Gameguru Mania Updated:11:05 AM CEST Jun,06
AR Wallet

66 lottery login

91 club

okwin

bdg game

55 club

Playbonus.ca
CONTACT
Please e-mail us if you have news.

(c) 1998-2026 Gameguru Mania
Privacy Policy statement
SEARCH:
 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
 Add your comment (free registration required)