Resident Evil 5 PC Benchmark results

Gameslove · *Last edited by Gameslove; 07-16-2009 at 18:41.*

Download here:
http://downloads.guru3d.com/Resident...load-2331.html

1. Windows XP (SP3) or Vista (SP1) or 7?
2. GPU driver version?
3. Directx 9.0c or Directx 10 mode?
4. You settings, including resolution, AA, AF, 32 or 64 bit HDR, vsync? (to set 64 bit HDR go in X:\Documents and Settings\User\My Documents\CAPCOM\RESIDENT EVIL 5 Benchmark Version\config.ini, there change HDR = LOW to HIGH)
5. Average result and screen it.

Gameslove · 07-16-2009, 17:52 | posts: 478 | Location: Latvia | User is Offline

1. Windows XP (SP3)
2. Catalyst 9.7 RC3
3. Directx 9.0c
4. Max settings, 1280x1024, 8AA, 16AF, 64bit, vsync on
5. Avr. 35,5 FPS

jbscotchman · 07-16-2009, 18:12 | posts: 837 | Location: Missouri, USA | User is Offline

1. Windows XP (SP3)
2. Nvidia 186.18
3. Directx 9.0c
4. Max Settings 1600x1200, 4xAA, 85hz, no v-sync
5. Avr. 74.6 FPS

Lavans · **Memory**: 4GB DDR3 1417Hz 5-5-5-14

Vista Ultimate 64-bit SP1
Official Catalyst 9.6
All benches were run at max settings with 4xAA no VSync
(A) DX9 CrossFire

(B) DX9 Single card

(C) DX10 CrossFire

(D) DX10 Single card

Either it's me, or it seems that this engine has a few oddball performance issues that need to be fixed. It's not a VRam issue as demonstrated by screenshot (B) and area 4 of screenshots (C) and (D)...it's not an API issue as demonstrated by screenshots (A) (C) and (D)...it's not a CrossFire issue as demonstrated by the Area 4 performance in screenshot (C) and (D).

Only in single card configuration in DX9 does the FPS not nerf to half in area 3 and/or 4. Strange

blinx · 07-16-2009, 21:15 | posts: 326 | Location: Sin City | User is Offline

1. Windows XP (SP3)
2. Catalyst 9.6
3. Directx 9.0c
4. Max settings, 1280x720(32" hdtv), 4AA, 16AF, 32bit, vsync on
5. Avr. 60 FPS

UnrealGaming · *Last edited by UnrealGaming; 07-17-2009 at 09:02.*

Maxed, 4x aa .

HDR 32bit

HDR 64bit

Darren Hodgson · 07-17-2009, 00:23 | posts: 1,288 | Location: England | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by blinx

1. Windows XP (SP3)
2. Catalyst 9.6
3. Directx 9.0c
4. Max settings, 1280x720(32" hdtv), 4AA, 16AF, 32bit, vsync on
5. Avr. 60 FPS

In order to get an A rating you need to run the benchmarks with v-sync disabled. Stupid really but, IMO, the optimal way to play the game would be with v-sync and a framerate that is consistently 60 fps like your graph depicts. That's an A rating in anybody's book, yeah?

The console versions ran between 25 and 30 fps so on the benchmark's scale they'd rate either D or E!!!

Darren Hodgson · *Last edited by Darren Hodgson; 07-17-2009 at 00:31.*

I get 62 fps with the DX10 variable benchmark at 1680x1050 with everything maxed/on, v-sync off and C16QxAA.

Results

Lowering the AA obviously increases the framerate and the random placement of enemies each time the benchmark is run means the results vary. I had 68 fps on my first run through for example.

The game seems to run silky smooth even when the framerate drops to the high 40s fps so I'll likely leave the full game on C16QxAA. I don't see the point in framerates over 60 fps personally.

HussanAli · 07-17-2009, 02:55 | posts: 9 | Location: Pakistan | User is Offline

Windows 7 Rocks.

NiukNiuk · 07-17-2009, 03:04 | posts: 637 | Location: France | User is Offline

- Windows 7 x64 build 7264
- Catalyst 9.7 "betas" (8.630)
- 1920x1200, 4xAA, everything max, Vsync OFF, variable framerate.

HDR 64 bits

Direct X 10

Direct X 9

HDR 32 bits

Direct X 10

Direct X 9

UNREAL_2004 · 07-17-2009, 05:10 | posts: 217 | Location: Bilbao, @ Spain | User is Offline

E4300 @ 3.2Ghz
GTX260 216SP @ 720/2400

1. Windows XP (SP3)
2. Forceware 190.15
3. Directx 9.0c
4. Max settings, 1680x1050, AAx4, 16AF, 32bit, vsync off
5. Avr. 81,8 FPS

Crisis66 · 07-17-2009, 05:51 | posts: 361 | Location: Toronto, Canada | User is Offline

Are you guys running the fixed or variable benchmark?

bokeh · *Last edited by bokeh; 07-17-2009 at 06:59.*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crisis66

Are you guys running the fixed or variable benchmark?

They are running variable benchmark.

Fixed has only Area 1 and variable has Area 1, 2, 3 and 4

signex · **Memory**: GEiL 2GB 800Mhz 4-4-4-12

nice find! downloading now

bokeh · 07-17-2009, 06:44 | posts: 151 | User is Offline

e6750 @ 3,2GHz
9800GTX+

1. Windows 7 64-bit
2. 186.18
3. Directx 10
4. 1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF Max Settings, motion blur on, vsync off
5. HDR 32bit Avg: 55,4 - HDR 64bit Avg: 45,5

hdr 32

hdr 64

Stormyandcold · 07-17-2009, 07:09 | posts: 1,155 | Location: Wolverhampton, UK | User is Offline

Win7 32bit 7100, nvidia 186.24, variable test;

default res, no aa/af, high-quality in nvidia control panel settings, vsync off.

dx9 = 43fps
dx10 = 44fps

Looks good, but, the benchmark points to RE5 as being quite a shallow experience.

BenTTwiG · 07-17-2009, 09:11 | posts: 115 | Location: Akron, Oh | User is Offline

oOOo will grab this once I get off work and give it a go.

NomadicX · *Last edited by NomadicX; 07-17-2009 at 10:38.*

1. Windows XP (SP3)
2. Forceware 190.38
3. Directx 9.0c
4. Max settings, 1400x1050, C8XQ, 16AF, 32bit, vsync off
5. Avg. 93.0

Th3 ProphetMan · *Last edited by Th3 ProphetMan; 07-17-2009 at 15:59.*

Windows 7
2. FW 186.18
3. See Pics
4. Max settings, 32bit HDR, 1440x900, no Vsync, High Quality on drivers settings
5. 48 with AA8xQ, 64 with no AA

DX9 AA 8xQ

DX10 AA 8xQ

DX9 no AA

DX10 no AA

As you can see the perfomance in both DX9 and 10 is about exactly the same.

Anyone notices quality differences? i didn't.. :/

Also from the peaks in the first scene which probably doesnt use AI i can guess my CPU is bottlenecking the GTX260 (i got it when my 8800gts died), which wouldn't surprise me.

mudkips · 07-17-2009, 16:12 | posts: 53 | User is Offline

Just a few notes, this benchmark doesn't represent the game play at all (if you haven't played it for the consoles). Enemies don't stand there letting you shoot at them so I really don't understand why the variable benchmark is labeled as a representation of real world game play.

I wouldn't be discouraged if you are getting sub 60fps either since the console versions ran at 30 anyway.

VultureX · 07-17-2009, 16:27 | posts: 1,506 | Location: Netherlands | User is Offline

Wow, the game looks and runs so much better than on the ps3!
The DX10 lighthing, high res textures and supersampled AA makes it really shine.

GSXR1300K · 07-17-2009, 17:24 | posts: 27 | User is Offline

190.38 beta's
system is currently stock because of ambient temps
default performance driver level iq
8xaf
8xaa

default high quality driver level iq
16xaf
demo managed c16xq aa

Nijohc · **Memory**: 8GB Ballistix 4-4-4-12

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudkips

Just a few notes, this benchmark doesn't represent the game play at all (if you haven't played it for the consoles). Enemies don't stand there letting you shoot at them so I really don't understand why the variable benchmark is labeled as a representation of real world game play.

That's good to hear, I was dissapointed when I saw the benchmark thinking it represented the actual gameplay but now I'll definately consider getting it.

Wanny · **Memory**: Patriot 6gb 1520 8-8-8-24

1. Vista SP1
2. 190.38 beta
3. DX10
4. 1360x768, 4x AA, 16x AF, 64 bit HDR, no Vsync
5. 102 fps avg. Screen didnt work sorry.

IT'S REALLY quad friendly like GTA4.

lmimmfn · 07-17-2009, 17:43 | posts: 6,618 | Location: Ireland | User is Offline

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nijohc

That's good to hear, I was dissapointed when I saw the benchmark thinking it represented the actual gameplay but now I'll definately consider getting it.

Im gonna get it anyway, i played the demo on the ps3 and the PC is so much better, looks like the control will be better too. My only issue is if it ends up as a pretty much on the rails keep getting attacked by zombies until completion. I wouldnt mind that so much but i like the odd slow bit in a game to gather yourself together lol