Shadow Of Mordor: Performance Testing And Benchmarks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
hey i play this game on 780s SLI seems to work fine
5760x1080P Nvidia Surroud
Have to use Flawless widescreen to fix the FOV
But have to say game looks awesome.
 


Hey, thanks! Is it a different rig than the one in your signature?
 
If I play this game on a 768 by 1366 resolution with a GTX 660.
Will my frame rates increase and by how much would they increase on ultra settings?
 


Well, here's an estimate for you: Roughly double what you'd get at 1080p.

A resolution of 1366x768 gives 1,049,088 pixels. A resolution of 1920x1080 gives 2,073,600 pixels. So 1080p uses 1.98 times as many pixels (i.e. about twice as many). So, at any give settings, you should get about twice the performance at 1366x768 compared to 1080p.

I say "roughly" because things don't scale perfectly, but it's going to be a pretty close estimate.

Keeping in mind that the 660 is slightly (but not significantly) faster than the 750 ti, you should expect to get twice the frame rate of what the 750 ti gets at 1080p.
 

Don't forget that as the resolution goes down, things tend to shift over to the CPU too. If you've got a fairly new CPU, like any of those specifically tested in this review, then you should be ok since this game doesn't look too brutal on the CPU. If you've got an older model that is just barely coping, then it will be slow regardless of resolution or GPU.
 


Hey Eggz yes the signature is kinda old i should update that....im playing on 5820k, x99-deluxe, 16gb ddr4,2x780s
thx for noticing my sig ill update that now...:)
 

Perhaps you missed the parts where they tested 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions at ultra detail? Just because you have the hardware to play at maximum resolution and detail doesn't mean everyone else does. I felt they were quite thorough in the settings that were tested and presented.
 
I still would have liked to see SLI GTX 980s and SLI GTX 970s as they basicly had a CrossFire R9 290X in the form of the R9 295X2 which of course had the best performance out of everything as it is a dual GPU card
another thing which bugs me is they went from medium on 1440p to Ultra on 4k there is a lot between those 2 which are not covered like high on 1440p and high on 4k but to go along with the thinking only high on 4k and Ultra on 4k would have mattered if you are looking at top teir video cards then of course for when 8k comes out why not do 8k testings?
 

They didn't ignore SLI, they simply couldn't get it to work between same cards from different manufacturers. If they can score twin cards, I would like to see LSI revisited, though.

I can see "high" @ 1440 a setting worth testing, but they ignored "high" @ 1080 as well. In this case, I'll bet they didn't do it due to time and that most people who spend $400 or more on a monitor will spend an equally high amount on the GPU. Every GPU they tested at 1440 and 4K managed pretty well. The only combo left off that would have a chance is a 270X @ 1440. But how many people out there have monitors that cost more than twice as much as their GPUs?
 


Not gamers, that's for sure, but there are probably plenty of people who work with CPU-driven applications that have very expensive monitors with a cheap (and perhaps no) dedicates graphics card.

But given that the article is about a game, we're probably talking in the 1440p section about people relatively few people who play games at that resolution.

It's pretty cool that such niche consumer bases can find good information here on Tom's.
 

Yeah, that's what I mean. Relatively few people are on 1440 compared to 1080, and of those people very few are using a GPU under a 280 / 285. It'd be nice to cover absolutely everyone , but reviewers don't have the time, or sometimes the parts, to test every possible combination. With the limited time, they have to try to cover the majority of the users and hope those left out can interpolate well enough from the given results.
 
I'm running an i5 4690k with a 760 TF 2gb and all settings on high at 1080 and the game looks great. I keep a steady 70+fps at all times.
 
Hi. I'm running the GTX970 and looking at getting a new monitor. Was interested to see the fps were very similar when comparing 1080p set to ultra with 1440p set to medium. Which do you feel would result in a better looking game? Had pretty much set my heart on 1440 but if that results in needing to lose graphics could it be a mistake? Cheers
 
Until graphics cards can easily max out 1440p, the image fidelity will be higher on 1080p, even though it's a lower resolution. Pushing less pixels means you'll be able to allocate GPU power to increasing the fidelity of each pixel, rather than pushing more (lower fidelity) pixels.

There's still not a single GPU card that can completely max out 1080p while maintaining 60 fps in AAA titles, so don't expect the 970 to dominate 1080p or 1440p with all of the GPU hungry settings. That said, it will do a damn good job on either. You'll have to just look to see whether you like fidelity better than resolution, or whether you like resolution better than fidelity.
 
Hi. I'm running the GTX970 and looking at getting a new monitor. Was interested to see the fps were very similar when comparing 1080p set to ultra with 1440p set to medium. Which do you feel would result in a better looking game? Had pretty much set my heart on 1440 but if that results in needing to lose graphics could it be a mistake? Cheers
 
Hi. I'm running the GTX970 and looking at getting a new monitor. Was interested to see the fps were very similar when comparing 1080p set to ultra with 1440p set to medium. Which do you feel would result in a better looking game? Had pretty much set my heart on 1440 but if that results in needing to lose graphics could it be a mistake? Cheers
 
Sorry my phone is freaking out. Just wanted to say thanks. Guess the cheapness of 1080 may well win out in the end. And I could always then get 3 of them :)
 
The 1440p monitors are very nice, and graphics cards will catch up. Think of the screen as an investment set to last two or three times as long as your computer, so you'll want to factor gaming in as only one consideration unless you are a professional gamer. Guessing not because they don't have to buy anything anyway. So think about how you'd be able to use a slightly larger screen with 109 pixels per inch (ppi). That 109 number is the ppi for a 27 in 1440p monitor. You can get that same ppi on a 1080p if you get a small screen, maybe 17-19 inches (haven't done the math). Resolution only counts for the ppi it gets you, as well as how much screen real estate you get. So how many things can be open and visible at once? You could actually run a 1080p game on your 1440p monitor while leaving open browsers and stuff if you wanted. RAM and CPu would become the bottleneck at that point.
 
Excellent thanks so much. I think that's what I wanted. An excuse to get 1440 :) I love my photoshop as well so would always be an ips rather than super quick tn and decent ppi
 
Really poor performance by nvidia graphics cards. Except the GTX 970, there are no good options. And the GTX 960 promises to be terrible. It's better to stick with the AMD.
 


To be fair, it's one game. There are always going to be games where one side underperforms.

It is odd though, considering Shadow of Mordor is a "the way it's meant to be played" title.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom