Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts
| Company of Heroes: OF (high-end) 1,680x1,050 4xAA 0xAF | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZOTAC GTX 260 896MB | PowerColor PCS+ HD4850 512MB | Palit GeForce 9800 GTX+ | HIS HD 4850 IceQ 4 TurboX 512M | Inno3D 9800 GT iChiLL | Force3D HD 4870 |
| 70.37 | 48.8 | 51.67 | 50.68 | 42.95 | 55.58 |
| Company of Heroes: OF (high-end) 1,920x1,200 4xAA 0xAF | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZOTAC GTX 260 896MB | PowerColor PCS+ HD4850 512MB | Palit GeForce 9800 GTX+ | HIS HD 4850 IceQ 4 TurboX 512M | Inno3D 9800 GT iChiLL | Force3D HD 4870 |
| 58.48 | 41.32 | 42.06 | 42.29 | 35.02 | 46.13 |
Company of Heroes seems to benefit most from increases in compute performance rather than memory bandwidth, and, as such, the difference in performance between the PowerColor and HIS cards is negligible. As we've seen before, pre-overclocked HD 4850s in COH:OF are performing on par with the 9800GTX+, whilst the GTX 260 offers the undisputed lead by quite some margin.
Due to extreme variances in the 2,560x1,600 results on most of the 512MB cards, we've not included them as we feel they don't paint an accurate picture of relative performance at that resolution.
