World In Conflict Benchmark Thread.
- Thread starter Damien.
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 12,773
- Location
- Leicestershire
3800X2 @ 2.7
2gb Ram
X1800XT
Win XP
Res: 1280x1024 @ max detail.
26FPS average
2gb Ram
X1800XT
Win XP
Res: 1280x1024 @ max detail.
26FPS average
E2140 @ 2.8
2GB Crucial Ballistix
8800GTS 320Mb
Windows XP
Resolution: 1280*1024
Detail Level: High
Average fps: 28
Min fps: 13
Max fps: 63
The slowness i notice on the benchmark never seems to be replicated in-game either..so i'm not too fussed.
2GB Crucial Ballistix
8800GTS 320Mb
Windows XP
Resolution: 1280*1024
Detail Level: High
Average fps: 28
Min fps: 13
Max fps: 63
The slowness i notice on the benchmark never seems to be replicated in-game either..so i'm not too fussed.
May want to check out this performance review, nice to see the 2900xt giving better performance than it did in the beta and the demo.
but them 8800GTS 320 results cant by right, can they?
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/459/1/
but them 8800GTS 320 results cant by right, can they?http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/459/1/
Last edited:
May want to check out this performance review, nice to see the 2900xt giving better performance than it did in the beta and the demo.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/459/1/
It is...
In Vista using DX10 I can run it at high. If I put to to very high my average is 11 @ 1280x1024.
Runs faster in DX9 mode though, a lot faster..!
I think it maybe a driver issue though as it should be better then it is...
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Guides/world_in_conflict_performance_guide/3.html
There's the problem, I may have to do this game in XP which is a pain because I prefer Vista
There's the problem, I may have to do this game in XP which is a pain because I prefer Vista
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2003
- Posts
- 6,107
- Location
- Chesterfield, UK
Running a GTS 320 OC 630/950
Xeon Quad @ 3Ghz 4 Gig Ram, Vista DX9
1920x1200
Medium Texture and 4X Ani, No AA everything else on High or Very High
Average 29
Min 8
Max 76
Xeon Quad @ 3Ghz 4 Gig Ram, Vista DX9
1920x1200
Medium Texture and 4X Ani, No AA everything else on High or Very High
Average 29
Min 8
Max 76
Actually all you have to do is untick the "use DX10" box in the options:advanced graphics page. Drops you back to DX9 rendering which although you lose the DX10 effects gives you back some additional FPS even in Vista.http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Guides/world_in_conflict_performance_guide/3.html
There's the problem, I may have to do this game in XP which is a pain because I prefer Vista
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
vista isn't much slower at all, dx9 in vista, at least on ati drivers 
p ) is pretty much as fast as XP, nvidia takes a much bigger hit from their, honestly, not great vista drivers, but still not big enough to really be noticed.
as for framerate, its a freaking rts, 30fps is more than fine, 20fps in most situations and you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference. the benchmark stuff is basically never ever replicated in games, you just don't see fast moving units, choppers move slowly and most planes you barely see due to view in game.
as for dx10 vs dx9, yes, zoomed out i think theres very little difference. i did turn to dx9 to play the game as i ran the benchy first and thought it might not run great. i gotta test it, but i was pretty sure that close in, textures on the tank in the benchmark were much worse in dx9. also though faces, zoomed in to see soldiers, and other textures in general look much nicer close up. but thats fairly unimportant due to the fact that except that 1 minute at the beginning checking how nice stuff looks zoomed in, you remain zoomed as far out as possible for every other moment of the game.
but yes, framerate jumps up a lot in vista when turning off dx10.
EDIT:- actually when i opened the last two comparison shots in new tabs, there are LOADS of differences. they might not massively contribute, but theres a crapload of extra stuff. every single tree leaf is much more pronounced, rather than a kind of singular blur they look more defined and individual. most of the houses have extra detail on the windows, further back you go the better they look, again not massive differences, but they are there. almost every crater's effects stretch out further and look slightly better for it. there are shadows under the small wing bits on the choppers where the guns are mounted, so each individual unit is being dynamicall lighted/shaded, on dx9 the whole unit is lighted the same, and under the wings are the same brightness. You can also see a big difference in the lighting, its more realistic in dx10, where as everything is just , overbright in dx9 its better coloured in dx10, also with better shadows behind buildings at close and further distance.
then another review, forget which one, seems to show that dynamic lighting is done on a much bigger scale on dx10, with clouds over head and beams of light being shown over the current battlefield, where as in dx10 the lighting is uniform no matter the clouds, and it only adds the "beam" effects in the far distance which don't change(same as dx10 there).
p ) is pretty much as fast as XP, nvidia takes a much bigger hit from their, honestly, not great vista drivers, but still not big enough to really be noticed.as for framerate, its a freaking rts, 30fps is more than fine, 20fps in most situations and you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference. the benchmark stuff is basically never ever replicated in games, you just don't see fast moving units, choppers move slowly and most planes you barely see due to view in game.
as for dx10 vs dx9, yes, zoomed out i think theres very little difference. i did turn to dx9 to play the game as i ran the benchy first and thought it might not run great. i gotta test it, but i was pretty sure that close in, textures on the tank in the benchmark were much worse in dx9. also though faces, zoomed in to see soldiers, and other textures in general look much nicer close up. but thats fairly unimportant due to the fact that except that 1 minute at the beginning checking how nice stuff looks zoomed in, you remain zoomed as far out as possible for every other moment of the game.
but yes, framerate jumps up a lot in vista when turning off dx10.
EDIT:- actually when i opened the last two comparison shots in new tabs, there are LOADS of differences. they might not massively contribute, but theres a crapload of extra stuff. every single tree leaf is much more pronounced, rather than a kind of singular blur they look more defined and individual. most of the houses have extra detail on the windows, further back you go the better they look, again not massive differences, but they are there. almost every crater's effects stretch out further and look slightly better for it. there are shadows under the small wing bits on the choppers where the guns are mounted, so each individual unit is being dynamicall lighted/shaded, on dx9 the whole unit is lighted the same, and under the wings are the same brightness. You can also see a big difference in the lighting, its more realistic in dx10, where as everything is just , overbright in dx9 its better coloured in dx10, also with better shadows behind buildings at close and further distance.
then another review, forget which one, seems to show that dynamic lighting is done on a much bigger scale on dx10, with clouds over head and beams of light being shown over the current battlefield, where as in dx10 the lighting is uniform no matter the clouds, and it only adds the "beam" effects in the far distance which don't change(same as dx10 there).
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,344
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Wheres the benchmark in the gb demo for this game?