Skip to main content

Dead Space: Performance Analyzed

Benchmark Results: High Detail

If you have a GeForce 9600 GT or better and want to enjoy Dead Space at its fullest potential, the High Detail setting is the way to go. In fact, while we haven't tested a GeForce 9600 GSO, it likely falls in the same category.

Even the basic 1280x1024 resolution is a challenge for the Radeon HD 4650, although performance is playable. All of the other cards are once again averaging over 100 FPS.

Raising the resolution to 1680x1050 does bring the frame rates down, but all of the cards are still belting out over 80 FPS average, except for the Radeon HD 4650, which is scraping by with barely-playable performance.

A resolution of 1920x1200 is not a challenge at the High Detail level for any of these video cards, except for the Radeon HD 4650, which is taking a beating.

Here, at the ultra-high 2560x1600 resolution, we can see some of the contenders start to sweat. Even the GeForce 9600 GT is pulling a minimum frame rate of 25 FPS, which is quite playable but a little below the ideal 30 FPS. The Radeon HD 4830, the GeForce 8800 GT, the Radeon HD 4770, and even the Radeon 4850 are performing passably with average frame rates over 50 FPS but with minimum frame rates that are close to 30 FPS.

At this detail and resolution, only the GeForce GTS 250, the GeForce GTX 260, and the Radeon HD 4870 are truly able to take the punishment and have performance to spare. But with the small number of 30" 2560x1600 monitors out there, it's not much of an issue–especially when you consider that all of the cards are at least playable at this resolution, except the Radeon HD 4650.

  • anamaniac
    "Mushkin PC3-10700
    3x 2,048 MB, DDR3-1066, CL 8-8-8-19
    at 1.8 V"

    This is a mistake, right?
    Reply
  • anamaniac
    Interesting article.

    Deadspace does seem like a decent game, but it was too much for me.
    Tried sitting down to play it a few times, but I just couldn't take it.

    And yeah, the game can play on some junk hardware.
    800x600 res, minimum settings.


    First time I saw one of those creatures, I just wasted ammo. WTF WAS THAT!?!?!
    Pentium D 2.8GHz, 1GB DDR2 533, Nvidia 7500LE 256MB.
    It played. Average framerate was bad, but the minimums were kinda bad, yet still possible.

    Nice to see what I may be able to crank it up to now with my 4670, though a couple gigs of ddr2 800 will be a nice bonus if I find the will to spend my rent money...
    Reply
  • Andraxxus
    It can play fairly well even on a E6300@1.86Ghz with 1GB DDR2 667 and Nvidia 7600GT but I never finished it.
    Reply
  • tacoslave
    im ashamed to say this but i jumped when one of those things came at me out of nowhere...
    Reply
  • axilon
    One of the few games that sucked me in. I do NOT recommend playing it at 3am, the dreams I had....
    Reply
  • microdots
    9600gt plays this game great
    awesome game regardless tho. everything is very well done, its easy to tell that the developers took great time in perfecting every portion in the levels and environment. as from what i remember it defiantly lived up to its hype. i still haven't beaten it either along with being super cool its also pretty difficult but totally worth the money; a true gaming experience.
    Reply
  • Ciuy
    so in the end AO = bad. Unless u got to much fps .
    Reply
  • Kill@dor
    I don't blame you for being scared to try this game out...its really something else ^_^ Very well made game in my opinion
    Reply
  • rags_20
    I was thinking of trying it. Is it really that scary? I mean, if you turn down the volume, it shouldn't be as scary.
    Reply
  • Roffey123
    It was the soundscape in the game that got me, I'm used to the monsters and such, but the ambience really got to me - so I never really got far. Perhaps I should summon the courage up for it again.
    Reply