1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Tribes: Ascend Tested, Benchmarked

By Jos · 18 replies
Apr 24, 2012
Post New Reply
  1. LNCPapa

    LNCPapa TS Special Forces Posts: 4,247   +448

    I am terribly pleased with this game - takes my back to my old shifter days. I run it v-sync'd at 1920 with no dips in performance. Had no idea how demanding it was but it's good to know since I just recommended my old buddy resurrect his old 5870 to play this game with me.
  2. hahahanoobs

    hahahanoobs TS Evangelist Posts: 1,907   +592

    "Strangely, while the i7-2600K got faster as we overclocked it this was not the case with the FX-8150."

    That's why when on your last game review when you only overclocked an AMD CPU in the CPU tests, I was like, "WTF!"

    Thank you for doing one for each this time around!
  3. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,357   +1,516

    Yep and as I said last time you have to be realistic in what we can test. The Mass Effect 3 article was posted just a few days after release, this one was published almost 2 weeks after release so naturally we had more time to run a few extra tests.

    Also as I told you in the Mass Effect 3 thread there was no need to test an Intel processor as well because Intel and AMD processors scaled alike in that game. This time we again tested the FX processor first and found the results strange so re-tested with a Sandy Bridge processor and found quite different results, therefore they were published.

    Anyway I am glad you are happier this time round.
  4. 6870 > 6950 what????????

    also i don´t think it uses 4 cores fully, 3 is about right
  5. I have similar specs to the intel test rig, although I have an GTX 680, I can say with confidence that at very high settings and a res of 2560x1440 I constantly hit the frame limit of 90 FPS in the game. As far as FRAPS shows anyway.

    Nvidia cards seem to have an advantage in this modified UE3 engine. Although there is little visual difference between Very High and High.

    I also find that VSync is needed to prevent screen tearing.
  6. Steve

    Steve TechSpot Editor Posts: 2,357   +1,516

    6870 and 6950 delivered the same performance in this game. Yes at 1680x1050 we showed the 6870 to be 2fps faster but out of the three runs those were the averages.

    The game uses 4-cores, I don’t think there is any debating that, how heavily it uses the cores will depend on the processor.

    I didn't notice any tearing on my setup but that can be a problem with vsync disabled. Personally I prefer to play first person shooters with an average of 80fps+, just feels better in my opinion.
  7. i played on my water cooled dual gtx590s and practically blew my system apart. This game made the video cards extremely hot, even under water. Only run very high on a very well cooled system or you may get into heat issues a hr or 2 in....
  8. I wish you had add an i3-2130 in to test.

  9. You should see how it runs at 1680x1050 on my NVS4200M 1GB and i5 2540M.

    It's not pretty.
  10. venomblade

    venomblade TS Rookie Posts: 69

    Aw the poor 7000 series :/, I hope the lackluster performance in DX9 games doesn't become the norm, or else I'll be regretting getting a 7870 eventually.
  11. hahahanoobs

    hahahanoobs TS Evangelist Posts: 1,907   +592

    You did say those things to me in the comment section when I asked, but not the article.
  12. surely venom you'll be regretting it now but will eventually be vindicated?
  13. "However, the GTX 680 would probably be desirable in extreme multi-display setups."
    Except for the fact that this game doesn't support multi-display setups. The FOV can't be changed. I wish developers would stop using this engine.
  14. The FOV can be changed between 60 to 120.
  15. I have been playing T:A since half way through the Beta. My PC is quite old now, but I manage to play it on "High" settings (no .ini. tweaks) about easily have a consistent 30fps.

    My main specs are:

    AMD Phenom X2 unlocked to X4
    4Gb DDR3 RAM
    ATI HD 4970 1Gb

    I don't understand how it performs better then newer (now old) parts, but it works fine for me, and I can happily play this awesome game at SUPER SANIC speeds :)
  16. I play using t:A using a intel dual core and a amd 4850. To get good response I only play it on ultra low detail @ 1680x 1440. I still lose LOL. I would consider 30fps as not enough, and 60fps as about right. Its too fast a game to look at the scenery anyway, one slip and you're toast, by someone like cpuincontrol. Its a long trudge if you dont buy the items, tho.
  17. These results seem strange to me. I run it with a 560ti / i5-750 and I can easily max all settings. 2560x1600, 32x AA, 16x AF, max Details and I never go below 40 fps. Changing AA-settings doesn't seem to change much in performance, but it does visually. Seems heavily CPU limited to me.
  18. Thanks for the article.

    Since article, I've noticed that several hirez patches and drivers from both amd and nvidia claiming to improve performance have come out for tribes ascend.

    Is it possible a reviewer can rebench with amd 12.11's and nvidia 306.x's video drivers and latest nvidia 600 series of cards, 650, 660, 660ti, 670, 680.

    Perhaps adding latest amd vishera FX-8350 cpu.

    An updated article would be appreciated by many tribes ascend players.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...