Printable View
Not sure if anyone else here are avid Toms Hardware goers, however they've just posted an article about the Game Performance Analyzed.
I personally haven't read through it yet, but figured I'd point it out. Will probably be a good read. Looks in depth too!
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...mark,2611.html
Gritten
Just spotted it this morning, a good find!
In fact, in confirms a bit of a quirk that I thought was merely an artifact: the Radeon 5830 performs better than higher cards of either company in a lot of settings, up to 1920x1200. I had come across that result myself but couldn't figure it out.
With the budget-conscious, this proves that have dual-core versus quad-core doesn't make that much of a difference, so a triple-core Phenom II is actually still a very good buy in the lower-to-middle end.
Thanks Gritten, for posting it :)
Thanks, 2 good pieces of info in that article I was wanting to know.
1) There's almost no difference between medium and ultra. The only things you may be missing are a few doodad effects and the ruptured textures around the mineral fields.
2) The game is more CPU-reliant than GPU, unlike a lot of other games out there. Single-core users like myself struggle with this game, not that it will matter for long since my new PC is around the corner, but it's reassuring in what I suspected. Regardless, this game is optimized very well.
So the radeon 5850 would be basically the best single card to go with for 1920x1080? In the legionhardware review there was a far larger difference between the 5850 and the 5870 than 1 fps.
I think I'll be playing on High. Theres a pretty large difference from Med > High in overall graphics, but High > Ultra is very minimal and I'm sure its exponentially more taxing.
Regardless, I'll have to see which I prefer in terms of settings. I can run Ultra just fine but I need 4v4 to unlock to truly push it to the limits. (probably retail.)
that was crossfireQuote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
you guys need to remember that i7 cpu's struggle at SC2 beta and it was tested with a i7
i have doubts and I'll wait for guru3d.com to make a test
it's funny that DoW2 with better graphics works better
my spec:
i7-860@3.69GHz
4GB DDR3 1780MHz
5870 Vapor-x
[2x] SATA RAID 0
ultra settings, 2xAA, multisample Adaptive AA 1920x1200
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4...2701323195.jpg
max 157.37FPS, average 75.26, minimum 28.31FPS
That's why I said single-card.Quote:
Originally Posted by spychi
yeah, I misunderstud thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
honestly, for those who want to play games like Battlefield BC2 and other high demanding GPU games I would recommend the 5850 and 5870, there are no better graphic cards in terms of performance/price/quality, hell the whole 5xxx series is a huge sucess for ATI
guess I'll need to do a benchmark myself, if anyone would like to borrow me their account for few minutes just to make tests, contact me
w00t! about time!
It's kind of hilarious how CPU limited StarCraft 2 is :D
-- NM, you're right. It was tested with an i7.
--- Those core scalings worry me. How are we going to have massive UMS maps when core clock is the factor and core clock won't go up very much even over the next decade.
I dont get this article?? So basically they are saying that you can play with any graphics card and it needs to be higher than 2.0 ghz?? im confused about if you can play with a crappy computer.. can anyone plz tell me