- Page 1 Rock Xtreme 770 T7800-8800 Review
- Page 2 Rock Xtreme 770 T7800-8800 Review
- Page 3 Rock Xtreme 770 T7800-8800 Review
- Page 4 Rock Xtreme 770 T7800-8800 Review
- Page 5 Rock Xtreme 770 T7800-8800 Review
- Page 6 Rock Xtreme 770 T7800-8800 Review
- Page 7 2D Performance Review
- Page 8 3D Performance: CS:S, Prey & Quake Wars Review
- Page 9 3D Performance: Crysis Review
For a more modern title we loaded up Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, running the game exclusively at the native 1,920 x 1,200. Again, results were very impressive with an average of 51.7 frames per second with no anti-aliasing and 4x anisotropic filtering; this with all other settings set to their highest. Increasing both anti-aliasing and filtering had some impact, but never to the point where the game grew too sluggish.
So far, so good, but how would the 8800M GTX deal with something a little more demanding? “Demanding” meaning Crysis, which isn’t so much demanding but the one game guaranteed to bring even the fastest PC to its knees. Does Rock’s 8800M GTX fuelled machine pass the grade?
For the purposes of testing we’ve avoided using any anti-aliasing or filtering, simply because it’s nigh on impossible to get playable frame rates with either enabled. Instead we’ve tested with all settings set to Medium, High or Very High at both 1,920 x 1,200 and 1,280 x 800 using the game’s ready prepared benchmarking tool.
At 1,280 x 800 on medium settings playing Crysis shouldn’t be too great a problem, with an average frame rate of 48.83 frames per second, a minimum of 27.71 and maximum of 77.89. Indeed, even at 1,920x x 1,200 it should be playable, registering an average of 32.73 and a minimum of 23.35 frames per second. Clearly then you can play Crysis on this machine, though in truth at medium settings you’re missing out on the true beauty of the game. Thus, for the real Crysis experience, you must step up to all high settings. How does this affect performance?
Predictably, the difference is tangible. At 1,280 x 800, an average of 29.4 doesn’t sound too bad, but when the frame rate drops to as low as 10.74 frames per second it’s obviously not going to be a perfectly smooth experience. Needless to say moving up to 1,920 x 1,200 is a bad idea, while the very high setting at either resolution isn’t even worth contemplating.
To see if we could squeeze a few more frames out of the notebook we also tried running the same tests on high, but with physics and post processing on medium. At 1,280 x 800 this provided some benefits, with a minor bump in the average frame rate but a significant improvement for the minimum frame rate, at 21.89 instead of 10.74 frames per second. However, moving up to 1,920 x 1,200 was still pushing it and trying to play the game at these settings proved impossible.
Unlike other sites, we thoroughly test every product we review. We use industry standard tests in order to compare features properly. We’ll always tell you what we find. We never, ever accept money to review a product. Tell us what you think - send your emails to the Editor.