Read the full article at:
https://www.techspot.com/review/537-max-payne-3-performance/
Please leave your feedback here.
https://www.techspot.com/review/537-max-payne-3-performance/
Please leave your feedback here.
Last edited:
Max Payne 3 Performance Tested, Benchmarked
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
G
Guest
Interesting to see that there is no big difference from dx9 to 11 .. but there is a big drop in fps. Seem like this is not the title that will push me to make a GPU upgrade. Nothing new, waiting for the next big game .. 
G
Guest
I like these articles, but this one is done wrong. You should have used the latest Max Payne drivers,
ForceWare 301.42 WHQL and,
12.6 CAP Beta 1 (for single card & crossfire).
ForceWare 301.42 WHQL and,
12.6 CAP Beta 1 (for single card & crossfire).
Turn shadows off? Not sure about that, they add so much detail.
We did use the GeForce 301.42 drivers and the 12.6 CAP drivers do nothing for single card performance in Max Payne 3 so I am not sure how this article is “done wrong”.
customcarvin
Posts: 102 +7
lmao.... You guys did a great job here reviewing the game. Personally I don't think anything was "done wrong" but whatever... and I agree with you Steve... No shadows WTF???
I really like it when you guys measure the performance of PC games like this. I'm constantly building budget gaming PCs for people, and articles like these are a great resource. So, THANK YOU!
Have you guys thought about putting together a browser database search for all the statistics you have gathered --kinda like Anand's cpu compare? That would be pretty cool, lots of work, but cool nonetheless.
I really like it when you guys measure the performance of PC games like this. I'm constantly building budget gaming PCs for people, and articles like these are a great resource. So, THANK YOU!
Have you guys thought about putting together a browser database search for all the statistics you have gathered --kinda like Anand's cpu compare? That would be pretty cool, lots of work, but cool nonetheless.
G
Guest
Thanks for the benchmarks, would it be possible to include in the 16:9 and 16:10 resolutions (ie. 1440x900, 1920x1080?)
We could always test 100 graphics cards, but is it necessary? Not really.
Would it be feasible given the time constraints in publishing this article shortly after the game's launch? Not at all.
But going back to your particular inquiries. We didn't test the Radeon HD 4000 series because those don't support DX11 and we made this a DX11 test. Also, other resolution's performance can be easily inferred, 1920x1080 in particular is almost the same as 1920x1200.
Would it be feasible given the time constraints in publishing this article shortly after the game's launch? Not at all.
But going back to your particular inquiries. We didn't test the Radeon HD 4000 series because those don't support DX11 and we made this a DX11 test. Also, other resolution's performance can be easily inferred, 1920x1080 in particular is almost the same as 1920x1200.
G
Guest
The game runs pretty good for me and my setup is nothing fancy, especially in the GPU dept.
My Specs...
CPU = i3-2120 (I am sure this will beat most of AMD's quad cores even though it's only dual core as in general tests I have seen this CPU beats nearly all (maybe all?) of AMD's CPU's in gaming)
GPU = Radeon 5670 512MB (in NVIDIA terms... it's pretty much almost as fast as Geforce 9800GT or noticeably better than the Geforce 8800 line of cards and it sips power as it runs from the motherboard power)
RAM = 8GB (but anyone with 8GB of RAM will never have issues with games)
Mobo = ASUS P8H61-M LX Plus Rev3.0
I got basically the graphics on 'high' in DX11 mode @ 1920x1080 and my performance is well within playable levels as I don't have trouble aiming although on certain levels with a lot of action on screen with explosions etc the frame rate you can tell takes a noticeable hit but overall it's a pretty solid experience and never comes down to a crawl to where it's any real issue.
I have not checked my exact frame rate but I am sure more often than not it's more than good enough although like I was saying above it does drop somewhat low here and there if the action is pretty heavy but even during those times it never comes to a crawl as like I was saying I can still aim without the frame rate effecting me to any noticeable degree and many times in the game the frame rate is pretty smooth.
Also, once in a while the game will crash/freeze my system (it's did it about 2-3 times so far and once the game itself crashed but it's not bad considering I spent many hours (probably 12+ hours) on it so far) but it's typically not a issue and early in the game I had a pretty big glitch as I could not get threw a doorway which I needed to to get progress. but I just exited the game and reloaded it and it was fine after that. also, the sound is generally in sync but I seen it get out of sync a bit once. but overall the game runs pretty well and no show stopper glitches so far as I am not finished with the game but I am on Chapter 10+ and the game has 14 chapters, so I am through a larger chunk of the game.
My Specs...
CPU = i3-2120 (I am sure this will beat most of AMD's quad cores even though it's only dual core as in general tests I have seen this CPU beats nearly all (maybe all?) of AMD's CPU's in gaming)
GPU = Radeon 5670 512MB (in NVIDIA terms... it's pretty much almost as fast as Geforce 9800GT or noticeably better than the Geforce 8800 line of cards and it sips power as it runs from the motherboard power)
RAM = 8GB (but anyone with 8GB of RAM will never have issues with games)
Mobo = ASUS P8H61-M LX Plus Rev3.0
I got basically the graphics on 'high' in DX11 mode @ 1920x1080 and my performance is well within playable levels as I don't have trouble aiming although on certain levels with a lot of action on screen with explosions etc the frame rate you can tell takes a noticeable hit but overall it's a pretty solid experience and never comes down to a crawl to where it's any real issue.
I have not checked my exact frame rate but I am sure more often than not it's more than good enough although like I was saying above it does drop somewhat low here and there if the action is pretty heavy but even during those times it never comes to a crawl as like I was saying I can still aim without the frame rate effecting me to any noticeable degree and many times in the game the frame rate is pretty smooth.
Also, once in a while the game will crash/freeze my system (it's did it about 2-3 times so far and once the game itself crashed but it's not bad considering I spent many hours (probably 12+ hours) on it so far) but it's typically not a issue and early in the game I had a pretty big glitch as I could not get threw a doorway which I needed to to get progress. but I just exited the game and reloaded it and it was fine after that. also, the sound is generally in sync but I seen it get out of sync a bit once. but overall the game runs pretty well and no show stopper glitches so far as I am not finished with the game but I am on Chapter 10+ and the game has 14 chapters, so I am through a larger chunk of the game.
G
Guest
Interesting. I'm not sure what I am doing differently, but I am getting FAR higher frame rates than these.
Running my 2500K @4.8Ghz and my GTX 670 Windforce (Gigabyte) at it's stock settings (no power target/gpu offset/mem offset OC'ing), I am getting anywhere from between 150FPS up to 350FPS. Any ideas as to why mine is running so much faster?
Everything is set to the highest it can go with tessellation on very high, HDAO, 16xAF, 4xAA etc, etc @1920x1080.
Running my 2500K @4.8Ghz and my GTX 670 Windforce (Gigabyte) at it's stock settings (no power target/gpu offset/mem offset OC'ing), I am getting anywhere from between 150FPS up to 350FPS. Any ideas as to why mine is running so much faster?
Everything is set to the highest it can go with tessellation on very high, HDAO, 16xAF, 4xAA etc, etc @1920x1080.
G
Guest
Ah, it seems that EVGA Precision might not be showing correct FPS which is why mine is showing so high. I will check with a few different programs and see if there is a difference.
TS-56336
Posts: 603 +110
Mr. Walton, that's exactly my point. It gave so much detail I had to kill it. Can't imagine an 864 MB usage on my card would make my game lag occasionally. Although, turning shadows off gave me an opportunity to set AF to 16x and 2x MSAA. Question is, would my recommendation suffice? I'm a little uncomfortable with my Radeon 6790 Series because it ain't enough. But I'm making progress.
G
Guest
Ok, I can definitely confirm that EVGA Precision is not so precise at this point in time with Max Payne 3. My Fraps scores are way more realistic at between 80 and 90FPS.
The fun part for me is to try to find a copy that is under $89.99 on steam. For some reason Rockstar Studios thinks it's ok to charge Australian's $30 more for the same product. The sad part is the exchange rate at the time of writing this is $1 US dollar = $1.00895 AU dollar. So Rockstar Studios I would like to know why I have to pay $30 more for the same product?? You keep on saying "No one buys our products they just pirate them" this is why they do it. If I look up the US price for a product and it only $5 difference, that I can live with but $30. To make things worst there is NO transport cost to sell the game here in Australia. The funny part is I can import this game for 1/2 of the price on steam. This would be ok if Rockstar Studios supported steamwork (register retail key on steam) but they don't, because they know people will just import. Our government is now looking into why products from over seas cost us so much even when there is zero transport cost.
Here are some examples of the price difference
Max Payne 3 - $59.99USD - $89.99AUD
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - $59.99USD - $89.99AUD
Even a old game
Mafia II Digital Deluxe - $39.99USD - $79.99AUD (wow $40 difference)
All I'm asking for is a fair price is that to much to ask for??
Here are some examples of the price difference
Max Payne 3 - $59.99USD - $89.99AUD
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - $59.99USD - $89.99AUD
Even a old game
Mafia II Digital Deluxe - $39.99USD - $79.99AUD (wow $40 difference)
All I'm asking for is a fair price is that to much to ask for??
G
Guest
Same guy from posts 11,12 and 14 here. I got my copy from here:
http://game.gamesplanet.com/buy-download-pc-games/Max-Payne-3-3070-13.html
Get it while it's still cheap. (I'm from Aus as well mate). It's at about $40.60 AUD atm.
http://game.gamesplanet.com/buy-download-pc-games/Max-Payne-3-3070-13.html
Get it while it's still cheap. (I'm from Aus as well mate). It's at about $40.60 AUD atm.
G
Guest
I've been playing on a core i5 2500k, gt560 ti sc, 8 gigs of ram at 1920 x 1080 on very high settings, dx11, shadows normal, fxaa high no mxaa and it plays and looks fantastic. I've had no issues at all and it runs super smooth!
customcarvin
Posts: 102 +7
Umm no offense totalia, but I think you might have done something wrong... What you're saying to us, is that you get better performance than a GTX 680 with your 480... Don't know man, but that does not sound right at all.... Maybe you should recheck your settings and measure with fraps.
<sarcasm>My Q6600 + 8800GT plays it great at max settings and max resolution!</sarcasm>
Worthwhile benchmarking requires consistency and something is obviously different when numbers are that far off. We will never hear the end of people saying they can do better with less... it's just the way things are on the internet.
Worthwhile benchmarking requires consistency and something is obviously different when numbers are that far off. We will never hear the end of people saying they can do better with less... it's just the way things are on the internet.
G
Guest
great article,
but one thing you should really add a Core i3 2xxx to your tests, is a very popular gaming CPU and it adds another interesting CPU to look at, it combines just 2 core BUT 2 cores of higher IPC than the phenoms AND HT,
and while HT might be useless in games like this with 4 core CPUs, it probably isn't with only 2 cores...
but one thing you should really add a Core i3 2xxx to your tests, is a very popular gaming CPU and it adds another interesting CPU to look at, it combines just 2 core BUT 2 cores of higher IPC than the phenoms AND HT,
and while HT might be useless in games like this with 4 core CPUs, it probably isn't with only 2 cores...
[FONT=Arial]Well-written and comprehensive review, as always. You guys are the best at this. Thanks for the effort. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]I'm not a big fan of third-person shooters. But I must say the graphics on this game look amazing -- and that's just from the screenshots here and the clips I've seen on Youtube so far. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]That, plus this review, tells me I should at least give this game a shot. I'm thinking my PC should be able to get 40+FPS from this game, maybe even 50. There are games that are quite playable at those framerates. I'm hoping this is one them.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Thanks. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]I'm not a big fan of third-person shooters. But I must say the graphics on this game look amazing -- and that's just from the screenshots here and the clips I've seen on Youtube so far. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]That, plus this review, tells me I should at least give this game a shot. I'm thinking my PC should be able to get 40+FPS from this game, maybe even 50. There are games that are quite playable at those framerates. I'm hoping this is one them.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Thanks. [/FONT]
G
Guest
Indeed, that particular is cheap but pretty fast on games. And about HT. Its not useless. Testing several games with HT enabled and disabled, HT helps a lot for games that are optimized for HT. GTA4 for example, tested Arkham City as well and performance went down when only using 2 threads. Heck even console emulators uses HT and it gives performance benefits
