Game Performance Review: Wolfenstein Game Review Ashutosh Mukherjee ashutosh@desdevpro.com http://www.desdevpro.com 29 Aug 2009 Game Reveiw Wolfenstein Wolfenstien, a name known to many gamers as one of FPS game legends developed by id Softwares. Wolfenstein 3D which was released in 1992 by id software is also credited as the first FPS. It took the gaming world by storm with its textured 3D graphics, high quality sound (at that time), and unique playing style. Little History ga001_thumb.jpg Wolfenstein from Wolfenstein 3d(1992) to Return to Castle Wolfenstein(2001) then Return to Castle Wolfenstein:Enemy Teritory(2003) and finally Wolfenstein(2009). Wolfenstein(2009) uses an improved version of id Software's id Tech 4 video game engine, the technology behind Doom 3 and Quake 4. The game was developed by Raven Software for Windows, Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. The modifications to the game engine include depth of field effects, soft shadowing, post processing effects, Havok physics, as well as the addition of a supernatural realm, called The Veil. While in The Veil the player has access to certain special abilities, such as the power to slow down time, to get around obstacles that exist in the real world, or even to be able to defeat enemies that have an otherwise impenetrable shield. The multiplayer part of Wolfenstein was developed by Endrant Studios. Upon its release Wolfenstein has received generally favorable reviews from critics. The game has been praised for its exciting single player campaign, while the multiplayer component has received the most criticism, considered by some to be a letdown when compared to its predecessor Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. ga001_img01.jpg As with any new game release there is always the chance it may not run on your current setup, or at the very least, not run well. That's the reason we like to bring you a complete set of tests based on new games such as Wolfenstein using a range of current graphics cards and some other not so current ones. This should give you a better idea about the game's requirements and how the game will play on your current GPU. Although the game is not hugely demanding, but cutting down on visual effects to run on entry-level hardware is not a possibility. ga001_img02.jpg Like most first person shooter games, Wolfenstein packs both single player and multiplayer components and thus had to decide what was the best way to test the in-game performance. While we would generally pick the most demanding side, after some preliminary testing we found that performance was much the same in both, with level design and complexity making for a more substantial variation in terms of frames per second. Ultimately we decided to test using multiplayer which allowed us to create and run a lengthy action-packed time demo. As part of our test we also collected screenshots for image quality comparison purposes. Test System Specifications - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 (LGA775) - x2 2GB G.Skill DDR2 PC3-8500 (CAS 6-6-6-18) - ASUS Rampage Formula (Intel X48) - OCZ GameXStream (700 watt) - Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300) - Radeon HD 4870 X2 (2GB) - Radeon HD 4890 (1GB) - Radeon HD 4870 (1GB) - Radeon HD 4870 (512MB) - Radeon HD 4850 (512MB) - Radeon HD 4830 (512MB) - Radeon HD 4770 (512MB) - GeForce GTX 295 (1792MB) - GeForce GTX 285 (1GB) - GeForce GTX 275 (896MB) - GeForce GTX 260 (896MB) - GeForce GTS 250 (512MB) - GeForce 9800 GT (512MB) - GeForce 9600 GT (512MB) Software Used - Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) - Nvidia Forceware 190.38 WHQL - ATI Catalyst 9.8 Wolfenstein has been out for less than few weeks, so we have to assume ATI and Nvidia have had little time to perfect their drivers for it, or least it was noticed, as there were few problems and strange performance behaviors. Wolfenstein offers few settings to play with and with those we were able to rule out depth of field, texture quality and shader effects as the trouble maker. It appears that shadow quality is a problem for the ATI graphics cards and the Manor map has quite a lot of shadow detail. With the shadow quality turned from high to low somehow there was a stable behaviour between the graphics cards. Shadow quality has always played havoc on frame rates, so we have to make some adjustments by ourselves. After some screenshot comparisons it turned out that everything was above board. ga001_ATI_01T.jpgga001_Nvidia_01T.jpg ga001_ATI_02T.jpgga001_Nvidia_02T.jpg ga001_ATI_03T.jpgga001_Nvidia_03T.jpg While comparing image quality we noticed something else with the ATI graphics cards. When playing with the Radeon HD 4890 certain surfaces showed too much lighting, making them appear bright while washing the textures out. The effect was certainly overdone and you can see this in the screenshots above. This could be related to the performance hit on ATI graphics cards, but if anything we expect them to correct this visual glitch in future driver revisions. High-end Cards (0xAA/0xAF) ga001_img03.jpg ga001_img04.jpg ga001_img05.jpg There is nothing much to conclude here as we have seen Radeon HD 4890 performs poorly when compared to any of the GeForce GTX graphics cards at 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600 resolutions. Only Radeon HD 4870 X2 among all other Radeon HD was able to show up a fight with GeForce GTX cards, which is still quite a poor effort really. High-end Cards (4xAA/4xAF) ga001_img06.jpg ga001_img07.jpg ga001_img08.jpg Now with 4xAA/4xAF enabled the Radeon graphics cards performed a bit better as the Radeon HD 4870 X2 takes second place but this dual-GPU monster card was still slower than the GeForce GTX 285 at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 resolutions. At 2560x1600 the Radeon HD 4870 X2 is able to outperform for the first time, taking first position from the GeForce GTX 285 by 4fps. Although the other Radeon HD cards were still slower than Geforce GTX cards. High-end Cards (8xAA/8xAF) ga001_img09.jpg ga001_img10.jpg ga001_img11.jpg The last batch of tests which was performed using the high-end graphics cards focused on 8xAA/8xAF performance. At 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 the Radeon HD 4870 X2 was the fastest graphics card outperforming others. Mainstream Cards (0xAA/0xAF) ga001_img12.jpg Although the GeForce GTX 260 outperformed the Radeon HD 4870 continuously in the high quality tests, but in the medium quality results is surprisingly close. Here the GeForce GTX 260 is 10fps faster but its still a comfortable margin for GeForce. But if we look on other cards the Radeon HD 4870 is on par with the GeForce GTS 250. The GeForce 9800 GT was faster than the Radeon HD 4770, which was faster than the Radeon HD 4850. Meanwhile the Radeon HD 4830 was just able to defeat the GeForce 9600 GT. ga001_img13.jpg At 1920x1200 the GeForce GTX 260 clearly showed its muscles on the Radeon HD 4870 substantially. The Radeon HD 4870 once again delivered similar performance to that of the GeForce GTS 250, while the 9800 GT edged out the HD 4770. ga001_img14.jpg The standings remained much the same at 2560x1600, though here Nvidia cards appear to have an even greater advantage, as the GeForce GTS 250 pulled further away from the Radeon HD 4870. Mainstream Cards (4xAA/4xAF) ga001_img15.jpg At 1680x1050 the Radeon HD 4870 was actually faster than the GeForce GTX 260 by a small margin. In general, Radeon HD cards were faster than their GeForce counterparts. ga001_img16.jpg It looked like Radeon HD 4870 and GeForce GTX 260 dueling between themselves. The Radeon HD 4870 remained slightly faster at 1920x1200 when compared to the GeForce GTX 260, while the Radeon HD 4770 and HD 4850 were able to overpower the GeForce GTS 250. Furthermore, the Radeon HD 4830 was faster than the GeForce 9800 GT. ga001_img17.jpg Finally at 2560x1600 the Radeon HD stole all the limelight outperforming GeForce cards. Again Radeon HD 4870 emerged winner of all. Note It is interesting to note that if we compare medium quality results at 2560x1600 of GeForce GTX 260 to that of high quality test results we can observe that the performance of GTX 260 was greater when using high quality. It is very unusual but for some reasons GeForce GTX 260 and other GeForce cards are faster under high quality settings. CPU Performances Although CPU scaling is not required for scaling game performances as most of the FPS games are GPU bound and they rely little on the processors to deliver performance but lets just keep these things aside for a moment and check the big fight between two brand loyalties that is AMD and Intel. ga001_img18.jpg Now thats pretty flat, as we can see there is marginally any difference between the different processors. But still, Core 2 Quad Q9650 leaded at the top followed by AMD Phenom II x4 965 processor. Conclusion Before going into any analysis and conclusion, I want to share one thing, as a gamer I admit Wolfenstein 3d was my first game ever and also my first FPS. So, under any dire situations I am not gonna miss this game, I have played all Wolfenstein predecessors from the start and I will play this one too. While everyone will have their own take on Wolfenstein, but it has to be said that the multiplayer experience is quite sloppy and has attracted many criticisms. Its disappointing on the part of id Software for not providing a better multiplayer enviornment, which is surprising given id Software’s previous track record which often set the benchmark for a superb multiplayer experiences. Well we can look out for some exapmles like Quake and even RTCW:Enemy Teritory. It's hard for me to describe what is wrong with Wolfenstein. Perhaps I feel id still has some work ahead of them. The extreme contrast issue which were experienced with the ATI cards will likely be corrected with the release of next driver set. The one saving grace for ATI was the excellent Crossfire support which saw the Radeon HD 4870 X2 taking charge once AA/AF settings were enabled. Unfortunately for those with a GeForce GTX 295 graphics card or SLI setup of some kind, Nvidia’s multi-GPU technology is disabled in Wolfenstein at this point in time. Those looking to play Wolfenstein in all of its visual glory with heavy AA/AF settings enabled should look to either the GeForce GTX 285, GTX 275 or the Radeon HD 4870 X2. Once Nvidia works out SLI support, the GeForce GTX 295 will become the pack leader no doubt given what we saw from the GTX 260 and GTX 275. The Radeon HD 4870 and 4890 were a disappointment although they managed to lead under medium quality settings and I hope a future driver upgrade will improve their performance. For now Wolfenstein appears to be a fun single player game (I have to play through it all before giving any gameplay reviews) apart from that there is an average multiplayer experience that will likely need a few bugs fixes before we can really get excited about it.