Star Trek Online: Game Performance Analyzed And Benchmarked

Status
Not open for further replies.

Silmarunya

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2009
810
0
19,010
13
[citation][nom]jdh64[/nom]Admit it TOMS......Geforce rules this games as well as others.......quit being ATI fanbois......Wait till the new series of cards comes out....then whatcha gunna do...cry!!!![/citation]

Not really. This is just about the only benchmark where a Geforce card beats a comparable 5000-series one, so there's still a nice lead for the 5000 cards. With a driver update, this result can change in favor of the 5000, which would give them back every game tested here...

And nobody should be very concerned about the GTX 300, at least not for the first year and a half. The initial mammoth chip will be expensive, hot, noisy and more powerful than useful for gaming. By the time it scaled down properly, ATI will have refreshed cards in the market for a while, probably offering better performance, lower power consumption and more features for a similar price tag.

 

gilbertfh

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2009
186
0
18,680
0
This game looks interesting and could be a good diversion once in a while but I can't really see it replacing the games I am playing now. I have played other cryptic studios games and they really didn't engage me for long. If I buy it I will at least play it for the included month before purchasing a subscription.
 

toxxel

Distinguished
Apr 14, 2009
68
0
18,630
0
If your interested in playing this game give it 6 months or so. Currently there is no content at max level, and it takes less than a week to hit max rank. Klingons only have pvp content but more is promised for both factions. Server instability and downtime have plagued launch mostly for the overwhelming player base and not being prepared.

I for one would wonder how this and Champions Online run since ST:O runs on a modified CO engine.
 

jennyh

Splendid
Mar 3, 2009
4,292
0
22,860
26
I guess Nvidia leaned on Don after this months "Best gaming graphics card".

Batman AA was the last one of these reviews I believe. Either way, twice in the past 4 months you've managed to review games that go quite wildly against the norm in terms of the gtx260's actual potency.
 

cypeq

Distinguished
Nov 26, 2009
369
0
18,790
4
[citation][nom]notty22[/nom]I feel sorry for ati***s scared of Fermi.[/citation]

I feel sorry for nVidia now becouse roles on marked turned and now nVidia is on position where it needs to chatch up.
 

kettu

Distinguished
May 28, 2009
243
0
18,710
5
I think it would be worth mentioning in the article that this game is a "TWIMBP" title. That would explain why Nvidia cards perform so well compared to competition.
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
2,447
0
19,790
1
How about testing this on a Intel 660 (using the integrated video) and comparable laptop chip with n Intel GPU?
Because, come on, Intel is the market leader in GPU's (in sheer quanitity alone).

I wonder how this game would look spread across 5x 30" 2560x1600 monitors (all in portrait mode for a 45/16 or 2.8125:1 aspect ratio), assuming a 5890 (the 6xDP version that we all want released already).

While I may be a trekkie to the core, this game does not interest me.
Kirk was alright, but Picard owned his ass.
BTW, do you get to get it on with hot alien chics? That'd be the one redeeming factor of the game...

=)
 

jennyh

Splendid
Mar 3, 2009
4,292
0
22,860
26
[citation][nom]kettu[/nom]I think it would be worth mentioning in the article that this game is a "TWIMBP" title. That would explain why Nvidia cards perform so well compared to competition.[/citation]

Agreed. I didn't even realise STO was a TWIMTBP title.

That's pretty poor form Cleeve. Are things so desperate for Nvidia now that you aren't allowed to mention TWIMTBP in these 'reviews' you do?
 

Spanky Deluxe

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2009
506
0
18,980
0
Great game. Despite a few server crashes etc the launch has been significantly smoother than most MMOs. It's already got a good amount of content. Sure reaching the level max takes about 4-5 days for most players but that's *game* time so 96 to 120 hours game time. Unless you're a speed runner and don't care about the story - then you can probably burn through it faster.

It's got its bugs but, as I said, compared to other MMOs at launch, it feels very polished.

I'm a little surprised to see no SLI or Crossfire benchmarks in this article btw - particularly because you're benchmarking at 2560x1600. FWIW, I'm running a pair of 1GB XFX 4870s on an i7 system. I'm running at 2560x1600.

My settings are 200/300% for every option (basically everything is maxxed) apart from antialiasing, which I've set at 2x, and anisotropic filtering, which I've set at 4x. It runs perfectly smoothly all the time. I haven't tried it at higher AA/AF options since these are what I set it to for all games (I've never been able to tell the difference between 2xAF and higher when at 2560x1600 and I've always been in the habit of having AF at twice what AF is set to).
 

calranthe

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2006
18
0
18,510
0
Well both me, wife and our two closest friends have been playing STO since beta.

It depends what your looking for, if your in it to power game and max to end level you gotta realise wow and all the others didn't have end level content in game at launch.

If your looking for An authentic ST style game where you can visit DS9, explore strange new worlds, customise your bridge officers and ship, go to alot of the iconic areas of the ST universe and generally have fun it is fun:)

Best fun we have had in an mmo for a very long time and the launch although bumpy is no worse than most other mmo launches.

Its different than most other mmo's as in leveling isn't a focus, leveling brings you better ships and weapons etc but you don't haveto grind and its casual play friends as in you can log on for 30 mins and feel as if you actually did something.

Final comment, as a core group we four have been playing pc games since the zx81 (remember typing the gaming in from the sinclair magazine) to every genre since and this is one of the nicest casual fun games aslong as your not focused on end game power gaming
 

davendork

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2010
67
0
18,630
0
Dear TH,
Pls stop reviewing this game and letting me know it will play sweet on my hardwares. Even tho I was trekkie in high school I don't need to get caught up in this MMO. Don't need the temptation. You are evil mistress.
-davendork
 
Speaking of Klingons, this is a PvP-centric faction. You can't even make a Klingon character until you've spent some time as a Federation player, and advancing that Klingon player relies almost entirely on PvP combat. Nifty!
This really sucks. This brings the pvp game play back about 10 years when diablo 2 launched. One sided no real MMO pvp making this game really a RPG online. Cant we start out as borg or klingon? This will end up being the great opportunity missed to dethrone WOW.
 

DaveUK

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2006
383
0
18,790
1
Is there any particular reason why Toms have got into the extremely bad habit of not ordering your benchmarks from top performer > bottom performer in a logical fashion?

For some reason ATI cards are sat at the top of these charts even when they are not first. The 5770 is 'above' the GTS 250 and the high-end cards are 'above' the GTX 260. It's tacky, and it just looks like you're sponsored by AMD. Maybe you are !?

Can you please start ordering your benchmarks logically so that the highest performer is at the top and lowest performers at the bottom. It makes you look alot more professional.

In case you've forgotten, here's how to do it properly.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3679&p=8

Kthxbai.
 

DaveUK

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2006
383
0
18,790
1
Is there any particular reason why Toms have got into the extremely bad habit of not ordering your benchmarks from top performer > bottom performer in a logical fashion?

For some reason ATI cards are sat at the top of these charts even when they are not first. The 5770 is 'above' the GTS 250 and the high-end cards are 'above' the GTX 260. It's tacky, and it just looks like you're sponsored by AMD. Maybe you are !?

Can you please start ordering your benchmarks logically so that the highest performer is at the top and lowest performers at the bottom. It makes you look alot more professional.

In case you've forgotten, here's how to do it properly.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3679&p=8

Kthxbai.
 

eridani64

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2010
4
0
18,510
0
The wife & myself also play STO, and since we're long-time WoW players we have a good comparison. While WoW may win in the "content" department with it's 5 years of development... STO wins hands down in the community department. Even after 4 plus years I cringe every time someone asks a question in WoW chat with the barrage of "NooB!" comments the player gets... In STO the players inquiry is answered by numerous helpful players, and I'll tell you that is refreshing. I really like the fact that in STO when one inspects another player the only thing they see is your general player stats & bio if you have one... NONE of your equipped gear is displayed. This feature keeps the "gear" kiddies from mocking & berating you as they do in WoW. Now for those of you who'll flame me for that last comment... I have a guild on WoW with 50 adults who DON'T raid with gear scores @ or above the 5K mark so we aren't a bunch of green machines stumbling around in normal instances. We could raid if we felt the need to, but we've all found with our various schedules it's a daunting effort. That said since there have been a few of us who've tried STO, and like what we see... we are considering moving the entire group to STO. Is STO going to be WoW? I hope not... Can it give WoW a run for it's money? maybe, if Cryptic continues to refine & built the content. So far they've smoothed the gameplay out while adding content for the emerging Admirals. I could keep going.... Call me a fanboy if you like, but since I've been around for over 45 years I think it's safe to say Star Trek IS, and always WILL be in my blood!
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]jennyh[/nom]Either way, twice in the past 4 months you've managed to review games that go quite wildly against the norm in terms of the gtx260's actual potency.[/citation]

It is amazing to me that the conspiracy theorists can come up with stuff like this.

For the record, I don't have a functioning crystal ball. I reviewed this title because I'm interested in it, I've been a Star trek fan for years.

Now please explain exactly how I would know ahead of time what the benchmark results will be before putting in the hours to actually benchmark this title. There is no other performance info on STO out there as far as I'm aware of. In this light, your accusation is absolutely laughable.

On top of that, what's so bad about Radeons in this title? A 4890 is a few FPS slower than a GTX 260. So what? both are playable at 1920x1200, and most people are still playing at 1680 res.

I can throw recommendations at Radeons all day but if I report something that doesn't flatter AMD cards I get accused of bias instantly. I hope you are able to recognize how ridiculous that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS