Tried the demo last night, it's a very fun game. You can tell the 360 is struggling a bit with this one but hey, it's ancient 5 year old hardware so given that it still looks not bad. There is a lot of detail on the homes when you are driving down the street which looks nice. Tearing seemed to happen mostly at the start when you are in your house, and least that's where I noticed it. I never tried the first game, but this one plays well and the demo got me interested so I'll be getting this one when I can find the time to play it.
Mafia 2 (Multiplatform)
- Thread starter "Nerve-Damage"
- Start date
I played mafia 1 on a athlon xp 3200 32bit only single core 1.5GB ram and geforce 6800gt bfg oc and there was plenty of tearing inconsistent framerate at 1024x768 I thought something was wrong but other games run fine...
It looks like its possible mafia2 is just a pc port to consoles makes me wonder if they are actually using dx11 or 10...
I downloaded a vid from gamerside it looked ok don't know if it was x360 version or pc with x360 pc controler....
It looks like its possible mafia2 is just a pc port to consoles makes me wonder if they are actually using dx11 or 10...
I downloaded a vid from gamerside it looked ok don't know if it was x360 version or pc with x360 pc controler....
Just run the demo on my PC, a dual core Opteron @ 2.5 gHz w 4GB ram and a 9800 GT. Had the following settings:
Vsync: off
SSAA: off
AA: off
GPU Physx: off
1024x768: min 5, max 72, average 29
1280x960: min 5, max 62, average 26
Both cores maxed at all times, changing resolutions made almost no difference, CPU limited. I expect the console versions are too (or at least the 360 version).
The console versions might not be such bad ports - they're getting similar frame rates to what would by 2006 standards be a fast PC. This is normal, and what you see in games ranging from GTAIV to Lost Planet to MW2 to basically anything multithreaded.
Vsync: off
SSAA: off
AA: off
GPU Physx: off
1024x768: min 5, max 72, average 29
1280x960: min 5, max 62, average 26
Both cores maxed at all times, changing resolutions made almost no difference, CPU limited. I expect the console versions are too (or at least the 360 version).
The console versions might not be such bad ports - they're getting similar frame rates to what would by 2006 standards be a fast PC. This is normal, and what you see in games ranging from GTAIV to Lost Planet to MW2 to basically anything multithreaded.
I had similar system with a XP 3200+, 1GB RAM and a 9800pro. Mafia ran fine at max 1024x768 except when there where lots of cars onscreen. This was very taxing for CPU since each car had roughly 120 realtime simulations going on for each of them and there could be lots of cars onscreen. Not to say parameteres where tweaked to have perfect handling as per real cars but computation being done was probably unmatched even comparing to true heavy duty sims of the time. Doing a 'tweak' diabling the car simulations could double/triple framerate.
So Mafia perfomance was highly limited by CPU.
Now considering Mafia 2 has 'simulation' mode I expect them to have even upped the complexity.
All of those games you mentioned run better than this on the 360 at least. If Red Dead Redemption didn't exist this might be ok, but RDR looks and runs better.
I tested here with similar setting and got much higher framerate, with a 9600GT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzSzdPiBOLg
(you can see the benchmark running more at the end of the video)
my cpu is a e5200 a lowend cpu from 2008 but with this overclock I would say it's equivalent to a e6800 from 2006;
Of course, whether the game is cpu or gpu limited will depend entirely on the cpu and gpu in question.
On my system the bottleneck is clearly the CPU. On a 3.75 gHz Wolfdale probably not. I'd expect the 360 to be much closer to my CPU in performance than yours.
Of course, whether the game is cpu or gpu limited will depend entirely on the cpu and gpu in question.
On my system the bottleneck is clearly the CPU. On a 3.75 gHz Wolfdale probably not. I'd expect the 360 to be much closer to my CPU in performance than yours.
well, I downclocked my cpu to 2100MHz and the result was... 46fps.. from 49 to 46 fps with a decrease from 3600 to 2100Mhz I can only conclude that this game is not a cpu limited game on pcs in general, a 2.1ghz wolfdale with 2mb l2 is hardly to powerfull by today standards, but I agree that this varies from system to system, let's say with a single core it will probably be limited by cpu, but when I say that this is a VGA limited game, it's also because of GTA4, even with my cpu at 4ghz that game will ask for more cpu in many occasions, it just doesn't run to well with 2 cores, while the 360 cpu can handle quite well, also I was looking for some performance numbers of mafia II with higher end video cards, with higher settings and resolutions, and even much more powerful cards can struggle a bit in this cases, while the cpu is pretty much irrelevant once you have something like a 2.5ghz core 2 duo!? (I know the 9600GT is rather weak but I'm no forcing to much the settings, and compared to the consoles gpus it's a few steps ahead)
as for 3.75ghz, it's an error, caused by the settings I using, I'm using a lower multiplier than the default 12,5 (for higher FSB and memory clock 12x300)
about the result of your system, I really don't know if this game doesn't work well with the "k8" cpus, but there is something strange, I have one k8 dual core at home and I would expect the results compared to the e5200 at 2100mhz to be more close!
Though GTAIV on PC scales way way beyond console versions regarding graphics. The game also has lots of stalling resulting in poor CPU perfomance with CPU idling. Why in some cases even upping graphics complexity increases perfomance becouse the stalling might be reduced resulting in better efficiency and perfomance!
The PC version of GTA4 also contains options to increase the vehicle and entity density well beyond the console versions too so I imagine that only adds to much of the PC CPU burden.
Back to Mafia 2 proper.......I've ran it on a quad core Athlon II system, and each core was about 50% encumbered. Close in graphics in the game look pretty good, though the very far distance LOD is ugly. Also one other thing I noticed is how much better GTA4's water tech is, being semi-interactive. Mafia 2's is not. It's very basic looking. As for lighting and shadowing, the indoor areas in the demo very much reminded me of GTA4 with lots of blended lights and shadows. Don't know if the console versions have ambient occlusion but it seems to be well implemented in the PC version. It's not abrasive like some games are about it. I would still commend the engine on being decently scalable (needs texture resolution options though for lower end systems!) while looking pretty good, but it's still no RAGE as it's much more robust in features. Or rather features in the actual titles that use it. I'm still waiting for my RDR PC port. I don't want to have to buy it for my PS3.
Back to Mafia 2 proper.......I've ran it on a quad core Athlon II system, and each core was about 50% encumbered. Close in graphics in the game look pretty good, though the very far distance LOD is ugly. Also one other thing I noticed is how much better GTA4's water tech is, being semi-interactive. Mafia 2's is not. It's very basic looking. As for lighting and shadowing, the indoor areas in the demo very much reminded me of GTA4 with lots of blended lights and shadows. Don't know if the console versions have ambient occlusion but it seems to be well implemented in the PC version. It's not abrasive like some games are about it. I would still commend the engine on being decently scalable (needs texture resolution options though for lower end systems!) while looking pretty good, but it's still no RAGE as it's much more robust in features. Or rather features in the actual titles that use it. I'm still waiting for my RDR PC port. I don't want to have to buy it for my PS3.
That's very interesting.
My CPU performance is where it should be in other games (with respect to other processors) so maybe it is a K8 thing or an NForce 4 driver thing. I can get an extra 10 - 15% performance in CPU limited stuff by dropping to 2 sticks of ram and running them faster (with 1T cmd rate), but that still puts me a long way behind.
I'll have a fiddle and see what happens.
Just tried it again with 2GB of ram, lower memory latency and about 50% more memory bandwidth. The game's about 10% faster - 32 fps average at 10 x 7.
On my old K8 at least, the game is definitely CPU limited and the 360 isn't far behind it. Looks like there is an unusually high penalty for running this on something older than a Core 2, or at least something not Intel. Not seen a gap this big before.
I was hoping the old Opteron would last me till Bulldozer.
On my old K8 at least, the game is definitely CPU limited and the 360 isn't far behind it. Looks like there is an unusually high penalty for running this on something older than a Core 2, or at least something not Intel. Not seen a gap this big before.
I was hoping the old Opteron would last me till Bulldozer.
I did some more testing to understand the cpu configuration vs framerate here,
the settings are the same as in the video (geometry and shadows high, AF8x, physx off, ambient occlusion off, anti aliasing off) but at 1024x768 windowed mode (to have a higher cpu influence with the lower res)
e5200 @ 3300mhz
9600GT @ 700/1000 = 61.7fps
9600GT @ 450/650 = 42.3fps
e5200 @ 2100mhz
9600GT @ 700/1000 = 51.4fps
9600GT @ 450/650 = 40.8fps
e5200 single core @ 3300mhz
9600GT @ 700/1000 = 40.7fps
9600GT @ 450/650 = 38.4fps
so with the VGA with 36% less clock the results are basically the same, while with the cpu 36% underclock and single core configuration I get different results, it's interesting to say that even when running with 1 core only the game runs quite smoothly.
now I'm interested in testing this vga in the k8 I have, but I will need to swap the power supply for that to
the settings are the same as in the video (geometry and shadows high, AF8x, physx off, ambient occlusion off, anti aliasing off) but at 1024x768 windowed mode (to have a higher cpu influence with the lower res)
e5200 @ 3300mhz
9600GT @ 700/1000 = 61.7fps
9600GT @ 450/650 = 42.3fps
e5200 @ 2100mhz
9600GT @ 700/1000 = 51.4fps
9600GT @ 450/650 = 40.8fps
e5200 single core @ 3300mhz
9600GT @ 700/1000 = 40.7fps
9600GT @ 450/650 = 38.4fps
so with the VGA with 36% less clock the results are basically the same, while with the cpu 36% underclock and single core configuration I get different results, it's interesting to say that even when running with 1 core only the game runs quite smoothly.
now I'm interested in testing this vga in the k8 I have, but I will need to swap the power supply for that to
Thanks, those figure are very interesting, but also depressing.
I can squeeze 36 fps out of my computer on the second run through the benchmark (about 32 on the first). One of your cores @ 3.3 is faster than both of mine. I'd really like to know how the Xbox and PS3 CPUs fare with this game!
now I'm interested in testing this vga in the k8 I have, but I will need to swap the power supply for that to
If you get the chance I'd certainly be interested to see your results.
Dungeonscaper
Newcomer
2K confirms lack of grass on PS3 version:
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1012515#post1012515
Looks like the demo isn't just old code.
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1012515#post1012515
Looks like the demo isn't just old code.
Well well...what do we have here ?
Similar threads
- Locked
