Sign up for a new account or log in here:
As one of the first games to take advantage of DirectX 11, we've been using Dirt 2 to benchmark graphics cards since its arrival in late 2009. Although it's been a crucial part of our testbed, Dirt 2 isn't quite as taxing as it was when the first DX11 cards arrived. With Crysis 2 dissapointingly restricted to DX9 and few other knee-buckling games on the immediate horizon, we've been eagerly awaiting the next iteration of Codemaster's racing series.
The company answered our prayers last week, launching Dirt 3 for the PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Developed with the latest (v2.0) EGO game engine, Dirt 3 is a spectacular looking racing game with some surprisingly high, but also incredibly vague recommended system requirements.
Codemasters recommends that you play with an AMD Phenom II or Intel Core i7 processor and an AMD Radeon HD 6000 series graphics card, but fails to mention specific models or anything at all from Nvidia. Meanwhile, the minimum requirements say you can scrape by with a paltry Athlon 64/Pentium D and HD 2000/GeForce 8000 class graphics.
While it's nice that gamers with five year-old machines can play Dirt 3, we're more interested in knowing what it takes to experience the game with all its visual splendor. As usual we've compiled the performance of over 20 graphics cards, all DX11 capable, at several different resolutions.
User Comments: 33
Got something to say? Post a comment-
Well after reading this I was somewhat confused, so I ran the ingame benchmark myself a couple of times, it was the 'Aspen' track on both occasions and my avg minimum framerates were 97.7 and 97.5 respectively and that was only with an EVGA GTX460 FTW 1gb, i5 2500k cpu@4.2ghz, and 8gb ram. Somewhat different from the scores you obtained.
-
Ok, my bad, I'll always admit, when I get it wrong, after discovering the discrepencies in our findings, I went back and re-checked my settings, I didnt realise the 'ULTRA' settings were available (ooops) and everything had been only set to 'high'. I adjusted everything i could to the highest possible (ie ULTRA where available) and re - ran the benchmark, achieving a very different 50.1 avg minimum fps. My apologies for doubting your findings earlier.
-
What resolution are the CPU-bound tests run at?
-
Interesting results. I run this benchmark the other day and with VSync on @ 1920x1200 I got an average of 60FPS (due to VSync being on of course it couldn't be any higher). I'll test again tonight with VSync off but I find it strange that my results are so much higher than yours considering I also had the highest level of AA enabled. (whereas you had x4)
Here are my Specs:
i5 2500K (not overclocked yet)
Asus P8P67 Motherboard
2x4Gb Corsair 1666Mhz RAM
MSI N560GTX-Ti Twin FROZR II - (stock settings for the card, albeit overclocked vs. a ref 560)
I used the latest BETA Nvidia drivers (275.27's) as well.
As mentioned, I will re-run the test tonight without VSync and will provide a screenshot as evidence.
-
Hello!
Why is the Radeon 5850 not in the list of tested graphic cards?
The 5830 and 5870 are there so I don't get the point why we're missing the 5850.
After Sapphire's unresistable offer (Radeon 5850 Xtreme) I'm dying to see its performance compared to the new gen cards...
Such a pity...
Peter
-
for my gamepad apollo doesn`t see it, and control is fail.
-
Nice one Steven,
Good to see the old 58XX is still going strong, seems it gives the newer 69XX a hard time.
Wondering how the old Penryn Quad would do with its massive 12MB cache.
The time of Dual Cores is over!
What I actually would like to see is a comparison between a console and PC maxed out, at least we can see where we spend our hard earned bucks (or Euro's) on.
-
Seems I made the same mistake WARDOGZ did, never knew the game was running on High (Automatic chose High settings for me).
I get 56FPS with Ultra settings @ 1920x1200 and x4AA which is very similar to what you guys posted. Game definately looks and runs very well
-
Mmm, with VSync on it runs just as well, 1fps on average less, lowest FPS difference is 2. Definately worth leaving this setting on. (as you get no 'tearing')
-
can any one explain why this is the only game I've seen where the 2600k isn't the best chip?
-
Sometimes newer isn't always better?
-
Great review Steven. Glad to see Eyefinity resolutions included. Techspot is one of the few that keeps upping the ante for multi-monitor testing
Quick question, any idea if Catalyst 11.5b hotfix has any impact on Dirt 3 performance for AMD cards?
http://support.amd.com/us/kbarticles/Pages/AMDCatalyst115bho
fix.aspx -
Why would these guys do a GPU test with this game over Witcher 2?
-
Suprising results for the sandy bridge, i didnt even expect that. i know the Core 2 are outdated but i might want to see a Q9550 or somethign in the mix next time, unless you dont have any on hand
-
Staff
A performance review of The Witcher 2 is incoming
. -
Why would these guys do a GPU test with this game over Witcher 2?
Why wouldn't they? no really, I'm curious why you would say that. Is Witcher 2 supposed to be very demanding GPU wise?
-
StaffSteve said:
Interesting results. I run this benchmark the other day and with VSync on @ 1920x1200 I got an average of 60FPS (due to VSync being on of course it couldn't be any higher).They are not as interesting as they are accurate but I am happy that you did retest and noticed the ultra settings.
Hello!Why is the Radeon 5850 not in the list of tested graphic cards?
The 5830 and 5870 are there so I don't get the point why we're missing the 5850.
After Sapphire's unresistable offer (Radeon 5850 Xtreme) I'm dying to see its performance compared to the new gen cards...
Such a pity...
Peter
You know how fast the Radeon HD 5870 and 5830 are in relation to the 5850 so do you really need another card clogging up the graphs?
Mmm, with VSync on it runs just as well, 1fps on average less, lowest FPS difference is 2. Definately worth leaving this setting on. (as you get no 'tearing')Its personal preference, some like to go well beyond 60fps such as myself and I don't seem to get the tearing either.
can any one explain why this is the only game I've seen where the 2600k isn't the best chip?Unfortunately no I cannot. I ran the test several times and could not work it out, the 2600K is a much faster processor so I am not sure why the game did not take to that platform.
Great review Steven. Glad to see Eyefinity resolutions included. Techspot is one of the few that keeps upping the ante for multi-monitor testing Quick question, any idea if Catalyst 11.5b hotfix has any impact on Dirt 3 performance for AMD cards?
[link]
It was meant to but I tested well before that driver was released sorry.
Why would these guys do a GPU test with this game over Witcher 2?If the question is why, then the answer is we have. If the question is why not yet then the answer is the game was unfinished when released and we waited for the first patch which allowed us to play full screen and boosted performance.
Why wouldn't they? no really, I'm curious why you would say that. Is Witcher 2 supposed to be very demanding GPU wise?It's actually quite incredible really, DX9 only and easily one of the best games I have ever seen (visual quality wise). The game itself puts me to sleep though, not an RPG fan
-
mine is crashing with directx 11...=(
-
Hello!
Why is the Radeon 5850 not in the list of tested graphic cards?
The 5830 and 5870 are there so I don't get the point why we're missing the 5850.
After Sapphire's unresistable offer (Radeon 5850 Xtreme) I'm dying to see its performance compared to the new gen cards...
Such a pity...
Peter
@ 1920 x 1200...
HD 5850 = 50 FPS
It's actually quite incredible really, DX9 only and easily one of the best games I have ever seen (visual quality wise). The game itself puts me to sleep though, not an RPG fan
Not an RPG fan either, but if its that good, I think I will give it a go.
*** nevermind...much too Dungeon and Dragony looking.
-
Can you please post a CPU benchmark of using a Phenom II x4 @ 3.2ghz, so we can see the difference overclocking made?
-
Matthew said:
A performance review of The Witcher 2 is incoming
. Awesome, I can't wait for that. Am busy playing the game atm and it runs very well on Ultra settings (with ubersampling turned off of course) @ 1920x1200. When I used Fraps it ran around 30-50FPS depending on the scene etc.
-
@Steve: The Witcher 2 definately is very impressive. I think it's the first game that properly uses depth of field in the game, as well as the cut scenes. Even the subtle blurring as you move around quickly is nicely done. Seeing the light filter through the trees in Chapter 1 is simply breathtaking. It's hard to explain just how good this game looks. I also love the way the scene changes as the time passes i.e. the light changes colour as the time of day changes, this is amplified by whatever setting you are currently in, the forest, a tavern etc.
I remember when the only game that looked this good was Crysis, and it needed to use DX10 for the dynamic lighting effects (sun filtering through the trees etc.) although I know that was somewhat disproved by mods that achieved a similar effect using the DX9 codepath.
-
StaffSteve said:KRayner96 said:Matthew said:
A performance review of The Witcher 2 is incoming
. Awesome, I can't wait for that. Am busy playing the game atm and it runs very well on Ultra settings (with ubersampling turned off of course) @ 1920x1200. When I used Fraps it ran around 30-50FPS depending on the scene etc.
Our test using the Ultra settings with UberSampling saw the 560 Ti average 40fps exactly so there you go
-
Say whaaaaat :-p
"Our test using the Ultra settings with UberSampling saw the 560 Ti..." So you got 40FPS with the 560Ti with it ON on Ultra settings?
If so, mmm I haven't tried ubersampling since the patch or since I installed the BETA drivers. I just recall wondering why I was getting 12FPS on the opening cinematics (where Gerald is being interrogated). After a quick Googling I found out that Ubersampling was the culprit.
If I may ask, how are you benchmarking The Witcher 2? I assume you are using FRAPs and running through a specific area multiple times?
-
StaffSteve said:
Hell that was a typo, what I mean to say we used the same settings as you. So UberSampling disabled, sorry about the typo. Yes UberSampling hammers the card down to about 10fps. Also using Fraps to test 60 seconds of game play. The article is done and should be posted tomorrow I suspect.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
Featured on Keyboards
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.