Performance in Older Games

In response to our preview a number of you asked for performance in older titles. We dusted off a couple of our benchmarks from a few years ago to see how Intel's HD 3000 and AMD's Radeon HD 6550D handled these golden oldies.

First up is a personal favorite: Oblivion. Our test remains unchanged from when we used to run this test, the only difference is we're actually able to get playable frame rates from integrated graphics now. We set the game to High Quality defaults, although the Intel platform had to disable HDR in order to get the game to render properly:

The Core i3-2105 with its HD Graphics 3000 can actually deliver a playable experience at 1024 x 768 with just over 40 fps. Move to higher resolutions however and you either have to drop quality settings or sacrifice playability. The A8-3850 gives you no such tradeoff. Even at 1920 x 1200 the A8 manages to deliver over 40 fps using Oblivion's High Quality defaults.

We saw similar results under Half Life 2: Episode Two:

Here the Core i3 maintains playability all the way up to 1920 x 1200, but you obviously get much higher frame rates from the Llano APU.

Asymmetric CrossFire Compute & Video Transcoding Performance
POST A COMMENT

99 Comments

View All Comments

  • evilspoons - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Haha, I stupidly ordered a 1920x1200 panel in my work laptop (I really should've gone with 1680x1050).

    It's a 15".

    Hahaha.
    Reply
  • Alexvrb - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    You don't like your eyes very much, do you? Reply
  • misuspita - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Oh come on, we come from the same place and that is not true. Budget systems come with the cheapest 19 LCD's which add 80€ to the price of a new budget PC. Resolution?1600x900.

    Yes, if you buy a second hand PC, then you get it with older monitors, but then, you don't get a brand new A8, right?

    I also think that the resolutions tested should be max 3:

    1. laptop minimum - 1366x768
    2. LCD medium - 1600x900
    3. LCD standard - 1920x1080
    Reply
  • Musafir_86 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    -Where are you from? I'm from Malaysia, and the place I mentioned is in context of a city (that's just a bit bigger than a town); in bigger cities the situation would be different, of course.

    -BTW, I meant a *NEW* budget system paired with a recond/refurbished monitors. CRT is offered to the most budget-constrained customers who would want a PC just for some word processing, surfing the internet, watching YouTube, and some light gaming for their kids. But more would prefer a LCD anyway, even if it's a refurb. :)

    Regards.
    Reply
  • misuspita - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Sorry, your nickname is a word from romanian language, and I thought you are from Romania.

    Well, here new systems come with LCD's only, because they got really cheap in the past 5 years. And the cheaaaapest one still boasts a higher resolution than 1024x768. That's pretty ancient and not used anymore. Why do we not test in 640x480? I mean, safe mode works, we shoul test that one too...
    Reply
  • L. - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    Again guys, we're reviewing new tech, the kind that costs a lot of money ... and stuff ..

    If you're into refurbished, I don't quite see the point of getting an i3 when you could get so much more out of second hand (pardon me, but in your position I'd rather spend 130 bucks on a full HD led-backlit LCD rather than a useless core i3).
    Reply
  • ET - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    I'd argue for 1280x720 (720p) as the minimum resolution. That's a reasonable resolution to use as a step down on a 1080p monitor or HDTV.

    By the way, looking at Newegg, the lowest price monitors are either 1366x768 or 1440x900, then a couple of 1600x900 and then 1080p. The difference between in price between the cheapest 1600x900 and 1080p is $10.

    Probably 1366x768 and 1080p are the only two resolutions really worth testing these days, since the market seems to be moving towards them as standards (much as I personally hate 16:9). Though I argued for 720p, the difference between it and 1366x768 is small.
    Reply
  • BigDDesign - Friday, July 01, 2011 - link

    1366x768 feels good with my eyesight and a 15" laptop. WTF is the problem with actually seeing what is on the screen at 2 feet away. 16:10 would be better, but we are stuck with cheap panels at 16:9. I wear glasses for the small stuff. Still don't think that a native resolution of anything less than a 24" monitor is good for 1080p resolution. Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Monday, July 04, 2011 - link

    --[Still don't think that a native resolution of anything less than a 24" monitor is good for 1080p resolution.]--

    Yep, bought a 21.5" 1080p panel and it's pixels seem a little small for desktop use, suggesting 23-24" would be better. (Until all applications and OSes magically become resolution independent.)
    Reply
  • zebrax2 - Thursday, June 30, 2011 - link

    I disagree as many of lower end plasmas use 1024x768. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now