Tech Comparison: Street Fighter IV PC

By Richard Leadbetter Published 7 July, 2009

Another new challenger. With comparison videos.

Page 1 of 2

While the PC version of Street Fighter IV is lagging months behind its console brethren, the core codebase for the computer version is actually much, much older. The arcade game from which the PS3 and Xbox 360 games are derived is based on PC architecture, so in essence this home game is an enhanced rendition of the "real thing". That being the case, it's equally as brilliant as the console games in terms of the raw gameplay, but the graphical assets can be scaled up to whatever your system can handle. For the Street Fighter IV purist (and we know how many of those there are), the difference could be remarkable - I mean, kit yourself out with the right equipment and you can play SFIV at 120FPS if you want. However, for the rest of us, the improvement will be marginal at best.

As it is, the arcade board on which Street Fighter IV was designed is somewhat underpowered by enthusiast standards. Designed to be cheap to build and even cheaper to fix should something go wrong, the spec is exceptionally modest - a 2.13GHz Intel Core2Duo CPU powers the show while a 256MB GeForce 7900GS provides the visuals, which are rendered at 720p at 60 frames per second.

This gives you some idea of the base spec that'll give you arcade-perfect gameplay. Capcom reckons you'll get something playable on a 2.0GHz Pentium 4 with a GeForce 6600 GPU (yeah, good luck with that), but what is interesting is that its maximum recommended spec remains light - a 2.0GHz Core2Duo with an 8600GT. That said, there are a range of additional graphical options and post-processing features built into the game and amusingly, should you ramp absolutely everything up to the limits and run at 1080p, the built-in benchmark program still manages to rate my Core i7 set-up with top-of-the-line GTX295 as merely "efficient", with a B rating. However, as you'll see later, while the options can impose exponentially larger loads on the GPU, the actual visual results shows only minor improvements over the console game.

To illustrate, here is a comparison video showing the game running at 1080p on the Core i7 set-up, up against the Xbox 360 version, rendering internally at 720p before the Xenos GPU blows up the image to "full HD". One pixel in the player here is one pixel on the 1080p display so there is some pretty brutal cropping. If you can handle it, definitely check out the HD version, which has more real estate to play with.

1080p Vs. video

The comparison also serves to illustrate just how good the Xenos scaler actually is: GBP 130 console versus GBP 1200 PC, and there's not really much in it is there? Texture levels are clearly optimised for the original 720p display, and aside from the jagginess in the edges, and the extremely basic shadowing, the Xbox 360 version is a close match. During actual gameplay, the PC version does have a clearer edge though - more detail is retained in the fighters and backgrounds, you can try the game out at frame-rates that exceed 60FPS (if you have the monitor to support it), motion blur can be tweaked to your liking, plus the impact of superior anti-aliasing produces a far clearer, less shimmery image.

You can also take your pick from a range of different post-processing effects. There are three of these in total: Ink, Watercolour, and Posterisation. Typically they concentrate on shadow and edge detail, and while there is no tangible advantage in using any of them, they do clearly change the style of the visuals and it's nice to have them there to tweak with. Here's another comparison video showing the normal mode versus all three filters.

Post processing.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (46) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Darren #1 3 years ago

    Huh, there's something very wrong with your PC, Richard, if you're only getting a B rating with a Core i7 and GeForce GTX 295 even at 1080p?!?

    I get an A rating with my PC running at 1680x1050 with everything possible maxed, C16QxAA and 16xAF plus transparency supersampling enabled in the control panel! I too, have a Core i7, only with a lowly GTX 280 graphics card. The game kindly suggests I increase the settings, which I can't!

    The framerate without V-Sync reaches 120 fps which means the game is running twice as fast as it should. Enabling V-Sync gives me a flawless 60 fps (well 59.95 fps to be precise) but, nevertheless, I still get an A rating.

    Whatever, I don't see what all the fuss is about the game's visuals, certainly the art design is a bit ugly in places, such as some characters' faces. The graphics are very basic IMO, mostly 2D throughout the bout except for the odd bit of 3D and with a pretty static backdrop featuring a few simple, looped animations. I wouldn't expect the game to tax the consoles to be honest never mind a decent PC even with all the eye-candy cranked up.

  • muscleblade #2 3 years ago

    I would never play SFIV on a PC anyway. No way! Theres a reason i have a 360. I hate PCs because im sitting in front of one 8 hours 5 days a week.

  • TheMoonRat #3 3 years ago

    I do enjoy the tech comparisons, but not sure this should be padded out to 2 pages by adding a mini re-review; that's not a tech comparison, is it :) (don't mean to be a dig, I just prefer full on tech comparisons and commentary here :) )

    I have a Core 2 Duo @ 2.2ghz with a Radeon HD4850; and I get a stable 60fps with pretty much everything whacked up to the max (aside from AA, I'm happy at just 2x personally). It's beautifully presented, something I'm not used to as a PC Gamer! In fact, I'm quite happy to wait a few extra months to get a better looking version of a console game for a fraction of the price. If only all conversions were this good (konami, I'm looking at you)

  • berelain #4 3 years ago

    To be honest, SFIV is hardly a graphical dazzler, so I'd hope that it did run well on PCs, but Im glad to hear it performs as well as it does. I'll stick to the Xbox 360 version, thanks to my friends also having that version, but I do rather like that ink filter. Looks lovely.

  • Darren #5 3 years ago

    @berelain - The PC version supports Games for Windows LIVE so presumably that means that you can still play against your Xbox 360 friends with the same profile? No?

  • galaxion #6 3 years ago

    There is a problem with keyboard controls - you can only assign ONE player to keyboard. This is a problem when you have a controller like the x-arcade dual that basically emulates keystrokes to sticks and buttons.
    Unfortunately a solution like PPJoy doesn't support Vista64.

  • Chufty #7 3 years ago

    YES. Any technical article which uses television resolutions to describe a PC game cannot be taken seriously. It's laughable.

    And trying to suggest that the game is taxing even on a high end Core i7 / GTX295 system is irresponsible.

  • Wastelander #8 3 years ago

    I'm getting 78FPS at 1440x900 with 8xAA and everything else set to max on my 6000+, 4G ram, HD4850 setup using the benchmarking tool.

    In the benchmarking thread everyone with a reasonable system was blitzing it.

  • pauleyc #9 3 years ago

    "And trying to suggest that the game is taxing even on a high end Core i7 / GTX295 system is irresponsible."

    Irresponsible yet hilarious.

  • Darren #10 3 years ago

    @FluffyTucker - Both 720p and 1080p are HDTV resolutions and, as I'm sure you're aware, the PC can be used on these with a DVI to HDMI adaptor or direct HDMI if your graphics card has an HDMI port. Most recent games support these resolutions in-game too.

    Thus it isn't really moronic to refer to these resolutions at all, particularly as this is a comparison feature with the console versions, which only support 720p and (upscaled) 1080p. There's little point in comparing the PC version running at 1680x1050 with the 360 version at 1280x720, is there? ;)

  • mingster #11 3 years ago

    Yeah fluffy STFU get your facts right im running 1080p on my 42" Samsung from my PC.
    Your such a moaning ponce.

  • Cider-X #12 3 years ago

    Why is it so bad and wrong to mention television resolutions in a PC article? Could it be that the journalist actually has his PC connected to an HDTV? GASP!!! SHOCK!! HORROR!!

  • IneptPercy #13 3 years ago

    Looking good to me, as others have said mentioning 1080p and 720p in a PC article is more than acceptable to me as I play games on a 1080p TV myself as do many others.

    1080p is a perfectly legimate PC resolution and a perfect match for bench marking against consoles.

    Either way run that game in whatever resolution you like, but is there any point in complaining about it here?

  • AbyssUK #14 3 years ago

    Who cares about 1080p 720p.. I have this baby running on my Jamma cabinet through a 4850 in amazing 640x480 15khz awesomeness...

  • wonton #15 3 years ago

    I connect my computer to a 720p telly with a HDMI cable. So yes, Fluffy , it is appropriate to use 720p or 1080p.

  • Ranger101 #16 3 years ago

    Richard L., stick to the commentry on the visuals and less about the game, eh. If Capcom made a game that matched your description, they couldn't call it Street Fighter.

    Street Fighter isn't a martial arts movie. It's a comic book with "Kaplows", "Zappos" and "Kabloom"'s. A teenage girl stopping a russian behemoth's onslaught with a slap fits that bill exactly.

    Throw those commentries on a game like UFC: Undisputed, and maybe you're talking in the right context. That's a game that could only be improved by dropping the predefined animations and moving towards a more flowing skelatal form.

  • dllord #17 3 years ago

    I havnt heard the word Spacker for a long time!

  • Arwin #18 3 years ago

    Ah, we fully agree on the off-topic stuff Richard ;)
    Edited by 1 at 07/07/09 @ 13:07

  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #19 3 years ago

    I like the posterisation effect

  • dingo75 #20 3 years ago

    And so it begins...

    PC graphics clearly better than console graphics in a multi-platform game.
    Let's see when the graphics whores will come back to PC (the ones that switched to Xbox 360).

  • roz123 #21 3 years ago

    Its strange comparing an x-box 360 to a £1000 computer on this game since you can max it out and get no drops in framerate on a much much much cheaper pc. It looks great for what it is but its obviously not really pushing pcs to its limits.

  • skillian #22 3 years ago

    Begins? Where have you been the last two years?

  • BrokenSymmetry #23 3 years ago

    I liked the re-review part of this article. I think it's only natural when someone looks at a game for technical reasons that he also has (or forms) an opinion about the game itself. Why shouldn't these opinions be allowed to be expressed?

  • TheMoonRat #24 3 years ago

    because this article and the head to head article are a comparison about technical merits of a game over different platforms. Anything else (such as personal mini re-reviews) dilutes the purpose of the technical aspects which personally I always find very interesting.

  • Simplex #25 3 years ago

    Link to first video on EDTV ("1080p Vs. video" - http://ww w.eurogamer.net/tv_video.php?pl... ) does not work (404)

    Second movie "Postprocessing" ( http://ww w.eurogamer.net/tv_video.php?pl... ) also does not work on EGTV.
    Edited by 1 at 07/07/09 @ 15:13

  • EllenD #26 3 years ago

    More and more PC monitors have 1080P as their native resolution, so I don't see any problems with this.

    As for myself, when games are coming out on both the PC and XBox 360, I prefer the XBox 360 version, as it is more pick up and play than the PC version. However, sometimes the price difference is so substantial that I can't ignore it. For instance, SFIV costs $39.90 for the PC while the X360 version is priced at $64.90. I know you could get a better price when you shop around a bit, but still, that's almost one extra game, worth the extra hassle for me...

  • Bagpuss #27 3 years ago

    "The comparison also serves to illustrate just how good the Xenos scaler actually is: GBP 130 console versus GBP 1200 PC"

    But you dont need to spend £1200 to get it running at 360 levels.

    I just built a PC with a Phenom XII 550 CPU, ATI 4850 GPU and 4Gb of 1066 DDR2 RAM.....and get a constant 60FPS with all GFX options maxed out (8xAA) running at 1280x1024 which is my monitors maximum, which is still better than the 360.

    And it only cost £400.....

  • frostcircus #28 3 years ago

    @TheMoonRat
    It's a total aside, it doesn't dilute anything.
    Edited by 1 at 07/07/09 @ 14:53

  • Shakey_Jake33 #29 3 years ago

    The beauty of PC software is how scalable it is. With a bit of fiddling, I run the game on my laptop in 60fps, with my lowly 8400m GS. A GeForce 6600 sounds very possible, I think it's on a similar level.

  • El_MUERkO #30 3 years ago

    C2Q 9550 + 4870 Crossfire @ 1920x1200 with everything set to max and vsync on and it's rock solid @ 60fps, vsync off and it's floating around 100.

    but i'm more interested in a prototype comparison, do eeeet!

    @fluffy

    while 1080p isnt a common resolution on PCs right now it's a good one to use when comparing with consoles. it's also worth noting that a lot of newer sub 24" monitors are going 16/9 1080p instead of 16/10 1680x1050. not to mention that a serious street fighter fan might connect their PC to their 40/50" plasma/LCD to get the best of both worlds out of their game, i know i did to see what it looks like ... on my 40W2000 it looks stunning! pity i suck at the game :*(
    Edited by 1 at 07/07/09 @ 16:27

  • Salaminizer #31 3 years ago

    Actually, if there's nothing new but the game still uses the highly unpopular GFWL, it IS a crappy port. to this day there's a huge amount of people with connection issues, and I won't even mention the limitations that it imposes (dedicated servers, etc). With that said, I obviously bought the game because with 1x1 I don't think GFWL will be too taxing on the game.

  • Pirotic #32 3 years ago

    Can we have a comparison of it not with shit music please? :D

  • peterfll #33 3 years ago

    And I thought the comments thread on 360 vs PS3 comparison articles got messy.

  • Huffman_D #34 3 years ago

    i ran the benchmark at 4x MSAA with the rest of the settings on highest, on 1920x1200, and still got and A rating. I have a dual core x6800 2.93 ghz and a gtx 9800+ and got an A rating, so i don't know what you're doing.

    running the game without v-sync i get like 130 frames, which actually speeds up the game, which means that whoever wrote it is either an idiot or an asshole.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #35 3 years ago

    Yeah, the game is basically designed to be run with Vsync, that's why it's default. The speedup thing is rather silly, though you get the same problem with Fallout 3 and Oblivion if you uncap the fps. I run with Vsync + Triple Buffer forced using D3DOverrider anyway, so it's all good.

    I grabbed the game on Steam today, it's an excellent port on a technical level. There's nothing new, but I get to play SF4 on my laptop with a USB Saturn controller, so I'm happy.

  • Obiwanshinobi #36 3 years ago

    Such fighting games usually have frame-based combat systems. That's why SFIV is supposed to run at fixed framerate. Capcom has quite disastrous story with PC ports of their games, but I can't blame them for not messing with the very system of SF. Complete system reworking is too much to ask I think.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #37 3 years ago

    Actually, Capcom have gotten their act together with their PC ports recently, since they now do all ports in-house. The games which use the MT Framework engine (Lost Planet, Devil May Cry 4 etc.) have been excellent ports, and I'd expect similar quality for their forthcoming Resident Evil 5 and Dead Rising 2 ports (which also use MT Framework). They're really taking the PC seriously, it seems.

    Of course, Street Fighter IV is a different kettle of fish because it doesn't use MT Framework. The fact that Taito Type X2 uses PC-based hardware doesn't mean it's a simple cut-and-paste job, and the PC port of Street Fighter IV has had as much care as you can reasonably expect. Capcom have done a good job with the PC recently.

  • Darren #38 3 years ago

    Yeah, Capcom PC games are excellent now, so much so that I have hesitation in buying both Resident Evil 5 and Lost Planet 2 for the PC. After the lousy Devil May Cry 3 and Resident Evil 4, I had pretty much given up on Capcom ever releasing a decent multiformat game on the PC.

  • Nikanoru #39 3 years ago

    Calling for realism over gameplay in SF4? Somebody doesn't get the point of this game, or 2D fighters in general. Way to go.


    Darren: The graphics are very basic IMO, mostly 2D throughout the bout except for the odd bit of 3D and with a pretty static backdrop featuring a few simple, looped animations.

    Hahaha wow. Are you serious? The only thing 2D about SF4 is the gameplay, and there's nothing IMO about it.

    Oh, and just because it doesn't have as much detail when you peer at the screen from an inch away running the game at 289324x294590, doesn't mean it doesn't still blow almost every drab looking PC game out of the water in the art department.

  • Darren #40 3 years ago

    @Nikanoru - And if you don't like the art style especially? Didn't think of that did you while you were busy trying to force your "I'm right and you're wrong" viewpoint, did you? ;)

    Well, guess what, I don't particularly like the art design of Street Fighter IV especially and, in fact, stated that in my first post. It's a mixture of the occasionally pretty, mostly OK and sometimes downright ugly in my view. Whatever, the resulting look of the game is inconsistent with some very dull and unimaginative backdrops (like the jungle and volcano) which is why I'm not praising the game's visuals. :p

  • krenzler #41 3 years ago

    What current joypad would be the best overall choice for this game? Something I can just plug-in without any additional software.

    I don't want a hulking arcade controller - takes up too much room.

    Mad Catz SFIV FightPad? Is this plug'n'ready for PC? The PS3 version is wireless...

  • Pablo2k5 #42 3 years ago

    Running the benchmark on my Phenom II with 280 GTX @ 1920x1200 = solid 60fps with vsynch and FULL everything!

    I've got it on my PS3 but PC pisses all over it graphically.... obviously

  • Buran #43 3 years ago

    This is the most useless, fake, dishonest and disgusting article I’ve read in a lot of time. Even worse, plain and simple: is lying.

    I have a Q6600 oced to 3 Ghz, 2 GB DDR2 800 Mhz and a GTX 275, and my PC absolutely D E S T R O Y S the PC bench of the game. At 1680 x 1050 AA X16 AF X8 all settings maximized my desktop brings me 103 fps, “A” rank and 9.011 points with V-Sync off. With V-Sync the fps are limited to 60, but still near to 7.000 points and “A” rank.

    When the writer is telling “the actual visual results shows only minor improvements over the console game” He’s lying. In my PC the game utterly tramples over the consoles version, and if He is using a i7 and GTX 295 and only manages to obtain a “B” rank then He has no those hardware or even is blind.

    Is the same thing with almost any multiplataform game in this gen: with current low prices in the graphic cards, RAM and CPUs markets, cheap PC sweeps the floor with console games.

    As in any previous PC Capcom titles lately (DMC 4, LP) Street Fighter IV in PC crushes his other versions so widely that you’r eyes will bleed the next time you play the game in a 360 or PS3.

    “with a bit of bonus graphical glitz” My balls.

    And Tekken, Virtua Fighter and Soul Calibur are better games, but this last one sentence is of course matter of tastes. The lies in the article not.

  • John_Doe #44 3 years ago

    this is false... really false

  • Miths #45 3 years ago

    The ink filter looks pretty cool, but as for the first comparison video and the comparion screenshots, they looked identical to me, and I actually did my best to notice small differences in shadows, textures etc. (though without going to extremes pausing the video constantly or spending a couple of minutes staring intently at each screenshot. They fly by at a rate of 60 per second in an actual game situation after all, where I'm also likely to have my hands full with other things than playing "spot the missing arm pit shadow";).

    Anyone know if the Hori Fighting Stick 3 plugs straight into a Vista PC without the need for fancy driver or button input "translation" utilities?
    I've got the PS3 version of SF4 (haven't played it in a while but I'm starting to feel the urge to begin again), but being able to place the stick firmly on a desk at the proper height in front of my PC rather than having it in my lap, might actually prove so beneficial that it beats a more comfortable chair and a larger screen in my console setup.

  • Ownko #46 3 years ago

    Wow, such nerd rage on the comments. There are more civilized ways of criticism, no need to throw a hissy fit full of "f" words, I've always wanted to comment on those articles on the old site but never could because the comments were disabled. And why were they disabled? Because of the rampant trolling. Do people really want history to repeat itself?

    On topic: Great read! But what I would've really liked to see for this article to be perfect is a breakdown of every PC settings, to see what does each setting do, because I get lost in the self shadowing, soft shadows, particles, etc. This game looks the same to me with those settings on or off. Also what are the console equivalent settings? Everything max or at mid? etc.