by Rob Williams on February 25, 2009 in Graphics & Displays
Gaming on a budget isn’t as difficult as it once was, thanks to superb offerings from both ATI and NVIDIA that go for a modest price. But, what about the sub-$100 crowd? We’ll find that out here, at least from the ATI side of things, with Sapphire’s HD 4670 GDDR4 and HD 4830. Both feature great efficiency, and believe it or not, great overclocking as well.
What was the last first-person game on the PC to truly blow you away, or offer some unique gameplay experience? New first-person shooters come out quite often, and while some show off some new features and gameplay twists, few of them truly regenerate the genre like we’d hope. Mirror’s Edge is a title that strived to do just that, and for the most part, I’d have to say they’ve done a great job.
First and foremost, Mirror’s Edge isn’t so much a first-person shooter as it is a first-person adventure game, because for the most part, combat isn’t the main focus. Throughout some of the few levels I played through, at times there could be a full ten-minute span without even seeing a single person, which is actually somewhat refreshing. The game focuses on figuring out the best way to get from point A to point B, heavily utilizing the parkour style of travel.
Most levels in Mirror’s Edge offers a similar level of system-intensity, so I based our choice on one that was fun to play through, and one that allowed an easily-replicable run-through. It takes place in chapter six, “Pirandello Kruger”, and Checkpoint A. We begin in a large building, behind a window, looking out at the city. Our run-through takes us outside of this building, down to the street and up to the top of the building shown to the right in the above screenshot.
In this particular title, 40 FPS is ideal for smooth gameplay, but anything between 30-40 would considered playable by most standards. In a game where you have an open world like this, and you need absolutely quick reflexes to pull off a few maneuvers, having as many FPS at your disposal as possible is a good thing. That said, the HD 4830 could handle the game just fine at 1920×1200, while the HD 4670 runs much better at 1680×1050… at least with anti-aliasing enabled.
|
|
|
NVIDIA GTX 295 1792MB x 2
|
2560×1600, Max Detail, 8xAA
|
118.680 FPS
|
NVIDIA GTX 285 1GB x 2
|
2560×1600, Max Detail, 8xAA
|
88.346 FPS
|
Zotac GTX 295 1792MB
|
2560×1600, Max Detail, 8xAA
|
70.562 FPS
|
Zotac GTX 285 1GB AMP!
|
2560×1600, Max Detail, 8xAA
|
51.733 FPS
|
NVIDIA GTX 285 1GB
|
2560×1600, Max Detail, 8xAA
|
48.385 FPS
|
Palit GTX 280 1GB
|
2560×1600, Max Detail, 8xAA
|
44.806 FPS
|
Diamond HD 4870 1GB
|
2560×1600, Max Detail, 8xAA
|
41.452 FPS
|
XFX GTX 260/216 896MB
|
2560×1600, Max Detail, 8xAA
|
38.122 FPS
|
Palit HD 4870 X2 2GB
|
2560×1600, Max Detail, 8xAA
|
35.297 FPS
|
Sapphire HD 4830 512MB
|
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA
|
32.589 FPS
|
Sapphire HD 4670 512MB
|
1920×1200 – Max Detail, 0xAA
|
39.204 FPS
|
Although the performance on the HD 4830 was a tad on the slower side at 2560×1600, gameplay felt quite reasonable in my tests (which expanded beyond our testing level). 1920×1200 on that card would be a much better experience, but the performance was still “good enough” at 2560×1600 to be fully playable. On the HD 4670 side of things, 1920×1200 was the best we could do, sans AA, which delivered a very respectable 39 FPS.