• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Quake Wars Beta Video performance Roundup

Was gonna say their benchmarks were complete BS then I read:

"We did some testing with ATI's video cards but unfortunately we weren't able to max out their settings as we were with the GeForce cards"

Tbh tho their numbers are still way way out from reality, even taking into account the nVidia numbers are almost half what they would be with the same settings as the ATI, I would ignore that URL...

I didn't put hard numbers on it but heres something I came up with showing relative performance for a few cards... (this is running with setmachinespec 0 @ 640x480 and no FSAA/AF however) and theres some inconsistancy in the CPUs used to test.

http://aten-hosted.com/images/minspec.jpg

Note the GX2 is CPU limited in that context... SLI mode in the game actually gives double the fps of the same single card...

http://aten-hosted.com/images/shot00034.jpg (Left is SLI disabled, right is with SLI enabled)
 
Last edited:
We did some testing with ATI's video cards but unfortunately we weren't able to max out their settings as we were with the GeForce cards


Anyone know if the 2900XT is supported ?
I read it wasnt supported yet officially !
 
Love to know what exactly the point of benchmarking a beta is, more than likely the game will be further optomised before release making these numbers redundant. :confused:
 
Tom|Nbk said:
What a load of rubbish. My 2900XT is performing better than the GTX/GTS cards (there having problems perf wise), atm playing on Ultra 1680x1050 4xAA 40-70FPS

Screenshots in here -

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17745744&page=6
Click to expand...

My GX2 with ultra, picmip values ramped up and megadrawmethod 0, 4x AA, 16x AF at that res manages 70+ most of the time - inside the 2 story building beside the EMP generator pulls fps down to 40 but that happens on any and every setup due to a shadow interaction bug... and the 8800GTX gets better fps than I do.
 
That means my X1950Pro will deliver just under 40FPS at 1680x1050, barely playable for an FPS. I might have to crack the resolution down if these benchies turn out to be correct.
 
I dunno, personally I can't play twitch shooters (bf2, ut2004, quake4...) competitively at anything less that 60. A tactical shooter like GRAW, I can deal with less I suppose.

Since ET:QW is twitch, I'd had to agree that 40fps is barely playable.
 
I have an 8800GTS and at most resolutions it didn't feel smooth at all to me, it made aiming very difficult.

Bit stupid to benchmark a BETA especially one in the state ETQW BETA is in.
 
Raves said:
I dunno, personally I can't play twitch shooters (bf2, ut2004, quake4...) competitively at anything less that 60. A tactical shooter like GRAW, I can deal with less I suppose.

Since ET:QW is twitch, I'd had to agree that 40fps is barely playable.
Click to expand...
Hmm I don't see much of a difference with aiming between 30 and 60 fps, smoother for sure but doesn't really affect me tbh.

Less than 30 is just hell though.
 
Jihad said:
You are joking right? Above 30 is fine.
Click to expand...

Not for FPS games, especially multiplayer FPS games. I need a minimum of 60FPS as Raves said, anything under and my ability to wreak havoc is severely compromsed! :D
 
Gerard said:
Love to know what exactly the point of benchmarking a beta is, more than likely the game will be further optomised before release making these numbers redundant. :confused:
Click to expand...

A common myth.

In my experience Beta performance is almost always very indicative of relative performance in the final product. People said the same about Doom3 etc but it's actually very rare that engines get massive optimisations/changes after the point at which the developer has made it available for game testing. And in the cases they do, it's usually an across the board performance change rather than favouring one brand/card over another.
 
HangTime said:
A common myth.

In my experience Beta performance is almost always very indicative of relative performance in the final product. People said the same about Doom3 etc but it's actually very rare that engines get massive optimisations/changes after the point at which the developer has made it available for game testing. And in the cases they do, it's usually an across the board performance change rather than favouring one brand/card over another.
Click to expand...


Well i beta tested battlefield 2142 and c&c generals and there was a very obvious performance increase from the beta to the final product. Also optomisations are usually one of the last things to be done to a game before its sent for duplication.
 
Tejstar said:
That means my X1950Pro will deliver just under 40FPS at 1680x1050, barely playable for an FPS. I might have to crack the resolution down if these benchies turn out to be correct.
Click to expand...


Tom is playing with settings above and beyond the ultra settings in the game - at that res and with the ultra settings as specified in the menu you should get fps well above 40 for the most part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom