Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: Just Cause 2

AMD FX Vs. Intel Core i3: Exploring Game Performance With Cheap GPUs
By

Performance Target: 30 FPS Minimum

Unlike the prior two titles, Just Cause 2 did help demonstrate the difference between processors in our previous analysis. Last time around, the Core i3-2100 managed to achieve a 28% higher minimum frame rate and a 15% higher average frame rate compared to the FX-4100.

This game is hard on AMD's Radeon HD 5570; we had to drop to 1366x768 for a 30 FPS minimum frame rate.

Despite our previous benchmark results, CPU choice makes very little difference when we step down to lower-end graphics cards. Average frame rates are notably better than the other games we’ve tested, too (showing 40 FPS+ for all configurations). Maybe the load will shift to our CPUs when we raise the performance target to 40 FPS minimum and 60 FPS average?

Performance Target: 40 FPS Minimum, 60 FPS Average

Intel's Core i3-2100 has a very slight advantage paired up to AMD's Radeon HD 6950. But the 4 FPS spread isn't something you'd identify while playing through this game. This does support what we saw from the Radeon HD 7970, though.

We had to drop the Radeon HD 5570-based configuration to 720p and the 6770 to 1680x1050 in order to hit our performance target. As we've seen several times already, the Radeon HD 6850 and 6950 are able to handle 1080p without any trouble.

Display all 11 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 23 February 2012 13:59
    This is an uncharacteristically sloppy report by THG. A significant fraction of the graphs do not have the correct y-axis range for the data.
  • -1 Hide
    13thmonkey , 23 February 2012 15:06
    Is there not a way that you can test Bf3 better, i'm seeing a few people who have claimed much better frames on online bf3 going from dual to quad.
    perhaps rent a server, pay some people to stand around and not do anything, and have the testing machine run a constant path thinking noshar docks, running from under the railway bridge to the B flag, whilst being watched by say 10 people.
    I've seen my frames jump when going to full server to empty so it has to be partly loaded, hence you need the audience. PITA, but it might give you a more realistic test, i'd hope it was the observation that causes load and not just potential impacts.
    Also this page doesn't let me submit unless in compat mode, but most others do...
  • -2 Hide
    13thmonkey , 23 February 2012 23:48
    whats up with the starcraft II results, the average certain is below 16, looks more like 30-40, whats with the ever climbing frame rates, did any look at the graphs and the words, and wonder if it all made sense.
  • 0 Hide
    cleeve , 24 February 2012 01:34
    13thmonkeywhats up with the starcraft II results, the average certain is below 16, looks more like 30-40, whats with the ever climbing frame rates, did any look at the graphs and the words, and wonder if it all made sense.


    The data is valid, I'm not sure what else to answer you with. If you think there's an error and want to look over it personally PM me and I'll send you the excel spreadsheets.
  • -1 Hide
    13thmonkey , 24 February 2012 01:43
    Its the constantly climbing frame rate, assuming x axis is time, it climbs off the top of the graph and yet you claim to have low frame rates. Have PM'd.
  • 1 Hide
    williehmmm , 24 February 2012 01:53
    13thmonkeywhats up with the starcraft II results, the average certain is below 16, looks more like 30-40, whats with the ever climbing frame rates, did any look at the graphs and the words, and wonder if it all made sense.


    I think it was explained by units being destroyed, then removed from the battlefield, therefore less to render, over time less and less, therefore higher frame rates at the end.
  • 0 Hide
    williehmmm , 24 February 2012 01:54
    Yup, as I read in the article.
  • 0 Hide
    mitunchidamparam , 24 February 2012 03:16
    Quote:
    I think it was explained by units being destroyed, then removed from the battlefield, therefore less to render, over time less and less, therefore higher frame rates at the end.

    Is that because of the GPU bottle neck or CPU?
  • -1 Hide
    jrtolson , 28 February 2012 09:15
    did u not know the people that run this site are on Intel's Payroll :-P
  • 0 Hide
    bemused_fred , 5 May 2012 20:42
    jrtolsondid u not know the people that run this site are on Intel's Payroll :-P


    Wait, I'm confused. What about the normal people who like intel's CPUs? Are they on the payroll too?
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 20 May 2012 17:21
    I'm not impressed. AMD's quad-core chips clocked almost 20% higher still barely match the speed of a baseline dual-core i3 (which also puts out 30w less heat). In fact, AMD's 2012 quad-core chips are still no faster than Intel's early 2010 i3-530's dual-core "Westmere" (socket 1156) architecture clock-for-clock. Almost 2.5 years behind in performance.

    AMD seriously need a whole new architecture. Piling on more cores / clock speed is just "Intel P4 reloaded".