Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

[Pantherman]

My system really gags with Fry Cry. I'm running it at 1280X1024 with everything except for shadows set to Very High, and the game is almost unplayable in the carrier and really slow when driving a vehicle. Conversely, I've played the game with the same settings on a system with a 9800XT and 9800 Pro and the game is much faster. I've even installed the latest 1.1 patch. I've heard how pitiful the GeForceFX is with DX9 shaders. Now I can actually SEE the difference. Let's hope Nvidia can correct this problem with the new NV40. Otherwise, ATI will keep walking away with the performance crown. "The Way it's Meant to be Played" is a real JOKE!!! It seems ATI's cards are more suited to the newest games.

[aaahhh52]

5950 ultra here played at 1024x768 40-60 fps outside, 60-100 inside, then with aa and af enabled it drops about 10 fps, depending, but i can make up for it with oc'ing :fanboy:

[Pantherman]

My CPU doesn't even compare with yours, and your 5950 Ultra is also far better than my 5900. I still stand by this post. Unless you have a great CPU, the FX series really lags with DX 9. Of course, we've heard the ATI fans yelling about this. I haven't experienced it until now.

[rellingsen]

I don't think there is anything wrong with your card. It just that you may be playing at too high of a resolution. On my rig with a 9700 Pro clocked to a 9800 Pro sometimes it will slow up and chug along at that resolution with high settings in certain areas. It's only really silky smooth with high settings at 1024x768 for me.

[Clay]

My system really gags with Fry Cry. I'm running it at 1280X1024 with everything except for shadows set to Very High, and the game is almost unplayable in the carrier and really slow when driving a vehicle. Conversely, I've played the game with the same settings on a system with a 9800XT and 9800 Pro and the game is much faster. I've even installed the latest 1.1 patch. I've heard how pitiful the GeForceFX is with DX9 shaders. Now I can actually SEE the difference. Let's hope Nvidia can correct this problem with the new NV40. Otherwise, ATI will keep walking away with the performance crown. "The Way it's Meant to be Played" is a real JOKE!!! It seems ATI's cards are more suited to the newest games.FWIW...Not saying this is for certain....but 1280x1024 is kind of a funky resolution in certain games. I've seen (especially in racing games for whatever reason) that performance is actually better at 1600x1200. I know that is not the norm at all and goes against logic but I've seen it. I don't have Far Cry (yet) so can't speak for it.

[quik_2_win]

Er, I don't think you have the hardware to run FarCry at "1280X1024 with everything except for shadows set to Very High". Perhaps you should spend a few moments adjusting the settings so the game is playable whilst maintaining good image quality. Thats the thing with gaming on a PC- it's no X-box, it will require you to make adjustments. It's still fun, right?
BTW- what's 'Rambust" ?

[Drumphil]

"FWIW...Not saying this is for certain....but 1280x1024 is kind of a funky resolution in certain games. I've seen (especially in racing games for whatever reason) that performance is actually better at 1600x1200. I know that is not the norm at all and goes against logic but I've seen it. I don't have Far Cry (yet) so can't speak for it."

I'd put this at the bottom of the list of potential issues to worry about with regards to far cry performance.. Hey, maxpower, are you sure that the performance gain wasn't because AA is disabled by cards with limited vram if you set the resolution too hight.. Anyways, this issue has NEVER been picked up by ANYONE bechmarking the cards at different resolutions.

[Clay]

"FWIW...Not saying this is for certain....but 1280x1024 is kind of a funky resolution in certain games. I've seen (especially in racing games for whatever reason) that performance is actually better at 1600x1200. I know that is not the norm at all and goes against logic but I've seen it. I don't have Far Cry (yet) so can't speak for it."

I'd put this at the bottom of the list of potential issues to worry about with regards to far cry performance.. Hey, maxpower, are you sure that the performance gain wasn't because AA is disabled by cards with limited vram if you set the resolution too hight..Hey Drumphil we have this nifty quote feature... ;) You had me seeing double there for a second. :D Oh absolutely, this is not the reason I'm sure...just that I have seen this oddity at (rare) times with 1280x1024. I'm not aware of the disabling that you refer to.

[quik_2_win]

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?

[Drumphil]

Hey Drumphil we have this nifty quote feature... ;) You had me seeing double there for a second. :D Oh absolutely, this is not the reason I'm sure...just that I have seen this oddity at (rare) times with 1280x1024. I'm not aware of the disabling that you refer to.

(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..

[Waltar]

My system really gags with Fry Cry. I'm running it at 1280X1024 with everything except for shadows set to Very High, and the game is almost unplayable in the carrier and really slow when driving a vehicle. Conversely, I've played the game with the same settings on a system with a 9800XT and 9800 Pro and the game is much faster. I've even installed the latest 1.1 patch. I've heard how pitiful the GeForceFX is with DX9 shaders. Now I can actually SEE the difference. Let's hope Nvidia can correct this problem with the new NV40. Otherwise, ATI will keep walking away with the performance crown. "The Way it's Meant to be Played" is a real JOKE!!! It seems ATI's cards are more suited to the newest games.
:lame:


Pentium 4 2.4GHz w/ 400MHz bus
Gee, I wonder why it runs ****ty. 100mhz fsb processor.. Your processor is horrible and I'm not entirely sure how you plan on running one of the most stressful games ever released at "Very high" and 1280 x 1024 with a 2.4ghz processor. The godamn game chokes on a 9800xt at that level with a 3.2 800fsb processor. Try lowering your settings to something a tad more realistic. :rolleyes:

For example: Everything on high with shadows at medium gets me 50 / 60+ fps at 1024 x 768 with a 2500+ athlon oc'ed to 2.3ghz, 512 pc3200 and a 5800ultra.

[ChrisRay]

:lame:


Pentium 4 2.4GHz w/ 400MHz bus
Gee, I wonder why it runs ****ty. 100mhz fsb processor.. Your processor is horrible and I'm not entirely sure how you plan on running one of the most stressful games ever released at "Very high" and 1280 x 1024 with a 2.4ghz processor. The godamn game chokes on a 9800xt at that level with a 3.2 800fsb processor. Try lowering your settings to something a tad more realistic. :rolleyes:

For example: Everything on high with shadows at medium gets me 50 / 60+ fps at 1024 x 768 with a 2500+ athlon oc'ed to 2.3ghz, 512 pc3200 and a 5800ultra.



I think its his FSB that kills him more than his proccessor, Either way, I dont think his settings are realistic either,

Heck gouing from 133 to 166 FSB gives me about a 7% performance gain on my system. FSB makes a huge difference.

[jAkUp]

Jeez.. its amazing how much people actually think Far Cry uses alot of CPU power, on my system OC'd and non OC'd, I get nearly THE SAME fps at 1280x1024. Far Cry is a Video dependent game. Just look at it!!! Shaders, DX9, Insane textures, amazing draw distances. What in the hell would lead anyone to believe its CPU dependant??!?!?!?

Physics and AI? Meh, a 2.4 is more than enough to handle that.

[Clay]

(better?)Is there an echo? Did I stutter? :p Yes, better. In very rare cases on some racing games. You can see here (http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/bfg_geforce_fx_5900_ultra/page_7.shtml) where I've run into a similar occurance with Indy Racing.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.Thanks for clarification, yeah it's been a long time since I've ever seen that though...been a while since I've had a card with anemic VRAM.Sorry my quote usage doesn't meet your high standards for posting..No worries, didn't mean to hurt your feelings or anything. :)

[Clay]

Jeez.. its amazing how much people actually think Far Cry uses alot of CPU power, on my system OC'd and non OC'd, I get nearly THE SAME fps at 1280x1024. Far Cry is a Video dependent game. Just look at it!!! Shaders, DX9, Insane textures, amazing draw distances. What in the hell would lead anyone to believe its CPU dependant??!?!?!?

Physics and AI? Meh, a 2.4 is more than enough to handle that.I think what people are saying jAkUp is that these cards scale with the processor/system. The slower bus speeds can hold back a card like the 5900. So it's not that the game is CPU-dependent. Make sense?

[ChrisRay]

Jeez.. its amazing how much people actually think Far Cry uses alot of CPU power, on my system OC'd and non OC'd, I get nearly THE SAME fps at 1280x1024. Far Cry is a Video dependent game. Just look at it!!! Shaders, DX9, Insane textures, amazing draw distances. What in the hell would lead anyone to believe its CPU dependant??!?!?!?

Physics and AI? Meh, a 2.4 is more than enough to handle that.


We're talking about the card not being able to feed data to the CPU and Vice versa,


Bandwith would make a huge issue on this.




Theres also the fact that the 5900 Non Ultra isnt really comparable to a 9800 Pro or 9800XT,


Its below both in terms of where it was marketed at originally. The 5900 doesnt even hit 3000 Multi texturing ;)


I dont doubt the game ran better on the ATI hardware,I really dont, But I havent notice absymal frame rates in the game either.

[sc3252]

well i dont get that great of fps in farcry and i have a 9800 np i get a little bellow 30fps in 1280x1024 and at 1024x 768 i get well above 30fps. but i have a 2100+ amd, so thats probably the problem?

[zakelwe]

Easy way to test if the cpu / FSB is the problem and that is to run at 1024x768, 800x600 and 640x480 .. of the fps shoots up then it will be the graphics card and not AI / sound / other threads causing the problem.

My guess would be 80:20 video card related.

Regards

Andy

[Drumphil]

Is there an echo? Did I stutter? :p Yes, better. In very rare cases on some racing games. You can see here (http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/bfg_geforce_fx_5900_ultra/page_7.shtml) where I've run into a similar occurance with Indy Racing.Thanks for clarification, yeah it's been a long time since I've ever seen that though...been a while since I've had a card with anemic VRAM.No worries, didn't mean to hurt your feelings or anything. :)


I don't know if you stutter or not.. You'll have to tell me that.. As for anemic vram.. How much vram do you have now.. If its 128mb then you will be limited to 1280x1024 with 4xAA turned on.. So 1600x1200 would be AA free and faster in this situation.. And what do my feelings have to do with it.. I perfer having an actual understanding of the issues, rather than competing to be the biggest smart arse with my posts :p.. Anyways, you got a good sense of humor, so I'm sure you wont be offended.

"I think what people are saying jAkUp is that these cards scale with the processor/system. The slower bus speeds can hold back a card like the 5900. So it's not that the game is CPU-dependent. Make sense?"

no, this doesn't make sense.. The slower system bus doesn't hold back the GPU at all, it does however limit the CPU performance. The GPU connects with the rest of the computer using AGP, which is not the bottleneck in GPU performance.. (remember, the AGP port connects to the system ram in the northbridge chip, so memory access for AGP is independent of the cpu, so increasing ram speed helps, but FSB alone doesn't)

Apart from texturing over agp where the memory speed can make a difference, the FSB has no direct effect on the GPU (and then only because most people increase their ram speed when the increase their FSB).. any difference in performance is due to how CPU performance is effected by FSB speed.. I can clarify that a bit (or a lot) more if its needed, but i couldn't be bothered typing more if you get that anyway.

[MUYA]

http://www.accelenation.com/?ac.id.218.1

Accelenation has a 5950Ultra and p4 and p4e. What tuan did was clock the CPUs from 2.4GHz to 3.2Ghz on various synthetics and games.

[zakelwe]

http://www.accelenation.com/?ac.id.218.1

Accelenation has a 5950Ultra and p4 and p4e. What tuan did was clock the CPUs from 2.4GHz to 3.2Ghz on various synthetics and games.

This also shows that the priginal poster should not get a prescott ! Really shows the bad effects of the 30+ pipeline.

Regards

Andy

[ChrisRay]

I don't know if you stutter or not.. You'll have to tell me that.. As for anemic vram.. How much vram do you have now.. If its 128mb then you will be limited to 1280x1024 with 4xAA turned on.. So 1600x1200 would be AA free and faster in this situation.. And what do my feelings have to do with it.. I perfer having an actual understanding of the issues, rather than competing to be the biggest smart arse with my posts :p.. Anyways, you got a good sense of humor, so I'm sure you wont be offended.



no, this doesn't make sense.. The slower system bus doesn't hold back the GPU at all, it does however limit the CPU performance. The GPU connects with the rest of the computer using AGP, which is not the bottleneck in GPU performance.. (remember, the AGP port connects to the system ram in the northbridge chip, so memory access for AGP is independent of the cpu, so increasing ram speed helps, but FSB alone doesn't)

Apart from texturing over agp where the memory speed can make a difference, the FSB has no direct effect on the GPU (and then only because most people increase their ram speed when the increase their FSB).. any difference in performance is due to how CPU performance is effected by FSB speed.. I can clarify that a bit (or a lot) more if its needed, but i couldn't be bothered typing more if you get that anyway.


Ummm Front Side Bus, Honestly doesnt change much cept the ram speed these Days, Specially on Nforce 2 based boards ect, FSB is an interesting term, Because all its really changing is the Northbridges performance and the way the CPU relates to the Memory, I can still remember when raising it changes the AGP/PCI devices as well... gosh them were the days... Damn I think Vias New Boards for a64 arch dont do that right?

Increasing FSB also Increases Memory, And the guy would recieve a 100 mhz Memory Speed adjustment with a P4C Rather than a P4a @ 100 mhz FSB, So theres qutet a bit of bandwith improvement.

So ya it would make a difference ;p


That being said, No FSB system is going to run its memory Async, It just doesnt make sense as theres no performance gain and the Higher Latencies just slow it down anyway,

Theoretically you could run your memory at a higher frequency than your FSb async as well... But any benefit to Memory bandwith would be lost due to latency issues anyway.


Btw you can even take the most GPU intensive app there is and see Performance increases in Game test 2, 3 and 4 of 3dmark2003 by raising FSB alone :I



Actually that gives me an idea, I should try Running my System Async in the 3dmark2003 tests results, See how it correlates to FSB and see how much an improvement ran.

For instance.

Run it @ 133/166

and 166/166

and 166/133

and 133/133

Just to see How 3dmark2003 graphical tests react to the different Memory and bandwith of the system, So it could theoretically be tested, Even on Far Cry :)

[Drumphil]

Ummm Front Side Bus, Honestly doesnt change much cept the ram speed these Days, Specially on Nforce 2 based boards ect, FSB is an interesting term, Because all its really changing is the Northbridges performance and the way the CPU relates to the Memory, I can still remember when raising it changes the AGP/PCI devices as well... gosh them were the days... Damn I think Vias New Boards for a64 arch dont do that right?

Increasing FSB also Increases Memory, And the guy would recieve a 100 mhz Memory Speed adjustment with a P4C Rather than a P4a @ 100 mhz FSB, So theres qutet a bit of bandwith improvement.

So ya it would make a difference ;p

er, last time I checked the nforce was the ONLY chipset that had a functional AGP/PCI lock, so for most people the FSB speed does effect the RAM speed.. (and agp and pci). You can decide wether or not to lock the AGP/PCI on the nforce boards I think..

And please stop using double negatives.. Im still not exactly sure what you are trying to say. :crosseye:

anyways, your test will test how FSB effects benchmark performance, not GPU performance. And increasing FSB will increase the IPC for the CPU, but the IPC rate for the GPU will remain the same, because the GPU has its own ram.

[Shamrock]

Hush Drummy or I shall frag you in Tribes! :P

This is [HF] Shamrock :D

:lol2:

[Clay]

I don't know if you stutter or not.. You'll have to tell me that.. As for anemic vram.. How much vram do you have now.. If its 128mb then you will be limited to 1280x1024 with 4xAA turned on.. So 1600x1200 would be AA free and faster in this situation.. And what do my feelings have to do with it.. I perfer having an actual understanding of the issues, rather than competing to be the biggest smart arse with my posts :p.. Anyways, you got a good sense of humor, so I'm sure you wont be offended.256MB 2.2ns on Gainward 5950Ultra and 256MB ?ns on 9800Pro. I've never denied the fact that I am, in fact, a smart a$$ so you're spot on there. :) I'm not competing though. You came across as chippy right away and just pushed my buttons a bit. ;) No problem here though. :)no, this doesn't make sense...Thanks for the "knee-bone connected to the shin-bone" clinic. :p We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I'm admittedly talking a bit out of my :ass: since (like I said originally) I do not have Far Cry (yet).