Updated:12:47 AM CEST Jun,04
(new)
66 lottery login
91 club
okwin
bdg game
55 club
(c) 1998-2026 Gameguru Mania
Privacy Policy statement
|
Borderlands Gameplay Performance and IQ - tech|
| (hx) 01:08 AM CET - Dec,01 2009 | The chaps over at HardOCP have played Borderlands on
nine of the best video cards on the market. How well does the
PC version of this co-op shooter perform on today’s hardware?
Here's a taster:
At 2560x1600, the GeForce GTX 295 predictably dominated
the entire pack, giving us stellar performance and a great gameplay
experience. Of course, the Radeon HD 4870 X2, HD 5870, GeForce GTX 285,
Radeon HD 5850, and GeForce GTX 275 gave us the same experience. They
just did so at slightly a lower level of performance. In the mainstream
segment, it is impossible to recommend any of the sampled video cards
for use at 2560x1600. Performance was just not good enough, and the
lengths we had to go to make it playable rendered the image quality
subpar. Unfortunately, an apparent bug kept us from enabling 2X AA at
2560x1600 on the GeForce GTX 295, even though that video card should
have been capable of it.
At 1920x1200, the GeForce GTX 285, Radeon HD 5850, and GeForce
GTX 275 took great performance gains over 2560x1600. Even the
GeForce GTS 250 was able to play Borderlands with maximum in-game
settings at 1920x1200. Unfortunately, the Radeon HD 5770 and HD 5750
were not as lucky. We were forced to lower image quality to make up
some performance, but it was not as severe as it was at 2560x1600.
Still, the price and performance advantage of the GeForce GTS 250 make
it an impressive contender at 1920x1200.
Going down to 1680x1050, we had no problem playing
with maximum in-game settings on any of the three mainstream video
cards we tested at that resolution. The least expensive video card of
the three, the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250, gave us the best performance for
this game.
We saw only very small differences in CPU utilization between
NVIDIA and AMD video cards. Overall, the AMD Radeon HD 5870
was more effective at balancing the CPU load across the cores of our
quad-core Core i7 920 processor, but it didn’t translate into
a gameplay advantage. There were larger differences in memory usage,
but it was inconsistent. Sitting at the desktop, the system had more
free memory with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 installed than with
AMD’s ATI Radeon HD 5870 installed. But once under load, the
GeForce GTX 285 consumed more memory than the Radeon HD 5870. In the
end, the differences were so minor as to be inconsequential, but it is
interesting to see the differences.
|
|
last 10 comments: | Koogle | (02:19 AM CET - Dec,01 2009 ) | 24"+ 1900x1200 + lcd for FPS gaming? fuck that noob shit.. I've yet to even see a decent lcd of lower size provide a decent experience in terms of mouse movement to screen response, 60hz +delays
Maybe when display technology start putting out 24" + with true 100hz CRT style, not even this 120hz LCD imaged processed(laggy) bullshit.
crap lcd+consoles killed PC fps gaming, now its just for noobs and nvidiots
really no point in buying these over priced premium gfx cards for pc gaming, most the games are shit and if it isn't that then its the crap lcd displays that have barely improved that you'll have to play on which really sucks for fps styled games.
oh and when writing..."Here's a taster:"
at least put in some actual fps avg scores
my rant over for day :) |
|
| Tom | (05:16 PM CET - Dec,01 2009 ) | I had another poke fun at Koogle, but since he was civil in another post, I removed my post here. Not often is he civil so I might as well take advantage.
EDIT: I saw your other somewhat nice post in regards to mine. So I'll just say here, I think you are nuts. I had a Sony Trinitron 21" 4x3 screen. When I switched a few years back to LCD and then a year and a half ago to a 23" LCD Samsung, I don't think I could EVER go back to a lousy CRT. The LCD wipes the floor with the CRT, in clarity and fluidity. I personally think you don't have any idea what you are talking about because I play a lot of RTS, RPG and a LOT of FPS games and I have NEVER had a problem with my LCD, no mouse lag, choppiness or anything. I play most of my games maxxed out at 2048x1152.
P.S. Someone told me this game costs money to play online. It doesn't from what I saw on the box, so I might have to give this one a go. Looks pretty good. |
|
| Koogle | (10:58 PM CET - Dec,01 2009 ) | you don't know what you're talking about....
"The LCD wipes the floor with the CRT, in clarity and fluidity"
clarity? = only at native resolution
fluidity? = I wouldn't call 60hz (60fps synced) fluid
delayed lagged output = yes
READ behardware have done many articles, reviews explaining the problem.
http://www.behardware.com/html/cat/22/
better yet compare a lcd to crt directly yourself splitting the output and see for yourself the difference. lcd has its advantages but not for fps gaming. rts rpg games, desktop use etc, sure you won't notice it as much. Obviously noobs don't really even notice it all, not even in fps games. |
|
| (11:49 PM CET - Dec,01 2009 ) | IMO it's a matter of personal preference.
LCD pro's:
1. MUCH clearer at native resolution
2. I personally don't notice any ghosting in games (although I have seen other LCD's ghosting)
3. Less eye strain
4. Smaller physical size
5. Much more vibrant
6. Don't have to ever adjust my screen size to "fill" the whole screen
(I hated that on a CRT...couldn't ever change res. without distorted image)
7. CRT Are bad for your health (my opinion)
LCD con's:
1. Response time is a little worse
2. Chance of getting dead pixels
Nowadays, most pro gamers will play games on LCD because of the new technology like crystal clear bright screen,WXGA,and widescreen. This only helps you to play games with better graphics and visual. Also,LCD save up a lot of spaces in your table area.
Simply the CRT monitors are dead. |
|
| Koogle | (05:44 AM CET - Dec,02 2009 ) | Those are the only cons you would list...
LCD = input/output lag (response time), ghosting/blur, a crap low end refresh rate, oh and the sucky native resolution only, or non -native pixelated blocky crap, or go with black borders...
color depth, contrast, brightness, etc yeah that has all improved, still no better than the best CRT monitors, though you do get to have much higher resolutions that are crisp and clearer.
but for gaming its the pits, and for me I wouldn't ever buy a LCD lower than 24" which I have, just to get the full 1920x1200 resolution (1080p with little extra), right now to get a even vaguely acceptable LCD for games you're stuck with the lower end LCD sizes/resolutions. And for games running at a high native resolution fullscreen can be taxing on system requirements, maybe not something everyone will have a problem with for singleplayer, and non fps types (although the response and lag still drives me nuts), but for any fps game, 60fps avg is a bare minimum especially for competitive play. Either way having a beastly setup to run 60fps+ at high native resolution is not that problem I have, the hardware is there.. its the fucking shit LCDs that are still being chucked out by manufactures that are not delivering the instant response(ie faster image processing) with high refresh rate required, really if I didn't have my trusty CRT, PC gaming would be dead for me. No wonder console gamers find playing with a fucking gamepad analog stick for fps games an ok interaction, ur aim is gonna be shit anyway, by the very fact you're looking at a delayed image.. so its all gone to shit because of the delayed response times on displays imo.
"3. Less eye strain " You don't get eye strain when you run a CRT at its native resolution at its highest refresh rate (usually way above a 100hz!)
anyway yeah the CRT monitor is dead, but its a dire shame that what has replaced them still hasn't beaten the things it did best. quite frankly I can't wait for something better and yet i've been waiting for years now. |
|
| Tom | (06:11 PM CET - Dec,02 2009 ) | Yeah, bring on the Plasma display. 600Hz! LOL! I think there's gonna be a new wave of computer LCD coming. I think LCD companies are just trying to rake in as much as they can with the current generation. Prices are continually dropping on LCD's. TV/LCD's etc have all moved on past 60Hz so it's just a matter of time for it to trickle to PC. I have to agree that for LCD's vs CRT it's a matter of preference.
EDIT: I should correct that. I think it's 2 x 60Hz = 120Hz for most tv's and I think plasma is completely different. |
|
All comments
|
|
Add your comment (free registration required)