JustGeorge Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Well, I am bloody impressed at how well my PC performed in max settings! :)My brother was impressed as well. He might actually sell the 360 version and get the PC version! It would have to offer more than just slightly better gfx for me to consider doing that and even then, I would just buy the PC version and keep the console version. I have doubts about Capcom's willingness to sustain the PC version with updates. Could very well turn out to be another Halo situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doli Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 ^ or Konami's PC versions of Silent Hill 2, 3, 4, and Homecoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svnO.o Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 SF4 looks FANTASTIC. I have to get this game when it comes out xD 2x4770s in CF (non OC'd) + stock processor speed (2.83GHz as opposed to the 3.82GHz as seen in my sig) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kizuran Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 score: 6273Average: 57.47 Rank B with the specs you see in my sig. (everything maxed out 1280x1024) Disable the vsync, it really killed my FPS in the first run. boy.......that music really takes me back :) I didn't know you could feed that behemoth nvidia geforce 9800 with just 400W. How're you able to manage your rig stably with just 400W? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGeorge Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Runs like crap on my system. Getting like 15~16fps @ 1024x768 (vsync). Guess my HD3450 isn't going to cut it :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhearted Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Hm. Not bad. Even with my weak-ish athlon x2 @ 2.82ghz it still runs really well with everything turned up and with AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaramonga Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 All on MAX :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Mystic MVC Posted June 16, 2009 MVC Share Posted June 16, 2009 Scaramonga, how does yours not average more than mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaramonga Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Scaramonga, how does yours not average more than mine? Dunno? You have 8x AA set, mines is at 16x AA, maybe that? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted June 16, 2009 MVC Share Posted June 16, 2009 SCORE: 6405 AVERAGE: 59.48FPS OS: Windows Vista Business CPU: Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz Memory: 6134MB Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Display Setting: 1920x1200 60Hz 8xAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Mystic MVC Posted June 16, 2009 MVC Share Posted June 16, 2009 Dunno? You have 8x AA set, mines is at 16x AA, maybe that? :unsure: No, check my post I have the full 16x Q whatever. We have the same GPU but you have an i7 and 2gb's more of memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted June 16, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 16, 2009 SCORE: 8032 AVERAGE: 93.21FPS OS: Windows Vista Ultimate CPU: Intel? Core2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz Memory: 8190MB Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Display Setting: 1680x1050 60Hz 8xAA I set every setting to its maximum and I disabled v-sync. Damn, I am impressed at the performance. I'd love to run it at a higher resolution but 1680x1050 is my monitor's native resolution. I recommend leaving v-sync enabled for smoother (and slower/normal) graphics. For some reason, disabling v-sync makes the benchmark look like it's running at 2x the normal speed. Anyway, you should disable v-sync if you want to see FPS greater than your monitor's refresh rate (e.g. 60Hz = 60FPS). Note:> My processor is overclocked to 3.2GHz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 No, check my post I have the full 16x Q whatever. We have the same GPU but you have an i7 and 2gb's more of memory. Because i7 arent much faster than Core 2 Quads clock for clock at gaming and yours is overclocked way past stock speeds. Edit just noticed his is overclocked to 4.2ghz, odd, unless he ran at stock speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted June 16, 2009 Veteran Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) scaramonga: You should be getting higher FPS. According to your signature, you have a Core i7 920 OC'd to 4.2 GHz coupled with a GeForce GTX 280. Did you run the benchmark at stock speeds? EDIT: The release date for Street Fighter IV (PC) is July 7. Edited June 16, 2009 by Anaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Mystic MVC Posted June 16, 2009 MVC Share Posted June 16, 2009 scaramonga: You should be getting higher FPS. According to your signature, you have a Core i7 920 OC'd to 4.2 GHz coupled with a GeForce GTX 280. Did you run the benchmark at stock speeds?EDIT: The release date for Street Fighter IV (PC) is July 7. That's what I'm saying. Fundementally, he should have a higher FPS if he was running it at 1680x1050 while I was running it at 1920x1080. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted June 16, 2009 Reviews Share Posted June 16, 2009 1920x12008x AA Parallel Rendering: ON Texture Filter: 16x Model Quality: High Background Quality: High Soft Shadow: Highest Self Shadow: High Motion Blur: High Particles: High So it's all settings at their maximum allowed for my system; Seems like a bit of a gimmick to release a benchmark program for a game like this, it isn't even that demanding ... That's because only well coded games that scale so so well will have benchmark tools released for them before launch. This game looks better than the console versions and runs amazing on a large number of systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Rambo Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 SCORE: 5656 AVERAGE: 28.99FPS OS: Windows XP Professional CPU: Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU 3.00GHz Memory: 1534MB Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT Display Setting: 1024x768 85Hz 2xAA Not bad i guess, process & gfx sucks. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 All on MAX :) I doubt that.. highly. Turn on 16QSAA. Your system will SLOG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 This game looks better than the console versions and runs amazing on a large number of systems. It's a cartoon fighting game that didn't win any prices for graphics on the consoles, your point? It would be a surprise if the game ran like poo on most systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted June 16, 2009 Reviews Share Posted June 16, 2009 It's a cartoon fighting game that didn't win any prices for graphics on the consoles, your point?It would be a surprise if the game ran like poo on most systems. Doesn't matetr what kind of game it is. End of the day a well coded game will run smooth on most systems that meet minimum requirements. Capcom usually always deliver well coded PC ports that look and run better than the console versions. This is a well coded port, nothing to do with it being a fighting game and Res Evil 5 on the PC will follow the exact same trend no doubt. Quite a lot of thought and quite a lot of processing goes on in the PC version's engine: http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,685997/...in-detail/News/ And on top of that priority was to make sure the game runs at 60fps on the majority of hardware which it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 You know, I have the 360 version, and I actually want the PC version too because it seems to run faster and .. look better, at least this bench did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 The game looks "meh" and runs accordingly, there isn't really much more to say. Definitely doesn't deserve any praise for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted June 16, 2009 Reviews Share Posted June 16, 2009 if it looks and runs "meh" for you then you need a better PC.....or just play it on 360 and forget about downplaying it on the PC format because everyone else is thoroughly enjoying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 if it looks and runs "meh" for you then you need a better PC.....or just play it on 360 and forget about downplaying it on the PC format because everyone else is thoroughly enjoying it. I suggest you click back a few pages and look at my PC and scores :laugh: I'm not downplaying the gameplay but the graphics! The game looks mind-numbingly average with some softness added to the cartoon look, how the hell does that deserve any praise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted June 16, 2009 Reviews Share Posted June 16, 2009 The graphics are Street Fighter, just more modern with DX9 shader effects which look great in motion. Have you never played Street Fighter before. Your post makes no sense at all. You show you get great fps yet you say it runs meh. So which is it. Yawn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts