scaramonga Posted June 16, 2009 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. For some reason the benchmark only reports CPU at stock, when in fact, I have it at 4.2GHz. I dunno?, could be this rubbish driver set (185.85's), although I'm only losing 751 marks in 3DMark06 with these drivers?? I do have everything on MAX in benchmark, AA @ 16 and Texture at 16, all else on High/Highest. I really should be getting a little more though :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Oh, so the graphics are "Street Fighter", then they must be awesome! What kinda lame ass argument as that. I guess when you can't argue the lack of PC power or "Highly optimized", the graphics being "Street Fighter" is the way to go :woot: No, for your information, I have not played Street Fighter before and what does that have to do with anything? I'm commenting on the graphics compared to pretty much everything else available on the PC which is why I find it laughable they release a benchmark application - You rarely ever see these things unless the game is meant to be real good looking and a system hog. Yes, for a fighting game they may look great but that's not in my comparison range, my comparison is a lot broader and I'm making the comparison purely based on the release of a benchmarking application. Oh and I said it LOOKS "meh", not RUNS "meh". Runs accordingly means when a game looks crap it usually gets high performance and when a game looks fantastic it usually drains the system pretty bad. Edited June 16, 2009 by Sethos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted June 16, 2009 Reviews Share Posted June 16, 2009 There is no other recent PC game like Street Fighter and the graphics are quite uique as well so can't be compared to other games. I don't understand why you're complaining. The game looks great, it runs great and the benchmark is favoured by the masses. You're an exception it seems so there's little point in debating it with you any more. You're just basing your opinion solely on the book's cover here, I suggest you read the in depth Interview with the SF4 dev linked above and learn about the work they've put into it and what goes on between the covers. If you're still "meh"ing all over the shop then it's fair to assume you're not a street fighter fan really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 There is no other recent PC game like Street Fighter and the graphics are quite uique as well so can't be compared to other games.I don't understand why you're complaining. The game looks great, it runs great and the benchmark is favoured by the masses. You're an exception it seems so there's little point in debating it with you any more. You're just basing your opinion solely on the book's cover here, I suggest you read the in depth Interview with the SF4 dev linked above and learn about the work they've put into it and what goes on between the covers. If you're still "meh"ing all over the shop then it's fair to assume you're not a street fighter fan really. No, there's no recent games like Street Fighter because fighting games aren't that big on the PC - So it's like pressing out the first turd in ages and watching everyone marvel at the smell and colours. Perhaps read what I wrote just once more and see where my comparisons stems from. What do I care what has gone into the engine? I can see it with my own two eyes right here, in a live benchmark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted June 16, 2009 Reviews Share Posted June 16, 2009 You're saying it's turd. That makes your opinion false because there's no valid evidence pointing to the fact that it is indeed turd. I get it though, you don't like it. Fine, don't buy it. The rest of us will buy it however and will fight online and will be thoroughly enjoying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 It's called an analogy, god you are thick :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted June 16, 2009 Reviews Share Posted June 16, 2009 Well done on the insults, you deserve a prize. Go troll elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm not trolling, posting my opinion, you're just very, very slow and failing to grasp anything I say - Then you kinda have to turn it down a notch ... or fifteen, then it ends up in kindergarten drawings and arm flailing :sleep: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted June 16, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 16, 2009 there's no valid evidence pointing to the fact that it is indeed turd. Actually theres blatant evidence to suggest how the game is, at least from a gameplay POV http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/.../streetfighter4 and http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/streetfighter4 For fighting fans it's obviously a highly rated game, what will define the PC version is how well it runs on release - Whether or not it plays like a real pc game, or a sloppy console port. I can only assume that's the reason for this pre-release benchmark tool. To allow you to know what to expect. I'd actually like ALL PC developers to release tools like this. Too often you read recommended requirements visioning how a game will run on your PC and it's a different matter AFTER you've paid for it. Although a demo can help there also. However not all of us can be bothered downloading hundreds of mb's/gb's of demos, a small tool to give indication is a good alternative. 60FPS is key to SF4 and fighting games in general, another reason for this tool I'd suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Time to see what the ol' x1950 PRO can do LOL. BTW, can anyone recommend me a card that's a worthy upgrade? That won't cost 200+ dollars? :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Actually theres blatant evidence to suggest how the game is, at least from a gameplay POVhttp://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/.../streetfighter4 and http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/streetfighter4 For fighting fans it's obviously a highly rated game, what will define the PC version is how well it runs on release - Whether or not it plays like a real pc game, or a sloppy console port. I can only assume that's the reason for this pre-release benchmark tool. To allow you to know what to expect. I'd actually like ALL PC developers to release tools like this. Too often you read recommended requirements visioning how a game will run on your PC and it's a different matter AFTER you've paid for it. Although a demo can help there also. Oh, ah! A sensible post, I love you Gavin. I do agree, I'd love to see a basic benchmarking tool for as many games as possible, would certainly be a welcome change. I would also like to see various developers start optimizing games, because with releases like GTA IV and Saints Row 2 on the PC, plus a few others, games that actually run well are getting some ( imo ) undeserved praise for actually being somewhat playable on all systems. As for the benchmarking application, as it stands, mostly demanding games have a benchmarking application released before the game - Then you kinda have some expectations. Thinking about it, benchmarking utilities shouldn't really be necessary, perhaps developers just need to start putting more time into optimizing games and then keep the benchmarking for demanding games that might actually have a REAL possibility of not being able to run on a lower-end system. Time to see what the ol' x1950 PRO can do LOL.BTW, can anyone recommend me a card that's a worthy upgrade? That won't cost 200+ dollars? :-P Check your local hardware listing site, look for some ATi cards and sort by price, then go by those - ATi will offer you more bang for your buck. ( Price / Performance ratio ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted June 16, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 16, 2009 Oh, ah! A sensible post, I love you Gavin. I do agree, I'd love to see a basic benchmarking tool for as many games as possible, would certainly be a welcome change. I would also like to see various developers start optimizing games, because with releases like GTA IV and Saints Row 2 on the PC, plus a few others, games that actually run well are getting some ( imo ) undeserved praise for actually being somewhat playable on all systems. As for the benchmarking application, as it stands, mostly demanding games have a benchmarking application released before the game - Then you kinda have some expectations. Thinking about it, benchmarking utilities shouldn't really be necessary, perhaps developers just need to start putting more time into optimizing games and then keep the benchmarking for demanding games that might actually have a REAL possibility of not being able to run on a lower-end system. This. I understand the PC gaming world is much more complex than the console realm, therefore I expect and welcome patches/tweaks/fixes but there's some seriously shoddy builds of games released at retail too often. There's only so much testing your internal devs/testers can do, unleashing your game on thousands if not millions of gamers will bring back some bugs, however sometimes you're left thinking "WTF, did this get tested at all?" In fact, as console games get more abilities of PC games like patches/mp/etc, we've seen some shoddy released console games. I mean look at Socom, you'd of thought that was a PC game with the amount of patches needed. Or Prototype PS3, how did a bug preventing you installing pass through? How on earth on all platforms (PC/consoles/etc) do games in states like that pass Q&A? Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeza Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Check your local hardware listing site, look for some ATi cards and sort by price, then go by those - ATi will offer you more bang for your buck. ( Price / Performance ratio ) Thanks, the results were too embarrassing to post. Highest settings and I averaged around 25 FPS, which sucks because when seeing the 5.8 Vista score, it sort of makes me oblivious to how out dated this card really is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaramonga Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 If they changed the graphics, then it just wouldn't be Street Fighter, that is its art form and style, and very well brought up to date I must say :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 This.I understand the PC gaming world is much more complex than the console realm, therefore I expect and welcome patches/tweaks/fixes but there's some seriously shoddy builds of games released at retail too often. There's only so much testing your internal devs/testers can do, unleashing your game on thousands if not millions of gamers will bring back some bugs, however sometimes you're left thinking "WTF, did this get tested at all?" In fact, as console games get more abilities of PC games like patches/mp/etc, we've seen some shoddy released console games. I mean look at Socom, you'd of thought that was a PC game with the amount of patches needed. Or Prototype PS3, how did a bug preventing you installing pass through? How on earth on all platforms (PC/consoles/etc) do games in states like that pass Q&A? Seriously. Well, you say it's much more complex ... But is it really? The Xbox 360 is easy to develop for because it's basically mimicking the PC. Most engines are developed for / on the PC then changed and ported to the consoles. Yet somehow every game just seems much more smooth and optimized on the consoles. The complexity might lie in the hardware, unlike consoles you can't just develop for one piece of hardware, here you have to take thousands of combinations into account which can have some unfortunate outcomes when it comes to performance. Then we have to think back, games in the 'old' days which usually looked better than the console counter-part and amazingly, ran better - So what changed? Now state of the art hardware can barely push games running perfect on the console, beyond 40-50 FPS and looking marginally better. So have we come down to focus and time invested, are we yet again talking piracy scaring the developers away from the PC platform and focusing on the gold mine called consoles? that's where I'd put my money ... Oh yes, the consoles have a few bad apples as well when looking at the technical side of things but it definitely seems to happen a lot less than on the PC scene. So it's sad we've come to a point where average looking games are getting praise for running great on the PCs :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted June 16, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted June 16, 2009 Well, you say it's much more complex ... But is it really? The Xbox 360 is easy to develop for because it's basically mimicking the PC. Most engines are developed for / on the PC then changed and ported to the consoles. Yet somehow every game just seems much more smooth and optimized on the consoles. The complexity might lie in the hardware, unlike consoles you can't just develop for one piece of hardware, here you have to take thousands of combinations into account which can have some unfortunate outcomes when it comes to performance. Then we have to think back, games in the 'old' days which usually looked better than the console counter-part and amazingly, ran better - So what changed? Now state of the art hardware can barely push games running perfect on the console, beyond 40-50 FPS and looking marginally better. So have we come down to focus and time invested, are we yet again talking piracy scaring the developers away from the PC platform and focusing on the gold mine called consoles? that's where I'd put my money ... So it's sad we've come to a point where average looking games are getting praise for running great on the PCs :/ Yeah of course man, that's the main issue with performance. The PS3/360 hardware is the same in every unit, on the PC you have an abundance of various drivers and makes/models of hardware. CPUs and motherboards also. However game breaking bugs and things along those lines cannot be blamed on PC hardware, that's just poor development. On a console you hardly see game breaking bugs, sometimes, but not often as if a game ships like that on console there's a chance the console owner might not have their console hooked up online. The MP portions of console games is typically where you see the biggest trainwrecks. As for SF4, graphically it's impressive as a stylized game. Like how some Wii games get called "good looking", such as Mario Galaxy. It's style/artwork is impressive, but it most certainly isn't a technical powerhouse or impressive technically from texture work/etc. Or on an HD console, something like LBP, a 2D platformer - It's not a technical powerhouse, but it's style/charm makes it "good looking". IMO of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Oh yeah, there's a lot of bugs, show stopper bugs and performance problems plaguing many platforms these days and thinking about it, which is another option, perhaps it's because games today has the "outdo" the previous game and amaze the masses. Games in the old days were pretty basic, relatively easy to develop for and test - Games today are so advanced and massive, it's next to impossible to create a problem-free experience without a ton of testing. Like, back in the day, console games just worked! They rarely ever required patching because they were simple, fun and fairly easy to test ... So to put it simply, games back in the day were like a plastic shovel and bucket, today they are like a finely crafted watches build by amateurs, so much more can and usually does go wrong ... As for SF4, graphically it's impressive as a stylized game. Like how some Wii games get called "good looking", such as Mario Galaxy. It's style/artwork is impressive, but it most certainly isn't a technical powerhouse or impressive technically from texture work/etc. Or on an HD console, something like LBP, a 2D platformer - It's not a technical powerhouse, but it's style/charm makes it "good looking". IMO of course... Exactly, style wise it looks good and works for the game, not disagreeing there. My comment were based on the release of a benchmark application, which usually tells me to expect a graphical power-house and then you end up with this ... You just climb higher and fall farther when you turn up your expectations like that. Then the "meh" looking game comments start to slowly flow from a guy not used to benchmarking on games like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted June 16, 2009 Reviews Share Posted June 16, 2009 Yes I'm fully aware of how PC gaming works, I am a PC gamer myself with PC gaming hardware etc etc. My responses were purely based on the fact that you said the game was meh base don the benchmark tool's release - this is untrue. Whether you meant it in the sense that a benchmark tool is not worth it for a game like this since games like this run great anyway is another matter because you did not make that point clear and perhaps only now is it fully clear and no longer open to interpretation after masses of replies and clarifications. As said above, the game is very stylish, that is what Street Fighter was and continues to be in SF4, completely. And the benefit to us PC gamers is that the graphics are crisper, nicer, have lots of AA with little performance hit and masses of AF with no performance hit. That and the fact that it works seemelessly with the 360 controller with the ability to plug in the array of arcade joysticks like the Hotrod Arcade 2 player stick ($99) makes it an ideal purchase for any PC gamer who likes 2 player beatemups within his locale or as an online beatemup. The fact that they released the benchmark tool shows they're confident in their optimisation of code and happy to give us a taste of what to expect with the game in motion when we buy it. If they did not release a tool we'd just be wondering and waiting with reserved expectations on what it is going to be like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unimatrix Xero Posted June 16, 2009 Author Share Posted June 16, 2009 ladies, ladies please calm down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svnO.o Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Thanks, the results were too embarrassing to post. Highest settings and I averaged around 25 FPS, which sucks because when seeing the 5.8 Vista score, it sort of makes me oblivious to how out dated this card really is.... Get an ATI Radeon HD 4770/4850. Will set you back ~$100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhearted Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 So all i've managed to gather from these past couple of pages is... Sethos hates the game/benchmark cause it doesn't look like crysis and also doesn't run just as badly as that game does. Personally i think it looks pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 So all i've managed to gather from these past couple of pages is... Sethos hates the game cause it doesn't look like crysis and also doesn't run just as badly as that game does. God some people on Neowin are daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhearted Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 God some people on Neowin are daft. LoL. So You're trying to tell me that's wrong when all i've seen was basically "qq this game doesn't look like crysis which means it look like ass" or "this game/benchamrk is bad cause it doesn't run as poorly as the prettier, yet unoptimized games i'm comparing it to in my head"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 LoL. So You're trying to tell me that's wrong when all i've seen was basically "qq this game doesn't look like crysis which means it look like ass" or "this game/benchamrk is bad cause it doesn't run as poorly as the prettier, yet unoptimized games i'm comparing it to in my head"? I'm not starting to argue with yet another brick wall, feel free to properly read what has been said and understand it instead of all those ass and elbows interpretations, then you may also have noticed the posts where I explain my opinion / comments and why they were so harsh. People on this forum need to respect other members opinions, time and time again you have to be a bullseye because the opinion isn't a "bandwagen" opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest xiphi Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 WTF. Didn't take much to derail this thread. Back on topic. While my score may not look like much. The fights ran smoothly at 60 FPS. SCORE: 8369AVERAGE: 43.47FPS OS: Windows 7 Ultimate CPU: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ Memory: 2048MB Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS Display Setting: 1440x900 60Hz ©CAPCOM U.S.A., INC. 2008, 2009 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts