- Articles & News
- For IT Pros
- Your Opinion
Battlefield 3 has a couple of different anti-aliasing settings: Anti-Aliasing Post, which is FXAA, and Anti-aliasing Deferred, which is MSAA. The former is fairly performance-inexpensive, while the latter can have a huge impact on frame rates. When we isolated no AA versus 4x MSAA at 1920x1080 (with 16x AF and Ultra details enabled), the feature clobbered frame rates between 30 and 40%—and that was with high-end discrete GPUs.
Even with anti-aliasing effects disabled altogether, our integrated graphics engines didn't stand a chance at 1920x1080. AMD's new Trinity-based flagship, the A10-5800K can't get anywhere near 30 FPS, and its sub-20-frame minimum performance level is simply unacceptable. Intel's HD Graphics 4000 solution similarly fails to impress.
The situation is even worse in Crysis 2. There’s no point in belaboring this. The DX 11-based title is famous for its massively taxing load. Even AMD admitted going in that the game would crush any of the integrated graphics solutions we threw at it. So, we knew it would be bad. But how bad? Let’s just say we’d like to revisit this test in three or four years. Perhaps by then, Crysis won’t crash on its first load attempt under Intel’s integrated CPUs, as it did on both chips for us.
The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is a newcomer in our benchmarking line-up, added after receiving feedback from you, our readers, that it was something you wanted to see. With its admirable RED engine-fueled graphics, we wanted to find out if this medieval fight-fest would lean more toward Skyrim or Battlefield 3 in its weight on graphics hardware. Clearly, the answer carries the weight of a boat anchor. We played the Day of the Assault (Morning) battle and found that The Witcher 2 isn’t as demanding as Crysis 2, but it’s not far off.