X800 Performance Issue - or CPU issue? [Archive] - Page 2

schuey74

06-14-04, 09:59 PM

Blacklash

06-14-04, 10:31 PM

Malficar, haven't got the chance to do this tonight but I ran one of Far Cry @ max settings boht 10x7 & 12x10 and got 58.86 & 58.18 respectively. I recall getting 60.xx before but I just installed XP SP2 beta and have gone back between a few set of drivers recently so the system isn't running optimally either. Either way you've got about a 10% advantage....memory bandwidth & FSB I suppose. What are your mem. timings and are you running 1/1?

Hard to say Schuey, I have the mobo in control of ram timings through "Turbo" mode set in the Abit bios. Since I only have PC 3200, I have a choice to run the CPU at 3.2 1:1 or 3.5 at 5:4. Aida 32 reports my memory 'read' as 5640, 'write' 2034 at 3.2 1:1 and 5459/1970 at 3.5 5:4.
Sandra Sis Rates me at int buff 5701 MB/s, and float buff 5622 MB/s at 3.2 1:1. Still I seem to get slightly better performance in games from the 5:4 setting which is odd. Honestly though PC 4000+ is so expensive I am thinking about just getting the 3.4c if I upgrade again, and OC it.

You don't need to bother with benching, as I said previously I was tired of the crowing from some AMD users that had 64 3400's or less acting like my rig at 3.5 was half the machine thiers was. So I may have jumped on you when I shouldn't have. As I said, the one I did go up against I edged out by a few FPS in Far Cry with both no AA/AF and AA/AF at any setting 1024x768 or greater.

As far as my system goes it is streamline, only 14 processes running under XP or less, and my hard drive almost always defragged. No 300k worth of temp files on IE, Cacheman XP tweaks on , etc etc.

Sazar

06-14-04, 10:55 PM

What is your min. frame rate in that area with AF and AA turned off Malficar?

Same res..

It takes a dive for me as soon as I get up that ladder and onto the deck, especially if I turn right immediately and take cover by the boxes.

this is when the chopper comes into view right?

if it is than I have a pretty decent performance hit... I just played through it and its smooth now... apparently I had been thinking about pre 4.6's... the new cats seem to have bolstered performance... still playing @ 12x10 settings instead of the gazillion x gazillion with gazillion AA and AF you run but comparitive nonetheless :cool:

Blacklash

06-14-04, 11:07 PM

What is your min. frame rate in that area with AF and AA turned off Malficar?

Same res..

It takes a dive for me as soon as I get up that ladder and onto the deck, especially if I turn right immediately and take cover by the boxes.

I usually make a run for the Mini gun and own everything it sight. I haven't run that level without AA/AF yet Rip.

I will try it later and edit this post with results.

Arioch

06-14-04, 11:19 PM

Tried that section at 2048x1536 with no AA and 16xAF - my framerates were in the 20s. Trying to aim with the mouse at this setting was a bit painful.

Riptide

06-15-04, 12:03 AM

this is when the chopper comes into view right?

if it is than I have a pretty decent performance hit... I just played through it and its smooth now... apparently I had been thinking about pre 4.6's... the new cats seem to have bolstered performance... still playing @ 12x10 settings instead of the gazillion x gazillion with gazillion AA and AF you run but comparitive nonetheless :cool:
Yep, right when the chopper comes up. @ 16x12 it dives on me there.. If I spin right real quick to face those boxes that's when it seems to dip down to around 19-20 for a second. I should try that spot after bumping down my resolution and see what that does, just for the sake of experiment. I'm wondering if my avg. frame rates get up into the fifties then..

Riptide

06-15-04, 12:05 AM

I usually make a run for the Mini gun and own everything it sight. I haven't run that level without AA/AF yet Rip.

I will try it later and edit this post with results.
Thanks. I've never even bothered to try for the minigun.. Sounds like that might be more fun than just poking out from those boxes and shooting the mercs as they come towards you.. :)

Sazar

06-15-04, 12:30 AM

a nade or two plus good aim takes out the guys @ the minigun...

normally i take out the gunner in the chopper before I do anything else but everyone has their own way of doing things...

Riptide

06-15-04, 02:26 AM

I tested the carrier level at 1280x1024x32 w/no AF and no AA turned up tonight. It still dipped down pretty low, 23fps for just a sec there. :eek:

With in game AF and AA turned up all the way it hit a pathetic 19fps at one point. Lowering the resolution didn't do anything for me it seems.

And OMG, I went back and did an experiment from the training level when you first exit that bunker or whatever and engage your first mercs.. W/in game AF/AA maxed I got the following min. fps through this spot:
1600x1200: 22fps
1280x1024: 27fps
1024x768: 28fps

WTF eh? Sure there isn't something wrong with my system now or is my CPU still the likely issue here?

I tried turning off AA and left AF turned up (ingame again) and @ 1600x1200 through the same spot I detailed above I get a min. fps of 30...

Arioch

06-15-04, 04:53 AM

We're you using a different set of drivers before the 4.6 version? If so you may want to use the ATI uninstaller program on their website and run that before reinstalling the 4.6 drivers again.

Riptide

06-15-04, 10:47 AM

We're you using a different set of drivers before the 4.6 version? If so you may want to use the ATI uninstaller program on their website and run that before reinstalling the 4.6 drivers again.
Yep, I had the Beta 4.5 on there but did the proper procedure for removal (CPL uninstall, safe mode/wdrver cleaner, etc.).

I am completely baffled and have no idea what to do next or if anything will even help. Very frustrating.. Especially since I still score reasonably well w/synthetics like 3dmark03/2001. I dunno, maybe it's just my CPU again. I really don't know WTF to think now.

Malficar, if you have a spare moment I'd appreciate it if you'd check your framerates in the same area of the game (training level, second checkpoint when you engage the first mercs).

Riptide

06-15-04, 02:51 PM

Interesting...

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=x800xtpt&page=1
This is from page5.
Nevertheless, the X800 XT PT models still dominate the benchmarks, and they appear to be maxing out the Far Cry engine at 1024 x 768, as we’re seeing the benchmarks hit some sort of ceiling.

I can attest to that, unless something is really wrong with my machine I appear to be hitting the same ceiling perhaps? They didn't even test @ 16x12 in this review with FarCry, yet they did with other games. Perhaps this ceiling is why they didn't...

schuey74

06-15-04, 03:33 PM

Rip, this is not your X800 holding you back. I'm hesitant to say only CPU limited, because it is more than that. After playing with the timings on my memory and going back and forth between 1/1 & 5/4 for the memory divider I've seen differences in performance. Our #s are nearly identical despite me having about a 15% advantage in CPU speed and an X800 Pro, not an XT. I guess it's safe to assume you're running your memory at Cas 2, if not, then do. Also, can't you overclock a little on the mobo? Since you're running that Mushkin that should do Cas 2 up to 216/217 fsb, I'd overclock the CPU and leave the memory divider @ 1/1 as well. Should give you a nice little boost for free. Now if you swapped out that 3.0 for a 3.4, ran your mem @ Cas 2, and overclocked that CPU I'd bet your min. fps would be at or around 30. At least you're halfway there as you have great ram.

Low FPS w/ no AA/AF
Carrier (right after you get to the top of the stairs) - 21
Training (as soon as you walk outside) - 31

Low FPS w/ max AA/AF
Carrier (right after you get to the top of the stairs) - 19
Training (as soon as you walk outside) - 28

Riptide

06-15-04, 04:12 PM

Yep schuey, our numbers seem the same. Kinda disappointing a bit eh? ;)

Attached screen shows the highest o/c and timings I can get out of my system right now. I would need another motherboard to overclock it any further including taking the memory to 2-2-2-5. Need vDIMM for that..

I do find it interesting, that mention of a "ceiling" in the benchmark they state in the gamepc sapphire XT review. They are using a 3.2c..

I used FRAPS to record the battle sequence on top of the carrier and my min. fps was I think 22, average was 28. This is 16x12 w/everything turned up from the ingame menus.

If both your machine and mine are scoring so similar, it clearly isn't the XT holding me back here. I'd have to guess that we're both CPU limited in this game. :lame:

schuey74

06-15-04, 05:11 PM

Cas is the biggest factor in memory timings so you would gain very little by taking it to 2-2-2-5 so I wouldn't lose to much sleep over that. It's a shame you can't overclock more on that mobo and I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble and money to change it. I think I'm just going to wait for the 3.4s to hit 3.2 pricing, around $270, and then make that jump. Bad news is that I've still this generic memory with weak timings........at least you're set with yours.

It does suck being CPU limited, but you do have to take into account that it's only in a few scenarios, and you're only dropping down to the low 20's. A faster cpu will only aleviate a bottleneck, not eliminate it. The fact is that there are many other areas in the game where your CPU is holding you back, but you're not noticing because it's @ 40-50 fps. Just think about all those people with CPUs lacking about a third of your power. God only knows how often they drop into the teens or 20s, regardless of the video card.

But I will say this, I think Crytek should have programmed the game so that a P4 3.4 or AMD64 could keep the frames above 30 at all times. If not, by the time we can keep it at a constant 60 we'll be playing Doom 4 or HL3! Or perhaps the game is handicapped by "32 bits" and only when they release their 64 bit version will this bottleneck disappear......who knows?

Riptide

06-15-04, 05:46 PM

Sounds like you have a good plan (waiting for the 3.4 to come down). You should be able to hit 3.6-3.8 easily with that 3.4 once you get it. That should help out a bit. I have some equipment I'm trying to sell and if I manage to get what I want for it I'm just going to hold onto the $$ until christmas or shortly before. At that point maybe AMD will have an FX55 out in which case I'll sell my CPU/motherboard and plunk down my money on one of those. That's my plan at least... Right this second does not seem a good time to buy a s939 FX53 so waiting is the best thing to do.

While I agree it definitely sucks to be CPU limited with a nice processor like ours (and particularly your CPU/mobo) I'm through obsessing over this game and the performance I'm getting. The fact is it still runs faster than it did with my 9700Pro and my current favorite game (UT2K4) absolutely shines on it.

I appreciate the feedback from you, Arioch, and Malficar and I think it's been a learning experience for me. I think we have pretty much proven that this game is definitely bottlenecked right now and it's not the video card that is the issue in the case of folks who have X800/6800 series cards.

It's really just Intel that's sucking wind in this one. :p Must...have...more...power...

I believe even Arioch mentioned hitting 22fps as a low on the carrier level, and he's got an FX53. So it looks like if the CPU is the bottleneck here we're going to need more than just an incremental improvement to have a real effect.

schuey74

06-15-04, 06:03 PM

I think we set a good example on what a useful thread is. Instead of a bunch of morons flaming on why AMD is better in this situation or Intel in that one. A few people ran some benchies on comparable systems and a logical conclusion was reached. Now hundreds of other people who stumble upon this thread will come out with an answer instead of lost & frustrated. :)

Riptide

06-15-04, 06:24 PM

Yes, thankfully the trolls steered clear. :)

Cheers :beer: to us eh? :D

Want to know what really amazes me? That hog of a game Halo still runs faster in 16x12 than FarCry. I know FarCry is probably more demanding but you know what a chop job Halo was...

Sazar

06-15-04, 07:15 PM

g.luck on the sales m8... my friends in colorado... won't be back in tampa for a week or so... drop me a line before next weekend and I will get in touch with him again... :)

Riptide

06-15-04, 07:35 PM

Thanks, I'll know by the end of this week if I can get those items up for sale on ebay. A friend is going to assist and I promised him a 10% cut. So if I can sell everything for a decent price I should have $700 to throw in the piggy bank for a christmas upgrade. :) Probably going to be the CPU/motherboard for sure then, seeing as they're my issue right now. I'll let you know if my plan falls through and I need your help.

Lookie @ this from hardocp:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1026177261&postcount=67
Seriously? What's with everybody and their Far Cry woes? I run Far Cry @ 1280x1024 and max settings except AF which is on 2x because I can't see a difference and I get a good around 30 FPS, indoors and out on my 9800 non-pro (ocs like crap compared to real 9800 Pros though). The only places I notice even the slighest chug are in huge battles against dozens of Trigens with big explosions like in the final mission.

But my point is that Far Cry is not a system killer. It's a far cry from it. I hate it when everybody buys into that hype.

:confused: I don't get where this guy is coming from. This game is bringing my system to it's knees, schuey's system to it's knees, and taxing Arioch's heavily (though his holds up better than ours). How can this guy say such a thing? After my experience, I have no idea...

schuey74

06-15-04, 07:58 PM

This guy's lost or a noobie or both. When someone makes statement like the one he did about AA not being necesary @ 1280x1024 then we must doubt anything that comes out of his mouth. When I was checking my minimum frames at the top of the carrier just a few hours ago I couldn't believe how bad the game looked without aa on my 17" lcd....jaggie hell! I thought that Far Cry ran great too when I played it thru on my 9800 Pro w/ 2x aa and no af @ 1280x1024, but it runs infinetely better now at medium aa and max af.

schuey74

06-15-04, 08:04 PM

Oh, I missed the line about the huge battle at the end. I remember 100% clearly how my 9800 Pro would go down to 2-5 fps in that battle because 128 megs of video memory was just not enough, even without aa or af. So unless he has the only 9800 non-pro 256 meg on the planet or he's defying the laws of physics, he is straight up lying because 2-5 fps is not a slight chug, it's a freaking slide show. BTW, with no aa/af in that last battle my X800 Pro doesn't drop below 21 fps and usually hovers around 30.

Blacklash

06-15-04, 08:08 PM

Riptide,

You have good ram. If you could crank that FSB up you would see a night and day difference and I understand you to have limitations there. You can get a motherboard like mine for 146usd from Mwave. It will support up to a 4gig processor. If your really wanted to go nuts you could pick that up and a 3.4c and slap 250X4 or greater on it. They(CPU) are around 415usd from Newegg. If price is not a limiting factor power up a top end AMD system. Since ram is so expensive at PC 4000 and up I am really thinking about just springing for the 3.4c myself.

And yes if you want to test your system in Far Cry do the indoor area of the 'factory' level and the 'volcano' level.