Dead Space 3 Tested, Benchmarked

By on February 11, 2013, 2:36 AM

The third installment in the Dead Space series was released this month, and considering the game made our list of 2013's most anticipated PC games we thought we would check it out to see how it looked and performed. Dead Space 3 is the direct sequel to the January 2011 release of Dead Space 2.

Like the first two games, Dead Space 3 is a survival horror third-person shooter. In addition to drop-in/drop-out co-op, Dead Space 3 introduces several new gameplay mechanics, such as the ability to roll for more responsive control and an organic, automatic cover system that doesn't require you to press a button to duck behind something.

Like its predecessor, Dead Space 3 has been developed in-house by Visceral Games using their own Visceral Engine. With this we anticipate to see just subtle improvements in terms of visual quality over Dead Space 2 which was a DirectX 9-only title.

Read the complete article.




User Comments: 21

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | LukeDJ LukeDJ said:

The game looks like it has the potential to look pretty amazing. It's a shame that they didn't implement high res textures and full DirectX 11.

Twixtea said:

I'm 25% into the game and it's better than I thought, because all the previews and news before release made a bad impression on me.

I played the previous two DS games and they are among my favorite games just because of the horror aspect.

The story seem to lack though a bit in this one.

For all guys who haven't played any DS games, I liked the 2nd one the most.

Thanks for the benchmarks btw ^^

Guest said:

Where the hell are the CPU benchmark results?

LukeDJ LukeDJ said:

Where the hell are the CPU benchmark results?

If you'd bothered to read the "testing methodology", you would see that Steve mentioned that CPU benchmarks are irrelevant. Anything with four threads is going to do just fine.

TS-56336 TS-56336 said:

Even on my HD 7770, I have set this game in Medium albeit DX9. I just hoped the game swanked its DX11 potential. However, the game is good, probably the second best in the series.

TS-56336 TS-56336 said:

The game looks like it has the potential to look pretty amazing. It's a shame that they didn't implement high res textures and full DirectX 11.

Indeed really embarrassing for not implementing DX11. Instead, Visceral bragged the new Dead Space engine, using DX9.

captainawesome captainawesome said:

Quite a lazy thing to do. Build a game on 5+ year old tech.

Experimentongod said:

Great article!

I played Dead Space 1 and loved it and I bought DS2 about a year ago. Now that they have released DS3 I'm going to have to buy it first and play the whole trilogy back to back ^^

T77 T77 said:

Great article!

I played Dead Space 1 and loved it ^^

Same here.

VvvPpp said:

"It's confusing to me that this question even comes up, it?s by no means any less important to us and it gets a lot of attention. The PC is a very different platform. As developers, you want to deliver an experience that's as similar as possible on different platforms. In Dead Space 2, I felt we made some great strides in terms of controls, responsiveness and even the visual improvements we got into it. We continue to evolve our games as we develop them, but we certainly don't target PC as something that's going to be significantly different. We aren't trying to create disparity in the experience that our gamers enjoy; we want to make sure everyone's having that same experience.?

What a brilliant comment. I think BMW should really take this on board. They should strive for the same driving experience across their "different platforms" and m5 should drive the same as an entry level 320i.

Why do these people take everyone else for fools?

Guest said:

Why not testing the 5870 like in the past test?, I presume there is a lot of people than don't see the need to get something better until the next gen arrives.

Guest said:

Even my 6770 manages fluid 60 fps+ in this game....:D

zaku49 said:

Where the hell are the CPU benchmark results?

If you'd bothered to read the "testing methodology", you would see that Steve mentioned that CPU benchmarks are irrelevant. Anything with four threads is going to do just fine.

That's not what I was asking about, I would actually like to see the difference in CPU Clock speed not the number of cores. How much of a performance difference are you getting from an OC unit? Games such as the witcher 2 see a huge performance increase from OC cores.

Showing just the GPU benchmarks does very little when you don't also include the impact of an OC CPU.

zaku49 said:

Where the hell are the CPU benchmark results?

If you'd bothered to read the "testing methodology", you would see that Steve mentioned that CPU benchmarks are irrelevant. Anything with four threads is going to do just fine.

That's not what I was asking about, I would actually like to see the difference in CPU Clock speed not the number of cores. How much of a performance difference are you getting from an OC unit? Games such as the witcher 2 see a huge performance increase from OC cores.

Showing just the GPU benchmarks does very little when you don't also include the impact of an OC CPU.

[link]

LukeDJ LukeDJ said:

That's not what I was asking about, I would actually like to see the difference in CPU Clock speed not the number of cores. How much of a performance difference are you getting from an OC unit? Games such as the witcher 2 see a huge performance increase from OC cores.

I think you're missing the point. Clock speed is barely going to influence the results, as this game is close to a console port, and won't use up too much CPU power. Like I, and Steve, said, anything with four threads (regardless of clock-speed etc.) will run the game just fine.

zaku49 said:

That's not what I was asking about, I would actually like to see the difference in CPU Clock speed not the number of cores. How much of a performance difference are you getting from an OC unit? Games such as the witcher 2 see a huge performance increase from OC cores.

I think you're missing the point. Clock speed is barely going to influence the results, as this game is close to a console port, and won't use up too much CPU power. Like I, and Steve, said, anything with four threads (regardless of clock-speed etc.) will run the game just fine.

Yeah go ahead and say that to far cry 3 the console port which saw a 20fps increase from core speeds alone. Just check the AMD clock speeds. There's a difference when your a lazy reviewer and when you actually take the time to do it right.

[link]

Staff
Steve Steve said:

That's not what I was asking about, I would actually like to see the difference in CPU Clock speed not the number of cores. How much of a performance difference are you getting from an OC unit? Games such as the witcher 2 see a huge performance increase from OC cores.

I think you're missing the point. Clock speed is barely going to influence the results, as this game is close to a console port, and won't use up too much CPU power. Like I, and Steve, said, anything with four threads (regardless of clock-speed etc.) will run the game just fine.

Yeah go ahead and say that to far cry 3 the console port which saw a 20fps increase from core speeds alone. Just check the AMD clock speeds. There's a difference when your a lazy reviewer and when you actually take the time to do it right.

[link]

Sorry for being lazy, it is amazing we bothered to bring you anything at all really. I have no idea why you are comparing Far Cry 3 to Dead Space 3 but I am sure you have your reasons. Dead Space 3 is not a CPU dependent game and as we said the game was not worthy of a full write up so we provided more of a preview.

PC EliTiST PC EliTiST said:

Why do these people take everyone else for fools?

It's the standard answer to cover their incompetence or lack of funds or most likely both. This answer has been used almost by everyone who did similar or even worse things.

This game does not deserve a single cent by me. Also, do not ever forget to keep in mind when EA is being involved.

Saqib Mansoor Saqib Mansoor said:

I noticed that you didn't include the 7970/ghz. Any idea if that too would be destroyed by the 670?

Guest said:

Article: "From memory the original Dead Space felt like a very sloppy console port, I remember struggling to play more than a few minutes due to poor mouse control. For that reason I never gave the second instalment much of a chance, so I don't have much to go on there. The PC version of Dead Space 3 doesn't suffer from any such input issues and in fact plays very well."

For your information, we're talking about version 3 so if you want to compare, then do it with version 2 and version 2 was a really well optimized game, its performance really stood out.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Article: "From memory the original Dead Space felt like a very sloppy console port, I remember struggling to play more than a few minutes due to poor mouse control. For that reason I never gave the second instalment much of a chance, so I don't have much to go on there. The PC version of Dead Space 3 doesn't suffer from any such input issues and in fact plays very well."

For your information, we're talking about version 3 so if you want to compare, then do it with version 2 and version 2 was a really well optimized game, its performance really stood out.

How can I do that if I am talking from my own past personal experiences? Thanks for weighing in with that though.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.