Updated:11:05 AM CEST Jun,06
(new)
66 lottery login
91 club
okwin
bdg game
55 club
(c) 1998-2026 Gameguru Mania
Privacy Policy statement
|
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. GPU Performance @ HardSpell - tech|
| (hx) 09:24 PM CEST - Mar,27 2007 |  | | 1024x768 definition is current mainstream one and lower than many LCD basic settings, but except the mainstream-top segment display cards the other cannot satisfy its demands any more |
|
The chaps over at
HardSpell take a critical look at performance in
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl with a sample of nine mainstream new
graphics cards four from Nvidia and five from ATI:
- The loading time is too long and demand on video memory and memory capacity
too high. If you want to play this game smoothly, you have to prepare a 512MB
video memory display card (7900GS at least) or 2GB memory or long time waiting.
- AA effects are bad and it didn't support HDR+AA - If you want to open AA
you must turn the light and shadow effects to lowest and this will cause the
other options closed automatically. HDR+AA is most of the game developers used
now. It seems that Stalker still rest on several years ago FarCry HDR level. So
you have to improved definition (ensure your equipments are good enough) or low
the light and shadow effects to open 4x AA which equals to the other games 2x
effect.
- Vision far scene effect failure, shader layer upon layer
- Physics effect miss
- Shoot feeling is bad - It didn't extrude the true feeling or adapt to
the game, it is really difficult to aim and shoot.
- The hardware demands are too high - though the equipments are really high, the
fps won't improve a lot. The same scene fps different a lot cause the game
equipments unbalanced. So we draw a conclusion that this game didnt optimize the
new generation display cards well. Besides Geforce 8800GTX, we felt Radeon X1000
and Geforce 7 series didn't exerted their best performances.
|
|
last 10 comments: | xxxx | (04:52 PM CEST - Mar,28 2007 ) | Sigh, maybe I should start doing performance analysis reports for "realistic" and "common sense" configurations something that truly warrants being looked at. WTF does setting the game to Ultra settings prove? FFS I don't even recall seeing 'Ultra' settings!?! I am running 1024x768 with High settings and the game looks and plays perfectly fine. As a matter of fact I even got view distance doubled to approx 3/4 and I upped other things too because it was easy to see while playing that my video card could easily handle it. I don't know offhand how to see fps(cuz I really haven't cared), but I'm pretty damn sure I'm hovering around 40+fps... be surprised if it were any lower. My eyes can tell. :?
I think these stats guys should get their heads our of their ass and start doing common sense performance benchmarks rather than trying to give reason to people to blow money nVidia and ATI's way... | |
All comments
|
|