Mirror's Edge Catalyst Notebook and Desktop Benchmarks

Tightrope walking. It took 7.5 years for EA and DICE to announce the successor to the Parkour-title Mirror's Edge. While the technology has improved drastically, content-wise, Catalyst hasn't made any progress. We vaulted around roof tops with the main character Faith to get an idea how the title performs on notebooks. Update: we've now tested more than 24 GPUs.

Florian Glaser, ✓ Stefanie Voigt (translated by Bernie Pechlaner), Published 06/19/2016 🇩🇪

For the original German article, see here.

Graphics

Like most current Triple-A product from EA, Mirror's Edge Catalyst is based on the mighty Frostbite 3 engine, which also powers Battlefield 4, Star Wars Battlefront, Need for Speed and Dragon Age Inquisition. The engine is know for high quality, but also high demands on the hardware. According to the manufacturer, the 2017 iteration of the soccer game Fifa will make use of Frostbite 3 as well.

Back to Mirror's Edge: compared to the predecessor from 2009, Catalyst appears more modern as far as graphics are concerned. Reflections as well as light and shadows are top notch. The game is characterized by outstanding animations, very compelling day/night transitions and a - similar to the first installment - very individual look with strong contrasts and single-color object areas, which at times look like abstract art. Occasionally, Catalyst looks a little too "clean" and sterile, however.

Let's touch upon texture sharpness, which is - although not up to the standard of other Frostbite games - pretty decent overall. Unfortunately, there are still a few bugs and inconsistencies. When the graphics option "GPU Memory Restriction" is turned on, some of the objects suffer - independently of the other settings - from fairly undefined textures.

Our assumption: once the GPU's VRAM becomes scarce, Mirror's Edge automatically loads lower-grade textures. Even though deactivating the "GPU Memory Restriction" supposedly threatens the stability, we would generally avoid having the option turned on. We didn't encounter any problems at all during our testing period.

We only experienced difficulties at the highest quality level - called hyper - which was announced shortly before launch. Yes, the shadows are even more defined, and yes, even more objects are visible at a distance. But the visual improvements stand in no relation to the loss in performance, as even potent desktop GPUs like the GeForce GTX 980 hit their limit already at Full-HD resolution. The frame rate during our NBC test sequence dropped from a fluent 76 to only 29 fps (ultra vs. hyper). Catalyst then was also prone to crashes and strange performance drops.

Otherwise, the engine looks good - minor graphics and clipping errors notwithstanding. The load times are OK with SSDs, but HDDs require more patience. The download isn't too large considering it's 2016 - many other games require substantially more room than 23 GB (Doom, for examples needs ~50 GB).

For PC gamers, the "base of operations" is the graphics menu, which contains an adequate number of options. In addition to the brightness, the field of view, and the picture mode, the overall quality is adjustable as well in several steps. A great feature: advanced users can select from nine different detail settings (Ambient Occlusion, Motion Blur, …).

We are not completely satisfied with the options. One one hand, the user has to - depending on the resolution - resort to scrolling. We also consider it a nuisance that there's no anti-aliasing switch and that changes require a restart. We also would like to see explanations for some of the settings.

The main problem of Catalyst is the content itself. The gameplay and the sense of motion (aside from the boring fights) are well done, but other sources of amusement are rather standard-fare missions (hack x, steal y, deactivate y). EA seems to follow their competitor Ubisoft here - Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs, Far Cry, and The Division also suffer at times from uninspiring tasks designed to fill the humongous world.

The upgrade system seems contrived as well and the fair-to-middling story suffers as a result. We couldn't warm up to the characters at all during our during our initial gaming session, which lasted for several hours. To bad - the surveillance scenario in particular would have a lot to offer.

Benchmark

Since Catalyst comes with only one profile and one savegame, it took us a while to find a suitable benchmark sequence. At the end, we chose the beginning of the second mission, called "Old Friends". We start the tool Fraps after Faith gets hold of a control chip and steps through the door on the opposite side (see video). What follows is a 20 second sprint, jump and sliding stunt over bright white rooftops. This sequence represents the gameplay very well and offers insight into what performance can be expected.

Since this is a brisk first-person title, the frame rate should be 35-40 fps on average. More than 200 frames per second are not possible because of an fps limit.

▶ load Youtube video

Results

Users who can do without 3840 x 2160 pixels and the hyper setting, need a powerful, but not outrageously fast high-end notebook. A combination of 1920 x 1080 pixels and the ultra preset runs well on an GeForce GTX 970M on up (GTX 880M+ for High). Side note: analyzing the benchmarks clearly shows Nvidia's Maxwell architecture to be superior to the old Kepler technology. Owners of gaming notebooks costing between 1000 and 1500 Euro (~$1130 - 1690) are likely going to ask the FHD question: can I play Catalyst at full resolution with a GeForce GTX 960M? The answer is yes - but only at up to medium details.

Owners of multimedia notebooks with upper middle-class GPUs (GTX 950M etc.) can use the preset medium only at 1366 x 768 or 1600 x 900 pixels without encountering stutters. Inexpensive allrounder-notebooks (up to GeForce 940M) can use low settings at best. Notebooks without dedicated GPUs are out of the question: an Intel HD Graphics 4600 managed not even 25 fps at minimum details and at a resolution of 1280 x 720 pixels.

The results were mixed for AMD APUs. We were unable to install the newest 16.6.1 beta driver on the desktop APU 7850K or an Asus notebook with Kaveri APU. Maybe that's why the Radeon R9 M280X (Kaveri-based Asus N551ZU) was too slow and couldn't produce playable frame rates. The 7850K APU stuttered initially, but subsequent runs showed higher frame rates. Conceivably we need to wait for a new driver here.

Mirror's Edge Catalyst
3840x2160 High Preset AF:16x 1920x1080 Ultra Preset AF:16x 1920x1080 High Preset AF:16x 1920x1080 Medium Preset AF:4x 1366x768 Medium Preset AF:4x 1280x720 Low Preset AF:2x
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop), 4790K Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Founders Edition	47 (44^min) fps ∼69% 121 (108^min) fps ∼74% 135 (123^min) fps ∼84% 162 (146^min) fps ∼91% 175 (149^min) fps ∼91% 193 (177^min) fps ∼96%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, 4790K Asus Strix GTX 980 Ti Desktop PC	38.3 (35^min) fps ∼56% 95 (86^min) fps ∼58% 105 (96^min) fps ∼66%
AMD Radeon R9 Fury, 4790K XFX Radeon R9 Fury Pro	31.5 (23^min) fps ∼46% 81.3 (74^min) fps ∼50% 92 (82^min) fps ∼58%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980, 6700K Desktop PC	28.3 (26^min) fps ∼42% 76.4 (69^min) fps ∼47% 83.4 (78^min) fps ∼52% 108 (99^min) fps ∼60% 156 (142^min) fps ∼81% 198 (189^min) fps ∼99%
AMD Radeon R9 290X, 4790K Sapphire Radeon R9 290X Tri-X OC	28.6 (26^min) fps ∼42% 65.9 (53^min) fps ∼40% 80.5 (74^min) fps ∼50%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	20.6 (17^min) fps ∼30% 53.8 (48^min) fps ∼33% 60.8 (56^min) fps ∼38% 78.4 (74^min) fps ∼44% 112 (98^min) fps ∼58% 125 (114^min) fps ∼62%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	16.4 (15^min) fps ∼24% 42.1 (33^min) fps ∼26% 47.3 (40^min) fps ∼30% 64.2 (61^min) fps ∼36% 97 (90^min) fps ∼50% 125 (113^min) fps ∼62%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, 6700K Desktop PC	4.8 (2^min) fps ∼7% 34.3 (32^min) fps ∼21% 42.1 (39^min) fps ∼26% 58.1 (55^min) fps ∼32% 93.1 (88^min) fps ∼48% 151 (134^min) fps ∼75%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	11.8 (10^min) fps ∼17% 33.2 (29^min) fps ∼20% 40 (37^min) fps ∼25% 55.3 (52^min) fps ∼31% 81.2 (75^min) fps ∼42% 124 (114^min) fps ∼62%
AMD Radeon R7 370, 4790K MSI Gaming R7 370 2GB	9 (8^min) fps ∼13% 33.4 (31^min) fps ∼20% 41 (38^min) fps ∼26% 87 (82^min) fps ∼45% 129 (96^min) fps ∼64%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, 6700HQ MSI GE72 965M Ti	3.6 (2^min) fps ∼5% 33.5 (30^min) fps ∼21% 41.7 (38^min) fps ∼26% 58 (54^min) fps ∼32% 87 (80^min) fps ∼45%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	10.2 (9^min) fps ∼15% 26.9 (24^min) fps ∼17% 33.1 (29^min) fps ∼21% 45.3 (43^min) fps ∼25% 70.1 (65^min) fps ∼36% 111 (96^min) fps ∼55%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, 4720HQ Schenker XMG A505	26 (21^min) fps ∼16% 31.1 (29^min) fps ∼19% 41.1 (39^min) fps ∼23% 63.4 (59^min) fps ∼33% 104 (89^min) fps ∼52%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 6700HQ MSI PE60 2QD	20.7 (18^min) fps ∼13% 25.4 (22^min) fps ∼16% 34.9 (33^min) fps ∼19% 56 (51^min) fps ∼29%
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M, 4700MQ Schenker W504	18.9 (16^min) fps ∼12% 24.7 (23^min) fps ∼15% 36.4 (34^min) fps ∼20% 57.6 (53^min) fps ∼30% 91.7 (80^min) fps ∼46%
NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, 6700HQ MSI CX72 6QD	9.4 (8^min) fps ∼6% 12.1 (10^min) fps ∼8% 28.3 (26^min) fps ∼15% 47.3 (42^min) fps ∼24%
NVIDIA GeForce 940M, 5700HQ MSI GP62 2QD	12.2 (11^min) fps ∼8% 17.8 (16^min) fps ∼10% 28.6 (25^min) fps ∼15% 48.3 (43^min) fps ∼24%
AMD Radeon R9 M280X, FX-7600P Asus N551ZU-CN007H	27.2 (14^min) fps ∼14%
NVIDIA GeForce 920M, 2970M MSI CX61 2QC 2970M MS-16GD	18.6 (15^min) fps ∼10% 30.1 (25^min) fps ∼15%
NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M, 4200M MSI CX61-i572M	13.7 fps ∼7% 24.7 fps ∼12%
Intel HD Graphics 4600, 4700MQ Schenker W504	12.2 (11^min) fps ∼6% 21.3 (19^min) fps ∼11%

Overview

Testsysteme

Desktop PCs	Custom Nvidia	Custom AMD
Mainboard	Asus Z170-A	Asus Z97-Deluxe
Processor	Intel Core i7-6700K (Skylake)	Intel Core i7-4790K (Haswell)
GPU	Nvidia GeForce GTX 980 (4 GB GDDR5) PNY GeForce GTX 950 (2 GB GDDR5)	Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 (8 GB GDDR5X) Asus GeForce GTX 980 Ti (6 GB GDDR5) XFX Radeon R9 Fury (4 GB HBM) Sapphire Radeon R9 290X (4 GB GDDR5) Sapphire Radeon R9 280X (3 GB GDDR5) MSI Radeon R7 370 (2 GB GDDR5)
RAM	2x 8 GB DDR4-2133	2x 4 GB DDR3-1600
Storage	Crucial MX100 SSD (256 GB) Crucial M500 SSD (480 GB) OCZ Trion 100 SSD (480 GB) OCZ Trion 150 SSD (960 GB)	Intel SSD 530 (240 GB) OCZ Trion 100 SSD (480 GB)
OS	Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit	Windows 10 Home 64 Bit

Schenker Notebooks	Schenker W504	Schenker XMG A505	Schenker S413
Mainboard	Intel HM87	Intel HM87	Intel HM87
Processor	Intel Core i7-4700MQ (Haswell)	Intel Core i7-4720HQ (Haswell)	Intel Core i7-4750HQ (Haswell)
GPU	Nvidia GeForce GTX 980M (8 GB GDDR5) GTX 970M (6 GB GDDR5) GTX 880M (8 GB GDDR5) GTX 870M (6 GB GDDR5) GTX 860M Kepler (4 GB GDDR5)	Nvidia GeForce GTX 960M (2 GB GDDR5)	Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200
RAM	2x 4 GB DDR3-1600	2x 4 GB DDR3-1600	2x 8 GB DDR3-1600
Storage	Samsung SSD 840 EVO (250 GB) Seagate Laptop Thin SSHD (500 GB)	Micron M600 SSD (128 GB) HGST Travelstar 7K1000 HDD (1.000 GB)	Intel SSD
OS	Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit	Windows 10 Home 64 Bit	Windows 10 Home 64 Bit

MSI Notebooks	MSI GE72	MSI PE60	MSI GP62	MSI CX61	MSI CX61
Mainboard	Intel HM170	Intel HM170	Intel HM86	Intel HM86	Intel HM86
Processor	Intel Core i7-6700HQ (Skylake)	Intel Core i7-6700HQ (Skylake)	Intel Core i7-5700HQ (Broadwell)	Intel Celeron 2970M (Haswell)	Intel Core i5-4200M (Haswell)
GPU	Nvidia GeForce GTX 965M 2016 (2 GB GDDR5)	Nvidia GeForce GTX 950M (2 GB GDDR5)	Nvidia GeForce 940M (2 GB DDR3)	Nvidia GeForce 920M (2 GB DDR3)	Nvidia GeForce GT 720M (2 GB DDR3)
RAM	1x 8 GB DDR4-2133	2x 4 GB DDR4-2133	1x 8 GB DDR3-1600	1x 8 GB DDR3-1600	1x 8 GB DDR3-1600
Storage	Toshiba THNSNJ128G8NU SSD (128 GB) WDC WD10JPVX HDD (1.000 GB) OCZ Trion 100 SSD (480 GB)			Toshiba MQ01ABF050 HDD (500 GB)	WDC Scorpio Blue HDD (1.000 GB)
OS	Windows 10 Home 64 Bit	Windows 10	Windows 10	Windows 10	Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit

Other Notebooks	Asus N551ZU
Mainboard	AMD K15.1
Processor	AMD FX-7600P (Kaveri)
GPU	AMD Radeon R9 M280X (4 GB GDDR5)
RAM	2x 4 GB DDR3-1600
Storage	Samsung SSD 830 256 GB
OS	Windows 10 64 Bit

4K Monitor	Nvidia driver	AMD driver	Intel driver
2x Asus PB287Q	ForceWare 368.39	Crimson 16.6.1 Hotfix	15.40.22.4424

Loading Comments

Comment on this article

Editor of the original article: Florian Glaser - Managing Editor Gaming Laptops - 651 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2009

I discovered my interest in computers in my childhood, growing up with MS-DOS and Windows 3.1 in the early 1990s. I was especially fascinated with computer games, even from an early age. From Monkey Island through Lands of Lore to Doom, I tried every game I could get my hands on. I have been working for Notebookcheck since 2009 with my focus mostly being on high-performance gaming laptops.

Translator: Bernie Pechlaner - Senior Tech Writer - 276 articles published on Notebookcheck since 2012

Ended up in the IT sector in the 90s more or less accidentally and have remained in the industry (as a sysadmin) ever since. Always been interested in laptops - first purchase was - if memory serves correctly - a Toshiba Satellite T2115CS with DX4-75 processor, 4 MB of RAM and 350 MB hard disk drive (and Windows 3.1). To this day, laptops appeal to me - much to the chagrin of my wife, who doesn’t seem understand why we need 5-10 of them at any given time ;-).

Please share our article, every link counts!

> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Reviews > Mirror's Edge Catalyst Notebook and Desktop Benchmarks

Florian Glaser, 2016-06-19 (Update: 2024-08-15)

Pos	Model	< Prev Next > Mirror's Edge Catalyst (2016)
Pos	Model	low 1280x720 Low Preset 2xAF	med. 1366x768 Medium Preset 4xAF	high 1920x1080 High Preset 16xAF	ultra 1920x1080 Ultra Preset 16xAF	4K 3840x2160 High Preset 16xAF
93	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile			159	146	59.4
96	NVIDIA Titan X Pascal	160.4	140	130.9	125.4	61.1
114	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (Desktop)	193	175	135	121ⁿ²	48ⁿ²
129	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile			131	120	45.5
131	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Max-Q			121ⁿ³	113ⁿ³	47.9ⁿ²
137	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile			131ⁿ⁴	121ⁿ⁴	47.4ⁿ³
148*	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Max-Q			97.8	91.1	35.4
156	NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile			110	99.7	37.1
158	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (Desktop)			114	102ⁿ²	39ⁿ²
161	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q			106	97.8	38.8
163	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Mobile	176	137.6	100.3ⁿ⁴	92.05ⁿ⁴	35.8ⁿ²
181	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile			101	92.4	33.7
186	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti			105	95	38.3
188	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Max-Q			86.85ⁿ²	79.4ⁿ²	31.5
195	AMD Radeon R9 Fury			92	81.3	31.5
196	AMD Radeon R9 Nano				77	31.9
197	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980	198	156	83.4	76.4	28.3
210	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (Laptop)	197.4	165.5	90	81.9	31
214	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 (Desktop)	197	164	86.1	78.3	27.6
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Mirror's Edge Catalyst
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra	4K
218	AMD Radeon RX 480 (Desktop)		125	80	70.3	25.4
219	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Mobile		63.6	71.25ⁿ⁴	64.85ⁿ⁴	24.8
228	AMD Radeon RX 580 (Laptop)	102	88.9	72.6	63.3	23.3
237	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile			68.6	61.1	21.5
243	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970	151.3	136.8	80.8	72.5ⁿ²	26.1
244	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 Max-Q		130	66.4	59.6	20.5
253	AMD Radeon RX 470 (Desktop)				65.2	23.7
258*	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q			54.7	49.9	17.5
268	AMD Radeon R9 290X			80.5	65.9	28.6
275	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M	125	112	60.8	53.8	20.6
286	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960	159.9	111.8	55.7	50	17.1
288	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Mobile			49.3ⁿ³	44.9ⁿ³	16.2
289	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (Desktop)				46.5
294	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M	125	97	47.3	42.1	16.4
298	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680	156.5	102.9	47.2	38.6	7.1
312	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile	110.3	83.7	40.4	32.4
315	AMD Radeon R7 370	129	87	41	33.4	9
317	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M	124	81.2	40	33.2	11.8
322	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950	151	93.1	42.1	34.3	4.8
334	AMD Radeon RX 460 (Desktop)			39.7	34.2	12.1
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Mirror's Edge Catalyst
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra	4K
337	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M	126ⁿ²	83.6ⁿ³	40.5ⁿ³	35.8ⁿ³	8.1ⁿ²
338	AMD Radeon RX 560X (Laptop)	87.6	65	37.3	32.8
341	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M	111	70.1	33.1	26.9	10.2
343	AMD Radeon HD 8970M	81.5	60.3	33.4	15
362	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M	96.2ⁿ³	61.8ⁿ³	30ⁿ³	24.3ⁿ³
380	NVIDIA GeForce MX150	81.4	54.5	39.5	23.4
396	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 860M	91.7	57.6	24.7	18.9
405	NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M	69.3	53.8ⁿ²	24.5ⁿ²	19.5ⁿ²
417	AMD Radeon R9 M280X	27.2
507	NVIDIA GeForce 940MX	47.3ⁿ⁵	26.2ⁿ⁵	11.75ⁿ⁴	9.9ⁿ³
511	AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)	45.1	28.1	12.6	8.1
512	NVIDIA GeForce 940M	48.3	28.6	12.2
514	NVIDIA GeForce 930MX	42.1	25.6	11.3	8.7
551	AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)	36.3
564	NVIDIA GeForce 930M	39	23.6
566	AMD Radeon 530	30.3	18.3
574	NVIDIA GeForce 920MX	34.9	20.5
575	Intel Iris Graphics 540	35	20.5
611*	AMD Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)	16.9	11.7
612	NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M	34	18.6
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Mirror's Edge Catalyst
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra	4K
614	AMD Radeon R7 (Kaveri)	24.6
616*	AMD Radeon R7 M460	27.7	19.6	7.9
619	AMD Radeon R7 M360	25.8	18.3	7.4
621	NVIDIA GeForce 920M	30.1	18.6
642	Intel UHD Graphics 630	19.8	13.7
645	Intel HD Graphics 630	27.4	15.9
648	Intel HD Graphics 530	25.3	14
651	AMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge)	21.1	13.6
652	Intel UHD Graphics 620	22.3	15.2
653	Intel HD Graphics 620	28.8	17	7.1
654	AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo)	6	2.3
714	AMD Radeon HD 8650G	15.1
719	NVIDIA GeForce GT 630M	21.2
724	AMD Radeon R5 M430	27	16.3
725	AMD Radeon R5 M255	23.8	18.1	7.1
728	NVIDIA GeForce 910M	22.6	13.8	6.5	3.9
730	Intel HD Graphics 520	27.4	13.7
731	Intel Iris Graphics 6100	24.6	16
733	NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M	24.7	13.7
747	Intel HD Graphics 6000	20.8
Pos	Model	< Prev Next >Mirror's Edge Catalyst
Pos	Model	low	med.	high	ultra	4K
754	Intel HD Graphics 4600	18.5ⁿ²	11.05ⁿ²
756	Intel HD Graphics 5500	21.5	12.6
791	Intel HD Graphics 615	15.5	9
833	Intel HD Graphics 515	11.4
836	Intel HD Graphics 4400	20.7	10.3
871	Intel HD Graphics 5300	12.2	6.9
886	AMD Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)	10.5
947	Intel HD Graphics 405 (Braswell)	10.5	6.1
962	Intel HD Graphics (Haswell)	12.4	7.1

Legend
5	Stutters – This game is very likely to stutter and have poor frame rates. Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, average frame rates are expected to fall below 25fps
	May Stutter – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, stutters and poor frame rates are expected.
30	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 25fps
40	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 35fps
60	Fluent – Based on all known benchmarks using the specified graphical settings, this game should run at or above 58fps
	May Run Fluently – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game. Based on interpolated information from surrounding graphics cards of similar performance levels, fluent frame rates are expected.
?	Uncertain – This graphics card experienced unexpected performance issues during testing for this game. A slower card may be able to achieve better and more consistent frame rates than this particular GPU running the same benchmark scene.
	Uncertain – This graphics card has not been explicitly tested on this game and no reliable interpolation can be made based on the performances of surrounding cards of the same class or family.
The value in the fields displays the average frame rate of all values in the database. Move your cursor over the value to see individual results.