17.05.2016 Testing games

Crossout. Extended test

Due to our collaboration with the developer, now we have an opportunity to test Crossout on about 15 videocards, so our followers don’t have to worry about system requirements and performance of the game (you can also read our preview and focus-test)

Let’s tak a little about the procedure of testing. First, this time we decided not to check FPS in the garage and test-drive mode. We only left PvP mode, as the most important for players.

Second, we only used two resolutions (1920×1080 and 1366×768) with every preset of graphical settings (High, Medium and Low).

Third, we chose most popular videocards. We did that to demonstrate that average price adapters have more than enough performance for comfortable game experience. You can see the list of videocards that took part in our wasteland run below.

Fourth, the testing table was extended by AMD and NVidia based laptops.

Testing table

OS: Windows 10 Home x64
Processor: Intel Core i5-6500 Skylake (3200MHz, LGA1151, L3 6144Kb)
Motherboard: ASUS B85M-G
RAM: 8 Gb
HDD: Seagate ST1000DM003
Case: Deepcool Tesseract BF Black

NVidia based videocards

  1. Palit GT 630 1 Gb
  2. Palit GTS 450 1Gb
  3. Palit GeForce GTX 660 [NE5X660Y1049-1060F]
  4. GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 750 [GV-N750OC-2GI]
  5. ASUS GeForce GTX 750 Ti GTX750TI-PH-2GD5
  6. GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 760 [GV-N760OC-2GD]
  7. Palit GeForce GTX 770 OC [NE5X770S1042-1045F]
  8. GigaByte GeForce GTX 950 XTREME GAMING [GV-N950XTREME-2GD]
  9. Palit GeForce GTX 960 [NE5X960010G1-2061F]

AMD (ATI) based videocards

  1. Sapphire HD 7770 GHz Edition
  2. PowerColor Radeon R7 250X
  3. GIGABYTE R9 285 WindForce 2X OC 2Gb
  4. MSI R9 380 Gaming 4 GB



  • CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3 CPU  370M @ 2.40GHz
  • RAM: 6 Гб
  • GPU: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650


  • CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-5005U CPU @ 2.00GHz
  • RAM: 4Гб
  • HDD: ST500LT012-1DG142
  • GPU: NVidia GeForce 920M

NVidia performance diagrams

  • Patch: ver. 0.2.11
  • Mode: PvP
  • Map: Powerplant
  • Duration: 2-2,5 minutes

Average FPS NVidia performance diagram.

Performance of GeForce GT 630 is only enough for playing on low graphics with 1366×768 resolution. Average FPS is 47, minimal is 12 (see GeForce GT 630 diagram below). The strange thing is that the lowest FPS was on Low-graphics with 1366×768 resolution. The medium settings with Full HD didn’t have such drops. Judjing by average and maximum FPS, all results make sense.

Another participant is GeForce GTS 450. This old chap is the second from the end, though it managed to demonstrate descent results. GTS 450 is enough not only for low resolutions, but even for Full HD on low graphics. In this case the FPS doesn’t drop lower than 30. The average number is 45.

Is there a point to pick one of the seven NVidia videocards left and call it a day? Let’s tease out a few things. Medium graphics with Full HD drop FPS more than High (see GeForce GTX 660 and GTX 750 diagrams). Sometimes FPS goes lower on minimals, than on medium settings (see FullHD GTX 760). Minimal FPS rate is very strange here. For example, GTX 750 Ti can lose to GTX 750 in some modes (see the results of these videocards with Full HD on High and Medium graphic settings).

However, such things are not crucial, as FPS wouldn’t be lower than 60 in all these cases. Another thing is dorps down to 22 frames per second on GeForce GTX 770, which, as we thought, would be the leader among all participants. GTX 770 even lost to his older brother GTX 760 in a few game modes.

The same thing happened between GTX 950 / GTX 960. Based on GM206, Maxwell architecture, both videocards differ by execution units. GTX 950 has got fewer texture units and streaming processors. Surprisingly, but GTX 950 is better, than GTX 960 in Full HD on high and medium graphics!

AMD performance diagrams

  • Patch: ver. 0.2.11
  • Mode: PvP
  • Map: Powerplant
  • Duration: 2-2,5 minutes

Average FPS AMD performance diagram.

In our previous article, in which we’ve studied AMD Radeon R7 370, we shyly noted, that GTX 950 may demonstrate at least the same results, if not better. We were partly right. The “Green” contestant isn’t a bit better. It is a lot better in performance, than R7 370. Now, it’s time to see what other representatives of the “red” team have to show.

Let’s start with the oldest one – AMD Radeon HD 7770 GHz Edition. About four years ago, it was an entry level videocard and it’s still quite wide-spread. We doubt that we can play something more demanding, but HD 7770 manages Crossout even on maximum graphics in Full HD. The lowest FPS equals 37, the average is 50. On medium, the game is a bit faster.
The same thing happens with R7 250X. As we have noted, High and Medium graphics have almost no difference during the battle, though medium settings give more FPS.

The performance of AMD Radeon R9 285 and AMD Radeon R9 380 is enough for all settings, even Full HD and maximum quality. We can only add that in 2014, R9 285 was called a contestant to GeForce GTX 760 , but it really loses in performance.

AMD Radeon R9 380 is an upgraded version of R9 285. AMD had optimized energy consumption, which helped increase operating frequencies. It helps R9 380 to compete with GeForce GTX 960. As we can see on diagrams, Full HD by NVidia looks a bit better, but AMD wins the fight over 1366×768. The eternal war between “red” and “green” teams isn’t over yet. The release version of Crossuot will most likely have different numbers, as the developer will probably improve the game engine.

Laptop performance diagrams

  • Patch: ver. 0.2.11
  • Mode: PvP
  • Map: Powerplant
  • Duration: 2-2.5 minutes


We ran Crossout on a couple laptops with with portable videocards NVidia GeForce 920M and ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650. Well, it’s fair to say that we “tried” to run the game on 920M, because we didn’t notice that the medium graphics are better in performance, than low graphics (just like with some desktop videocards).
The rate would rarely drop down to 25 FPS, creating discomfort. Playing on average 36 FPS can’t be dynamic.

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650 shows the same results as on low quality settings, than GeForce 920M on medium. It’s not bad for a six year old portable videocard, but not enough for a car shooter.

Some say, that one can play GTA V or Fallout 4 with 920M, but we doubt that, because NVidia claims this videocard as multimedia videocard, not the game one. However, 920M can show 50-60 FPS on minimal graphics with resolution 1366×768 in elder games, like BioShock Infinite and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.

Like we said, Targem Games will probably optimize the game engine and who knows, maybe Crossout will become much faster on laptops?