Just Cause 2 Gameplay Performance and Image Quality @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
2FA
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
58,612
Just Cause 2 Gameplay Performance and Image Quality - Just Cause 2 is here for your acrobatic action hero fix, bringing with it plenty of mind-bending stunts, frantic gun-play, and airborne high-speed chases. We'll examine this new game's performance with four of today's most sought-after video cards and let you know which one is the best match for your upgrade needs. Fermi vs. 5800!

Best Performer : In Just Cause 2, for the very best performance, there is no beating the Radeon HD 5870.
Click to expand...

Check Stock on Video Cards Used in the Article at Newegg: GeForce GTX 480<img src="http://www.ftjcfx.com/image-3891137-10446076" width="1" height="1" border="0"/>, Radeon HD 5870<img src="http://www.ftjcfx.com/image-3891137-10446076" width="1" height="1" border="0"/>, GeForce GTX 470<img src="http://www.awltovhc.com/image-3891137-10446076" width="1" height="1" border="0"/>, Radeon HD 5850<img src="http://www.lduhtrp.net/image-3891137-10446076" width="1" height="1" border="0"/>
 
Last edited:
Interesting conclusion. So better performance on the 5870 but better image quality at lower resolution for the 480 is basically what you're saying?

And while I agree that it would have been nice to see DirectCompute or OpenCL in the game instead of CUDA, the thing is who is pushing those technologies? Now if nVidia got wind of what Avalanche was doing and steered them in the direction of CUDA over DirectCompute or OpenCL that's not cool and one thing, but if Avalanche had NO intentions of doing this work without some help, that's another thing and there's no reason for nVidia to push anything that's going to help AMD, though by doing so nVidia helps the PC gamer in general, but how does that show up on the bottom line. At any rate, it would have been nice and as you point out I'm sure the deal will never be made public.

On thing to note, the Bokeh filter doesn't seem to with SLI at the moment. Kind of a shame there, considering its a TWIMTBP game.
 
Last edited:
in the graph comparing the 5870 to the 480, you mis-label the 5870 as a 5850. just thought you guys should know. (No, that graph is correct. - Kyle)

Interesting results! I plsy it smoothly with my 5850, but I didn't know it would be that smooth.

Thanks [H]

When NVIDIA tells us that it will "Do no harm!" when it comes to gaming, that is really a bold faced lie, and we knew it when it was told to us. It will do no harm to PC gaming when it fits its agenda. NVIDIA is going to continue to glom onto its proprietary technologies so that it gains a marketing edge, which it very much does though its TWIMTBP program. And we have to assume that marketing edge is worth all the bad press it does generate. To say NVIDIA does not harm to PC gaming is a delusional at best. You AMD users just got shafted on these cool effects that could have been easily developed for all PC gamers instead of just those that purchase from one company.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU. I'm tired of seeing this argument time and time again on the forums of hardware review sites and not on the actual hardware reviews. It's nice to see that at least one reviewer will give an unbiased opinion on the matter, and not dance around the subject aimlessly.

I wish i could try out the water effects, but tbh I've put in 40+ hours into this game having fun without them. Even if you have a 5 series card, I'd reccomend this kind of game to anyone who enjoys GTA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would have love to seen a 1920x1200 with high AA in the apples to apples compairison section, either as confirmation that the 2560x1600 results scale, or to show that they simlpy don't.

In any case, good article.
 
I've been enjoying the heck out of this game on my rather modest system. Have you played it in Eyefinity yet? I played the demo that way when I had an Eyefinity set up and it looked really nice.

I was actually thinking of getting a 470 later this year if I decide to do the whole 3D gaming thing nice to see this game performs well on it. Though its also nice to see that whether I do go for the 470 or go back to a 5870 I'll be in great shape. Really nice article too.
 
Funny my GTX 480 smoked my HD5870 in the static benchmark.

Nvidia does have alot of driver work to do. Some games just don't feel smooth with the GTX 480. Give them a few months to get things together for a proper comparison.
 
I just purchased the game on saturday and I was really impressed with the look/performance ratio of the game.

I'm running 1920x1080 with 2xAA so I can get 90-120fps (120hz lcd)

Looks and feels great.
 
Ok, something bothers me on this review.

Why is it that you tested the 5870 and said that it gave you
2560x1600 with 4X AA with very stable framerates
Click to expand...
but then when you decided to do the Apples to Apples between the 480 and 5870 you decided to NOT use AA when we all know that the 480 handles AA much better than any other card taking the least of a performance hit? ;)


Thanks for all the comparison pics...nice to see what we get by using those extra features so we can decide if they are worth the hit.
Regards
 
Great article, but this is the first case where I feel like the ire against team green is misplaced. I find it hard to believe that [H] considers a company pushing their own technology, which they feel is better, as "doing harm". If by "do no harm" they meant "enable ATi" I think you are completely wrong. After all, all ATi has to do is license CUDA, and all of these nice effects will be enabled on their GPUs as well. Why is there no push to get ATi on board with CUDA? I've never seen anywhere Nvidia saying that they would not. And all things considered, I think they probably would license it.

I think nvidia should be applauded for pushing their technology so hard that companies are actually doing innovating things with it. GPU water of this quality and the bookeh effect (correct me if I am wrong) have not been seen before. And I have yet to see any kind of indication that OpenCL or Stream are capable of the same effects. PhysX demos are one thing, games are another, and until I see an actual playable game showing me that OCL and Stream can do the things PhysX/Cuda can, I will not feel bad for red.
Furthermore, it's not like OCL or Stream have gotten much press, and I think it's because they are not pushing their tech. Every once in a while we hear of a new tech that will be available or a new capability, but we never actually see it.

I'm no Nvidia fan boy, being as these two cards in my main system are the first nvidia cards I have ever purchased, but if they are going to go out there and make sure that the games i want to play have special effects I can use, then that makes me happy as a customer.
If ATi would go out there and do the same thing, it would mean a lot for my next card purchase, but as it stands, only Nvidia seems to be going out of their way to enable real post-purchase additional features to their cards. (Sorry eyefinity is not a feature, it's a display mode and one after trying it out I have ZERO interest in).
 
Derangel said:
I've been enjoying the heck out of this game on my rather modest system. Have you played it in Eyefinity yet? I played the demo that way when I had an Eyefinity set up and it looked really nice.
Click to expand...

I have to turn off AA and SSAO to make the game playable at 5760x1080. It's amazing in triple wide though especially when you're flying, just jaw dropping.

I didn't realize the GPU water made such a big difference. Although, to be fair even if the option was available to ATI, I'd choose triple wide over the performance hit. I never liked depth of field effects to begin with, so the bokeh filter is meh.
 
Modred189 said:
I GPU water of this quality and the bookeh effect (correct me if I am wrong) have not been seen before.
Click to expand...

The Bokeh effect is a depth of field style blur, which can be applied with postprocessing, usually referred to as lens blur + diffraction.
 
I have been playing this game on my nVidia Geforce 250 GTS and its works great. I believe I have most of the settings turned up and have never had a problem
 
Excellent review, as usual. The game does look astounding on PC, especially with nVidia.

Just a question...

Why no comparison at the same res, say 1920x1200, with AA between cards?

Reason I ask is due to the fact that, while the 5870 shows as faster with no AA, once AA is introduced the GTX 480 pulls ahead in everything I've played. I'd be curious to see that in the review, as it seems the harder you push the GTX 480, the more it shines.

In my comparisons between both cards with four different games now, the GTX 480 has shown to be between moderately faster at the least, to literally crushing the 5870 in minimum fps the majority of the time, the minimum fps obviously being what matters most.

In Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 I've benched carefully, and at the least, have seen the minimums 5-10fps faster with the GTX 480, to a more consistent 10-20fps increase and sometimes even double the fps increase with the GTX 480.

Everything tested at 1920x1200 res, 4xAA/16xAF (8xAA really shows no difference at 1920 and above), all settings maxed in every game, and tested as stringently as your tests.

Not to mention the constant odd "micro-hitching/stuttering" effects I've gotten in every game with a few different 5870's, which is not present with the GTX 480.

Needless to say, I ditched the 5870 for the GTX 480.

So, I'd certainly be curious to see the difference at the same res with AA on, as I only have the GTX 480 now so cannot compare JC2 for myself, but it runs phenomenally.
 
I found the review troubling. I just switched to an ATi 5870 last week after deciding I could no longer live without Eyefinity. I can see why [H] pushes it so hard. unlike Stereoscopic 3D its not an eye trick meant to simulate a 3D experience. You're literally play with additional viewable dimensions. With Eyefinity+ Bad Company 2 I cant get away from my computer long enough to sleep most nights.

That said, after seeing this review regardless of the unfairness in play if surround provides the same options as Eyefinity I'd leaped back in a heartbeat. I dont like feeling like I'm missing out on the image quality in these games.
 
Good read. I can't say I agree with the conclusion, as I don't don't think paying ~$50-70 for use of the two NVIDIA options via purchasing a GTX 470 defines a "value." It seems like the 5850 is still the card to get.
 
shaolin95 said:
Ok, something bothers me on this review.

Why is it that you tested the 5870 and said that it gave you but then when you decided to do the Apples to Apples between the 480 and 5870 you decided to NOT use AA when we all know that the 480 handles AA much better than any other card taking the least of a performance hit? ;)
Click to expand...

We will try to add these next go round since you have let us know they are important to you.
 
Does anyone know how the advanced effects (water/bookeh) run on the GTX 2 series?
 
Infaustium said:
Excellent review, as usual. The game does look astounding on PC, especially with nVidia.

Just a question...

Why no comparison at the same res, say 1920x1200, with AA between cards?

Reason I ask is due to the fact that, while the 5870 shows as faster with no AA, once AA is introduced the GTX 480 pulls ahead in everything I've played. I'd be curious to see that in the review, as it seems the harder you push the GTX 480, the more it shines.

In my comparisons between both cards with four different games now, the GTX 480 has shown to be between moderately faster at the least, to literally crushing the 5870 in minimum fps the majority of the time, the minimum fps obviously being what matters most.

In Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 I've benched carefully, and at the least, have seen the minimums 5-10fps faster with the GTX 480, to a more consistent 10-20fps increase and sometimes even double the fps increase with the GTX 480.

Everything tested at 1920x1200 res, 4xAA/16xAF (8xAA really shows no difference at 1920 and above), all settings maxed in every game, and tested as stringently as your tests.

Not to mention the constant odd "micro-hitching/stuttering" effects I've gotten in every game with a few different 5870's, which is not present with the GTX 480.

Needless to say, I ditched the 5870 for the GTX 480.

So, I'd certainly be curious to see the difference at the same res with AA on, as I only have the GTX 480 now so cannot compare JC2 for myself, but it runs phenomenally.
Click to expand...
I asked the same thing earlier, why use the max playable setting for the 5870 with 4x AA but use NO AA when comparing it to the 480...the 480 eats AA for breakfast. ;)
 
Infaustium said:
Excellent review, as usual. The game does look astounding on PC, especially with nVidia.

Just a question...

Why no comparison at the same res, say 1920x1200, with AA between cards?

Reason I ask is due to the fact that, while the 5870 shows as faster with no AA, once AA is introduced the GTX 480 pulls ahead in everything I've played. I'd be curious to see that in the review, as it seems the harder you push the GTX 480, the more it shines.

In my comparisons between both cards with four different games now, the GTX 480 has shown to be between moderately faster at the least, to literally crushing the 5870 in minimum fps the majority of the time, the minimum fps obviously being what matters most.

In Crysis, Crysis Warhead, Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 I've benched carefully, and at the least, have seen the minimums 5-10fps faster with the GTX 480, to a more consistent 10-20fps increase and sometimes even double the fps increase with the GTX 480.

Everything tested at 1920x1200 res, 4xAA/16xAF (8xAA really shows no difference at 1920 and above), all settings maxed in every game, and tested as stringently as your tests.

Not to mention the constant odd "micro-hitching/stuttering" effects I've gotten in every game with a few different 5870's, which is not present with the GTX 480.

Needless to say, I ditched the 5870 for the GTX 480.

So, I'd certainly be curious to see the difference at the same res with AA on, as I only have the GTX 480 now so cannot compare JC2 for myself, but it runs phenomenally.
Click to expand...


I have no stutter issue at all with 5870, unless VRAM limit, then stutter will jumps in.

also, from my own testing (recording fps with fraps and not looking at it) play the same game in same level with same style.
Both card perform nearly identical between GTX 480 and 5870, unless its some heavily TWIMTBP game like Metro 2033.

after recording all the fps, the min fps are nowhere better from one to another.
and its really depend on games that been play, some game GTX 480 is faster, some game 5870 is.
 
shansoft said:
I have no stutter issue at all with 5870, unless VRAM limit, then stutter will jumps in.

also, from my own testing (recording fps with fraps and not looking at it) play the same game in same level with same style.
Both card perform nearly identical between GTX 480 and 5870, unless its some heavily TWIMTBP game like Metro 2033.

after recording all the fps, the min fps are nowhere better from one to another.
and its really depend on games that been play, some game GTX 480 is faster, some game 5870 is.
Click to expand...

Are you serioues, the 480 beats the 5870 most of the time and the min FPS is a lot better even against the 5970 in some cases.... ;)
 
shaolin95 said:
Are you serioues, the 480 beats the 5870 most of the time and the min FPS is a lot better even against the 5970 in some cases.... ;)
Click to expand...

overall min fps on stock does not better than 5870.. not quite sure where this myth came from..
and not every game gets beaten. they goes half and half, some games perform better, some games worse..

btw, I don't read other review website, which they mostly just pure benchmark run through, pointless... I do my own test through all those game that I play.
I have decide to keep my GTX 480 due to the one I have goes 835 on core with stock voltage..

5970 is a odd ball to go with, it runs slower than a pair of 5870 even on same setting..
possible PCIE bandwidth limitation.
 
not quite sure where this myth came from.
Click to expand...
myth? If you call myth several reviews and tests showing that then....oh well, no more point in trying to argue I guess.
My 480 hits 850 stock too which was surprising...I expected low OCes.
Regards
 
Infaustium said:
Not to mention the constant odd "micro-hitching/stuttering" effects I've gotten in every game with a few different 5870's, which is not present with the GTX 480.
Click to expand...



Its funny you mentioned this. I've actually noticed the GTX 480 to experience this in alot of games whereas my HD5870 was much smoother. Even if the framerate was lower the HD5870 feels alot smoother than the GTX 480 because of the micro-hitch/stutter I've noticed with it.
 
One thing I'd much rather know is why developers don't try to approximate the water effects seen here by other means? Far Cry Predator already managed a very similar undulating wave effect almost 5 years ago on the 360. It might not be computationally the same, but it was close enough.

For reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1qPue2I5qQ
 
Mr. K6 said:
Good read. I can't say I agree with the conclusion, as I don't don't think paying ~$50-70 for use of the two NVIDIA options via purchasing a GTX 470 defines a "value." It seems like the 5850 is still the card to get.
Click to expand...

It still looks pretty awesome on a 5770 which is close to half the price of a 5850. I think I turned down both the water detail and shadows one notch and use 2xaa and 8af. You'll forget all that stuff because this game is just so amazing no matter the settings.
 
shaolin95 said:
They are important to me because it makes sense to do so, don't you agree? I mean if the recommended max playable for one card was with 4X AA why not use it when doing the apple to apple thingy...just a thought.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see it from your point of view. We put in basic apples to apples after all the REAL gameplay testing we do. You could ask for 1000 different versions of that. Just comes down to my having to pay for it. I think the review is a very good piece of reporting the way it stands. We will consider your wishes next time. The fact is though, it does not just happen for free in terms of time or money. And sadly, this is a business.
 
Man that Simulated water effect is pretty damn cool lookin in the SS, It is too bad ATI could not use it :/.
 
HMM I am confused, on the apples to apples graph, the first one is at 2560x1600 against hd 5870 with no cuda features enabled, and gtx 480 scores 37fps average.

Now on the other apples to apples graph, the gtx 480 vs hd 5850 the gtx 480 is at 56fps ave. What's going on there, I matched the settings under both graphs, they were the same.
 
Not sure how you can look at the apples to apples between the 5870 and 480 and still say that the min fps is higher on the 480, that's the case in SOME games, the two cards trade blows. Looking at the min frames between the 470 and 5850 is even worse.

If you look at the numbers from the 5870 with 4xAA enabled at 2560x1600 the frame rates are STILL higher than the 480 was able to push out with no AA at all at the same resolution. So unless you think the 480 is going to magically push out faster frames when enabling 4xAA then saying that the 480 eats AA for breakfast or that it always has higher minimum frames than the 5870 is pointless.

Yes in some games the 480 does outperform the 5870, as you would expect from paying $100 extra, sadly in this game the 5870 performs faster at 2560x1600 with 4xAA enabled than the 480 does with no AA at all and the 5870 still costs $100 less lol.
 
NKD said:
HMM I am confused, on the apples to apples graph, the first one is at 2560x1600 against hd 5870 with no cuda features enabled, and gtx 480 scores 37fps average.

Now on the other apples to apples graph, the gtx 480 vs hd 5850 the gtx 480 is at 56fps ave. What's going on there, I matched the settings under both graphs, they were the same.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing typo and that last apples to apples was done at 1920x1200. That would explain the 480 discrepancy and also how the 5850 could get those kinds of frames.
 
shansoft said:
the two special setting does not work under SLI.

don't ask me why, lots of people are reporting this issue..
Click to expand...

Thanks. It's just that at least one person SWEARS to me that it works for them with SLI out of the box, and I'm just trying to figure out how this is possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top