PDA

View Full Version : How come?


Pages : [1] 2

UAC MARINE
03-16-04, 06:59 PM
Okay one thing I can say is Im very confused. First of all, I ran Far Cry demo on 1024x768 with 2x aa and 2x af and guess what 17-20 fps when walking!:confused: How come? But at the same time DOOM III ALPHA 0.002 demo runs 50-60 fps for some guy at the other post? Whay, DOOM II ALPHA has advanced graphics such as high polygon characters, you can see pores and veins and other realistic FX and it still runs better then athe offical demo? Why

saturnotaku
03-16-04, 07:21 PM
Because 1) Doom 3 is OpenGL, an area where NVIDIA cards have always excelled and 2) Doom 3 is based on DirectX 7 (read: GeForce2 GTS) technology with very few exceptions. Far Cry is based on DirectX 9 tech, something NVIDIA's current cards...well, let's just say DX 9 isn't their forte.

ChrisRay
03-16-04, 07:27 PM
Well Far Cry uses DX 8.0 shaders for Nvidia hardware,


But um from what I have gathered this software beats down even 9800XTs,


Its a graphically demanding game.

saturnotaku
03-16-04, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
Well Far Cry uses DX 8.0 shaders for Nvidia hardware,

HAHAHAHA...I forgot about that. My 5900 would get about 20-30 fps at 1024. Same resolution on my 9800 Pro, with full DX 9 shaders gets me at least double that in most situations. :rofl

ChrisRay
03-16-04, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
HAHAHAHA...I forgot about that. My 5900 would get about 20-30 fps at 1024. Same resolution on my 9800 Pro, with full DX 9 shaders gets me at least double that in most situations. :rofl


Really. I havent ran the demo, So...

UAC MARINE
03-16-04, 08:27 PM
Waaaaaaaaaaaa!:super: I did not know that DOOM III is based on directx 7 technology!:confused: But how come the graphics is 3x better then Frar Cry or UNREAL II? Is it the OpenGL? Seriously if you look closely you will see pores and veins and everything else in DOOM III not like in Far Cry!

Thanx for info!:)

freak77power
03-16-04, 11:51 PM
I'm running 40-50FPS Far Cry 1280*960 AA 2x AA8x Radeon 9800XT

ChrisRay
03-16-04, 11:52 PM
I am beginning to wonder. The Demo doesnt really seem to run that Slowly to me. I play it in 4x AA and 8x Performance AF... @1024x768

Sazar
03-16-04, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by ChrisRay
I am beginning to wonder. The Demo doesnt really seem to run that Slowly to me. I play it in 4x AA and 8x Performance AF... @1024x768

try running round instead of crawlin around :rofl

sry.. couldn't resist..

@ those settings most cards would give hiccups in certain areas :)

I play it all effects maxed @ 12x10 and it runs smooth enough.. no noticeable hiccups for either of the two demos...

MUYA
03-17-04, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by UAC MARINE
Waaaaaaaaaaaa!:super: I did not know that DOOM III is based on directx 7 technology!:confused: But how come the graphics is 3x better then Frar Cry or UNREAL II? Is it the OpenGL? Seriously if you look closely you will see pores and veins and everything else in DOOM III not like in Far Cry!

Thanx for info!:)

Doom III uses a lot of bump mapping as far as I know and shadows to get the feel of the game right. Its not all dx7, some dx9 equivalent shaders in OpenGL is apparently being used as well...apparently.

ChrisRay
03-17-04, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by Sazar
try running round instead of crawlin around :rofl

sry.. couldn't resist..

@ those settings most cards would give hiccups in certain areas :)

I play it all effects maxed @ 12x10 and it runs smooth enough.. no noticeable hiccups for either of the two demos...


Well I admit, I didnt play it very long. Btw I play it at High Settings. Not Very High.


But I was getting around 15-30 FPS with 4x AA and 8x AF, So I dont think its as bad as I was expecting. I think anything above 15 FPS is totally acceptable to me tho ;)

AA isnt hitting performance much in this game IMO. AF does tho, This game is shader limited, Not bandwith.

zakelwe
03-17-04, 01:07 AM
Doom3 looks good because the persons creating it are rather better at using their electronic paintbrushes than some other people, even though the other people have more modern brushes.


Regards

Andy

Smokey
03-17-04, 04:29 AM
Everyone is posting as if its the videocard doing all the work here!! CPU and ram will also play a big part in the performance of games like FarCry. FarCry demo runs ok on my pc until I get to the jungle bits.

Edge
03-17-04, 05:51 AM
There is a HUGE performance margin between detail settings in Far Cry. When I set everything to high on my XP1600+TI4200, I was getting around 4 FPS during the entire thing. I moved the options down to medium or low (except for water, which I set to high) and magically I get 30-40 FPS. There are some effects that are tailored toward certain cards better than others (fillrate intense things for the FX cards, shaders for 9x00 cards), so if you're really getting a bad framerate try turning down an option or two and see what you can get.

To be honest, 2xAA with lvl2 aniso at 1024 with all settings on high at 20 FPS is actually pretty damn amazing, given how fast I was running it at. But with a little tweakage it should run as well as a 9700 card would run it (with DX8 shaders anyway, with DX9 shaders it appears the 5900 cards run about 20%-40% slower than a 9700 card, at least when you use a hack to enable DX9 effects on FX cards). But so far most benchmarks show the 5900 matching the 9700 when used on a similar system, so you may be CPU limited or something.

Oh, and actually Doom 3 has VERY low polygon characters, somewhere in the area of 2,000 polygons per model (roughly equal to the high-end models in the Half-life enhanced definition pack, and the models in Halo). It's the bumpmapping and effects that make the game look good.

zoomy942
03-17-04, 06:04 AM
i guess i am the minority here cause i dont use AA or AF. i played far cry and it ran wonderfully.. at 1024x768. it was alot beter than my 5700.

freak77power
03-17-04, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Smokey
Everyone is posting as if its the videocard doing all the work here!! CPU and ram will also play a big part in the performance of games like FarCry. FarCry demo runs ok on my pc until I get to the jungle bits.

Actually the jungle runs fine here, but it's slow down in the building, what does not make a sense....

Overall, current generation of ATI and NVIDIA cards are not able to run DX9.0 games as they run DX7.0 games example UT2003/2004, neither the next generation will able to run it well.
r500 and NV50 will achieve in DX9.0 applications the frame rate we have now in UT2003 :)

Basically, this is how you count...
Current DX 9.0 cards - two = dx7.0 game...max details, over 100FPS AA + AF
r420 NV40 - two = dx 8.1 game...max details, 100FPS AA + AF
r500 NV50 - two = dx 9.0 game ...max details, 100FPS AA + AF

CaiNaM
03-17-04, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by saturnotaku
Because 1) Doom 3 is OpenGL, an area where NVIDIA cards have always excelled and 2) Doom 3 is based on DirectX 7 (read: GeForce2 GTS) technology with very few exceptions. Far Cry is based on DirectX 9 tech, something NVIDIA's current cards...well, let's just say DX 9 isn't their forte.

heh.. 99% of farcry (the demo at least) uses DX8 and lower regardless of whether it's run on nv or ati hardware.

ps2 shaders are used on ati cards to do a few lighting effects (mostly when using the flashlight), for the most part it uses ps1.1.

overall my 9800pro (420/720) does run it about 15% faster than my 5900nu (450/950) on average.

ChrisRay
03-17-04, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Edge
There is a HUGE performance margin between detail settings in Far Cry. When I set everything to high on my XP1600+TI4200, I was getting around 4 FPS during the entire thing. I moved the options down to medium or low (except for water, which I set to high) and magically I get 30-40 FPS. There are some effects that are tailored toward certain cards better than others (fillrate intense things for the FX cards, shaders for 9x00 cards), so if you're really getting a bad framerate try turning down an option or two and see what you can get.

To be honest, 2xAA with lvl2 aniso at 1024 with all settings on high at 20 FPS is actually pretty damn amazing, given how fast I was running it at. But with a little tweakage it should run as well as a 9700 card would run it (with DX8 shaders anyway, with DX9 shaders it appears the 5900 cards run about 20%-40% slower than a 9700 card, at least when you use a hack to enable DX9 effects on FX cards). But so far most benchmarks show the 5900 matching the 9700 when used on a similar system, so you may be CPU limited or something.

Oh, and actually Doom 3 has VERY low polygon characters, somewhere in the area of 2,000 polygons per model (roughly equal to the high-end models in the Half-life enhanced definition pack, and the models in Halo). It's the bumpmapping and effects that make the game look good.


That would make sense. Mind you I dont play the Highest Detail Settings.

I was satisfied with my performance for the most part, I played on one the second to highest settings fine. Tho I only did the Jungle area. I'd have to go indoors as some have suggested.

But for what I did 4x/8x perf ran fine. I really think this game is more fillrate/shader limited than bandwith.

fingermouth
03-18-04, 11:39 PM
Hey Edge and Saturn, Whats up guys nice to see you here. Im currently playing the Far Cry Demo at 1290 + with AA and AF and it runs decent on my FX card. You can play just about any game with atleast a Geforce 2GTS or better as long as your Processor is 1Ghz or higher as long as their is no AA and AF in the game being used and at 800 600 pretty much all games will run at least 30FPS on those cards but the better the Memory bandwidth, the more FPS. And don't forget the ingame shaderws will look like **** the older the card you use to play these new games. And DX9 should be installed even if your card is DX7 or 8. Have fun and Saturn give me a hook up your post count tells me you have some stroke around here hang in there bud we will be getting some good weather our way so i can get out of my house and away from this PC im on all day. Peace yal

Yuet
03-19-04, 01:21 PM
This game is also very core dependent as well, I have two spare machine at home both eqiup with 9600Pro, but one is 2.8C and the other is 2000+. The 2.8C machine is playable at all detail set to very high @1024x768 with no AA and AF, but the 2000+ machine only managed most detail low with few medium to be playable @1024x768 no AA and AF. The reason for me is unknown, and I never bother to look into it.

Note: what I mean playable above is the outdoor area where the demo start, I have never bother to test the indoor area, which is much worst in terms of performance as expected.

Intel17
06-01-04, 03:41 PM
doom 3 isnt based on DX7 technology. Its more advanced than far cry and HL2. I mean the original crytek demo is GF2 tech. Just cuz it starts on some tech that it will end at it. They add new features to engines over time u kno
________
Acura Cl (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Acura_CL)

zoomy942
06-01-04, 06:04 PM
when doom3 comes out it will show me why i kept my 5900 and didnt get a 9800.. opengl doom 3 is gonna be so amazing. :)

anzak
06-01-04, 07:39 PM
This performance issue is a mix of his graphics card and processor. I put my Radeon 9600XT into a friends machine with an Athlon 1.4Ghz and had trouble playing the game at anything above 800x600! Normaly I have no problems playing at 1024x768 everything on high (water very high) with 2xAA and 8xAF with my 2.4Ghz Athlon XP.

DaveW
06-01-04, 08:34 PM
The farcry engine is just slow. Of course it looks good too, but it doesn't look good enough to justify the crappy frame rate IMO. I think its a memory hog too, just walking along the beach and my harddrive is accessed frequently. I have 768 meg. Any harddrive activity at all in a game is perceived as an irregular and annoying drops in framerate.

Riptide
06-01-04, 08:37 PM
DaveW, I've seen that swine of a game use up well over 800meg. :eek:

It does look good, ofcourse. :)