Benchmark Results: High Detail
Let's have a look at the results of high-detail testing without AA or PhysX enabled:
All of the mid-range and high-end cards with a 256-bit memory interface have absolutely no problem producing smooth performance all the way up to the high 2560x1600 resolution, although the GeForce 9600 GT does struggle a bit with a minimum frame rate of 19 FPS (frames per second) at that setting.
Conversely, low-end cards with a 128-bit memory interface, such as the Radeon HD 4650 and GeForce GT 220, can only handle 1280x1024 with absolute ease. The GeForce GT 220 is able to kick it up a notch to 1680x1050 with a minimum frame rate that almost reaches an ideal 30 FPS, but the Radeon HD 4650 struggles.
Keep in mind that these lower-end cards can handle the game at higher resolutions if some detail settings are lowered.
Current page: Benchmark Results: High DetailPrev Page Test System And Settings Next Page Benchmark Results: High Detail, 4x AA
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Excellent article as usual, Mr. Woligroski. Keep up the good work!Reply
I just bought an ATI 5000 series card.. can i use my second PCI-E slot with the nvidia 220 to support physX? (i doubt it because AMD/Nvidia GPUs together cause driver issues)Reply
Don--it's almost as though the game is artificially capping performance at a set level, and is then using only the CPU resources it needs to reach that level. On the Core i7, PhysX is using fewer resources than it does on the Phenom II. This would make sense if there was an artificial performance cap, as the i7 has shown to outperform AMD's architecture.With Nvidia pushing proprietary API's like CUDA and PhysX, they're at a point where these things are some of the largest selling points of their products.Reply
With this in mind, and given Nvidia's past Anti-Consumer business practices, I think we can all expect to see a lot more of this kind of thing in the future with TWIMTBP games.
@ kohlhagen: with an ati 5000 card you probably won't need that second card if you don't play on the highest resolution.Reply
im a big fan of amd and im planing to buy the xfx 4850 in the weekend but the gts250 just add another $5-10 i think i will buy the GTS-250. come on ATIReply
Wow... that's pathetic. This game should have the words stamped on it: Nvidia only!Reply
Interesting find on the CPU useage with ATI cards. It would appear that Nvidia programmed Physix not to unload programming to the cpu, instead forcing it to the GPU only. Just a speculation since it is thier option.Reply
this game runs great on any hardware but but , nvidia is just nvidiaReply
why you sell a game to all the people when is just for nvidia cards ?
that.s why i love google.... google sell free things, nvidia is the opposite
NPD numbers show this game as currently being one of the least popular PC games - 92nd in fact.Reply
Nice article BTW, it's sad that the developers were paid off by Nvidia to drop support of AA on AMD cards (in game menu AA support that, there is a work round for ATI cards) as this shows just how morally bankrupt Nvidia is these days.
And just for the record this isn't a case of AMD not 'supporting developers' as Nvidia would lead you to believe. Never mind the fact it can be enabled via a hack, Richard Hubby from AMD has uploaded an email he got from the developers of Batman Arkham Asylum saying there would be lawsuit if they changed to games code to enable game menu support of AA on ATI cards.
when you benchmarked intel cpu you use turbo feature? tomReply