow
looks like yet another boring shooter mainly targeted at console users.
RE5 = FAIL
anyone got a download link for the demo?
4650 + dual core = medium settings?
good enough for me...
Can you test it on Larrabee plz, ty
Larrabee is like a smart and honest politician both are mythological.
worst review ever.
Worst review ever.
^ worst brain ever?
At least it should be a better port than RE4. When it loaded up it wanted me to hit "Start" to load the game, then the red "A" to play. My keyboard doesnt have a "Start" button or a red "A". Useless without a controller.
Very interesting that Capcom told the site that there is no graphical difference between DX 9 and 10. I'll know which I'll be using with my ATI card.
Nice a game and performance review in one, I like.
kinda funny since the 5xxx and 3xx are just around the corner.
Is it just me or is this kinda hinting at software trying to catch up to hardware (the ever existing cycle).
It looks good on both DX9 and DX10 and the specs are not high.