Neat DMC 4 benchmark results

[Richard_Rahl]

I did a benchmark with the Devil May Cry 4 demo, and the results are very nice.

Hardware

Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3 Ghz
2 GB Crucial Ballistix pc-8500
Sapphire Radeon HD 4850 (with the Catalyst 8.8 drivers)
320 GB Seagate Barracuda (7200 rpm, 16 MB)

The settings

resolution 1280x1024 (on a 17" )
AA: 8x
display frequency: 75 Hz
texture resolution: super high
Vsync: on
Shadow quality: super high
Quality: super high

Results

Scene 1: 75.03
Scene 2: 73.36
Scene 3: 75.03
Scene 4: 74.82

Neat scores imo, and with the display frequency set to 60 Hz I am getting "average fps" values of about 100.

[Magus]

That's pretty nice, just a bit lower than i do

[Richard_Rahl]

Originally Posted by Magus

That's pretty nice, just a bit lower than i do

I suppose because of your cpu?

[AKADeadly]

DMC4 and Lost Planet:CE run very well compared 2 other games with the same graphics. I <3 capcom

[Slaymate]

Originally Posted by Richard_Rahl

I suppose because of your cpu?

It may have something to do with it, but not for the reason your probably thinking of. Your cpu at 3GHz is probably creating a mild bottleneck for your 4850. If you could run your cpu in the 3.4 to 3.6GHz range you'd most likely see a big boost in video performance.

His cpu runs at a slower stock speed but the 8800GTX will still perform efficiently with the slower cpu.

My personal opinion would be, the 8800GTX is still a great card that can compete with the 4850 and Nvidia has a much better Driver Development Team. ATI has always had sub-par Driver Support. They'll release new Drivers (good ones) for a few months after they release a new card, and then everything seems to go downhill til they release another new card.

[Magus]

Sorry but at just 8x and 1280x1024 i get alot higher speeds,at 1680x1050 with 16x quality aa i get around 50-60 so yeah. Don't have the game anymore to test and tbh i can't be arsed because my hdd is pretty full at the moment :p

[Richard_Rahl]

I don't mind it, since on my 17" I don't really see a differnce between 6, 8 or 16x AA.

@Slaymate: I am considering to put in another pair of that memory I have. Though as long as I have XP (I think I skip Vista and wait for Win 7) only 3.5 of 4 GB will be recognised.
So what I am wondering is whether I will get a performance boost worth spending 60 euro.

[Magus]

Originally Posted by Richard_Rahl

I don't mind it, since on my 17" I don't really see a differnce between 6, 8 or 16x AA.

@Slaymate: I am considering to put in another pair of that memory I have. Though as long as I have XP (I think I skip Vista and wait for Win 7) only 3.5 of 4 GB will be recognised.
So what I am wondering is whether I will get a performance boost worth spending 60 euro.

Could be me being irritated but why are you still not hesitating vista at all? Just because of some bad experience you had sometime ago on a laptop?

Could be time to look into the future and not into the past with linux

But next to that 4GB is a minimum right now so you could consider that!

[Slaymate]

I wouldn't bother unless you switch to Vista. And in reality, 4 sticks will probably give you problems. I have (4) sticks of PC2 9200. If I only use (2) sticks they run at 5-5-5-12 1150MHz all day long. If I use all (4) sticks they only run at 5-5-5-12 1066MHz. So if you really need 4GB I'd say go for it. But you'll probably lose some performance if your not running memory intensive programs.

[Richard_Rahl]

Originally Posted by Slaymate

I wouldn't bother unless you switch to Vista. And in reality, 4 sticks will probably give you problems. I have (4) sticks of PC2 9200. If I only use (2) sticks they run at 5-5-5-12 1150MHz all day long. If I use all (4) sticks they only run at 5-5-5-12 1066MHz. So if you really need 4GB I'd say go for it. But you'll probably lose some performance if your not running memory intensive programs.

Thanks, Slay. I won't do it unless I switch to Vista or Windows 7.