Batman: Arkham Origins Tested, Benchmarked

By on October 29, 2013, 2:35 AM

With Warner Bros Games Montréal handling development, many fans were worried that Arkham Origins wouldn't (couldn't?) live up to its Rocksteady-produced predecessors. As is often the case with console-oriented releases, PC gamers were burdened with the extra concern of whether to expect a quality port. Although Origins has received its share of criticism, it doesn't seem to be an outright disappointment with respectable scores on most review aggregators, including our own (Batman: Arkham Origins 73 ). Additionally, it seems the PC version has received some special attention in the graphics department.

Despite being built with Epic's aging Unreal Engine 3, the developer used a heavily modified version of the software. Granted, we've heard that countless times from other studios at this point, but the tweaks do seem pretty substantial in this case, especially considering all of the game's DirectX 11 and PhysX effects.

Read the complete article.




User Comments: 29

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

How well does it play on a Bay Trail tablet, that's what I want to know.

Guest said:

It runs noticeably better than Arkham City on my 680 with everything maxed out. Crucially, there are practically no instances of stuttering or inconsistent frame rate drops. It's a big improvement on that front from the previous game.

The game got some flak for technical issues, but this is a misnomer. On PC at least, the game is technically superior to the Rocksteady entries, it's just some functionality that is broken (a specific side quest can't be completed and prevents access to 100% completion, for instance).

Guest said:

I still have my old 5870, but man is it still running great. Sapphire if any of you are interested.

But I'm still looking for an upgrade and I just might go for a 290x this time, even though I only get a 50% increase in performance for double the price but I need that if I'm gonna play in 1440p.

Rage_3K_Moiz Rage_3K_Moiz, Sith Lord, said:

Any particular reason you didn't use the HD 79xx cards in the "PhysX normal + MSAA8X" benchmark? Do framerates with these cards dip so low as to be deemed "unplayable"?

Also, I'd have liked to see what performance is like across the board with FXAA set to "High" and PhysX set to "Normal".

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Looks like Titan for the moment is still holding the crown with Batman-AO.

Guest said:

On this laptop that is very much not meant for games (it has a first-gen Intel HD card for f*** out loud), it runs shockingly well. Smooth, even. At 800x600 and everything turned down, of course, but it still looks pretty damn good, all things considered. This game is chock full of technical issues, but scaleability isn't one of them.

I can't wait to finish my new desktop so I can play this again maxed out.

Guest said:

Nice to see my 7950 holding up :) Going to build a mini itx for the living room next month. I'll probably put another 7950 in there seeing as they're only $200-$250 on sale these days. I'd try Nvidia again, but there's nothing close in that price range.

Guest said:

It runs incredibly smooth, DX11 performance is MUCH improved form Arkham City. and it looks fantastic. The DX11 snow deformation and the Physx effects are amazing.

3 people like this |
Staff
Steve Steve said:

Any particular reason you didn't use the HD 79xx cards in the "PhysX normal + MSAA8X" benchmark? Do framerates with these cards dip so low as to be deemed "unplayable"?

Also, I'd have liked to see what performance is like across the board with FXAA set to "High" and PhysX set to "Normal".

Can't imagine they would be unplayable since the R9 280X is a Radeon HD 7970. We didn't include the Radeon HD 79xx cards because the newer R9 280X and 270X cover them. In a perfect world we would have tested all quality settings with the 30 graphics cards used in the FXAA settings, sadly in this world there just isn't time for that much testing. I hope the article was of some use to you.

Guest said:

Wouldn't the GTX 760 be in that range? A good comparison to the 7950 Boost, some folks say.

Cheers and all the best =)

Guest said:

Am I missing something or does the GTX780 not do MSAA for some unknown reason??? Really wanted to see those figures but they're not listed for any of the MSAA benches...

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Am I missing something or does the GTX780 not do MSAA for some unknown reason??? Really wanted to see those figures but they're not listed for any of the MSAA benches...

Check your goggles...

[link]

Guest said:

Ditto, champ :P

[link]

JC713 JC713 said:

I expected this game to be a lot more demanding. I guess not as much as I though.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

@JC713

Its not that demanding a game, its actually quite nice because it looks so good without killing the computer its on. Gives people quite a range of opportunity honestly for playing on ultra settings.

The game is beast, though ill be honest its a little more difficult that its predecessors ive noticed which is good, loving it so far.

Staff
Julio Franco Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:

If you're wanting demanding wait for our Battlefield 4 performance review in the coming days

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Ditto, champ :p

[link]

I don't understand , you said why wasn't the GTX 780 tested with MSAAx8. I just showed you that is was? Not sure what you are ditto champing.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

I don't understand , you said why wasn't the GTX 780 tested with MSAAx8. I just showed you that is was? Not sure what you are ditto champing.

The 770 is labeled twice on page4.html

Staff
Steve Steve said:

The 770 is labelled twice on page4.html

Guys you gotta start reading before commenting.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

Lol, it is indeed. :P C & G tricked me!

Either way, 780 doesn't appear on that graph.

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Lol, it is indeed. :p C & G tricked me!

Either way, 780 doesn't appear on that graph.

So you are talking about the GTX 780 now, okay. Its not missing by mistake. We only tested 6 graphics cards using the MSAAx8 and PhysX Normal settings, you kinda get the picture.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

That's cool. I was just trying to help Guest out, but failed in the meantime.

Alpha Gamer Alpha Gamer said:

Steve, great job, as always.

I reproduced all 3 benchmarks with the 331.65 geforce driver at 1080p on my Gigabyte GeForce GTX 670 (2048MB). I don't know if it was due to the slightly lower resolution or performance gains from updating the driver, but I was able to consistently achieve from 18% to 21% higher frame rates than you did. In the last one (MSAA 8x, physx normal), I had 64 fps.

I know you don't have time to retest everything (specially if you're benchmarking Battlefield 4 and AC IV Black Flag) but perhaps you could try just one card and check it with the new drivers.

Suggestion: since you went through the trouble of checking physx also, perhaps you could show us some graphs with dedicated physx too. And also, test something I'm dying to know: is it true that if you dedicate one of your SLI cards to physx, you may get higher frame rate than when just SLIing them?

Staff
Steve Steve said:

Already tested with the new drivers, no changes on my end. Are you sure you configured the XML file correctly?

Alpha Gamer Alpha Gamer said:

Already tested with the new drives, no changes on my end. Are you sure you configured the XML file correctly?

I'm sure I DIDN'T configure the XML file correctly, because I didn't understand what was supposed to be done. I just changed the in-game settings to look like the ones you posted on the first page. Wasn't that enough?

Edit: just checked the GFXSettings.BatmanArkhamOrigins.xml and I couldn't find anything there that was not present in the in-game settings, or there is?

Edit 02: Could this difference be related to me using Windows 7 while you're using Windows 8?

Rage_3K_Moiz Rage_3K_Moiz, Sith Lord, said:

Can't imagine they would be unplayable since the R9 280X is a Radeon HD 7970. We didn't include the Radeon HD 79xx cards because the newer R9 280X and 270X cover them. In a perfect world we would have tested all quality settings with the 30 graphics cards used in the FXAA settings, sadly in this world there just isn't time for that much testing. I hope the article was of some use to you.

Fair enough, I haven't read up on the R2xx series much, if at all.

Yes, it was of great use; I've bought the game!

Staff
Steve Steve said:

I'm sure I DIDN'T configure the XML file correctly, because I didn't understand what was supposed to be done. I just changed the in-game settings to look like the ones you posted on the first page. Wasn't that enough?

Edit: just checked the GFXSettings.BatmanArkhamOrigins.xml and I couldn't find anything there that was not present in the in-game settings, or there is?

Edit 02: Could this difference be related to me using Windows 7 while you're using Windows 8?

My in-game settings didn't seem to change that XML file, I had to manually edit it. At a guess I would say you are using the default settings.

Alpha Gamer Alpha Gamer said:

My in-game settings didn't seem to change that XML file, I had to manually edit it. At a guess I would say you are using the default settings.

What you just mentioned is a known bug, not happening to me though. My in-game settings are definitely changing the XML file. Otherwise I wouldn't have had a ton of different results. I'm saying that because I ran those benchmarks last week with a range of resolutions, anti aliasing levels and physx too, and every time I got a different result.

Well, it's a mystery.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

And also, test something I'm dying to know: is it true that if you dedicate one of your SLI cards to physx, you may get higher frame rate than when just SLIing them?

This has already been tested on other sites, sorry I can't quickly find a link.

If you have two identical cards, best results come from SLI/Xfire. This is, because PhysX won't use 100% resources on the dedicated card, leaving the first card struggling to pump out visuals while the dedicated one sits below 100% usage. Using SLI means that PhysX and visual processing is shared.

Dedicated PhysX only works if you have a carefully selected setup. E.g. Titan with a GTX260 dedicated will be slower than just the Titan, because Titan is waiting on the 260. However, Titan + a 570 or something, will result in increased FPS over just a singular Titan.

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.