View Full Version : Far Cry(X800XT) 2048x1536 16XAF/4AA
Ok - I think this degraded the pics somewhat but here are some
Enjoy!
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/5133/Steam1.jpg
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8396/Fort1.jpg
Here are two images with the same resolution and no AA:
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4176/FarCry21.jpg
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/9625/FarCry23.jpg
I cant wait anymore, Must...get...a....new.....video...card.
Btw what are you system specs arioch?
I cant wait anymore, Must...get...a....new.....video...card.
Btw what are you system specs arioch?
AMD FX-53/X800XT/1GB PC3200/Seagate 160GB SATA/SB Audigy 2 Platinum/Logitech Z-5300
Uhh FX... No wonder your getting solid FPS. I'm gonna be getting a 3200+ so with PC4000 but I pretty sure the CPU will limit the card. But the question is howmuch is it gonna limit it?
vegetation looks low detail... other than that nice pics :D
btw how do you like the 5300's?
I cant wait anymore, Must...get...a....new.....video...card.
Btw what are you system specs arioch?
agreed, freaken compusa needs to get there x800xt and send it out NOW.
vegetation looks low detail... other than that nice pics :D
btw how do you like the 5300's?
Vegetation looks just fine...prolly cause you got your desktop at 1024x768
vegetation looks low detail... other than that nice pics :D
btw how do you like the 5300's?
I think it's just the position I took the screenshots as I was trying to get a panoramic shot - I have everything set to the maximum settings. I also think the conversion degraded them some - they were originally anywhere from 2 to 3 MB's in size originally.
agreed, freaken compusa needs to get there x800xt and send it out NOW.
So many orders on comp USA, I dont think they'll have em till late June/Early July. Hopefully some other stores will have some pretty soon.
Originally posted at Rage3D
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 5150 Joker
This thread just proved to me that spending $500+ on this card like some people are for a lousy 29 fps in far cry is NOT worth it. I think I'm gonna wait on the 800 XT to come out and buy that instead at a more reasonable price. Or I might just skip this gen altogether b/c I'm seriously not impressed with the numbers I'm seeing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude that's at 2048x1536 with AA applied on my shots. I actually play this game at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and maintain an average FPS in the 50s. Whatever floats your boat I guess.
He said he was refering to someone else's shots but I think the logic still applies.
Riptide
06-11-04, 04:32 PM
What a t00l. Granted, it's a bit much to pay $600 for it but this is a *huge* leap in speed over even the 9800XT. Try playing FC in 16x12 with that thing, even w/o AA or AF it's probably not going to be smooth. I know my 9700Pro couldn't handle it... Not even close.
I don't understand why there are jaggies in the pic. I'd think at that res and also using 4xAA there wouldn't be any noticeable jaggies.
Edit: Actually, yeah, the vegetation doesn't seem quite right either. Maybe the game doesn't like that resolution.
The game looks better than the pics - I took panoramic shots. The Fort shot is close quarters and is a better indicator of what the game looks like - I have everything maxed out in the graphical settings. Also the bottom two pics don't have anti-aliasing. The original pics were over 2MBs in size and they don't look quite as good when I had to resample them.
Oh, and the image has been expanded here - the image is much tighter when actually running at 2048x1536.
Riptide
06-11-04, 04:48 PM
Arioch is right, if you aren't running your screen in 2048x1536 then the jaggies will show up more. Why? Because you're basically zooming in on the image if you run it in a lower res than it was taken in.
Ah, okay. I thought the first couple looked better AA-wise but it was harder to tell since it was a darker shot. The bottom two were the ones I was mainly looking at. Do you notice any jaggies when using that resolution (with AA off)? I mean when playing the game and not when looking at a screenshot.
Edit: Doh, just saw I missed your comment above the pics saying there was no AA.
Not really - to me anything past 1600x1200 AA is just eating up precious VPU power as I hardly notice the jaggies. I had to look for a bit to see if the AA was working or not between the two sets of shots.
spectacular!! WOW. You realize 2048x1536 is getting near the rez of 35mm film. Awesome.
dan2097
06-11-04, 05:39 PM
Not really - to me anything past 1600x1200 AA is just eating up precious VPU power as I hardly notice the jaggies. I had to look for a bit to see if the AA was working or not between the two sets of shots.
Well if you used Temporal 6xfsaa in even a pretty low resolution it wouldn't have jaggies either, there are other advantages to higher resolutions than removing jaggies.
Riptide
06-11-04, 05:46 PM
Hey, how do you bring up the FPS counter up in the corner there?
He's using fraps. To turn on far cry's built-in one use \r_displayinfo 1 but you have to start the game in developer mode, pull down the console and type in the command. Fraps is easier. :)
Edit: Fraps lets you pick which corner to display the framerate, btw.
Not really - to me anything past 1600x1200 AA is just eating up precious VPU power as I hardly notice the jaggies. I had to look for a bit to see if the AA was working or not between the two sets of shots.
Here is 2048x1536 on a 9800 Pro for comparison.
ATI CP setting to Application Preference AA off and Aniso Up all the way in game. Paradise mode everything maxed.
It was very playable :rolleyes:
http://webpages.charter.net/Spotch/FarCry0027.jpg
-=DVS=-
06-11-04, 07:19 PM
Nice :drooling: , don't have green for uber CRT bummer :p my old granpa ViewSonic PF790 only does 1600x1200 @75 , kinda crappy :(
Geforce4ti4200
06-11-04, 10:07 PM
wow that is sweet, I ought to try 2048x1536 too, no aa/af of course. I might have to lower the details to medium though, 1600x1200 with max details would look better anyway
Drumphil
06-12-04, 12:10 AM
spectacular!! WOW. You realize 2048x1536 is getting near the rez of 35mm film. Awesome.
er, you might need another in those figure to get vaugley close to the resolution of 35mm film.. They are definately spectacular images tho..
er, you might need another in those figure to get vaugley close to the resolution of 35mm film.. They are definately spectacular images tho..I read somewhere that 35mm film starts out at around equivelant to 2000x2000 pixels, high quality 35mm is about 3000 x 2000 or better.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.