PDA

View Full Version : Performance in Chrome en Jedi AcademY


Skinner
11-03-03, 09:08 AM
How is the performance with the fx5950 or 5900 in these games in 1280x1024x32 x8 AF max IQ ?

I'm getting some terrible performance in Chrome in the outdoorlevels (15 a 20 fps :mad: ) with my R9800P

In JDA dynamic glow killes framerate, but looks quite nice.
How does the fx handles the glow in above settings?

Skinner
11-04-03, 05:57 AM
Common guys, tell me at least where I can find some comparison about these games

malachi1313
11-04-03, 03:18 PM
I own both a 5950 and a 9800 Pro 128MB and the 5950 runs both games better than the Radeon with comparable image quality. Both games are noticably smoother as well, when using the 5950.

Skinner
11-04-03, 05:00 PM
Thanx, I guss I need a fx5950 too :D

Hellbinder
11-04-03, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Skinner
Thanx, I guss I need a fx5950 too :D
Interesting. Ill have to test out Chrome Tonight. JK-II plays about the same on both cards from reviews.

There are plently of other games that play better on the 9800pro. I would not sell the farm because of Chrome. I think it was developed purely on Nvidia hardware. Ill check it out tonight and see how it fares with the latest and greatest. ;)

Not talking about computer parts.

AnteP
11-04-03, 06:22 PM
http://www.nordichardware.se/recensioner/grafikkort/2003/November_roundup/index.php?ez=10

look at the bottom of the page..

personally though I've been using my 9800 Pro 128 MB and with 4xAA/8xAF at 1280x1024 I can't really say I had any performance problems in the game
sure framerate is low but it doesn't dip to any extreme lows so it feels pretty fluent anyways
the fx boards however fluctuate much more
the high results in the avarage fps tests is rather to do spikes in the fps in certain situations rather than a stable high fps throughout the whole test

the 5950 Ultra though delivers both better min and avg fps so it's a sure shot for JA
though personally I would never put all my eggs in one basket like that

the 9800 XT delivers better performance and IQ overall [added to prevent any attack from HB accusing me of being an nvidia fanboy] ;)

Hellbinder
11-04-03, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by AnteP
http://www.nordichardware.se/recensioner/grafikkort/2003/November_roundup/index.php?ez=10

look at the bottom of the page..

personally though I've been using my 9800 Pro 128 MB and with 4xAA/8xAF at 1280x1024 I can't really say I had any performance problems in the game
sure framerate is low but it doesn't dip to any extreme lows so it feels pretty fluent anyways
the fx boards however fluctuate much more
the high results in the avarage fps tests is rather to do spikes in the fps in certain situations rather than a stable high fps throughout the whole test

the 5950 Ultra though delivers both better min and avg fps so it's a sure shot for JA
though personally I would never put all my eggs in one basket like that

the 9800 XT delivers better performance and IQ overall [added to prevent any attack from HB accusing me of being an nvidia fanboy] ;)
hahahahaha... Those days are long gone. I dont accuse anyone of being a fanboy anymore.

The Baron
11-04-03, 10:42 PM
in games where it would be pretty close in D3D, NV cards simply beat out ATI cards because of their superior OGL drivers. can't really put it any other way than that.

Skinner
11-05-03, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by Hellbinder

There are plently of other games that play better on the 9800pro. I would not sell the farm because of Chrome. I think it was developed purely on Nvidia hardware. Ill check it out tonight and see how it fares with the latest and greatest. ;)

Not talking about computer parts. [/B]

No the R9800P stays, once you have played Max Payne2 with a R9800P you never want something else ;)

It's possible Chrome just beiing optimized for nV cards, I don't hope Stalker and Far Cry are taking this route, because then I have to buy a fx5950.

Skinner
11-05-03, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by AnteP
http://www.nordichardware.se/recensioner/grafikkort/2003/November_roundup/index.php?ez=10

look at the bottom of the page..

personally though I've been using my 9800 Pro 128 MB and with 4xAA/8xAF at 1280x1024 I can't really say I had any performance problems in the game
sure framerate is low but it doesn't dip to any extreme lows so it feels pretty fluent anyways
the fx boards however fluctuate much more
the high results in the avarage fps tests is rather to do spikes in the fps in certain situations rather than a stable high fps throughout the whole test

the 5950 Ultra though delivers both better min and avg fps so it's a sure shot for JA
though personally I would never put all my eggs in one basket like that

the 9800 XT delivers better performance and IQ overall [added to prevent any attack from HB accusing me of being an nvidia fanboy] ;)

That was a nice review.

I mostly play with v-syn (with triple buffer a course ;) ) and it (JediAcad.) feels a little bit choppy.
And I like the dynamic gloweffects, it looks a little bit like some sort of shader.

AnteP
11-05-03, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by Skinner
That was a nice review.

I mostly play with v-syn (with triple buffer a course ;) ) and it (JediAcad.) feels a little bit choppy.
And I like the dynamic gloweffects, it looks a little bit like some sort of shader.

using vsync when your fps is almost never up to par with the refreshrate will always result in choppy gameplay: turn it off :)

Skinner
11-05-03, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by AnteP
using vsync when your fps is almost never up to par with the refreshrate will always result in choppy gameplay: turn it off :)

Yes but that's where triple buffering comes into play and I hate tearing.

ClyssaN
11-05-03, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by AnteP
using vsync when your fps is almost never up to par with the refreshrate will always result in choppy gameplay: turn it off :)


If you have a refresh of 100Hz and your fps are always higher do you feel that your games are choppy ( vsync on )!?

edit: I notice that a lot of people uses vsync off, i just dont understand how people can stand the tearing in games, for me it's like degrading IQ. In cases where the refresh rate is only 60 hertz because higher resolutions i do understand but in that case i lower resolution and increase AF/AA :)

AnteP
11-05-03, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by ClyssaN
If you have a refresh of 100Hz and your fps are always higher do you feel that your games are choppy ( vsync on )!?

no of course not
but if the framerate is below 100 it will be choppy (with vsync on and 100 hz)

tearing is pretty different on different setups:
I think nVidia card tend to show more horrible tearing than ATi for some odd reason
I also think tearing depends a lot on your monitor and of course refreshrate

ClyssaN
11-05-03, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by AnteP
but if the framerate is below 100 it will be choppy (with vsync on and 100 hz)

I didnt know about that. I thought that if the refresh rate is higher then the fps, the diferrence between vsyn on/off was only the tearing.

Dazz
11-05-03, 07:48 AM
Are you using stencil shadows sure they look awesome but they will utterly desimate your frame rates.

Skinner
11-05-03, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by AnteP
no of course not
but if the framerate is below 100 it will be choppy (with vsync on and 100 hz)



Triple buffering holds your framerate and smooth gameplay when your framerate are below the freq. of the monitor

without you get 100->49->24 with triplebuf. on 100->99->98 etc.

So TB is only useful with v-sync.