Sign on Options
Theme: [Light Selected] To Dark»

Shadows and lighting play a large role in Splinter Cell: Conviction. Graphically speaking, they're also two of the more taxing graphical elements for video cards. Unchecking shadows invariably leads to great performance gains but, in a game like Splinter Cell, it's like playing hide and seek in an empty room. Fortunately if you've got a computer made in the last few years, you'll likely be able to run the game with adequate graphical settings.

We used FRAPs to measure frame rates while we took a 30 second run down a bustling street full of people, shadows, and draw distances that are probably longer than normal. The test adequately pushed our machines, and gives us a good reference point for how the game will perform under harsh playing conditions. We ran each test three times and then averaged the results.

Game Settings

Splinter Cell Conviction gives you handful of preset quality settings, but they tend to go heavy handed on how much they turn off. See what settings you need to tone down to reclaim performance while keeping the game looking pretty.

Graphics

Video cards make or break Splinter Cell: Conviction, but you don't need to go very high up the totem pole to make the game run well. We tested nearly twenty video cards ranging from the dual GPU monster Radeon HD 5970 down to the aging GeForce 7900 GTX.

CPU

A slow Core 2 Duo meets the minimum requirements, but it's by no means the ideal experience. We tested a large range of CPUs to help you figure out where to stop.

Memory

Conviction requires 1.5GB of RAM to run, which is likely the truth. We got to test with 2GB, 3GB, and 6GB of system RAM.

Systems

Like other games before Splinter Cell: Conviction the minimum requirements are barely enough to get the game running as a slide show. With the base system, a 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo paired with a GeForce 7800 GT and 2GB of RAM, we had troubles even navigating the menu with a reasonable frame rate at the lowest image quality settings and resolution. Moving up to the reccomended system, a 1.8GHz Core 2 with a GeForce 8800 GT and 2GB of RAM, the game looked more than playable and with high quality settings. At the worst you might have to drop the resolution a smidge, to keep the eye candy in more intense moments. Our high-end system, of course, had no issues whatsoever running the game with maximum image quality settings and at high resolutions.

System Performance

(Longer bars indicate better performance)

640x480, Low Quality

Minimum System
13

1280x720, High Quality

Recommended System
26

1920x1200, 4xAA/8xAF, Maximum Quality

High-End System
47
System Setup:

High-End System: Intel i7-965, Intel DX58S0, 6GB OCZ PC12800 DDR3, 750GB Seagate 7200.11 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows 7 64-bit. Graphics Card: Radeon HD 5870, ATI Catalyst 10.3.

Recommended System:

Intel Core 2 E6320, eVGA 680SLI, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory, 750GB Seagate 7200.11 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows 7 64-bit. Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT, Forceware 197.41.

Minimum Requirements System:

Intel Core 2 E6320, eVGA 680SLI, 2GB Corsair XMS Memory , 750GB Seagate 7200.11 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows 7 64-bit. Graphics Card: GeForce 7800 GT, Nvidia ForceWare 197.41.

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
link147776 5 pts

I have a core i3 2.13 ghz, 3 gbs of ram and a gt 240m but I have to run the game on low to get 30 fps.

yellow013 5 pts

@ Gr8yamazaki In their bench they used a Intel Core i7 965 Extreme. That's pretty much why you get 28fps with your 9600GT.

Gr8yamazaki 5 pts

in bench they show 8600gts get 29 frame in 1280x720, low quality. in same setting i get 28 frame on 9600gt, i have installed 1.02 patch and it does not make any diffrence. i think their bench mark is fake. My system: intel core 2 duo e6750 2.6 intel Q45 board crosair XMS2 4gb ram XFX 9600gt card WD 250gb HD

apsalar 5 pts

The game plays really well with the new patch plus SLI Geforce 8800gs. played ok even with one graphics card. Should run well for 2-3 year old pcs..with some tweaks....

andy1992uk 5 pts

Wait so a 5770 beat a 5830, unlikely and a GTX 260 and 4870 which are on par with the 5770 yet getting almost half the FPS than the 5770??? Stupid benchmark, the 5770 was obviously meant to be the 5850 and that is without taking into account that the 5750 is above the GTX 280..........Do gamespot know what they are doing? My god the whole thing is a mess, i suggest that gamespot sack who ever was in charge of this and stop pretending that they know "PCs" by benchmarking a game which doesn't need it, why not do it for a game which does like bad company 2 which had the new engine and revolutionary graphics. They should hire me, im looking for a career change.

CSSMIXES-co-uk 5 pts

I wouldn't class Splinter Cell Conviction as a hardware demanding game, the graphics are nothing special and the game engine is Unreal 2.0. The game is just an HD version of chaos theory. You also have to remember that the game is a console port so there are missing animations to keep the console version running at 60fps. Examples of this is when switching off a light switch or closing a window and vise versa.

biokrysty 5 pts

I have the recommended and I play it just well

RO-nIn187 19 pts

@Johny_47 wont be a patch for sure, its ubis damn DRM (which got cracked already also on AC2)... if you want to play without being online crack the game...

Johny_47 54 pts

Nice article Gamespot good to know, I already have the game and am about half way through I think(only took me about 3-4 hours though) but I'm loving it, any SplinterCell fan or stealth action fan should give it a good go. I have quite a good PC thankfully and play at 1440x900 no anti aliasing, full antistopic filtering and it runs smooth most of the time but I also get random drops in framerate when I'm just sneaking... I hope Ubisoft do something to help with this soon. The only real bad thing in my opinion is that you need to be constantly connected to the internet(even while playing single player =/), again I hope they release a patch for this.

klicko90 5 pts

@DanQCR hey where did u find the patch..link maybe ...i've got some problems... :(

nabed4t 6 pts

@ keren_men Don't take GS Rating to heart man, the game is seriously worth a play. While they have removed a few elements that make the other SC games fun, there is plenty added to make up for it. Make sure you read the user reviews too, I find they give a broader opinion to the games pros and cons.

JDonner 5 pts

Anyone who claims here that you need to upgrade a PC every 3 -6 month to keep up with the games is seriously mental. Maybe that was the case years ago, but that's certainly not the case anymore the last 3 or 4 years.

WNxUSA 5 pts

Good game! While its not as long, Deniable Ops make this game remarkably fun.. IMO.

keren_man 5 pts

I doubt i will play this game, gamespot score for this game indicate this game isn't good enough

Brennios 6 pts

Maybe me laptop would be able to run low, maaaybe medium settings if im lucky.. but still

DanQCR 5 pts

Holy cr*p!!! Just installed the new patch and the game plays flawless, as good as AC II, and I jacked up the resolution to 1440x900. For those people with slow graphics problems, this is definetely your solution. Try it out!!!

DanQCR 5 pts

Nevermind my post below, I just found the new patch. I'm gonna test it to see if it helps. The reason I ask for help is because it's SO slow I can't even play it at all.

DanQCR 5 pts

I have a pretty decent system and video card (I'm in Win7 Ultimate x64), I play Assassins Creed II flawless and a lot other games, but when I play SC:Conviction it slows down WAY too much. To the point that I turn shadows and everything off, even bringing the resolution down to 1024x768 and still plays extremely slow. Is there any trick or some patch that I don't know about out there? any recommendations adjusting advanced graphics?

AdamK47 5 pts

The latest patch for the game allows for multi-GPU rendering, but ATI and nVidia still need profiles for the game. I'm waiting for a CrossFireX profile for my three 5870s.

MxAa 5 pts

Funny... and the engine they used is the same engine they used from Splinter Cell Chaos theory....

GeneralShowzer 6 pts

Conviction, what a ***** porting job. And they charged 60$ for it.

postmanmanman 5 pts

What you need to play SC: Conviction: a console. I mean, I love PC gaming and would nearly always pick PC over consoles, but I'd read up -- THOROUGHLY -- on Ubisoft's new DRM before deciding to pick this up on a computer.

ymarkman 5 pts

Sweet! I think my Alienware M17x won't have too much of a problem; however the processor(though an i-7 Quad-Core Extreme Edition) is a little on the slow side, I think the GPUs should be able to handle this game's shadows. Bring on Michael Ironside!

WelBluVid 5 pts

Come on! Everyone knows you gotta upgrade every 6 months to stay on top of the game! "Pun intended" LOL If you're not a rich man or girl! Buy the power house consoles of today! Of course the PC can still be beefed up more than a PS3 or 360 but who wants to put thousands into a gaming power house that won't skip a beat unless you got it to blow like that? Question of today isn't what you need to upgrade to, it's can you fully upgrade for only $299.00 to play any & all titles? Answer yes Xbox 360 or PS3 Don't be left out the game again son/daughter! LOL

redcloud12345 5 pts

then explain why I have less in my rig then this guy other then the dual core processor and I can run this game without an issue at all.

666shan666 5 pts

@RO-nIn187 agreed, windows 7 provides excellent performance.

RO-nIn187 19 pts

@redcloud12345 and @klicko90 it was true that vista slowed things down a lot and ate your ram for breakfast but i'm runnin win7 x64 ult since release and its running great... plus you dont have either dx10 or 11 with xp... if ram is the problem go buy more (4 GB is enough for x64, even 2gb on x32) , its not that expensive anymore... and if you dont have even 100$ max you shouldnt buy games until you have :) plus i see that you have a single core 2.66GHz... without a dual core you can forget most of the new games nowadays, that's your problem, not win7 or RAM... plus this game seems more like a cheap console port on PC refering to the controls, i'm no programer but i think they also need to work on the code... so stop bullying win7, its finally a good OS from MS since xp...

redcloud12345 5 pts

@ klicko90 get rid of 7.... thats all i can say, you can almost double your performance with xp.

klicko90 5 pts

@redcloud12345 do u think win xp will be better?? ...i mean will there be a big difference?? ...i am using gamebooster on win 7 and turning all the effects and its not helping a lot...

Hydrolix 6 pts

@Ro-nin187 Why in Hades would you drop a spoiler like that without a warning? You sir are an a$$.

KrazzyDJ 6 pts

So, RAM over 2 GB doesn't make any difference and as far as the CPU goes, I think I'm fine (if not great) with my Intel Core2Duo E7300 2.66 GHz. The problem, I think might be my Geforce 9600 GT (although I'd like to hope that it would be enough). Any suggestions ???

laptop12 5 pts

mines run pretty fine on Asus g60vx

RO-nIn187 19 pts

[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]

asimplerapper 5 pts

what's up with the generally low framerates!? The game seems to have been poorly optimized for the PC :(

Danishaslam 5 pts

Are you serious ? :O Min E6320 processor required to play it..

klicko90 5 pts

well i formated my pc 2weeks ago and i put win 7 (which is a big mistake) and its eating my ram thats true...i will probably put xp again and will play it better.

jaja1818 5 pts

the game is just badly coded in imo..i mean running a 480gtx still just barely beats a 5870..even with a 5970 you cant make it stable on 60 fps the least..so we should just wait for a kickass patch that would fix it..but i seriously doubt it since until now the same issue for coding still exists on the Assassins creed 2 title..both by ubisoft..kudos to activision though for making kickass graphics without compromising frames per sec..sumthing u could be proud of CODMW2..would have been a pefect game if the multi was like the same with the cod4

redcloud12345 5 pts

@klicko90 well I run Windows xp. so its not eating up my ram. and you really cannot expect to play every new game on a single core anymore. some can yeah, but most games wont play well. are you running windows 7 or vista? if so... and you have a gaming computer... then Downgrade now... because seriously 7 is great and all but idc what anyone says. it sucks on memory almost as bad as vista.

klicko90 5 pts

well lucky you i have 2gig of ram, a 512 video card and CPU 2.66(not dual core) and i cant play it smoothly even in low settings which is ironic cos' i have played MW2 on almost high settings and it was running great.

redcloud12345 5 pts

this guide is mental. my rig is like 4 years old almost. I have 1 gig of ram in it(the other one died and has yet to be replaced) a 512 card and a 2.4 duel core. and this game runs absolutely fine on almost all of the highest settings. the unreal 2 engine isnt impressive anymore. and we need to stop making it seem like it is.

SarjuS 5 pts

@jedediahpelland I made it quite clear that the game doesn't require much to run at high quality settings. If you have any suggestions on how I could improve the guides going forward, I'm all ears. Thanks!

jedediahpelland 22 pts

I dont understand these hardware preformance guides, Im running a duel core 2, 3GHz, with a nvidia 9600 gt video card, on a nvidia 780i sli MB, and I have not had any problems with any games runining at somewhat high settings, not even crysis, though I get slight framerate issues on ultra high, anyway this kind of setup I have nowdays is pretty cheap and does the trick! Check out newegg, you can get what ya need reletivaly cheap to run these game pretty well. You really dont need all the high end crap they recomend, its a little overkill if your on a budget. Oh yeah and I have 4 GB of ram which also isnt that expensive anymore to get.

BloodMist 33 pts

Yeah it's not like this looks tremendously better than any other game out there.The engine is obviously extremely, extremely unoptimized, which is par for the course for Ubisoft, as they're a lame company.They're not even using Unreal Engine 3, it's an "enhanced" version of Unreal 2.5, if it was using UE 3 you could get the same or superior graphics, with about 3 times better performance, at least.Probably a lot higher than that even, considering Arkham Asylum, a much better looking game in many ways, can run on a 6600 at at least medium to high no problem, as long as you got 2 gigs of RAM.Which just goes to show ya, UBI is a joke of a company.

samftrmd 5 pts

The compare picture results all look like shadow off or on to me only. Texture wise all look the same to me, the shirts, the car, the road...

coaltango 5 pts

man its been ages since we had a hardware performance guide. im still looking forward to just cause, bad company 2 & many more. btw this game totally sucks the rating for the pc version is 6.5 here.

realone2005 5 pts

Hmm I think ill just buy the console version since it won't be running at a smooth 60fps on my PC.

AZE160 5 pts

This sucks and i thought it was my computer OS, The Visuals was so previous Year(even though it looks good).But it isn't supposed to work well only on Higher Systems.

zeusbark 7 pts

I agree with sabawoon, this game is terrible on the system. I can run Crysis, Assassin's Creed 1 and 2, and Mass Effect 1 and 2 on highest settings on 1200x1000, but this game I have to run on 800x600 with everything turned off. It sucks, I´m so pissed!

Conversation powered by Livefyre

Top GameSpot Recommendations