Graphic Benchmark

When you see benchmarks for graphics cards and cpus, they usually run things like Crysis, FarCry 2, World In Conflict, etc. - mostly what you might call "action" games. The results vary from game to game.
If one is interested in getting the best performance from GW and, perhaps GW2, what common benchmark would be best to go by?

Edit - I may not have been clear on what I was asking. I'm not looking to benchmark anything, and I'm not interested in who's got the highest fps in GW.
But, when you see tests where they run various "gaming" benchmarks on components. Some components do better in some benchmarks (Crysis, for example) and some will do better in others (Worlds in Conflict).
What I want to know, since they never seem to benchmark with any RPG (GW, WoW, EQ, whatever), is which of the most commonly used benchmarks would best represent a components performance in GW.
I suspect that Rahja is right, that a RTS would be closest.

What prompted this btw, is that I'm considering doing an upgrade and I'm trying to decide on a cpu.

Anything that runs those games at playable framerates (~30fps) will be able to run guild wars flawlessly

Since the nature of an MMO is more closely related to an RTS than an FPS, it is safe to say that benchmarks like Battleforge DX10 would be a good gauge of GW2 performance. GW1 performance could be compared to be the same as Half Life 2 or Left for Dead.

I was personally thinking along the lines of...fallout 3 for gw2...guess I was wrong...

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/1312/gw108.jpg

highest fps I've seen from a buddying running a pretty over powered rig.

As for GW2, I would probably see how your benchmarks run up against what Lord Sojar has said.

As far as benchmarking goes, you could also try a benchmarking tool like 3Dmark vantage or furmark.

I agree though, if you can run crysis with relatively high settings at 30fps, GW will be a cakewalk for you computer.

Fallout3 has a much higher poly count for environment and much higher resolution textures. GW2 is impressive, but it isn't a modern FPS.

RTS games tend to use lower resolution textures, and conserve poly counts, in exchange to allow more on screen at any given time. Given the open world nature of GW2 compared to GW1, and significantly higher unit count we will see, it should be directly compared to engines with similar attributes.

GW1 is much more in the realm of being compared to an FPS, because of low amounts of units on screen at one time, and instancing.

Also, in case you guys didn't gather, I'm Rahja. I've been assimilated!

Yeah...I s'pose....and sucks to be you...damn assimilation...

*is very interested in what kind of rig your buddy is running, and was he staring at a blank wall from right in front of his character at the time? lol

Well, you know, if you run GW at 800x600 and face a blank wall, you can get some impressive, but meaningless, fps values. And, of course, PhotoShop can add even more.

It's not photoshopped, I can guarantee that, and if you think it is, I can provide you with the original SS. He is standing in Sifhalla AD-1 at 1200x800 resolution.

He is running 4xGTX 295's overclocked to god knows what.
i7 965 extreme up to 4.8 on air
6g of ram, what frequency/timing idk.
He is not planning on upgrading to something a bit more powerfully here once his 480's get shipped.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4914/gw1081.jpg

There is original Screenshot just chat box, Server IP, and his Char name white'd out.

You can't have 4x GTX295's unless you mean 4 of those GPU's and I don't think you achieved 4.8ghz on Air unless I see a screen

your friend is using that kind of system... to play games at 1280x800? he's either really rich, really stupid, or both.

This ^. I doubt the validity of this....

Even with 2 GTX295s, you couldn't get those type of frames. If anything, performance in Guild Wars might go down with the issues on 4 way SLi.

I ventured to the exact spot your friend went. My rig should be able to get at least 80% the performance of his, being that I run

A Corei7 860 OC @ 4.1GHz
4GBs of DDR3 @ 1550MHz 7-8-7-21
Radeon HD5870 with a 15% OC
Win7 64bit

I ran the game at 1280x800, no AA, and medium to low settings to match the screenshot as best I could.

Here are my results:

All I know is that it is legit, I've seen the rig 1st hand myself. I've managed to push my 2xgtx260's up to 600 fps while VQing in Sparkfly Swamp.

He only went to see what he could get fps wise if he dropped all the settings to low, dropped all AA off, because I hit what I said I did above.

And yes you can run 4x295's, go check newegg for a list of compatible boards. He is an IT Admin who lives in central florida. He plays other games, so not just GW.

And yes you can achieve 4.8 on air.

http://www.evga.com/forums/tt.aspx?forumid=4

I've also got another buddy hitting 5306 fps's in MQ while VQing. No idea what he is running though.

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8127/fps2q.png

No, no you cannot run 4x GTX295 boards. That's an 8 way parallel SLi setup. nVidia drivers do not allow that many GPUs to run in parallel, and the internal bandwidth connections will not support that under any circumstance.

In addition, the GPUs lack the logic to communicate with that many other GPUs, which would create overlap in rendering (assuming it could be made to work past the driver issues).

The SLi bridges allow for up two 3-4 GPUs to be connected for rendering.

You can have 4x GTX295s, but only 2 of them are doing anything. The other 2 can do CUDA, but cannot assist in graphics calculations.


And yes, 600FPS is reasonable. I frequently see FPS of 400-800 in areas with my OCed 5870.

However, if these 5k FPS numbers aren't photoshopped, they are simply the GW engine unable to interpret the number, and it's creating a number of 5k something. Both are in the 5,000 range, which makes me believe that GW is creating a number in the 5k range to display, since it might not be able to interpret a number in a certain range, or with specific factors contributing. That isn't the real FPS, period.

Also, to another point, why? You actually disk wearing out the image processor in your monitor with those insane numbers. Turn on VSync!