• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter Benchmarks

Um i could reinstall it and try it on my 3700+ @ 2.5 , 2 gig ram and my 7950 @ 600 / 1450.. but i think it would just be similar to what the fps in that xbit review is..
 
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Originally posted by: akshayt
on a 6600GT it is crap even at 800*600 + lowest video settings
Click to expand...
On a two-generation old card I'm sure it is. Why don't you go fix your X1900XTX first
Click to expand...

LOL

I'm really glad I bought and beat this game on XBOX360 instead of holding out for the PC version. I think it would have just pissed me off.
 
Originally posted by: Fadey
Um i could reinstall it and try it on my 3700+ @ 2.5 , 2 gig ram and my 7950 @ 600 / 1450.. but i think it would just be similar to what the fps in that xbit review is..
Click to expand...
Thanks but I think that hassle wouldn't be necessary, the Xbit labs review was quite sufficient.

Now to actually play it and see if the X1900XT will do 1680x1050 decent enough for me...
 
Originally posted by: Matt2
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Originally posted by: akshayt
on a 6600GT it is crap even at 800*600 + lowest video settings
Click to expand...
On a two-generation old card I'm sure it is. Why don't you go fix your X1900XTX first
Click to expand...

LOL

I'm really glad I bought and beat this game on XBOX360 instead of holding out for the PC version. I think it would have just pissed me off.
Click to expand...
I read that the PC version has better graphics and some diff stuff in it; not just a port

I dunno we'll see. Everyone always looks at benchies and says "OMG that's unplayable at 40FPS" but personally I don't notice those "low frame rates" too much. We'll see
 
Hmm i never uninstalled just did a fraps on it and at 1600x1200 16xaf and everything max my max fps was 70 but lowest was 41 when fire etc... was 45 - 55 most the time. Prolly my poxy cpu and board holding it back too.
 
How does it look with just the avg/default setup? i.e. no AF, etc. I'd probably rather game @ 1680x1050 with less eye candy, but I haven't seen how my 2005 scales, so we'll see i spose
 
I have heard of GRAW but I have never knew it stood for Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior! I have heard of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfare though (I'm just yanking your chain)
 
Originally posted by: Kromis
I have heard of GRAW but I have never knew it stood for Ghost Recon Advanced Warrior! I have heard of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfare though (I'm just yanking your chain)
Click to expand...

Don't yank that chain too hard...it's actually Advanced Warfighter.
 
My GRAW demo ran perfect at 1280x1024 using an X800XL at all max settings but texture at medium (couldn't choose). Like, I never noticed framerate issues so it must've stayed at around 30+fps. This isn't that demanding a game.
 
Originally posted by: Ichigo
My GRAW demo ran perfect at 1280x1024 using an X800XL at all max settings but texture at medium (couldn't choose). Like, I never noticed framerate issues so it must've stayed at around 30+fps. This isn't that demanding a game.
Click to expand...
Makes me feel better thanks. 40FPS seems like it would be smooth to me, guess we'll see 😀
 
Beat the game on an x1900xt. It was a playable experience but It was hard to focus with a less than 40fps framerate (eyes wandered about). With crossfire this game is about almost 85% >50 fps.
 
Originally posted by: gersson
Beat the game on an x1900xt. It was a playable experience but It was hard to focus with a less than 40fps framerate (eyes wandered about). With crossfire this game is about almost 85% >50 fps.
Click to expand...
Good to know. What settings did you beat it on?
 
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Originally posted by: Fadey
Um i could reinstall it and try it on my 3700+ @ 2.5 , 2 gig ram and my 7950 @ 600 / 1450.. but i think it would just be similar to what the fps in that xbit review is..
Click to expand...
Thanks but I think that hassle wouldn't be necessary, the Xbit labs review was quite sufficient.

Now to actually play it and see if the X1900XT will do 1680x1050 decent enough for me...
Click to expand...

Sufficient? Hardly, there are no AA benches. And frankly, the game looks like crap without AA. It doesnt look that good to begin with, but with no AA.. its even worse.

 
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Originally posted by: Fadey
Um i could reinstall it and try it on my 3700+ @ 2.5 , 2 gig ram and my 7950 @ 600 / 1450.. but i think it would just be similar to what the fps in that xbit review is..
Click to expand...
Thanks but I think that hassle wouldn't be necessary, the Xbit labs review was quite sufficient.

Now to actually play it and see if the X1900XT will do 1680x1050 decent enough for me...
Click to expand...

Sufficient? Hardly, there are no AA benches. And frankly, the game looks like crap without AA. It doesnt look that good to begin with, but with no AA.. its even worse.
Click to expand...
The game doesn't support AA.
 
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Originally posted by: Fadey
Um i could reinstall it and try it on my 3700+ @ 2.5 , 2 gig ram and my 7950 @ 600 / 1450.. but i think it would just be similar to what the fps in that xbit review is..
Click to expand...
Thanks but I think that hassle wouldn't be necessary, the Xbit labs review was quite sufficient.

Now to actually play it and see if the X1900XT will do 1680x1050 decent enough for me...
Click to expand...

Sufficient? Hardly, there are no AA benches. And frankly, the game looks like crap without AA. It doesnt look that good to begin with, but with no AA.. its even worse.
Click to expand...

The game supports high dynamic range mode (HDR) and uses a deferred shadowing method that allows rendering the lighting of a scene after its geometry has been rendered. In theory, this method is faster, but it is not compatible with FSAA.
Click to expand...
 
THe game looks great even though it doesn't have AA. The shading is amazing -- best color, shadows of any game out now. Too bad about the AA. I heard that they will include it in a patch.
 
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
The game doesn't support AA.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.


Originally posted by: Wreckage

The game supports high dynamic range mode (HDR) and uses a deferred shadowing method that allows rendering the lighting of a scene after its geometry has been rendered. In theory, this method is faster, but it is not compatible with FSAA.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And? Im well aware of their coding problems. I was one of the first to discover that AA didnt work with their deferred lighting in the demo. They should have benched with HDR, and then with AA. As I said, with no AA, it looks pretty bad. Even at 192x1200 it does. Power lines, etc. look horrible. Its my opinion most people would rather have AA, than HDR. Their arrogance in thinking that their way of thinking is everyones, is not good.

Also;
* Deathmatch mode, Map Editor for Deathmatch and Domination, anti-cheat fixes, Anti Aliasing feature, and New co-op maps
Click to expand...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/2791043913/m/2861017644

Much like Bethesda, that either lied, or was just too lazy, they said they two couldnt be done together. Now it seems it will work.

Edit, here is a pic I took the day the demo came out. You can obviously see the power line looks horrible, and is all jaggie. Having their deferred lighting off, and AA on, results in a much cleaner pic.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top