Comparative benchmarking

[SAM77]

E8500 @ 3.16

ATi 5770

 

1280 x 1024 4AA 8AF

default high

1024 cockpit

no mirrors

 

Avg: 48.451 - Min: 18 - Max: 82

[topdog]

I had to replay the track a second time just to see if you hadn't blown your own wingman out of the sky with a passing missile when your 2nd missed the target :D He was a way off though.

 

E6850 @ 3.00GHz

8800 GTX (600MHz core / 900MHz mem, not OC'd unless pre-fab'd that way at factory - I honestly can't remember heh)

4GB PC2-6400 4-4-4-12 (DDR2 Corsair Dominator)

Vista 32bit

 

(Good stuff 3 years ago when I got it :) not the best even at the time though)

 

1920x1200 @ 60Hz vsync forced on with 4xAA 8xAF ("multiple display performance mode" as I have my TV 1920x1080 on extended desktop)

 

HIGH / 1024 cockpit / mirrors on

 

Min: 21

Max: 52

Avg: 33.6

 

Usually I play with app-controlled AF and 512 cockpit (I can't see much visual difference but it seems to look a little better.. didn't notice as much aliasing or missing detail in lines on abris or around instruments.. I should probably compare screenshots side by side though), shadows set to planar full.

 

Min: 22

Max: 57

Avg: 35.3

 

Been wondering when to upgrade and what to, looks like I could near double FPS if I wanted to (based on some other reports) but haven't done my homework on it yet to know whether I could just do ram/cpu/mb (to i7 levels) and keep the rest to get it, or even if the game is primarily CPU bound with most hardware combos whether I'll still be off the mark until I upgrade graphics too.

[JLZ]

In my replay...

 

In my replay of this track (after few successful attacks on armor) pilot attacked hill. Especially one particular part of slope with some trees on it. Tree didn't fall so pilot decided to ram into slope. After "landing" he continued to fight in his head, changing parameters on chopper, checking his 3 and 9, zooming in and out... Few minutes of imaginary fight and title "MISSION SUCCESS" showed up. Interesting.

 

I felt just like if I had watched

movie.

[XarBat]

How about some comparisons between Windows XP Pro x64 SP2 and Windows 7 x64; both with mirrors on and off.

Edited May 14, 2010 by XarBat

[124SqZeljava]

Since we thoroughly derailed Wags' thread on his new computer purchase, thought we might as well run some comparative tests to see if we can put to bed the whole debate about which processors run how well. To that end I've run Instant Action, and then loaded the track (attached) to let it play while FRAPS ran a 10-minute FPS count.

 

During testing my settings were thus:

 

Standard "high" setting, plus cockpit displays at 1024, mirrors on, 4xAA and 8xAF. I didn't go higher on the AA and AF to ensure that it's closer to where most people can participate and measure something that for them would be relatively close to what they run when they play normally. I realize some people (I hate you Viper) will run higher than this, and tests on higher settings wouldn't hurt.

 

Computer setup for my test was a 1680x1050 screen, Intel e8500 running at 4GHz, DDR2 RAM running at 992MHz ( 5-5-5-18 ), and a GeForce 9800GTX+ 512MB running at stock speed. Previous tests over at Wags' thread seemed to indicate that RAM wasn't much of an issue - at least not in the non-combat track that was used there.

 

This track includes wingman action (and death :D ), cannon employment, rockets, vikhrs, lots of scanning with the Skhval and flares.

 

Results:

Min: 38

Max: 81

Avg: 52,577

 

I do have the raw data as well on hand, but don't have time to make graphs of it right now. :P

Well here is mine, Average is 28fps without mirrors but 16QxAA and 16xAF since i have 260GTX and this game looking for CPU i don`t see why should go under this settings AA and AF, final impression of gameplay is very good vs FC1.12, cheers, S!