Cricket Academy: PC Performance Indicators

[Frostyvegi]

This thread is to gauge how different PC hardware performs at playing Don Bradman Cricket 2014 Cricket Academy in the nets. This is to assist, until an official recommended and minimum PC settings for the game is announced, those that may be looking to purchase, build or upgrade a PC machine to run the game.

Please post with as much details as possible with similar information provided as below. Original post will be updated to reflect all indicated systems in rough order of component benchmark figures.

To get the FPS use a program like Fraps, MSI Afterburner, Razor Game Booster. Please try and use totally low settings (800x600 resolution with all other options turned off) and totally high settings (maximum resolution available with all options turned on). Do NOT use VSync during any FPS testing (will limit the possible FPS). Leave Film Grain setting off for both tests.

(Windows Experience Index available under My Computer Properties. Both benchmarks are higher number = better. I will research this number based on the part details you provide)

 

[khanjoiya456]

intel e5400 2.7 dual core
4gb ddr2 (633 mhz)
ati radeon hd4350 1gb
wei 3.7

at max setting on 1024x768 = 24-27 fps
at medium setting on 1024x768= 30-32 fps( I use this setting)
..
on 1280 ? 720 medium : 17-19 fps
on 1600 ? 1200 high 9-11fps ( same as that of ashes 13 :P)

 

[grkrama]

Getting 60 fps except for occasional stutter.
all max settings except AO and AA
Also close all unwanted programs before playing
Intel sandy dual core G640 2.8 ghz
Ati HD7750 1GB ddr5
4gb ddr3
win 8 32bit
res = 1920*1080p

 

[Gamer Pradosh]

Intel Core 2 Duo E7300 @2.66 GHz
Geforce 9600 GT 512MB
4 GB RAM
500 GB Hard Disk

Not working....Black screen issue...

 

[rajatGod512]

i7 2600k base clock (3.4 Ghz)
G Skill 8GB DDR3 1600 Mhz
AMD HD 7850 2GB
WD Blue 500 GB HDD
Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit SP1

120-140 FPS (everything is maxed out at 1080p)

 

[kainkareswar]

i5 [email protected]
NVIDIA GeForce GT210 1 GB DDR3
4 GB RAM
500 GB Hard Disk

13 to 15 fps in max. settings

not sure whether the full game will work on my PC

 

[MattW]

FPS would be screen resolution dependent.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Intel Core i5 4670k @ 3.4GHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780
8GB 1600MHz DDR3 RAM
Toshiba 2TB 7200rpm HDD
Windows 8.1 Professional

1920x1080 resolution, max settings, 230-250fps.

 

[runner4life]

Intel Core i7 3930k (6 core) @ 4.5Ghz
Sapphire r9 290x (liquid)
16Gb 1600Mhz DDR3 Ram
256Gb Samsung Pro SSD
1Tb Western Digital
Windows 7 64 bit

Max settings
2560 x 1440 - 290 - 300FPS

AA x 4 forced on through AMD catalyst manager

i5 [email protected]
NVIDIA GeForce GT210 1 GB DDR3
4 GB RAM
500 GB Hard Disk

13 to 15 fps in max. settings

not sure whether the full game will work on my PC

You have a really good base to build upon, add a bit more of the same ram, chuck in a nice solid state and get a better GFX card. I'd recommend the new AMD range, a r7 260X retails for around 170 with 2Gb of ram would boost your system two fold

 

[Frostyvegi]

After doing the benchmarking and seeing my GPU is no longer in the top 30 (was there for well over a year since I bought it).. definitely this year going to build a new PC..

 

[runner4life]

Interesting to see the benchmarks for the r9 290x and 780. 290x has the 780 covered in everything these days. Where did you get those results from?

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Interesting to see the benchmarks for the r9 290x and 780. 290x has the 780 covered in everything these days. Where did you get those results from?

Both are great cards which perform quite similarly and there isn't a massive difference in price (290x is a bit more expensive). Both have their positives - with the GTX 780 you get Nvidia's (imo) better drivers/software and Shadowplay and with the 290X there's Mantle coming soon which looks very promising.

On pure performance, the 290X is probably slightly ahead, but either of them will pump out fantastic graphics and are well ahead of the PS4/XB1.

Also, how's 1440p? I just switched from the Xbox 360 which usually does 720p or less, 30fps or less with no AA/AF etc to this new PC which can comfortably do 60fps at native 1080p with all settings ultra on most games. It's a mindblowing difference and it looks incredible, I can barely imagine what 1440p, 4K or 120Hz must look like!

Praise GabeN!

 

[Frostyvegi]

Interesting to see the benchmarks for the r9 290x and 780. 290x has the 780 covered in everything these days. Where did you get those results from?

PassMark Software - Video Card Benchmark Charts - Video Card Model List

----------

Interesting how my CPU and GPU is not as powerful as rajatGod, yet get better FPS. Wonder if that has to do with the SSD. Might move CA onto the mechanical drive and see if I get any difference in performance, although technically it's probably the OS being on the SSD that is giving the increase. We'll see.

After testing.. dropped FPS by about 2.. oh well.. haha

 

[asprin]

At 800x600 resolution:

Highest Settings
Max FPS: 53
Min FPS: 42

Lowest Settings
Max FPS: 55
Min FPS: 45

Intel Dual Core E2160 @ 1.80 GHz
2 GB DDR2-667 RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 9500GT 1GB DDR2
Seagate Barracuda 500 GB

 

[runner4life]

Also, how's 1440p? I just switched from the Xbox 360 which usually does 720p or less, 30fps or less with no AA/AF etc to this new PC which can comfortably do 60fps at native 1080p with all settings ultra on most games. It's a mindblowing difference and it looks incredible, I can barely imagine what 1440p, 4K or 120Hz must look like!

1440p is very noticeable on certain games and not so on others. I can't turn back to 1080p after playing a game at 1440p. Also you don't need as much AA on 1440p.

The only time you will get a massive difference is screens over 30+ inch.

My screen was only $380 yet it is sublime.

AMD are definitely aiming solely towards gaming from now on so there products will only get better. I was an Nvidia fan until I got the 290x. Combined with water cooling, it is incredible. 60+ solid fps with BF4 on max settings. INSANE!