| 1024 x 768 | 1280 x 960 | 1600 x 1200 | Performance Hit 1280 | Performance Hit 1600 | ||
| Bypass | 143.21 | 114.22 | 83.01 | 20.24% | 42.04% | |
| Afterimage | 121.27 | 89.63 | 72.01 | 26.09% | 40.62% | |
| Lapdog | 119.29 | 97.77 | 70.84 | 18.04% | 40.62% | |
| First encounter | 120.01 | 100.3 | 71.65 | 16.42% | 40.30% | |
| Sayonara, sucker | 139.8 | 110.58 | 84.02 | 20.90% | 39.90% | |
| Average | 128.72 | 102.5 | 76.3 | 20.34% | 40.69% |
all numbers are in frame rates (except for percentages)
Notice how the average fps for the entire game is not that far off from the average fps of all top five levels in table above. So, rest assured - it's very likely the frame rates we're going to see in these levels will be fairly close to what you would expect the entire time you play F.E.A.R.
Now that we've picked levels that are more graphically intensive than others (or at the very least most responsive to higher resolutions), let's see what frame rates we can expect from different runs. Obviously, we want as little variations between runs as possible. In order to do that, we play through the entire level in a controlled way, trying to get the same run each time. We also tried to keep the firefight scenes as graphically intensive as possible - that way we end up with a 'worst case' scenario. However, do keep in mind F.E.A.R is a very fluid game, so every run will be different in some way.
To confirm repeatability between runs, we ran through the top 5 levels we've picked at 1024 x 768. Any higher will likely mean the graphical subsystem will come into play. At 1024 x 768 without AA and AF, it's very likely we'll be more system limited and from our experience, normal variations often occur because of system limitations and not graphically related.
These results are taken at 1024 x 768, without AA and AF.
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | Average | Variations | Variations (%) | ||
| Bypass | 146.26 | 145 | 148.86 | 146.71 | 1.97 | 1.34% | |
| Afterimage | 104.29 | 103.29 | 104.13 | 103.9 | 0.54 | 0.52% | |
| Lapdog | 112.14 | 115.73 | 117.44 | 115.1 | 2.71 | 2.35% | |
| First encounter | 108.16 | 106.46 | 105.91 | 106.84 | 1.17 | 1.10% | |
| Sayonara, sucker | 128.54 | 126.72 | 127.44 | 127.57 | 0.91 | 0.72% |
all numbers are in frame rates (except for percentages)
Wow. Those variations are pretty small, all of them are under 5 percent. In all honesty, we can use any of these levels for a proxy of the whole game. Of course, the less variations the better and in that regard Afterimage and Sayonara, sucker levels really stand out.
One thing to note though - if you look at the frame rates from the previous table, you'll see differences between the values there and this table, particularly for Afterimage and First Encounter. Now, don't worry. We expected this, since we were more focused on playing the game than trying to get similar results / outcome initially. And we did say we tried to stress the card as possible with more graphically intensive firefights (explosions, smoke, particle effects). Later on, we will see just what kind of frame rates can we expect with resolution changes. For now, let's move on.
Next comes the million dollar question, does F.E.A.R Performance Test really represent gameplay? Are frame rates similar to what you will see while you're playing the game? We took the average of three runs of each level from the previous table and compare them to what we got from the F.E.A.R Performance Test. Since we're using FRAPS in gameplay testing sessions, we also threw in FRAPS results of the F.E.A.R Performance Test, just to see how much of a difference between them, if there is any.
These results are taken at 1024 x 768, without AA and AF.
| Gameplay | FRAPS | internal |
Difference | Difference (%) | ||
| Bypass | 146.71 | 103.18 | 102.67 | -43.79 | -29.85% | |
| Afterimage | 103.9 | 103.18 | 102.67 | -0.98 | -0.95% | |
| Lapdog | 115.1 | 103.18 | 102.67 | -12.18 | -10.58% | |
| First encounter | 106.84 | 103.18 | 102.67 | -3.92 | -3.67% | |
| Sayonara, sucker | 127.57 | 103.18 | 102.67 | -24.65 | -19.32% |
all numbers are in frame rates (except for percentages)
We can see that in some levels, average frame rates in gameplay testing sessions can be higher, even in levels that we think are graphically intensive. If you look at frame rates in both Afterimage and First Encounter, the frame rates are practically the same with F.E.A.R Performance Test. The other levels are much higher. If we have to hazard a guess, we think that's because these two levels have more firefights than others, making them more graphically intensive than the entire game -a 'worst case' scenario where frame rates will be the lowest compared to the other parts of the game.
From these five levels, it looks like we will be using Afterimage for our gameplay testing. Frame rates in Sayonara, sucker is much too different (much higher - too much walking around in empty rooms, corridor etc) and First Encounter results have higher variations between runs than Afterimage (though it's only still 1.1 percent). We did saw lower frame rates from the Point of Entry level, but performance hit with 1600 x 1200 is lower than these two levels, so we will stick with Afterimage for gameplay testing.
There are also subjective reasons why we chose Afterimage. For one, there is only one savegame checkpoint in this level, so it will be much easier to get minimum frame rates with FRAPS, without the interference of a save. Firefights are pretty close to each other - three times in both parts (with a more frantic second firefight in the second part) and that means less let up on the graphics. The entire level is also pretty short, something like 6 minutes, which is a time saver when doing performance evaluations.
Quake 4
Just like what we did with F.E.A.R, we played through the whole game three times at different resolutions, recording frame rates for each levels. Unlike F.E.A.R, Quake 4 is a much more difficult game, and no, we don't mean the AI. We mean it's easier to get killed by falling of a ledge and into a void. Playing with the frame rate cap off isn't going to make it any easier. At 1024 x 768, the game runs like a speed demon - even the pistol will behave like a machine gun at times. Thankfully, we managed to finish testing just fine and here are the results.| 1024 x 768 | 1280 x 1024 | 1600 x 1200 | Performance Hit 1280 | Performance Hit 1600 | ||
| Air Defense Bunker | 91.76 | 93.36 | 82.82 | -1.75% | 9.74% | |
| Air Defense Trenches | 74.11 | 74.83 | 81.56 | -0.98% | -10.06% | |
| Hangar Perimeter | 89.5 | 86.01 | 72.4 | 3.89% | 19.11% | |
| Interior Hangar | 98.48 | 92.06 | 82.81 | 6.53% | 15.92% | |
| MCC Landing Site | 76.83 | 76.59 | 65.27 | 0.31% | 15.05% | |
| Op: Advantage | 86.14 | 86.64 | 72.36 | -0.58% | 16.00% | |
| Canyon | 76.22 | 73.93 | 75.28 | 3.01% | 1.23% | |
| Perimeter Defense Station | 90.54 | 89.48 | 72.86 | 1.17% | 19.53% | |
| Aqueducts | 74.71 | 74.88 | 77.35 | -0.23% | -3.53% | |
| Aqueducts Annex | 83.23 | 81.01 | 76.52 | 2.67% | 8.07% | |
| Nexus Hub Tunnels | 87.31 | 83.62 | 78.04 | 4.22% | 10.61% | |
| Nexus Hub | 89.67 | 86.58 | 78.04 | 3.44% | 12.97% | |
| Strogg Med Facilities | 97.54 | 92.69 | 90.54 | 4.97% | 7.17% | |
| Construction Zone | 91.27 | 86.51 | 76.38 | 5.22% | 16.32% | |
| Dispersal Facility | 98.69 | 95.5 | 93.21 | 3.23% | 5.55% | |
| Recomposition Center | 117.38 | 117.56 | 107.52 | -0.16% | 8.39% | |
| Putrification Center | 92.01 | 91.34 | 87.16 | 0.73% | 5.28% | |
| Waste Processing Facility | 106.99 | 102.02 | 102.65 | 4.65% | 4.06% | |
| Op: Last Hope | 94.71 | 93.38 | 83.51 | 1.41% | 11.82% | |
| Data Storage Terminal | 66.8 | 67.76 | 69.45 | -1.44% | -3.98% | |
| Data Storage Security | 94.88 | 93.39 | 82.13 | 1.57% | 13.44% | |
| Data Storage Terminal | 76.85 | 75.39 | 77.84 | 1.90% | -1.28% | |
| Tram Hub Station | 86.73 | 76.84 | 91.65 | 11.41% | -5.67% | |
| Tram Rail | 73.16 | 70.38 | 68.6 | 3.80% | 6.23% | |
| Data Processing Terminal | 88.17 | 71.02 | 85.28 | 19.45% | 3.27% | |
| Data Processing Security | 85.65 | 85.28 | 80.47 | 0.43% | 6.05% | |
| Data Processing Terminal | 119.79 | 119.57 | 104.22 | 0.19% | 13.00% | |
| Data Networking Terminal | 79.83 | 79.9 | 73.22 | -0.09% | 8.27% | |
| Data Networking Security | 89.38 | 92.11 | 82 | -3.05% | 8.26% | |
| Nexus Core | 97.94 | 96.5 | 91.73 | 1.47% | 6.34% | |
| The Nexus | 82.13 | 79.84 | 69.34 | 2.79% | 15.58% | |
| Average (entire game) | 88.98 | 86.64 | 81.68 | 2.59% | 7.83% |
all numbers are in frame rates (except for percentages)
Surprisingly, Quake 4 is generally less responsive to resolution changes than F.E.A.R. That or we're system limited, we're more inclined to think it's the latter. Average frame rate for the entire game is pretty similar whether you're playing at 1024 x 768, 1280 x 1024 and 1600 x 1200. That's why it's important to pick levels that are more graphically intensive than others if you want to use this as a graphics card benchmark - below you'll see the the top five levels we've chosen.
[Previous Page]
[Go to top]
[Next Page]