PDA

View Full Version : Post your benchmarks here



jaywalker2309
15th Sep 2009, 14:21
Batman is officially live, and users who log into live will have noticed the Update available from today.

There is now a benchmark option in game, added by the update.

Post your framerates, along with your pc specs and also your graphic options set. Note with VSync set to ON will max at 60FPS, turn off VSync to get above this :)

Take a screen grab of the launcher tool and post the pic in here. Use Alt+Print screen key to grab a shot of the launcher and paste into MsPaint, save as a JPG and then attach to your post.

Lets see how well your machines run the game :)

Heres mine.

PC Spec:
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU E6750 @2.66GHz
2048MB Ram
GeForce 8800 Ultra x2

Minimum - 29
Maximum - 187
Average - 103

Shaderhacker
15th Sep 2009, 22:10
What is the benchmark option?

betelgeus
15th Sep 2009, 22:16
thats high fps why not try physx on high? with tearable banners

you get the benchmark option after the upgrade patch but you have to click back twice to see results,on my ati card i get about 10 average so this is for nvidia users only.

Varthan22
15th Sep 2009, 23:29
Hmmm. You got a lot higher results then me! Think there is a problem with my comp and the game.

PC Spec:
CPU: Core i7 975 @3.5Ghz
RAM: 6GB Dominator GT PC16000 @ 1600Mhz
Video Card: Three EVGA 285 GTX 1GB in Tri-SLI 1 is set for pure Physx processing, and the other two are for GPU processing.

Benchmark results:
Min=20
Max=88
Avg=56

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f353/Dabomber321/BAASettings.jpg

krameriffic
15th Sep 2009, 23:39
System:
Q6600 @ 3.0 GHz
4GB OCZ DDR2-1066
Sapphire 4890 Toxic @ 1010/1150
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit RTM
Catalyst 9.9

Settings:
All max except v-sync off and no PhysX
8x AA (forced through the CCC works now)
16x AF

Min=44
Max=112
Avg=79

Dropping the AA back to 4x makes no huge visual differences and lifts my average up to 112.

trek554
15th Sep 2009, 23:57
Hmmm. You got a lot higher results then me! Think there is a problem with my comp and the game.

PC Spec:
CPU: Core i7 975 @3.5Ghz
RAM: 6GB Dominator GT PC16000 @ 1600Mhz
Video Card: Three EVGA 285 GTX 1GB in Tri-SLI 1 is set for pure Physx processing, and the other two are for GPU processing.

Benchmark results:
Min=20
Max=88
Avg=56

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f353/Dabomber321/BAASettings.jpg

wow those minimums look awful for such a high end rig. using those exact same settings at 1920x1080 I never went below 21 fps with using just my single gtx260 to do everything. of course I only averaged 28 but I would expect your system to keep the minimums up much better than that.

gclhoutx
16th Sep 2009, 00:56
Ok, Finally got mine delivered from UPS about and hour ago. After installing the game and windows for live updates here are a couple of my benchmarks.


CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 @ 3.00GHz
Ram: 8GB
Video: 2 x BFG Nvidia 9800GX2 Running Quad SLI
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit (finally updated from 32bit last week)


Benchmark Results (Using High Physx)

Minimum = 10
Maximum = 86
Average = 33

http://www.gcldesigns.com/images/Settings1.jpg

Benchmark Results (Using low Physx)

Minimum = 19
Maximum = 62
Average = 49

http://gcldesigns.com/images/Settings2.jpg

trek554
16th Sep 2009, 01:14
Ok, Finally got mine delivered from UPS about and hour ago. After installing the game and windows for live updates here are a couple of my benchmarks.


CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 @ 3.00GHz
Ram: 8GB
Video: 2 x BFG Nvidia 9800GX2 Running Quad SLI
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit (finally updated from 32bit last week)


Benchmark Results (Using High Physx)

Minimum = 10
Maximum = 86
Average = 33

http://www.gcldesigns.com/images/Settings1.jpg

Benchmark Results (Using low Physx)

Minimum = 19
Maximum = 62
Average = 49

http://gcldesigns.com/images/Settings2.jpg wow that is just awful for 4 gpus.

jbscotchman
16th Sep 2009, 02:10
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v46/jbscotchman/batmanaabenchmark.jpg

Runs great at 1600x1200 max settings, ambient occlusion off, 4xAA/16xAF

jbscotchman
16th Sep 2009, 02:14
Oops double post

pleomax
16th Sep 2009, 06:23
wow those minimums look awful for such a high end rig. using those exact same settings at 1920x1080 I never went below 21 fps with using just my single gtx260 to do everything. of course I only averaged 28 but I would expect your system to keep the minimums up much better than that.
The 16*Q is gonna slow it down. And if he's running one of the cards for physx, then does that mean he's only running the game in 2 way sli ?
Which is about one and a half times performance, not two times performance.

squinty
16th Sep 2009, 07:05
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.45GHz
Ram: 8GB DDR2-800
Video: BFG GeForce GTX 280 1gb
PhysX (16x slot with 4x bandwith): eVGA GeForce 9600GT 512mb
OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit

Benchmark Results (Using High Physx)

Min = 26
Max = 100
Avg = 60

I can't post attachments, aparently, so here is a settings summary:

Resolution: 1920x1200
VSYNC: No
Anti-Aliasing: 2x
Detail Level: Very High
Bloom: Yes
Dynamic Shadows: Yes
Motion Blur: Yes
Distortion: Yes
Fog Volumes: Yes
Spherical Harmonic Lighting: Yes
Ambient Occlusion: Yes
Hardware Accelerated PhysX: HIGH


The way I normally play, with VSYNC on:

Min = 23
Max = 90
Avg = 50


The only time the game and bench seem to choke are in scenes with what appear to be a lot of PhysX work being done, meaning that the 4x bandwith isn't quite enough for this game or that the 9600GT is being pushed to it's limits.

trek554
16th Sep 2009, 08:03
The 16*Q is gonna slow it down. And if he's running one of the cards for physx, then does that mean he's only running the game in 2 way sli ?
Which is about one and a half times performance, not two times performance.what? the 16Q should slow me down even more. his two gpus that he is running for graphics are each faster than my card so thats way over twice the gpu power he has overall. then he is offloading physx on to another very fast card. yet the end result is that at the same settings his minimum is no better than mine. minimum framerates is what can kill a game so I think its ridiculous that he can throw all that hardware at it and get no better minimum framerate than my clearly inferior pc.

Shinuz
16th Sep 2009, 15:42
Heres what i got:

E8400
4GB ddr2 800mhz
2x Gtx 260 Core 216 55nm Superclocked
Vista 64

And here the settings for the Bench:
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5824/batmanbenchsettings.jpg

Now with Sli enabled heres what i get:
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5043/batmanbenchslienabled.jpg

And then with one of my gtx 260 dedicated to PhysX:
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/6420/batmanbenchdedicatedphy.jpg

Hmm ok.. now with the same settings except Vsync is On (with dedicated physX card)
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/9539/batmanbenchvsyncon.jpg
now this is weird.. should'nt my max fps be caped to 60?

icedtea
16th Sep 2009, 21:02
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w143/IcedTeaIsGood/batmansettings.png
http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w143/IcedTeaIsGood/ShippingPC-BmGame2009-09-1614-49-36.jpg
4x AA


System:
Core i7 920
6 gigs DDR3 1333 RAM
Radeon HD4850
150 gig Velociraptor

Gotta say, despite the huge wads of cash Nvidia spent on this game, I'm very pleased at how well it runs on my 4850.

ATM743
17th Sep 2009, 01:17
for some stupid reason, when i take a screenshot while in game (in any game i own) it shows either a whole white or black screen

** NOTE THAT I SET bsmoothframerate= to FALSE** this will take off the framerate cap that Unreal Engine uses

here are my stats (note physX is set to Highest setting)
24 min
72 max
46 average

Here was the video settings
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5471/batmanvideosettings.jpg

Here is my Video card and clockings(for some reason the gpu driver number shows up weird in GPUz but its the lastest 190.62 (64bit)
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/2820/gpuzclocking.jpg

cpu and memory clockings
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8901/cpuzcoreclocking.jpghttp://img41.imageshack.us/img41/7823/cpuzmemoryclocking.jpg

and I'm Running on (64bit)
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/4374/windowsversion.jpg


This game runs VERY VERY smoothly with PhysX set to the Highest setting even though i only have one GPU (Evga 285 GTX (FTW clocking + small overclock i added)) even though the average is 46 the game usually is at or above 60FPS

WabeWalker
17th Sep 2009, 08:33
Core i7, GTX 275, Vista 64, latest Nvidia driver (important for this title).

All settings maxed, 4X anti-aliasing, 1920x1080, with PhysX on High.

--------------------------------------------------

With just my GTX 275 I saw right away that something was wrong. I then ran the benchmark and my numbers were disconcerting.

Low: 19
Average: 35
High: 60

Unfortunately, V-sync was enabled for this.

----------------------------------------------------

Then I installed my old 9800gt, which was in the closet, and enabled this card to handle PhysX. The results were surprising. Right away, the game felt silky smooth. In that starting area, with all the flags flying above, the game ran like butter, whereas before... well, it didn't.

Low: 39
Average: 58
High: 60

And, again, V-sync was enabled

-----------------------------------------------------

So then I disabled V-sync

Low: 44
Average: 75
High 110

--------------------------------------------------

It's just like Rocksteady says. If you dedicate one of your cards to PhysX you should see a definite improvement.

Me, I didn't just see an improvement, I actually felt it.

Right away I noticed how smooth the game was once I had installed my 9800gt and used it to take care of PhysX.

trek554
17th Sep 2009, 09:38
Core i7, GTX 275, Vista 64, latest Nvidia driver (important for this title).

All settings maxed, 4X anti-aliasing, 1920x1080, with PhysX on High.

--------------------------------------------------

With just my GTX 275 I saw right away that something was wrong. I then ran the benchmark and my numbers were disconcerting.

Low: 19
Average: 35
High: 60

Unfortunately, V-sync was enabled for this.

----------------------------------------------------

Then I installed my old 9800gt, which was in the closet, and enabled this card to handle PhysX. The results were surprising. Right away, the game felt silky smooth. In that starting area, with all the flags flying above, the game ran like butter, whereas before... well, it didn't.

Low: 39
Average: 58
High: 60

And, again, V-sync was enabled

-----------------------------------------------------

So then I disabled V-sync

Low: 44
Average: 75
High 110

--------------------------------------------------

It's just like Rocksteady says. If you dedicate one of your cards to PhysX you should see a definite improvement.

Me, I didn't just see an improvement, I actually felt it.

Right away I noticed how smooth the game was once I had installed my 9800gt and used it to take care of PhysX.
that must be a very magic 9800gt you are using for physx to double your min frames like that. dont you find it odd that no one else is getting that kind of minimum framerate at those settings with even better rigs??

jaywalker2309
17th Sep 2009, 09:41
Remember the minimum is more then likely a dip in the performance recorded during a transistion between scenes. So is a bit of a false minimum since it could be a single frame with that rate but as the system records ALL frames it reports this as the minimum.

lostsomething
17th Sep 2009, 09:42
I ran a few tests, results were kind of interesting.

System specs:
i7 920 (stock)
6 GBs 1600 mhz DDR3
GTX 275 + 9600 GT (latest drivers)
Vista 64

Test #1: Everything set to high, v-sync enabled, 1920 x 1080 with 4x aa

Lowest, average, highest = 22, 51, 56

Not bad at all, the low is kind of anamalous - only part in the run through the framerate really takes a significant hit is where the guard's walking through the mist in the big old invisible predator room. This is how I've been playing and while it's not entirely stutter proof it is quite good.

Test #2 Same as above except for PhysX which is on Normal

Lowest, average, highest = 44, 59, 60

Yeah, it's certainly better but you notice certain things missing and some of the fog parts look a bit patchy. Not worth the trade off in my mind.

Test #3, Everything back to high but v-sync off

Lowest, average, highest = 40, 70, 102

Wow, will you look at that? The lowest practically doubled. I'm definitely going to want to fool around like this.

Test #4, just to see how it works in comparison, all regular settings high including PhysX, no AA, no-sync, with just my GTX 275 doing everything

Lowest, average, highest = 26, 58, 72

Looks a lot better than it feels, there wasn't a single part of the run through that didn't feel like it was chugging.

trek554
17th Sep 2009, 09:44
Remember the minimum is more then likely a dip in the performance recorded during a transistion between scenes. So is a bit of a false minimum since it could be a single frame with that rate but as the system records ALL frames it reports this as the minimum. right so that means his scores have to be wrong since everybody else in this forum is hitting in the 20s with physx on high in the benchmark.

jaywalker2309
17th Sep 2009, 09:55
Or could just mean his HD is seriously fast therefore not getting the same pause. I doubt his scores are `wrong` just that his machine is telling him after its done the benchmark the lowest frame rate it recorded is X.. Doing the test over and over could possibly make it increase that minimum just due to disc caching etc.. The average is the important figure really.. Maximum being also another figure that can be tainted by a sudden spurt etc but not representative of actual ingame performance..I remember on other titles with Fraps running seeing a frame rate jump to many 1000's as it faded between scenes.. :)

trek554
17th Sep 2009, 10:08
Or could just mean his HD is seriously fast therefore not getting the same pause. I doubt his scores are `wrong` just that his machine is telling him after its done the benchmark the lowest frame rate it recorded is X.. Doing the test over and over could possibly make it increase that minimum just due to disc caching etc.. The average is the important figure really.. Maximum being also another figure that can be tainted by a sudden spurt etc but not representative of actual ingame performance..I remember on other titles with Fraps running seeing a frame rate jump to many 1000's as it faded between scenes.. :) actually the minimum would be very important during actual gameplay no matter how much you average. I will take a steady 35-40fps over an average of 50fps with tons of dips in the 20s any day. now if its just a dip because of the benchmark itself like you said then yeah the average number is all that really matters in this case. really though if you are going to make a proper benchmark then it should be representative of actual gameplay like the one in Far Cry 2.

jaywalker2309
17th Sep 2009, 10:19
Yeh i know what you mean the minimum is the key figure during gameplay, but this benchmark isnt really representative of that its just a flythrough a level and shows some stuff off.

WabeWalker
17th Sep 2009, 18:06
that must be a very magic 9800gt you are using for physx to double your min frames like that. dont you find it odd that no one else is getting that kind of minimum framerate at those settings with even better rigs??

Forget about my numbers then.

Right away I could feel that something was wrong with the game when I started to play it - it was just a little bit jerky. Not unplayable. But a little bit jerky. (This, as I said above, was at 1920x1080, with everything set to high, with 4x anti-aliasing, and with PhysX set to high.)

Then I ran the benchmark and saw that the numbers seemed a little low. I did not hesitate to install my 9800gt alongside me GTX 275 - and as soon as I did this, I could tell that the improvement was huge. In that starting area, where The Joker is in shackles, and being lowered down on that platform thing, where all those flags are flying above near the ceiling, the game ran super smoothly, whereas with just my GTX 275 installed it didn't.

I don't know what to say. The second GPU actually made all the difference when PhysX was set to High.

And by the way, when I set the PhysX to the medium setting, my GTX 275 was able to handle the game fine all on its own. It was the High setting that gave it troubles.

So I guess I got lucky with my so-called 'magic' 9800gt card.

Why are other people with higher specs than mine not able to get a minimum frame-rate of nearly 40? I have no idea. It's worth investigating though. But I would ask those people: does the game feel smooth? And I mean ultra-smooth? If it does, then the PhysX is working fine on the second GPU, and the numbers are just not to be trusted.

I don't know what else to say. Not to start a flame war here or anything, but it kind of does hurt a little to be accused of lying. I'm just telling you what I saw. I ran the benchmark before and after. Those are my numbers.

trek554
17th Sep 2009, 18:14
WabeWalker, the issue seems to be the fly through itself. its causing basically every single person but you to be in the 20s for a minimum with physx on. in other words in the actual game those with much better rigs probably have much higher minimums then say I do with a gtx260. in the benchmark though there is obviously a little blip or two thats causes the benchmark to register in the 20s with high physx on no matter what the setup. again you seem to be the first person this is not happening to. :confused:

WabeWalker
17th Sep 2009, 18:21
WabeWalker, the issue seems to be the fly through itself. its causing basically every single person but you to be in the 20s for a minimum with physx on. in other words in the actual game those with much better rigs probably have much higher minimums then say I do with a gtx260. in the benchmark though there is obviously a little blip or two thats causes the benchmark to register in the 20s with high physx on no matter what the setup. again you seem to be the first person this is not happening to. :confused:

I'll run it again then, and I'll tell you what I'm seeing.

But again, I think the most important thing here is the actual game itself. If the game is running smoothly with PhysX set to high, then it's working. When I first launched the game, with just my GTX 275, there was almost mouse lag. I could just tell that something was wrong.

trek554
17th Sep 2009, 18:39
I'll run it again then, and I'll tell you what I'm seeing.

But again, I think the most important thing here is the actual game itself. If the game is running smoothly with PhysX set to high, then it's working. When I first launched the game, with just my GTX 275, there was almost mouse lag. I could just tell that something was wrong.yeah I dont doubt the 9800gt helped quite a bit in the actual game. I used my 8600gt for physx along with gtx260 but it didnt seem to help overall. I ran fraps since all I have is the demo and just benchmarked the whole first fight scene. I had very inconsistent runs while trying to use the 8600gt with physx. when using just my gtx260 for everything my minimums and averages were very consistent though. I knew the 8600gt would be pretty pitiful for physx but it was annoying how it would help on one run and then be way worse then just using the gtx260 alone on the next run.

I would get a 9600gt or 9800gt for physx if there were plenty of other games that used physx but I cant justify since there isnt. also with just my gtx260 at 1920x1080 with very high settings, high physx and no AA I average 42 fps with a minimum of 31fps during the demanding fight scene in the demo so that is not bad. if the actual game performs no worse then that during those type scenes then I will be okay with that performance.

WabeWalker
17th Sep 2009, 18:40
I just ran the benchmark again.

Core i7 920, GTX 275/9800 gt, 3 gigabytes of ram, VISTA 64.

1920x1080, everything maxed out, 4x anti-aliasing, 16x anisitropy, PhysX set to High.

Minimum: 38
Maximum: 60
Average: 57

(I have V-sync enabled, because if I disable it my GPU fans go crazy, and it really distracts me.)

I ran it a second time, just to be certain, and the numbers actually changed, which is kind of baffling? I would've thought that the numbers would've remained constant.

Minimum: 34
Maximum: 60
Average: 54

On this second benchmark, near the end of it, my GPU fans ramped up - I have no idea why. And the numbers were a little lower - again, I have no idea why.

I don't know what to say. Those are the numbers.

WabeWalker
17th Sep 2009, 18:45
Maybe the people with two GPUs who are still reporting a low of 20 or less ought to remove one of the cards and run the benchmark to see what happens.

Does the game 'feel' jerky.

That would be a much better test.

Because mine sure did when I only had the one GPU installed. And like I said above, the benchmark pretty much proved that. My low was 20 and my average was 35. Not having the second GPU in, with PhysX set to high, killed my frames right across the board.

jbscotchman
17th Sep 2009, 21:36
FYI I would recommend turning ambient occlusion off because it causes a huge fps hit and you really can't even notice whether its off or on.

lostsomething
17th Sep 2009, 23:19
I tried updating to the beta nVidia 191.00 drivers, the results were.... quite amazingly good, actually.

At 1920 x 1080, all high detail settings, 4x aa, 16x anisotropy, v-sync on, and high PhysX my benchmark yeilds-

Low: 40
Average: 57
Highest: 60

-which is quite thoroughly awesome.

steviey
17th Sep 2009, 23:57
AMD X2 6400 3.2 GHZ
AM2 ASUS CROSSHAIR NOFRCE 590SLI
4G DOMINATOR RAM
CORSAIR 850W PS
GF8800 GTS 640 MB

1920x1200, VSync off, 2x AA, Detail Level High, Phsyx Normal:

Min 17
Max 185
Avg 31

1920x1200, VSync off, 4x AA, Detail Level High, Phsyx Normal:

Min 16
Max 40
Avg 28

1920x1200, VSync off, No AA, Detail Level High, Phsyx Normal (this is how I've been playing):

Min 21
Max 52
Avg 36

Any tips or things I should try to increase my avg fps would be much appreciated.

trek554
18th Sep 2009, 00:22
AMD X2 6400 3.2 GHZ
AM2 ASUS CROSSHAIR NOFRCE 590SLI
4G DOMINATOR RAM
CORSAIR 850W PS
GF8800 GTS 640 MB

1920x1200, VSync off, 2x AA, Detail Level High, Phsyx Normal:

Min 17
Max 185
Avg 31

1920x1200, VSync off, 4x AA, Detail Level High, Phsyx Normal:

Min 16
Max 40
Avg 28

1920x1200, VSync off, No AA, Detail Level High, Phsyx Normal (this is how I've been playing):

Min 21
Max 52
Avg 36

Any tips or things I should try to increase my avg fps would be much appreciated. well thats pretty good for a system like yours. that cpu and gpu are really not even close to high end anymore. also why do you have such an overkill psu in there? your system would not even pull 300 watts under full load.

BehindTimes
18th Sep 2009, 05:09
Intel i7 975
12 GB RAM
2 EVGA Geforce 285 GTX 2GB FTW's
SB X-Fi
OS Drive: 300 GB Velociraptor
Game Drive: Intel G2 160 GB SSD
LG 245 24" (Monitor 1) LG 246 24" (Monitor 2)
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Everything at max (1920x1200, 16xQAA, High Physics), SLI Enabled:

Min 22
Max 78
Avg 34

Everything at max, SLI Disabled

Min 34
Max 76
Avg 46

I'm not entirely wondering why SLI doesn't seem to be working for my system, or I guess Physics enabled must kill it.

If I disable AA and use just 1 vid card, my min jumps to 48, so that's what I've been doing.

ATM743
18th Sep 2009, 05:17
Intel i7 975
12 GB RAM
2 EVGA Geforce 285 GTX 2GB FTW's
SB X-Fi
OS Drive: 300 GB Velociraptor
Game Drive: Intel G2 160 GB SSD
LG 245 24" (Monitor 1) LG 246 24" (Monitor 2)
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Everything at max (1920x1200, 16xQAA, High Physics), SLI Enabled:

Min 22
Max 78
Avg 34

Everything at max, SLI Disabled

Min 34
Max 76
Avg 46

I'm not entirely wondering why SLI doesn't seem to be working for my system, or I guess Physics enabled must kill it.

If I disable AA and use just 1 vid card, my min jumps to 48, so that's what I've been doing.

make sure you have the lastest drivers and download this
http://www.evga.com/articles/00463/

even though its not on that list but i still think there's a profile they made in past versions.

also being that you have 2 monitors. make sure that you go into nvidia control panel and set to single display performance. i think each card is dedicated to each monitor. depending on what multi monitor setting you have. i would just turn off the one monitor (in control panel) or make sure its not devoting a gpu to each monitor.

also go to your documents/edios/batman arkham asylum/bmgame/config/BmEngine and find bsmoothframerate= and change it to False then save

that may help you unlock more FPS once you get sli to work.

Paulley
18th Sep 2009, 07:54
ouch my average is 22 ... phsyx normal.. ambient occlusion off everything else high

though i think thats just cus my Graphics Card isnt a top end one.. still playable though. (occasional slow down in boss battles)

pleomax
18th Sep 2009, 09:44
1680*1050 everything maxed, 4AA, physx OFF.
E6600 2.4 STOCK
2gb ram
8800 gts 640mb AT STOCK
win 7 rc1

min 24
avg 49
max 63

The game runs well considering my card is about 3 years old. Tanks with physx on though, and i don't want to lower settings.

Ebrocks
6th Oct 2009, 04:27
Batman Ingame Benchmark

"SLI"

Run #1
1920x1080
physx high
ingame setting all on highest
SLI aa 8x af 4x
Test 1 fps avg 52 min 26 max 104
Test 2 52 26 83
Test 3 52 29 82

Run #2
1920x1080
physx Normal
ingame setting all on highest
SLI aa 8x af 4x
Test 1 fps Avg 59 min 35 max 85
Test 2 60 29 80
Test 3 60 32 78

"single GPU + Phisyx"

1920x1080
physx high
ingame setting all on highest
aa 8x Af 4x
Test 1 fps Avg 61 Min 30 Max 97
Test 2 61 28 96

Run #2
1920x1080
physx Normal
ingame setting all on highest
aa 4x Af 4x
Test 1 fps Avg 67 min 31 max 99
aa 8x af 4x
Test 2 66 28 98

Phenom II X4 965 3.4
GTX 250 SLI
4 GB 1066
BFG 650 watt power supply
I don't think my power supply can handle the rig. It starts to overheat(smells) after 20 min of gameplay.Not so bad with this game but other games it get bad CODWatW gets nasty.

deders
6th Oct 2009, 06:52
for this I edited ini files to remove the maximum frame lock and put Anisitropic filtering back down to it's default 4x (I play the game with 16x) and vsync is off. I do this to bring the bechmark settings in line with everyone else and eliminate the problem with exaggerated max frames (it often displays 160+ otherwise)
Apart from that everything in the settings is turned to its highest including physx, AA is at 4x and i'm benching on XPx86 and using the 191.07 whql drivers.

Spec:
AMDx2 5200 @ 3010
EVGA 590SLI @ 222
4GB DDR2 @ 892
2x palit 9800gtx+'s, SLI off
22" LG W2252TQ @ 1680x1050
X-FI Xtreme Gamer
WD Caviar Blue 640GB
720w Atrix psu

Results:
Minimum: 21
Maximum: 84
Average: 51

Now with 16AF, Vsyc on, AA Transparency Supersamping, basically how i play the game

Minimum: 11
Maximum: 111
Average: 47

Interesting to note that before updating to the new drivers the minimum never went below 20, sometimes it was 24,
the maximum can be discounted as vsync locks it at 60 and fraps confirms this,
the average is the same though, and doesn't change whether my Max is 60 or 160.

Now for Vista. The game is set up exactly as my first results were, just in Vista64 instead of XP.

Minimum: 9
Maximum: 95
Average: 43

hmmm, the framerate never goes as low as 9 at any point that i can see, (using fraps) and it certainly doesn't go as high as 95
performance is worse though, i'd say the average is about right.

Now for as I play it, again the same as the second run, just with Vista.

Minimum: 8
Maximum: 76
Average: 39

I've never seen my machine do results quite this low before, the only difference is the new drivers that have just been released.

Edit: after playing the game again for a bit I can confirm that the difference between the 191.03 beta's and the 191.07 whql's in vista64 is the difference between smooth playable, and barely playable. now when I enter the library in arkham mansion, my framerate drops to 16, something it never did before, i'd have noticed it if it had gone below 25. in fact this performance for me is worse than the 190.62's.