PDA

View Full Version : 5900 ultra choppy gameplay


penner
08-10-03, 05:17 AM
so today I finally broke down and got an fx 5900 ultra, brought it home, installed it, then excitedly started up a game. battlefield 1942. i maxed aa and af, pumped up all the details in the game and switched to a resolution of 1600x900x32, confident that my new top-of-the-line-no-better-card-exists graphics card could handle it...it chugged. completely unplayable. i then spent the next hour tweaking all the settings and eventually came to the conclusion that the only way to get smooth framerates with the in-game settings maxed was to completely disable aa and af. and even then i could only play at 1024x768 (1280x720 was ok, but still skipped a little)

so was i only dreaming to think my card should be able to hande more? is there soemthing special about this particular game? or is there something i dont know?

i have an amd 2700+ 2.16 Ghz, 1Gig RAM. i have the 4403 detonater drivers which as far as i know are the latest. my shift key doesnt work, thats why theres no caps. sorry.

5150 Joker
08-10-03, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by penner
so today I finally broke down and got an fx 5900 ultra, brought it home, installed it, then excitedly started up a game. battlefield 1942. i maxed aa and af, pumped up all the details in the game and switched to a resolution of 1600x900x32, confident that my new top-of-the-line-no-better-card-exists graphics card could handle it...it chugged. completely unplayable. i then spent the next hour tweaking all the settings and eventually came to the conclusion that the only way to get smooth framerates with the in-game settings maxed was to completely disable aa and af. and even then i could only play at 1024x768 (1280x720 was ok, but still skipped a little)

so was i only dreaming to think my card should be able to hande more? is there soemthing special about this particular game? or is there something i dont know?

i have an amd 2700+ 2.16 Ghz, 1Gig RAM. i have the 4403 detonater drivers which as far as i know are the latest. my shift key doesnt work, thats why theres no caps. sorry.

Even the 5900 Ultra should be able to run BF1942 at 1024x768 2xAA/8xAF (performance) pretty smoothly. If it doesn't you might want to check into your configuration and probably try updating your drivers to something more recent. If you're really unhappy with the card, I'd suggest trying out a 9800 pro--that's what I use for BF1942 Desert Combat at 1280x960 4xAA/16xAF and its nice and smooth with excellent image quality. :)

Morrow
08-10-03, 06:24 AM
I can play BF1942 at 1600x1200x32 with all details maxed out an 4xAA/8XAF smoothly at 30fps with a P4 2.8GHz.

Since your system is quite similiar in performance I guess there is something wrong with your setup.

Try other drivers (the 44.03 are quite old and known to be buggy).

45.23 seem to be an excellent driver release

5150 Joker
08-10-03, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Morrow
I can play BF1942 at 1600x1200x32 with all details maxed out an 4xAA/8XAF smoothly at 30fps with a P4 2.8GHz.

Since your system is quite similiar in performance I guess there is something wrong with your setup.

Try other drivers (the 44.03 are quite old and known to be buggy).

45.23 seem to be an excellent driver release

You consider 30 frames/sec smooth for an FPS?

Templar
08-10-03, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by Morrow
I can play BF1942 at 1600x1200x32 with all details maxed out an 4xAA/8XAF smoothly at 30fps with a P4 2.8GHz.

Since your system is quite similiar in performance I guess there is something wrong with your setup.

Try other drivers (the 44.03 are quite old and known to be buggy).

45.23 seem to be an excellent driver release

LOL NO WAY.. then you must sux totally in the game.

Anyway the better card is the 9800Pro.. saw the FX Ultra in action in Battlefield and I have a similar story as you. I tried the 1280*960*32 4xAA and 16xAF with the Ultra which I play with on my Radeon and no go.. Choppy and framerates would drop so much that I couldn't do **** if an artillery shell would drop near me.. frames be like 10FPS..

Simon

Morrow
08-10-03, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by 5150 Joker
You consider 30 frames/sec smooth for an FPS?

30fps is smooth since any animation above 24 fps is smooth! Easy is it :)

Templar
08-10-03, 07:53 AM
smooth enough for 2d playback yes but not for fragging in a 3d game.

Simon

saturnotaku
08-10-03, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Morrow
30fps is smooth since any animation above 24 fps is smooth!

Load up Quake 3, set up your options the way you like, then edit the config file. There should be an option that reads: seta com_maxfps "85"

First, leave that option alone and play without AA or AF so you can achieve the maximum framerate. Then play with that command set to 30.

Framerate isn't as important in games that don't require fast action and quick movement. But can you honestly say that there's no difference between 30 and 60 when playing an FPS?

prodikal
08-10-03, 11:46 AM
I have an A7N8X Deluxe 2, Barton 2500, 1 gig of ram, 5900 Ultra.

I can play bf1942 max settings @ 1280*960 w/4aa and 8af and it is completely playable i think i get about 60-70fps but i normally play with only 2aa and 4af b/c of the obvious performance increase.

btw i have the 44.71 drivers

Behemoth
08-10-03, 11:57 AM
enable hardware sound if you havent.

penner
08-10-03, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Morrow
I can play BF1942 at 1600x1200x32 with all details maxed out an 4xAA/8XAF smoothly at 30fps with a P4 2.8GHz.

Since your system is quite similiar in performance I guess there is something wrong with your setup.

Try other drivers (the 44.03 are quite old and known to be buggy).

45.23 seem to be an excellent driver release


Morrow,

any idea where i can find the 45.23 drivers? according to nvidia's website the 4403 drivers are the latest...

jimmyjames123
08-10-03, 12:43 PM
Anyway the better card is the 9800Pro.. saw the FX Ultra in action in Battlefield and I have a similar story as you. I tried the 1280*960*32 4xAA and 16xAF with the Ultra which I play with on my Radeon and no go.

The Radeon 9800 Pro is NOT the better card. Some people prefer the 5900 Ultra over the 9800 Pro, and vice versa. By the way, since when did NVIDIA have a 16xAF setting? In most professional reviews with 8xAF and 4xAA, the NVIDIA more than holds its own against the Radeon 9800 Pro. And most of these reviews are using the original first gen Detonator FX drivers.

PreservedSwine
08-10-03, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Morrow
30fps is smooth since any animation above 24 fps is smooth! Easy is it :)

There's no motion blur in video games, as there is in film (which is really 48 fps, each of the 24 frames is rendered twice). The human eye can detect up to, and even beyond in some individuals, 120fps, though most everyone agrees 60fps or higher is good for fps games. Plenty of info on the subject, do a quicj google search, and you'll find plenty:)

AthlonXP1800
08-10-03, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by penner
so today I finally broke down and got an fx 5900 ultra, brought it home, installed it, then excitedly started up a game. battlefield 1942. i maxed aa and af, pumped up all the details in the game and switched to a resolution of 1600x900x32, confident that my new top-of-the-line-no-better-card-exists graphics card could handle it...it chugged. completely unplayable. i then spent the next hour tweaking all the settings and eventually came to the conclusion that the only way to get smooth framerates with the in-game settings maxed was to completely disable aa and af. and even then i could only play at 1024x768 (1280x720 was ok, but still skipped a little)

so was i only dreaming to think my card should be able to hande more? is there soemthing special about this particular game? or is there something i dont know?

i have an amd 2700+ 2.16 Ghz, 1Gig RAM. i have the 4403 detonater drivers which as far as i know are the latest. my shift key doesnt work, thats why theres no caps. sorry.

This is strange, your card will handle with your setup very much better than my setup with AthlonXP 1800+, 512Mb RAM and Leadtek 5900 Ultra.

Have you been formatting your hard drive and use latest BF1942 1.4 patch?

Mine run the game very smooth at 1600x1200x32 0xFSAA & 8xAF and it run quite great with 4xS FSAA & 8xAF, if I had AthlonXP 2700+ and 1Gb RAM, it will run very fast and super smooth. :D

Rytr
08-10-03, 04:07 PM
At stock clock settings (450/850), 1024x768, 4xAA/8xAF, I get a solid 70FPS average in BF1942 (Midway map) using either 44.61 or 44.71 drivers. Its still playable at 8xAA/8xAF at 32 FPS.

I have been thinking about trying the 45.23's but initially I got very low scores in 3DMk2001 which I use as an initial test for stability. Has anyone had any luck with these in BF1942?

Morrow
08-10-03, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by PreservedSwine
There's no motion blur in video games, as there is in film (which is really 48 fps, each of the 24 frames is rendered twice). The human eye can detect up to, and even beyond in some individuals, 120fps, though most everyone agrees 60fps or higher is good for fps games. Plenty of info on the subject, do a quicj google search, and you'll find plenty:)

You're mixing up things here. Go watch a movie in the theatre, it will be displayed with 24fps and frames are not rendered twice.

What you are trying to explain is interlaced video like PAL or NTSC where each frame is divided into 2 half frames (even and odd). But there again there are only 25 full frames (PAL) or 29.97 full frames (NTSC).

And yes, there is motion blur in games, ever tried the MP2 demo? :)

Templar
08-10-03, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Rytr
At stock clock settings (450/850), 1024x768, 4xAA/8xAF, I get a solid 70FPS average in BF1942 (Midway map) using either 44.61 or 44.71 drivers. Its still playable at 8xAA/8xAF at 32 FPS.


At 1280*960*32 4xAA and 8xAF quality I'm getting 99fps all the time, only an occasional drop down to 70+ when I'm in the middle of an explosion with lots of other people. It was so obvious to me how much more real horse power the Radeon has over the FX Ultra when I saw it action at a local store.
I went to the store in the purpose of perhaps pick up an FX Ultra card and the guyz at the store were testing it themselves. They also played Anarchy Online and in that game you have lots of colors and mystical nano powers that give you a pyro show. The richness in the Radeon over the FX was so plain to see and just on a Generic 17" screen. Sure you can find examples otherwise but over all the FX is out trumped by the Radeon.

And regarding the FPS issue and how much you can detect with your eyes.. Set all science in this matter aside. Those who play FPS games will notice a diffrence from 30 fps and 90fps regardless of what you picked up somewhere about the human eye only being able to detect up to 30fps.

Simon

Rytr
08-10-03, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Templar
At 1280*960*32 4xAA and 8xAF quality I'm getting 99fps all the time, only an occasional drop down to 70+ when I'm in the middle of an explosion with lots of other people. It was so obvious to me how much more real horse power the Radeon has over the FX Ultra when I saw it action at a local store.
I went to the store in the purpose of perhaps pick up an FX Ultra card and the guyz at the store were testing it themselves. They also played Anarchy Online and in that game you have lots of colors and mystical nano powers that give you a pyro show. The richness in the Radeon over the FX was so plain to see and just on a Generic 17" screen. Sure you can find examples otherwise but over all the FX is out trumped by the Radeon.

And regarding the FPS issue and how much you can detect with your eyes.. Set all science in this matter aside. Those who play FPS games will notice a diffrence from 30 fps and 90fps regardless of what you picked up somewhere about the human eye only being able to detect up to 30fps.

Simon

I was commenting on the settings for the FX, not the Radeon...I know what it can do. BTW, you have your frames locked at 99FPS.

I might add that the high was 171 FPS and the low was 48 FPS. The consistent average was 70 over six times thru the map.

serAph
08-11-03, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by Behemoth
enable hardware sound if you havent.

yes do this. BF1942 has given me terrible performance on any system Ive ever played it on until I tweaked sound settings.

penner
08-11-03, 04:59 AM
Thanks for all the helpful advice, by using it all i basically was able to whittle down my probs so now the game is playable, and i no longer have commit ritual suicide.

also updated my nforce 2 chipset drivers and that made the most difference.


now i have another curiosity, has anyone played splinter cell with the 5900 ultra? wondering if the cast shadows ( the elaborate patterns of shadow and light that fall on the character every once in awhile) look jaggy even with everything turned up? ive got aa all the way up and the in game shadow detail set to high but the shadows look pretty 4 bit. wanna know if its the game or the card...

Ady
08-11-03, 10:12 AM
AA does not work in splintercell.

indio
08-11-03, 12:51 PM
There is a lot of misnomers in this thread :eek:

The Radeon 9800 Pro is NOT the better card. Some people prefer the 5900 Ultra over the 9800 Pro, and vice versa. By the way, since when did NVIDIA have a 16xAF setting? In most professional reviews with 8xAF and 4xAA, the NVIDIA more than holds its own against the Radeon 9800 Pro.

Where are these people that had both cards and prefer the 5900u? That's is complete speculation with no basis. Also we are talking about BF1942 and I don't think it's been proven one way or another what the better card is for this game.

The human eye can detect up to, and even beyond in some individuals, 120fps

That's not exactly right. Some individuals can pick out one distinct frame out of 120 identical frames, which is not the same thing as seeing 60 or 80 or 1000 fps differently

serAph
08-11-03, 01:07 PM
the human eye sees physically @ 24fps. 72 fps is the optimal FPS b/c you get 1 on and 2 offs. Anything after that just looks infinitesimally stuttery, choppy, and torn -- usually increasingly so as you get higher and higher.

PreservedSwine
08-11-03, 02:32 PM
For those intersted in fps, and what they eye can and can't detect, here are a few links......

It seems that according to these, the eye is perfectly capable of detecting fps well over 60.

Part one: http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
Part two : http://www.amo.net/NT/05-24-01FPS.html

Here is a VERY good read on motion blur, that explains the misnomer that the human eye can only detect 30 fps http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds3-4/ellen.html

Here is another that calims the "minimum" for smooth gameplay is a consistant average of about 50fps http://www.cdmag.com/articles/031/105/thw010113.html

serAph
08-11-03, 02:34 PM
*phew*

its about time someone posted some evidence on their theory behind this topic. :D

I simply posted the last thing I saw on the topic, though it looks to be incorrect.

good post!