PDA

View Full Version : CoD AA!


SH64
10-28-03, 11:24 PM
When i was playing Call of Duty 2nd demo i noticed that the game take a big hit when i switch the AA on . i lose about 40 frames when i turn the AA to 2x or 4x ... i tested that in a certain place to find this :
AA off = 60 fps
2x ,4x AA = 20 fps
8x = 13-15 fps
all the eye candy up , res 1024x768 , 32bit , 8xAF ,vsync off.

i think theres something wrong .. anyone else having the same ? any idea what might cause this ?

sys info : P4:2.4 (800FSB) ,512 MB RAM , GFFX 5900U , DX9.0b ,52.16 ,winxp w/SP1.

while on my other system with exactly the same settings & a P4:3GHz ,1GB RAM ,9800 Pro ... the game runs super fast with 6xAA 16XAF & the fps in the same place is about 58-60 fps!

i dont suppose the P4:3GHz can make all that difference !
:D

deejaya
10-29-03, 09:06 AM
Sounds like Vsync is on?

edit: I know you said vsync is off but that really is the only thing I can think of to make it drop at such orderly frame rates from 60.

SH64
10-29-03, 12:11 PM
The Vsync is set to "off by default" via the CP & disabled in the game settings . i'm sure about that ...

Nutty
10-29-03, 01:11 PM
You dont need vsync off these days. Turn it to on by default. You shouldn't drop huge frames due to triple-buffering.

Spliffstarr
10-29-03, 01:17 PM
all i know is that i can play call of duty @ 1280x1024 with 6xaa quality and 16aniso and my frame rates never drop below 50 fps....:D My p4c is clocked at 3.3 for normal everyday use and gaming and my 9800pro 256mb is clocked at 400core/750mem..

AngelGraves13
10-31-03, 09:21 PM
I'm debating if I should buy it or not. I need some new games badly...sick of Unreal 2 and Unreal Tournament 2003 is only fun after a few beers. Is COD any good? The graphics look more dated than Halo!!

SH64
10-31-03, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by 99 to Life
I'm debating if I should buy it or not. I need some new games badly...sick of Unreal 2 and Unreal Tournament 2003 is only fun after a few beers. Is COD any good? The graphics look more dated than Halo!!

are you kidding ?? this is gonna be one of the best WWII shooters of the year ... for me its a "must buy" game just like BF1942 & MOHAA.

heres a review ...
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty/index.html?tag=mp_num1

AngelGraves13
10-31-03, 10:51 PM
yeah but it looks dated, plus MOHAA sucked and I don't like Battlefield 1942.

It looks exactly like MOHAA with new models....am I wrong here?

Rytr
11-01-03, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by 99 to Life
yeah but it looks dated, plus MOHAA sucked and I don't like Battlefield 1942.

It looks exactly like MOHAA with new models....am I wrong here?

If you don't like something how can you be wrong unless you change your mind?

Run the demos and you will see a number of things that are different from MOHAA and BF1942. But if you don't like either of those games I can't see how you would like CoD even with improvements.

I really liked the demos and plan on getting the full version but that is just my take on it.

AngelGraves13
11-01-03, 01:01 AM
I have the demo on a disc, the disc won't load on my drive...so I can't test it out.

CaptNKILL
11-01-03, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Nutty
You dont need vsync off these days. Turn it to on by default. You shouldn't drop huge frames due to triple-buffering.

Ehh, I have to disagree there. By turning triple buffering on, you are using a lot more video memory. By turning AA on, you are multiplying the triple buffer size by your AA level (ie 2x, 4x, 6x). Add high res textures and models to that and most 128Mb cards will be using system memory (ie, your framerate goes to sh!t).

Cant remember where i read it, but 1280x1024x32 with 2xAA and triple buffering uses something like 70Mb-80Mb of Vmem for the frames alone (dont quote me on it tho... its been a while since I read that). CoD uses some huge textures, so I doubt they would fit into the remaining ~40Mb of Vmem.
EDIT: Also, check the link in my sig. Vsync is basicly the spawn of satan when it comes to video performance... disable it and we'll all be a lot happier :)