Benchmark Results: High Detail With 4x Anti-Aliasing
Both the Radeons and GeForces demonstrate a similar level of quality when 4x AA is enabled:
Here we see the CPU limitation we're so used to in this game. The Radeon HD 4650 is knocked out of the competition, but the rest of the cards are still in the game.
At 1680x1050, we're beginning to see a slight advantage trend in favor of the ATI cards.
At 1920x1200, the Radeons increasingly show their strength when AA is enabled. The GeForce 9600 GT is still demonstrating playable performance, but for some reason the GeForce 8800 GT sample is struggling, even though we re-ran the tests to see if it was an anomaly.
At the highest 2560x1600 resolution, we're seeing some problems. At first glance I wondered if some cards were suffering from some sort of driver glitch, but Chris Angelini pointed out the elephant in the room: all of the cards that failed to produce playable performance at this setting are the 512 MB cards. The 796 MB and 1 GB cards are all able to produce much higher performance numbers at this high resolution with 4x anti-aliasing. In any case, the Radeon HD 4870 1GB walks away with a win as the only single card we've tested that is powerful enough to play the game at this resolution and AA level smoothly. The GeForce GTX 260 is on the razor's edge of playability and could be used at these settings if the player found it acceptable.
Current page: Benchmark Results: High Detail With 4x Anti-AliasingPrev Page Benchmark Results: High Detail Next Page CPU Benchmarks: Clock Speeds And Cores
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.
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.Reply
Already beat the game a week ago, but it was a thrill-ride. Not sure why the article's so late getting up though.Reply
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.
Wayoffbase...just not all that great looking on high settings,...Reply
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.
could this be the first game that takes full advantage of an i7's 8 threads?Reply
Hmm.. all its takes is an XBOX 360! $200.00 It is a great game.Reply
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.Reply
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
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.Reply
p.s. not so great difference between i7 and core2quad on that site..Reply
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..Reply
One of the best games ever BTW!!