Author Topic: Street Fighter 4 Benchmark Released! (Read 14162 times)

Aabra · « **on:** June 14, 2009, 10:39:12 pm »

Check out how well Street Fighter 4 will run on your machine.

Download the benchmark here:

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2009/jun/14/pc-street-fighter-4-benchmark-tool-released/

FrizzleFried · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2009, 05:04:45 pm »

Unless SFIV can run at 640x480 and has mappable controls, I'm not buyin. Anyone know if the controls can be mapped? I guess I could go up to 800x600 on my cab, but that's pushing it with the stardard res monitor.

massive88 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2009, 05:06:23 pm »

Quote from: FrizzleFried on June 15, 2009, 05:04:45 pm

Unless SFIV can run at 640x480 and has mappable controls, I'm not buyin. Anyone know if the controls can be mapped? I guess I could go up to 800x600 on my cab, but that's pushing it with the stardard res monitor.

Dont think we will know those details until its released.

FrizzleFried · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2009, 07:13:34 pm »

FYI: The benchmark lets you drop to 640x480! I think the game may also... now if only it would allow mapable controls!

Gamester · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2009, 07:29:53 pm »

I would be shocked if control mappings are not changeable... that's a pretty standard feature on PC games.

TrAb · « **Reply #5 on:** June 15, 2009, 08:41:03 pm »

If it isnt a feature im sure somebody will make a app for it...

retrometro · « **Reply #6 on:** June 15, 2009, 09:06:33 pm »

Oh man. thanks for the link downloading now...

Ginsu Victim · « **Reply #7 on:** June 15, 2009, 09:36:31 pm »

Just got through messing around with this. All I can say is, "Ooooooo, pretty...."

Trebeck · « **Reply #8 on:** June 15, 2009, 11:19:14 pm »

Damn I'm only getting 30 fps.....
RAM?

Aabra · « **Reply #9 on:** June 15, 2009, 11:27:20 pm »

The benchmark lets you take it down to 640x480 so that's a non-issue. As far as mappable controls are concerned.... we'll know on July the 7th but I can't possibly imagine that they wouldn't be.

FrizzleFried · « **Reply #10 on:** June 16, 2009, 12:22:34 pm »

Strangely, I can run the benchmark on my system... and it's fluid as all hell, but it says 0.0 FPS and it fails the test??

Aabra · « **Reply #11 on:** June 16, 2009, 12:37:59 pm »

That's weird. Go into the options and set the framerate to fixed. You might also want to set it so the framerate is constantly displayed so you can see it while the benchmark is running.

FrizzleFried · « **Reply #12 on:** June 16, 2009, 01:27:48 pm »

I just tried setting for FIXED frame rate... no difference. I also have enabled the FPS display and it sits at 0.00 the whole time... both current and average FPS. I've tried multiple graphics setting so no avail.

Aabra · « **Reply #13 on:** June 16, 2009, 02:09:33 pm »

Well, at the end of the day it *is* running smoothly so you should be ok. That's very strange though that it can't detect the FPS. Maybe try setting it to variable FPS instead of Fixed.... Maybe rebooting and/or reinstalling the video drivers will fix it. Considering that it's only a benchmark I doubt the tech support will be very extensive. heh

Organic Jerk · « **Reply #14 on:** June 17, 2009, 01:26:36 pm »

It might be a driver issue...

It may be that some driver component is not reporting or not reporting in a way the game likes.

Try updating your drivers (but maybe its a bug with the NEW drivers....

)

All in all, if it runs great, as said before it SHOULD be fine.

Worst case scenario is that the game restricts what the benchmark let happen. So where the benchmark let you find out that it believes it doesnt work while in-game, the game itself might check that and refuse to play while still in Windows.

FrizzleFried · « **Reply #15 on:** June 17, 2009, 03:06:39 pm »

I just checked out the benchmark on my Core2Duo horizontal MAME cabinet. Unfortunately my weak-ass GeForce 7200 I am using in the cab makes this game unplayable (as I expected). Even at 640x480 all default settings aside from resolution, I was getting 14.85 FPS. If I turn everything to low (which turns off the backgrounds even!) I get 29FPS. If I decide to get this game, I will need to upgrade the video card as well for sure.

XtraSmiley · « **Reply #16 on:** June 17, 2009, 04:07:34 pm »

I'm using the AVGA PCI (old one) card and 800x600. The window that comes up that shows the CAPCOM log appears too big for the screen, then the game never starts, just sits at a black screen. Anyone have any ideas?

massive88 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 17, 2009, 04:13:30 pm »

Quote from: XtraSmiley on June 17, 2009, 04:07:34 pm

I'm using the AVGA PCI (old one) card and 800x600. The window that comes up that shows the CAPCOM log appears too big for the screen, then the game never starts, just sits at a black screen. Anyone have any ideas?

1
2

XtraSmiley · « **Reply #18 on:** June 17, 2009, 04:22:59 pm »

Uh, thanks dude but that doesn't help on an arcade monitor that can only display 800x600.

Now to actually help me...

Can someone post a pic of the starting screen. It seems that I can change the options to get a lower rez, but I can't see the bottom of the screen to do so and I start in 1280 so it is cut off. Thanks.

XtraSmiley · « **Reply #19 on:** June 17, 2009, 04:49:11 pm »

Actually, it would help if someone posted a pic and/or told me the key presses to change it to 800x600. Such as, start it up, press right arrow 3 times, then hit enter.

Thanks guys/gals.

massive88 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 17, 2009, 05:14:58 pm »

Quote from: XtraSmiley on June 17, 2009, 04:22:59 pm

Uh, thanks dude but that doesn't help on an arcade monitor that can only display 800x600.

Now to actually help me...

Can someone post a pic of the starting screen. It seems that I can change the options to get a lower rez, but I can't see the bottom of the screen to do so and I start in 1280 so it is cut off. Thanks.

Snarky responses aside, if its a Radeon9250 or earlier based card, I doubt it will be fast enough for SF4. The 9250 came out a year before the X1600, which is listed as the minimum card for the game.

XtraSmiley · « **Reply #21 on:** June 17, 2009, 05:38:43 pm »

Well, believe it or not the game is running at 20FPS, the problem is it's so big only ~30% of the screen is visible.

Instead of telling me what it can or can't do, can you just help out by posting the screen shot or giving me the directions to shrink it down?

massive88 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 17, 2009, 06:01:52 pm »

Quote from: XtraSmiley on June 17, 2009, 05:38:43 pm

Well, believe it or not the game is running at 20FPS, the problem is it's so big only ~30% of the screen is visible.

Instead of telling me what it can or can't do, can you just help out by posting the screen shot or giving me the directions to shrink it down?

I would if I could, if no one has it in about an hour when I get home from work Ill post it for you.

DJ_Izumi · « **Reply #23 on:** June 17, 2009, 06:04:19 pm »

SF4 is posted as requiring SM3 support which none of the Radion 8XXX or 9XXX series supports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R520

X1300's would be your bare minimum, basicly anything on the R520 design or higher.

An AVGA won't cut it. I tried the demo myself on my X800 (SM2.0, no 3.0) and got the game 'running' but entirely black screen. This would be because the demo is calling up shaders that the system doesn't have and as a result isn't and won't render a finished product.

I'm actually suprised it doesn't just give a warning that SM3.0 isn't present and that it won't run at all.

Aabra · « **Reply #24 on:** June 17, 2009, 06:53:12 pm »

Quote from: XtraSmiley on June 17, 2009, 05:38:43 pm

Well, believe it or not the game is running at 20FPS, the problem is it's so big only ~30% of the screen is visible.

Instead of telling me what it can or can't do, can you just help out by posting the screen shot or giving me the directions to shrink it down?

start it up - hit ESC a bunch of time to skip the intros. (or wait a while)

Push the down arrow once
Hit Enter
(This goes into the PC Settings area)
Push down three times (this moves to the resolution setting)
Push left a ton of times (this changes the resolution to 640x480)
Push right once (changes the resolution to 800 x 600)
Push Up - The resolution will actually change and if you can see it hit yes to keep the settings.

Organic Jerk · « **Reply #25 on:** June 17, 2009, 07:11:57 pm »

Quote from: Aabra on June 17, 2009, 06:53:12 pm

start it up - hit ESC a bunch of time to skip the intros. (or wait a while)

Push the down arrow once
Hit Enter
(This goes into the PC Settings area)
Push down three times (this moves to the resolution setting)
Push left a ton of times (this changes the resolution to 640x480)
Push right once (changes the resolution to 800 x 600)
Push Up - The resolution will actually change and if you can see it hit yes to keep the settings.

This will not help XtraSmiley

The information DJ Izumi posted above is spot on regarding older cards, including the Arcade VGA card... the AVGA 2 PCIE version would be the only one that would work, since its based on the Radeon 2400 line

Quote from: DJ_Izumi on June 17, 2009, 06:04:19 pm

SF4 is posted as requiring SM4 support which none of the Radion 8XXX or 9XXX series supports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R520

X1300's would be your bare minimum, basicly anything on the R520 design or higher.

An AVGA won't cut it. I tried the demo myself on my X800 (SM2.0, no 3.0) and got the game 'running' but entirely black screen. This would be because the demo is calling up shaders that the system doesn't have and as a result isn't and won't render a finished product.

I'm actually suprised it doesn't just give a warning that SM3.0 isn't present and that it won't run at all.

Looks like you're SOL, Xtra...

XtraSmiley · « **Reply #26 on:** June 17, 2009, 07:37:30 pm »

Screens for other's who may have an up to date card but on an arcade monitor who will still need this.

For everyone else, thanks a ton. I'm getting a nice 30FPS at 800x600, black textures though.... LOL

brandon · « **Reply #27 on:** June 17, 2009, 09:07:15 pm »

Quote from: XtraSmiley on June 17, 2009, 07:37:30 pm

Screens for other's who may have an up to date card but on an arcade monitor who will still need this.

For everyone else, thanks a ton. I'm getting a nice 30FPS at 800x600, black textures though.... LOL

maybe you should change the texture filtering options or other texture settings..texture quality, texture compression..etc Using up to date video drivers, DirectX etc? I've seen this game on 360 and the PC version looks WAY better.. I guess because of the higher resolution and texture detail. I wonder how long before somebody hacks the benchmark and makes it playable?

XtraSmiley · « **Reply #28 on:** June 17, 2009, 09:12:53 pm »

Nah, I think the old AVGA card just isn't up to snuff for this one. The real decision now needs to be, get a new card and figure out how to make it work with my arcade monitor, and is that even worth it....

I just won a local SF4 tournament and have enough money to buy a new card too, so the decision is even harder now...

TrAb · « **Reply #29 on:** June 17, 2009, 09:19:10 pm »

Dang i only got 59.8 fps the whole time

, im running quad core amd 3.1ghz, 4gb ram, w/ gtx295 only using one gpu as well...

Aabra · « **Reply #30 on:** June 17, 2009, 11:34:23 pm »

Ya it's capped at 60 fps. At least if you set it to fixed. If you set it to variable FPS it'll probably go higher.

ivwshane · « **Reply #31 on:** June 18, 2009, 01:46:26 am »

lol

I ran it on my current system and all I got was a big (I'm running 800*600) black box:o

Luckily I'm upgrading anyway.

If I'm getting an i7 920 can I get away with using a cheap video card, something around the $100 mark?

DJ_Izumi · « **Reply #32 on:** June 18, 2009, 02:44:06 am »

Quote from: ivwshane on June 18, 2009, 01:46:26 am

lol

I ran it on my current system and all I got was a big (I'm running 800*600) black box:o

Luckily I'm upgrading anyway.

If I'm getting an i7 920 can I get away with using a cheap video card, something around the $100 mark?

Make sure the graphics card supports Shader Moderl 3. This isn't an issue for Nvidia cards as they moved up to SM3 support faster than ATi did. Meanwhile with my X800, powerful enough for many games but gimped cause those games require SM3

ivwshane · « **Reply #33 on:** June 18, 2009, 03:26:52 am »

My stuff is way too old for sm3.

I think I have an ati 9800 in there now.

massive88 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 18, 2009, 09:44:57 am »

Quote from: TrAb on June 17, 2009, 09:19:10 pm

Dang i only got 59.8 fps the whole time , im running quad core amd 3.1ghz, 4gb ram, w/ gtx295 only using one gpu as well...

Disable V-Sync, its whats limiting your frame rate.

My main computer is far weaker than my arcade machine, it barely runs Source Engine games playable, but it could crank out SF4 pretty easily. I was at 70 fps at 1600x1050, and about the same at 1280x720 x2AA.

My "main" computer is:
Athlon 64 X2 2.4 Ghz
Geforce 7900GS

While my arcade machine is:
Core2Duo 3.2 Ghz
Geforce 9800 GTX+

Todd H · « **Reply #35 on:** June 18, 2009, 01:31:01 pm »

I'm disappointed that my system didn't score higher. I had to lower the resolution to 1024x768 and turn off a lot of options to get it to run at close to 60 fps. Most of the time it struggled. I'm running a 3.5 Ghz Core 2 Duo with 4GB of ram running Windows XP. My video card may be the bottleneck. It's an Nvidia 9500 GT. I was going to get a better card when I built my rig but got this for free.

Any recommendations?

Edited: Changed it to 4 GB not MB. I'm in desperate need of a vacation.

massive88 · « **Reply #36 on:** June 18, 2009, 01:45:49 pm »

Quote from: Todd H on June 18, 2009, 01:31:01 pm

I'm disappointed that my system didn't score higher. I had to lower the resolution to 1024x768 and turn off a lot of options to get it to run at close to 60 fps. Most of the time it struggled. I'm running a 3.5 Ghz Core 2 Duo with 4MB of ram running Windows XP. My video card may be the bottleneck. It's an Nvidia 9500 GT. I was going to get a better card when I built my rig but got this for free.

Any recommendations?

That makes little sense to me, the 9500 GT should be comparable to my 7900 GS, if not slightly better, and your processor is way better than mine, and I only have 2 gigs ram, is it an onboard card? Are you running with a lot of AA?

Todd H · « **Reply #37 on:** June 18, 2009, 01:48:29 pm »

Quote from: massive88 on June 18, 2009, 01:45:49 pm

That makes little sense to me, the 9500 GT should be comparable to my 7900 GS, if not slightly better, and your processor is way better than mine, and I only have 2 gigs ram, is it an onboard card? Are you running with a lot of AA?

That's with AA turned off completely. I was shocked when I saw the results. The card is PCI-E.

massive88 · « **Reply #38 on:** June 18, 2009, 04:04:54 pm »

Quote from: Todd H on June 18, 2009, 01:48:29 pm

That's with AA turned off completely. I was shocked when I saw the results. The card is PCI-E.

Weird, must be some odd feature that is toned down on the 9500 GT thats killing it. An 8800 should work fine for fairly cheap.

Todd H · « **Reply #39 on:** June 18, 2009, 04:06:50 pm »

Updated to latest drivers and BOOM! Scored an A.


Main	Restorations	Software	Audio/Jukebox/MP3	Everything Else	Buy/Sell/Trade
Project Announcements	Monitor/Video	GroovyMAME	Merit/JVL Touchscreen	Meet Up	Retail Vendors
Driving & Racing	Woodworking	Software Support Forums	Consoles	Project Arcade	Reviews
Automated Projects	Artwork	Frontend Support Forums	Pinball	Forum Discussion	Old Boards
Raspberry Pi & Dev Board	controls.dat	Linux	Miscellaneous Arcade	Wiki Discussion	Old Archives
Lightguns	Arcade1Up	Try the site in https mode		Site News


Unread posts \| New Replies \| Recent posts \| Rules \| Chatroom \| Wiki \| File Repository \| RSS \| Submit news