Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

[Sazar]

:rofl

nice

Heh, I was thinking:

#include ATI.Fanboys
#include nVidia.Fanboys

if hot.newgame== released
then upgrade.card1337
else complain.gameiscrapbecauseitshouldrunatmaxres

while ATI.Fanboys(complain)
do nVidia.Fanboys(complain)
until locked.thread
// should be capped I would think unless its not syntax dependent


Note: Haven't done much programming, don't know if those are entirely correct.

:thumbsup:

brilliant... I think the admins should include that code in the forums :D

[euan]

Heh, I was thinking:

#include ATI.Fanboys
#include nVidia.Fanboys

if hot.newgame== released
then upgrade.card1337
else complain.gameiscrapbecauseitshouldrunatmaxres

while ati.fanboys(complain)
do nVidia.fanboys(complain)
until locked.thread


Note: Haven't done much programming, don't know if those are entirely correct.

I think this can be optimised to the following:


while(fanboy)
{
fnComplain(); // no argument required
}

[StealthHawk]

while(fanboy)
{
fnComplain(); // no argument required
}


Ingenius! Did you come up with that yourself or see it somewhere else?

[euan]

Ingenius! Did you come up with that yourself or see it somewhere else?

All by my poor lonesome self. :clap:

[serAph]

(better?)

When you set AA modes you are usually given some indication of the max resolution for that AA mode on a given card.. (does with the ATI control panel anyway).. If you go over that res AA is disabled because the card doesn't have sufficient vram to hold that many pixels. This can happen with any card and is ram size limitation. Unlike texture storage, the frame buffer can't be augmented by AGP accessible system ram, so go over the limit and the AA is turned off, rather than just getting slower, like with textures being accessed from the main system ram.

Sorry my quote usage doesn't meet your high standards for posting..

lol - sorry - dude, its like a year later and you still cant quote. lol

[Drumphil]

? I don't get it.. whats your point??

[Viral]

It's more likely that he's 'platform-limited' by his 800MB/sec "Rambust". Here lately people feel crippled by running PC2700 DDR which, in theory, offers over three times the bandwidth that he's feeding his CPU.
-suggestion, drop the 5900 in a modern dual-channel motherboard and then try those kinds of settings?

800MHz Rambus isn't 800MB/s, it's 1.6GB/s with a single stick and 3.2GB/s with two (saturating the FSB of his 2.4A completely).

Anyway, as others have said.. the main reason you are getting bad performance is because you are expecting too much from your hardware. Drop back to 1024x768. It may look quite a bit lower in detail, but unless you get better hardware thats the reality you have to face.

[XanderF]

Nosing in....

Linky for the demo download? Torrent, preferably? I wanna see how it runs on my 5900XT overclocked to...well, silly levels.

[kev13dd]

I have to agree with the very first post in this section. I go out and buy a FX5900, 2600+ Barton, PC3200 ram, and slam it all into a nice mobo, and expect a pretty nice gaming PC. Instead I get a PC that can't handle Far Cry (demo at least) without lagging (which I consider below 30FPS) it lags with certain UT2004 maps when I have settings at default, and the max I am getting in 3DMARK03 is 4900!!! Oh and did I mention all of that is at 800x600 resolution? Pfft. The weak point? I believe its the fact I got a Nvidia card. I wish oh I wish I had just bought an ATI 9800 Pro instead of buying a Nvidia card to have bragging rights with my friends. I don't know about the new gen cards comming out, I still have hopes that Nvidia will dominate with them, and I'll support Nvidia in that so far. But currently- ATI is handling new gen games better than Nvidia. It disapoints me to know I have a PC that will lag on Doom or Half life 2, even when I have settings on the lowest =(

K

[saturnotaku]

The 9800 is no prize pig in Far Cry either. Performance is generally good at 1024, but there are some situations (esp in areas where shaders are used + the flashlight) where performance drops to abysmal levels. We're talking as low as 20 fps here with no FSAA or AF. The 9800 is still the better card for this game, but the performance difference isn't totally like night and day.

[zoomy942]

I have to agree with the very first post in this section. I go out and buy a FX5900, 2600+ Barton, PC3200 ram, and slam it all into a nice mobo, and expect a pretty nice gaming PC. Instead I get a PC that can't handle Far Cry (demo at least) without lagging (which I consider below 30FPS) it lags with certain UT2004 maps when I have settings at default, and the max I am getting in 3DMARK03 is 4900!!! Oh and did I mention all of that is at 800x600 resolution? Pfft. The weak point? I believe its the fact I got a Nvidia card. I wish oh I wish I had just bought an ATI 9800 Pro instead of buying a Nvidia card to have bragging rights with my friends. I don't know about the new gen cards comming out, I still have hopes that Nvidia will dominate with them, and I'll support Nvidia in that so far. But currently- ATI is handling new gen games better than Nvidia. It disapoints me to know I have a PC that will lag on Doom or Half life 2, even when I have settings on the lowest =(

K

thats odd. i have an athlon 2500+ at 2.3 ghz abnd a 5900 and 1 gig of rama nd all that.. and far cry runs great. i love it. it is so amazing that a game thats looks this pretty can run so well!

[Dr_s99]

i''m oky with my Geforce 4 ti 4600....
not all graphics are on high, but still i get a good frame per sec.

my friend had a problem with his ATI radeon 9200, and that he couldn't play the game.
when he played it, it frozed... and then crashed....even if the everything was on low...
but his problem was solved when he updated his drivers... and now his playing it with no problem....
Far cry is nice.... i like the jungle and the water.... but too bad you can't do anything with the forklifter..you could only dirve...!

[zoomy942]

yeah. thats no good, but i like using the vehickles as protection! and when i see a patrol boat.. no matter the mission objectives.. i take it and use it!

[XanderF]

I go out and buy a FX5900, 2600+ Barton, PC3200 ram, and slam it all into a nice mobo, and expect a pretty nice gaming PC. Instead I get a PC that can't handle Far Cry (demo at least) without lagging (which I consider below 30FPS) it lags with certain UT2004 maps when I have settings at default, and the max I am getting in 3DMARK03 is 4900!!!

Well, 4900 is a very low score for that system. At least, a low *overclocked* score.

If you aren't overclocking a 5900, you are missing out on one of its key advantages over the 9800. The 5900 is a .13u process core, the 9800 is still the older .15u. Generally, that means the 5900s can clock higher - sometimes MUCH higher - than 9800s. IE., if there is a 25% performance difference in favor of the 9800, but the 9800 can only overclock by 10% and the 5900 can by 30%.....it narrows the gap, see?

In any case, check out my sig. That's a max-overclock, aircooled, vModded 5900XT, there (nVidia 'XT' = budget card). In the same system a max-overclock, watercooled, 9800XT (ATI's best and brightest) only scored 7100. My 9800 non-pro scores were around 6400.

Seriously, the GeForceFX is NOT a bad card. It isn't the knockout it could have been.....but it's not bad, either. You just have to play to its strengths more than is necessary with ATI and their 'brute force' method to solve the problem.

It disapoints me to know I have a PC that will lag on Doom or Half life 2, even when I have settings on the lowest =(

I wouldn't go that far. HL2, maybe. *Maybe*. Remember, Far Cry is developed by a small team (?European?). They just don't have a fraction of the budget the HL2 or Doom3 team have had to create their engine. It's amazing it performs as well as it does for a 'no name third party' effort.

For example, we already know that Carmack is coding a path specifically to take advantages of the nv30 features (partial precision where possible, etc) to make the game perform great on these cards. Further, ATI has always been stronger in DirectX (Far Cry) than OpenGL (Doom3), whereas nVidia has always been the reverse - OpenGL (Doom3) over DirectX (Far Cry).

I say HL2 *maybe* just because it's....well, two things that make me question it. One, it's a "get in the game" (ATI partner) game. Second, it's DX rather than OpenGL. OTOH, nVidia STILL holds the major market share for add-on video cards. Valve would be discouraging the largest segment of their potential market if the game performed extremely poorly on GeForceFX cards. Expect to see SOME kind of optimizations for nVidia cards in HL2, even if it doesn't amount to an entire code path solely for them.

[fingermouth]

IM using the 5950 from a 5900 and i get good results know with this game, hell i beat the damn thing. Oh and Saturn, your avitar says your from some weird place. We know you from Naperville. Whats up with that.

[dan2097]

Expect to see SOME kind of optimizations for nVidia cards in HL2, even if it doesn't amount to an entire code path solely for them.

There were optimizations for the gffx series in the september HL2 benchmarks i.e. partial precision. They didnt help the fx 5200, 5600 significantly but did help the fx 5900 ultra quite a bit. The fx 5900 ultra still got beaten by the 9600 pro even with them at that time, it would have been annihilation without the gffx code path.

Nv3x scores with drivers later than the 52.16s are not comparable to ATI scores on 3d mark 03 due to 3d mark 03 specific optimizations.

[quik_2_win]

800MHz Rambus isn't 800MB/s, it's 1.6GB/s with a single stick and 3.2GB/s with two (saturating the FSB of his 2.4A completely).

... the main reason you are getting bad performance is because you are expecting too much from your hardware AGREE . Drop back to 1024x768. It may look quite a bit lower in detail, but unless you get better hardware thats the reality you have to face.

Thank you for clarifying the "RAMBUST" theoretical bandwidth mystery! As you must have overlooked- I was already corrected several weeks ago (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=292383&postcount=107 ), but thanks again for your insight!

[kev13dd]

Ok time to clear up a few details

My Barton 2600+ (meaning 333 FSB with a 11.5 multiplyer locked) is running at stock, so is my video. I also forgot to mention its a 5900SE at stock speeds, so its got slower ram than a regular 5900. Everything is air cooled, I'm getting about 41C with max load (anywhere from 35-38 idle) on my processor. My ram is 512MB PC3200 DDR400 running asycronus from the CPU (meaning they can run at different speeds) so the ram isn't bringing me down at all. All this is plugged into a DFI KT400A (kinda weak mobo, but it shouldn't be lowering any scores too much). AGP 8x is on, and my OS is Windows XP Pro

So at stock speeds, 4900 might not be that bad for my system. I was still hoping for better, and definatly better than 30FPS on Far Cry Demo with only medium settings, and 800x600 running. That 30FPS is just looking straight ahead, in battle it can get lower and screw me up

Any ideas how to get my system running better, without putting it in danger? (when I bought it I didn't plan on any overclocking, was hoping the specs would handle what I needed them to at stock speeds) I am a bit paranoid about killing a system that is still not paid off. But if I can get it into higher speeds, and not put any of the parts in danger of dying within the next year, I'd be pleased. I know each video card and processor even of the same brand overclock different, but any ideas would be appreciated

K

P.s. Zoomy has the same vid card as me, so his experiences might be helpful in that area!

[walkndude]

Are you just going by the demo kev, or the patched retail version...

800*600 medium settings should fly for the most part...(with the retail version)

[Zeta]

I full game ran better for me than the demo did for some reason. Even before the 1.1 patch. I have a GF FX 5700u.

[kev13dd]

Demo, I don't wanna spend money buying a game that might not run!

K

[Rogozhin]

I guess you don't play any simulation games Vampire-and that IS one of the most asinine statements I've ever seen you type.

Rogo

[CaiNaM]

Ok time to clear up a few details

My Barton 2600+ (meaning 333 FSB with a 11.5 multiplyer locked) is running at stock, so is my video. I also forgot to mention its a 5900SE at stock speeds, so its got slower ram than a regular 5900. Everything is air cooled, I'm getting about 41C with max load (anywhere from 35-38 idle) on my processor. My ram is 512MB PC3200 DDR400 running asycronus from the CPU (meaning they can run at different speeds) so the ram isn't bringing me down at all. All this is plugged into a DFI KT400A (kinda weak mobo, but it shouldn't be lowering any scores too much). AGP 8x is on, and my OS is Windows XP Pro

So at stock speeds, 4900 might not be that bad for my system. I was still hoping for better, and definatly better than 30FPS on Far Cry Demo with only medium settings, and 800x600 running. That 30FPS is just looking straight ahead, in battle it can get lower and screw me up

Any ideas how to get my system running better, without putting it in danger? (when I bought it I didn't plan on any overclocking, was hoping the specs would handle what I needed them to at stock speeds) I am a bit paranoid about killing a system that is still not paid off. But if I can get it into higher speeds, and not put any of the parts in danger of dying within the next year, I'd be pleased. I know each video card and processor even of the same brand overclock different, but any ideas would be appreciated

K

P.s. Zoomy has the same vid card as me, so his experiences might be helpful in that area!

well, this isn't a fix for your situation, but perhaps some hope? on my budget system, far cry runs okay at medium settings:

Benchmark session result
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 1 (2600.xpsp2.030422-1633)
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.00GHz
Memory: 768MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b (4.09.0000.0902)
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.5672 (English)

Far Cry v1.0

1024x768: Average FPS: 46.18
1280x1024: Average FPS: 46.30
1600x1200: Average FPS: 46.57
Min FPS: 32.40 at frame 291, Max FPS: 57.62 at frame 1632

as you can see, at these settings the framerate is limited by the cpu, not the card.

at max settings, the framerates drop thru the floor:

1024x768: Average FPS: 26.41
1280x1024: Average FPS: 20.77
1600x1200: Average FPS: 9.68

Far Cry v1.1 (patch 1)

1024x768: Average FPS: 46.20
1280x1024: Average FPS: 44.82
1600x1200: Average FPS: 43.12

Max Settings:

1024x768: Average FPS: 28.14
1280x1024: Average FPS: 25.81
1600x1200: Average FPS: 11.14

at any rate, this should give you an idea at how much difference there can be by adjusting settings; you should be able to find something that will allow you to run it reasonably well.