Call of Juarez benchmark DX10 out

[Ackmed]

http://www.gamershell.com/download_19492.shtml

Size: 694.7MB
Downloads: 4,133 (W: 4,133 - D: 4,133)
Hosted since: June 8, 2007, 2:26 am

Description:
Test your video card with the DirectX 10 version of this fast-paced shooter described as Wild West Epic Adventure Shooter and developed by Techland. DirectX 10 video card required.

Surprised this is not posted yet. I beat it long ago, but the DX10 version does look nice. Anyhow, be interesting to see some numbers. I dont expect it to run well at all. It was fairly slow at 1920x1200 for me on CF X1900's in DX9 9-10 months ago. Playable, but not really fast enough for me.

 

[MichaelD]

Considering that maybe 1% of enthusiasts (who are maybe 1% of all PC users) have moved to DX10...is there a DX9 version of this benchmark?

I've never even heard of the game itself.

 

[Ackmed]

No, there is not a DX9 benchmark. At least not that I know of. The game was released overseas last year. Its a very well done Western, imo anyways. Pretty fun, and a refreshing change of pace.

 

[Nightmare225]

360 version recently got a 7.6 or 7.4 at gamespot, I believe. So, its a good game.

Anyway, my results at 1680x1050, 4xAA, all settings maxed out:

10.1 - Min
32.5 - Max
18.6 - Avg

 

[LittleNemoNES]

@ what resolution

 

[jim1976]

I'd like to test it, but I have some issues with my adsl line these days.. It will be a useful benchmark,so I'd like to see some scores here..And I'll definitely check it out, when I'll be given a chance..

 

[Munky]

This site already tested this game in DX10, and the performance goes like this:

8800gtx > 2900xt > 8800gts

 

[BFG10K]

I loved the game but I ran it under DX8 on my 8800 GTS as DX9 was far too slow.

 

[toyota]

I might as well have integrated graphics. Its not like the 8800gts and gtx are tearing through the game either though. This DX10 crap is worthless for 95% of people since it wont even be playable.


1280x1024 (stock 540/1400)
2x msaa
low details
avg 2.6 fps


1024x768 (stock 540/1400)
no aa
low details
avg 5.1 fps


1024x768 (oc 667/1776)
no aa
low details
avg 5.4 fps

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: toyota
I might as well have integrated graphics. Its not like the 8800gts and gtx are tearing through the game either though. This DX10 crap is worthless for 95% of people since it wont even be playable.


1280x1024 (stock 540/1400)
2x msaa
low details
avg 2.6 fps


1024x768 (stock 540/1400)
no aa
low details
avg 5.1 fps


1024x768 (oc 667/1776)
no aa
low details
avg 5.4 fps

Sorry that made me laugh. We better get new cards soon, if dx10 is to catch on.

 

[jim1976]

Guys you need to remember something..

CoJ was a poorly coded D3D9 game than ran with poor performance from day 1.

The D3D10 patches that some devs use, have nothing to do with performance improvements, they just added to the existing D3D9 code some IQ stuff, related to D3D10..
The same goes for Lost Planet and CoH..

So what do you expect when a game is written with D3D9 code in mind,and they simply add D3D10 IQ stuff? It is more than logical that it will bring the cards to its knees..D3D10 instructions, if not used the way they should in a game's engine code, are far too complex for a D3D9 engine to bear..
We are not talking about a D3D10 codepath that is written with performance and IQ gains in mind.. They just add to the existing code, some D3D10 stuff that naturally are not supposed to be implemented this way..

A D3D10 game will implement all the IQ stuff, but most of all will help performance wise..

It's way too early to talk about D3D10 anyway.. And don't expect games that don't have sufficient D3D10 code in their engine to work as they should.. That's rule #1 and you should never forget it..

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: toyota
I might as well have integrated graphics. Its not like the 8800gts and gtx are tearing through the game either though. This DX10 crap is worthless for 95% of people since it wont even be playable.


1280x1024 (stock 540/1400)
2x msaa
low details
avg 2.6 fps


1024x768 (stock 540/1400)
no aa
low details
avg 5.1 fps


1024x768 (oc 667/1776)
no aa
low details
avg 5.4 fps

Don't worry, Crysis will run much, much better...

 

[oddity21]

Using 158.45 drivers.

1280x1024/no AA/2048x2048 shadowmap/high shadow quality: avg 27.0

1280x1024/no AA/2048x2048/normal: avg 27.5

1600x1200/no AA/2048x2048/high: avg 23.5

1600x1200/no AA/1024x1024/high: avg 24.8 (shadows became really blurry for a second or two in some spots)

 

[allies]

Just got done running it. Almost identical scores to Nightmare225
Min: 10.0
Max: 32.9
Avg: 18.7
1680x1050
2048x2048
Highest shadows
MS 4x

My CPU is at 2.8 (not 3.0 as in my sig) due to hot summer months
Game looked pretty, but I'd never be able to play it with that performance.

 

[Woofmeister]

The benchmark appears to be at least partially SLI compatible! About one in four attempts to run, I get the SLI visual indicators and some movement showing SLI activity.

You can see it in the scores:

Without SLI indicators:
1920x1200
Shadow Map 1024 x 1024
Shadow Quality 3
Supersampling (on x 2.25)

9.5
40.1
22.7

With SLI indicators:

(same settings)

7.0
75.5
37.6

I'd like to increase the settings, but I can't get the benchmark to start with anything higher (chrome engine error). Also, even when it does run, I'm getting at least 4 C++Runtime errors before the demo starts.

Quality wise, the benchmark looks a lot better than I remember the COJ demo looking, but it is obviously a work in progress.

BTW anybody else notice that a print screen command of your results shows the desktop, rather than the game?