Resident Evil 5: Demo Performance Analyzed
CPU Benchmarks: Clock Speeds And Multiple Cores
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.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Current page: CPU Benchmarks: Clock Speeds And Multiple Cores
Prev Page Benchmark Results: DirectX 10 For Nvidia 3D Vision LCD Glasses Next Page ConclusionThere's a budget GeForce GPU selling in China that not even Nvidia knew it made — RTX 4010 turns out to be a modified RTX A400 workstation GPU
US to patch loopholes that allow China to buy banned AI GPUs from other countries — new regulations include national quotas on GPU exports and a global licensing system
-
gkay09 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?Reply -
renz496 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 machineReply -
yellosnowman Am I going blind or is there no HD4890Reply
or is this just a quick benchmark before the HD5*** series -
mitch074 @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.Reply -
voltagetoe Gkay09, Direct X 10 was a failure because Vista was a failure. DX 9 has been thoroughly utilized - there has been no other choice.Reply -
juliom 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 :)Reply -
amnotanoobie voltagetoeGkay09, 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).Reply -
HTDuro 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 shadowReply