Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter Demo Performance Analysis
Posted by: Newsfactory on: 05/02/2006 09:58 PM [ Print | 1 comment(s) ] · 1359 views
Last week saw the release of a demo of the latest game in the Ghost Recon series, Advanced Warfighter. This game has taken the Xbox 360 by storm, and its PC version has also garnered plenty of interest thanks to its advanced graphics and support for AGEIA's PhysX boards.
Today, we take a look at the graphical side of this title here at Elite Bastards, examining its rendering engine and performance on a wide variety of graphics cards.
If you're running a graphics board with less than 512MB of memory on board, you'll find certain options conspicuous by their absence. For starters, you won't be able to use the game's High Quality texture setting - It simply won't be there. Worse still, you'll find that no resolution much above 1280x1024 will be available to you - That means no 1600x1200 for starters. This suggests that to use either High Quality textures or higher resolutions requires more than 256MB of video memory, which is something we'll be investigating during the course of this article, so keep your eyes peeled.
Today, we take a look at the graphical side of this title here at Elite Bastards, examining its rendering engine and performance on a wide variety of graphics cards.
If you're running a graphics board with less than 512MB of memory on board, you'll find certain options conspicuous by their absence. For starters, you won't be able to use the game's High Quality texture setting - It simply won't be there. Worse still, you'll find that no resolution much above 1280x1024 will be available to you - That means no 1600x1200 for starters. This suggests that to use either High Quality textures or higher resolutions requires more than 256MB of video memory, which is something we'll be investigating during the course of this article, so keep your eyes peeled.
« NVIDIA Gelato 2.0 Free · Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter Demo Performance Analysis
· NVIDIA Quad-SLI vs. ATI Crossfire »
Comment
|
The_GURU Unregistered |
#64529 Posted on: 05/03/2006 02:33 AM
My analysis is that it performs like a dog wiping its ass on the floor. It's as bad as when BF2 was first released, and I thought EA was only capable of this kind of laziness and greed. I've have been proven wrong with this game and tomb raider legend. While TRL performs good (mostly in part b/c of this next part), it looks as bad as ghost recon performs. That damn game is so freaking blurry (it gives me a headache), even with "depth of field" (WTF is that shit) turned off. Now, it's a given that my card is old (6800 Ultra), but 1 GB of RAM and an athlon 64 2.4 GHz (XP x64 - runs great compared to standard XP for me) should be able to run the damn thing at medium settings (with all of the advanced stuff off) - 1280x1024 - with no AA. If u love horrible clarity and 25 fps, I guess your doing fine, but also need your head examined. It's a damn good thing I don't pay for this lackluster crap, or I would be really pissed. (I do pay for "real" and actual "good" games, although admittedly limited sometimes due to lack of cash). But even those are far and few between. /End Rant /Gaycrest Out |
