by Rob Williams on February 9, 2010 in Graphics & Displays
AMD’s clear goal at the moment is to finish rounding-off its HD 5000-series line-up in advance of NVIDIA’s Fermi launch, and so far, it’s doing a good job. It’s continuing its success in this goal with the release of the $80 Radeon HD 5570, a card that’s designed to offer stellar media capabilities along with reasonable gaming performance.
I admit that I’m not a huge fan of RTS titles, but World in Conflict intrigued me from the get go. After all, so many war-based games continue to follow the same story-lines we already know, and WiC was different. It counteracts the fall of the political and economic situation in the Soviet Union in the late 80’s, and instead provides a storyline that follows it as if the USSR had succeeded by proceeding with war in order to remain in power.
Many RTS games, with their advanced AI, tend to favor the CPU in order to deliver smooth gameplay, but WiC favors both the CPU and GPU, and the graphics prove it. Throughout the game’s missions, you’ll see gorgeous vistas and explore areas from deserts and snow-packed lands, to fields and cities. Overall, it’s a real visual treat for the eyes – especially since you’re able to zoom to the ground and see the action up-close.
Manual Run-through: The level we use for testing is the 7th campaign of the game, called Insurgents. Our saved game plants us towards the beginning of the mission with two squads of five, and two snipers. The run consists of bringing our men to action, and hovering the camera around throughout the duration. The entire run lasts between three and four minutes.
You wouldn’t notice it simply by looking, but World in Conflict is one hardcore game, and aside from Crysis Warhead, it’s the only game that managed to bring us ot the sub-20’s.
|
|
|
|
NVIDIA GTX 295 1792MB (Reference)
|
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 8xAA, 16xAF
|
40
|
55.819
|
ATI HD 5870 1GB (Reference)
|
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA, 16xAF
|
35
|
47.195
|
ATI HD 5850 1GB (ASUS)
|
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA, 16xAF
|
29
|
40.581
|
NVIDIA GTX 285 1GB (EVGA)
|
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 16xAF
|
34
|
49.514
|
NVIDIA GTX 275 896MB (Reference)
|
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 16xAF
|
36
|
46.186
|
NVIDIA GTX 260 896MB (XFX)
|
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 16xAF
|
23
|
39.365
|
ATI HD 5770 1GB (Reference)
|
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 16xAF
|
28
|
37.389
|
NVIDIA GTX 250 1GB (EVGA)
|
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 4xAF
|
24
|
32.453
|
ATI HD 5750 1GB (Sapphire)
|
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 4xAF
|
23
|
31.769
|
NVIDIA GT 240 512MB (ASUS)
|
1920×1080 – Max Detail, 0xAA
|
22
|
33.788
|
ATI HD 5670 512MB (Reference)
|
1920×1080 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 16xAF
|
21
|
31.872
|
ATI HD 5570 1GB (Sapphire)
|
1920×1080 – Medium Detail, 0xAA
|
51
|
79.790
|
NVIDIA GT 220 1GB (ASUS)
|
1280×1024 – Medium Detail, 0xAA
|
41
|
52.089
|
ATI HD 5450 512MB (Reference)
|
1280×1024 – Medium Detail, 0xAA
|
19
|
23.620
|
NVIDIA 210 512MB (ASUS)
|
1280×1024 – Medium Detail, 0xAA
|
30
|
40.354
|
Intel HD Graphics (Clarkdale)
|
1280×1024 – Low Detail, 0xAA
|
30
|
39.449
|
This game is hardcore as mentioned, and simply adjusting a couple of options doesn’t help out too much. Disabling anti-aliasing is a given, but even that doesn’t make the stark difference you’d expect. To see a very playable setting here, we took a shortcut and chose the “Medium” detail setting, which boosted our performance almost fourfold, but still delivered a good-looking game.