Jul -- Gaming: So how well WOULD your comp run Street Fighter 4?

Tanks

360? Yessum.
Level: 121

Posts: 2782/4170
EXP: 19808312
For next: 248384

Since: 07-10-07

From: VA

Since last post: 9.5 years
Last activity: 9.5 years

Posted on 06-19-09 05:34:37 AM (last edited by Shantae at 06-19-09 02:37 AM)

Link | Quote

Originally posted by Yume Kusanagi
Well, go find out.

About 400MB of a benchmark utility.

Anyone mirror it yet? It hates me...

EDIT: Google says yes.

____________________

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 11113/14435
EXP: 127620020
For next: 2164134

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 06-19-09 10:42:53 PM (last edited by Yume Kusanagi at 06-19-09 08:21 PM)

Link | Quote

Rank: A (lol?)

Score: 10586
Average: 68.17FPS (@75Hz)

Score2: 10889
Average: 74.78FPS (@75Hz full-screen 1280x1024)

Windows XP Professional SP3
AMD Phenom 9500 Quad-Core Processor
2GB OCZ DDR2-800
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+, 1GB GDDR3

SATAII, 500GB hard drive that this was run on (although I have others). All Seagate.

Ran at 1280x768 Windowed. Normal settings.

It doesn't run at max speed fluidly but, unless you're checking on it in real time, you'd not notice.

EDIT: Tried it with max settings. Score is noticeably lower but visuals aren't.

Rank: A

Score: 7728
Average: 74.60 (@75Hz)

Ran with 16x Filtering and C16xQ Anti-Aliasing. Changed res to 1280x1024 (higher than the last by width). That GeForce can keep up.

VSync was used on all this. Also messed around to where it was at lowest settings and got it to go all the way up to about 42000 and ~320FPS for a score. lulz

____________________

Ctenophorae

Level: 85

Posts: 17/1921
EXP: 5772359
For next: 126181

Since: 06-19-09

From: Oregon

Since last post: 8.1 years
Last activity: 27 days

Posted on 06-19-09 11:25:00 PM

Link | Quote

I tried this about a week ago. I have a pretty lame card (Nvidia 9500 GT, crappy PNY model) and it gave me a bsod when I tried to put on AA or AF at all.

Other than those, I got about 68FPS (@75Hz) throughout the whole thing on 1440x900 with medium-high settings.

____________________

Eon

Hammer Brother
MLB
Level: 68

Posts: 709/1085
EXP: 2625995
For next: 102805

Since: 07-22-07

Since last post: 309 days
Last activity: 129 days

Posted on 06-20-09 03:12:46 AM

Link | Quote


	I got about 59.80FPS on 1920x1200 (Nividia 9800GTX) with max settings, except no AA. Maxing AA lowered it to like 16FPS... ____________________

— Colin —
Missing: One avatar. Will be restored at some point.

Post 2159/10052
Active 8.3 years ago

Posted on 06-20-09 07:00:12 AM

Link | Quote

The system requirements make me sad since my video card won't hit those specs at all.

I'll try it on the laptop on the weekend, though... I mean, it MIGHT be worth looking into if it runs well... it *IS* SF, after all.

____________________

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 11119/14435
EXP: 127620020
For next: 2164134

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 06-20-09 10:01:37 AM

Link | Quote

Tried the Devil May Cry 4 benchmark that they had as well. It performed a little less admirably.

You can tell at the end it was struggling to keep up with 75fps (for the 75Hz rate). Lowest it may have dipped was 50fps. Of course, this was with overkill AA and textures/shadows.

____________________

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 11709/14435
EXP: 127620020
For next: 2164134

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 07-16-09 08:25:02 PM

Link | Quote

So if you wanna get it Steam has it.

____________________

Sunny

Level: 115

Posts: 1313/3675
EXP: 16367203
For next: 444161

Since: 07-23-07

Since last post: 4.2 years
Last activity: 188 days

Posted on 07-25-09 04:02:09 PM

Link | Quote

So, I went and tried out the SF4 Benchmark(even though I don't plan on getting the game), and...it sucked. With fps fixed and settings turned down where I knew it would matter, it still sucked.

SCORE: 8487
AVERAGE: 14.39FPS
OS: Windows Vista(TM) Home Premium
CPU: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4000+
Memory: 1918MB
Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6150SE nForce 430
Display Setting: 1152x720 60Hz

So I'm pretty sure that in comparison to everyone else(at least in this thread), my computer is shit. And it won't be improving anytime soon, unless you know where there is a better computer for $130(cheap).
(Also downloading the DMC4 and RE5 benchmarks, will report both of those in this thread as well when I run them.)

____________________
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Posts = 1313
Age = 732
Lv 55
Exp 1287967 / 1314189
LvExp 54097 / 80319 (67.4%)
PostExp = 1471
ExpTime = 98.323

Hiryuu

Level: 207

Posts: 12154/14435
EXP: 127620020
For next: 2164134

Since: 07-06-07

Since last post: 11.8 years
Last activity: 11.7 years

Posted on 07-25-09 06:49:23 PM (last edited by Hiryuu at 07-25-09 03:51 PM)

Link | Quote


	This is assuming this is a desktop system: That Graphics Card is probably your chief bottleneck...and given the memory count, it's probably a RAM-stealer. If I'm not mistaken, that's just a regular PCI Express and a rather low one at that. I'd be looking into the high-end 8-series at the very least (6-series is far and away dated). If it's on-board graphics and not a graphics CARD that is dedicated in that slot...you SEVERELY need to get yourself a graphics card. Course, your processor can also be considered low-end as well...but thankfully, it's an AMD. If you've got an AM2, AM2+ socket...your processor can be upgraded to something really good for real cheap. Check with CPU-Z to see if your processor package says 'SOCKET AM2' or 'SOCKET AM2+'. If it's just a SOCKET AM2, as I suspect, you can STILL get yourself a 6000+, no fan (use your old stock) for a relatively cheap price. If, for some odd reason, it's AM2+...I'd be getting a really good processor from AMD right now (but, of this, I strongly doubt). Getting back to graphics, though, I don't know if you have the ability to hit PCIe 2.0 or not...my guess is probably not...but you can check what bus interface you have with this. If it has the ability to do PCIe 2.0, then I would invest money into a graphics card. My GeForce 9800 GTX+ set me back almost 130 dollars exactly. If it's PCIe x16 or below...you're going to be pressed to go much better, I'm afraid. You can get a PCIe 2.0 card to go into a PCIe but it is backwards-compatible and will clock down. I'd also use that utility to see what kind of rates you're getting for draw. I'll give you an idea with the card I've got. Feel free to compare: I have seen Pentium 4 systems go from doing 12 FPS to 40-60 FPS in World of Warcrack (boss's computer at his home, a Dell) with just a power supply change out (which you might have to do, 550W or better run about 100 dollars) and a purchase of a PCIe 2.0 card. He got himself a RADEON HD 4850...his bus interface is only a PCIe x16 though...so it does downclock...but at least he's getting five times the rate he was by just upping his crap graphics. You might have the ability to double that frame rate or better just by getting yourself a better graphics card and better processor and invest about 200-300 dollars into. It depends if you think it's worth it to spend a little to upgrade something that would be worth the performance or if you really think you need to break down and spend 3 or 4 or more times that. Your system isn't really that bad of a layout but it is dated in regards to the harder hitting games. ____________________

Register - Login
Views: 99788692	Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users Ranks - Rules/FAQ - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies	05-03-22 02:55:56 AM

Query execution time:	0.086013 seconds
Script execution time:	0.026403 seconds
Total render time:	0.112416 seconds