Star Trek Online: Game Performance Analyzed And Benchmarked

By Don Woligroski
published

Benchmark Results: Maximum Detail, 4x Anti-Aliasing

At the maximum detail setting, we are treated to shadows and 4x anti-aliasing (AA). Let’s see how this affects performance:

We're not seeing 100+ FPS anymore, that's for sure. This setting cripples most of the graphics cards, and it's likely due to the stress of calculating shadows for scores of asteroids. The Radeon HD 4650 is unplayable at this level of detail, and the GeForce 9600 GT can just handle 1280x1024. Even the Radeon HD 4850 can only reach 1680x1050. For the newer Radeon HD 5770, this resolution might be considered playable, but it is providing less than the ideal 30 FPS we'd like to see.

At 1920x1200, the playing field is reduced to the GeForce GTS 250 and GTX 260, while the Radeon HD 4890 and 5850 hang in there, too. Once again, we're seeing the GeForces stand up well to the Radeon competition.

At 2560x1600, none of these cards are playable. The GeForce GTX 260 might be passable for folks who can accept 25 FPS, but it's not something with which I'd be happy.

Don Woligroski
89 Comments Comment from the forums
  • Silmarunya
    jdh64Admit it TOMS......Geforce rules this games as well as others.......quit being ATI fanbois......Wait till the new series of cards comes out....then whatcha gunna do...cry!!!!
    Not really. This is just about the only benchmark where a Geforce card beats a comparable 5000-series one, so there's still a nice lead for the 5000 cards. With a driver update, this result can change in favor of the 5000, which would give them back every game tested here...

    And nobody should be very concerned about the GTX 300, at least not for the first year and a half. The initial mammoth chip will be expensive, hot, noisy and more powerful than useful for gaming. By the time it scaled down properly, ATI will have refreshed cards in the market for a while, probably offering better performance, lower power consumption and more features for a similar price tag.

    Reply
  • gilbertfh
    This game looks interesting and could be a good diversion once in a while but I can't really see it replacing the games I am playing now. I have played other cryptic studios games and they really didn't engage me for long. If I buy it I will at least play it for the included month before purchasing a subscription.
    Reply
  • toxxel
    If your interested in playing this game give it 6 months or so. Currently there is no content at max level, and it takes less than a week to hit max rank. Klingons only have pvp content but more is promised for both factions. Server instability and downtime have plagued launch mostly for the overwhelming player base and not being prepared.

    I for one would wonder how this and Champions Online run since ST:O runs on a modified CO engine.
    Reply
  • footsoldier
    Sh*t game. Sh*t graphics. But, good article. Geforce do weirdly beats 5000s tho, maybe some driver updates will fix it.
    Reply
  • JeanLuc
    How does such an ugly game mange to tax state of the art video cards?
    Reply
  • notty22
    Star Trek and Nvidia ROCK, thats not news to people in the Know. I feel sorry for ati***s scared of Fermi.:)
    Reply
  • jennyh
    I guess Nvidia leaned on Don after this months "Best gaming graphics card".

    Batman AA was the last one of these reviews I believe. Either way, twice in the past 4 months you've managed to review games that go quite wildly against the norm in terms of the gtx260's actual potency.
    Reply
  • cypeq
    it is a shameless advertisment...
    Reply
  • cypeq
    notty22I feel sorry for ati***s scared of Fermi.
    I feel sorry for nVidia now becouse roles on marked turned and now nVidia is on position where it needs to chatch up.
    Reply
  • Onus
    Subscription-based? Pass.
    Reply