X800 Performance Issue - or CPU issue?

[Riptide]

I guess I just don't see what I'd have to gain by getting a CPU right now when even Arioch's machine, a top of the line FX53, still hits 22fps briefly during the battle on top of the carrier. My machine hit as low as 19fps during that spot... His averages are better though, ofcourse, but it's just not a huge increase to me.

I want to be getting a min. frame rate of 30fps with an average of around 40-50 in that area (battle on carrier) before I spring for a new CPU/motherboard. Unfortunately... there doesn't seem to be anything out there right now that is up to that challenge.

Schuey doesn't have an XT, but he has an o/c Pro and an o/c P4 right now and he still gets about the same level of performance I do.

And to recap, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that at least in that one area of the game if I turn off AA and AF entirely, @ 16x12 I see almost no improvement in fps including min. framerate. Something else must be going on, I dunno...

But I give up. :)

[fleshonbone]

I believe Intel is still relying on external memory controllers in their chips. AMD's on board controllers are the biggest reason why their 64bit chips perform so well in a 32bit environment, and I don't believe Intel has any plans to internalize their controller on the 64 chips either, hence some thorough inefficiencies right there.

[Sazar]

the memory controller of other cpu's == north-bridge == the external memory controller you are talking about flesh

the athlon64's eliminate the need for a north-bridge by integrating hte memory controller... and this does net a speed increase...

rip is the issue the one map and that particular point or is it far cry in general?

if it helps any you are getting far better fps than I could even dream about getting @ 16x12 with LOD turned up... :cool:

[Blacklash]

Riptide,

I did the carrier level as you requested without AA/AF and at 1600x1200. To make it more interesting for me, I only over clocked my rig to 3.2 at 1:1 and left the video card at default clocks. It was as I thought. The card gives me 8/9FPS max when I OC it in Far Cry.(540/1120)

Again. As I said, if I had no limit on my funds I'd go AMD all the way, but for me it's ram up grade(1gig/pc4000+) or just drop a 3.4c in here for close to the same cash. Honestly, I am tired of overclocking.

Anyway here is the Fraps bench.
Carrier Level,(1600x1200, No AA/AF, CPU 3.2@1:1,'Turbo' selected in Bios and 'strengthened' timings on Ram, Fast writes and 8XAGP Active, X800Pro default)
2004-06-15 21:16:01 - FarCry
Frames: 28776 - Time: 480062ms - Avg: 59.942 - Min: 26 - Max: 139

[Blacklash]

Malficar (Blacklash), I saw the thread you were referring to on that other site.....some people can't seem to grasp the idea that there's more to a PC than just the video card and CPU. :rolleyes:

Many do ignore the Motherboard, or cut corners, and it always shocks me that people that love to play on line Multiplayer games or MMORPG's ignore the hard drive. Many times when people b@tch about their video card lagging thier game that is the answer. >Hard drive access on a sh@tty hard drive. And for games like Far Cry and heck all others quality ram at a good level (1gig)should not be ignored.

My system is a year old now not counting the video card. I am really thinking about that CPU upgrade. When PCI express has been out for awhile, and normalized/debugged etc etc. I will be thinking about redoing the whole thing perhaps, CPU/Mobo/Ram, Hard drive and of course video card. Maybe next fall.

[Riptide]

Anyway here is the Fraps bench.
Carrier Level,(1600x1200, No AA/AF, CPU 3.2@1:1,'Turbo' selected in Bios and 'strengthened' timings on Ram, Fast writes and 8XAGP Active, X800Pro default)
2004-06-15 21:16:01 - FarCry
Frames: 28776 - Time: 480062ms - Avg: 59.942 - Min: 26 - Max: 139

OK, I did a FRAPS run on this area. But only right after the last checkpoint when you start by facing the ladder that leads up to the deck. Here are my numbers below. 1600x1200, NO AA/AF. CPU slightly overclocked (3.0 @ 3.12). X800XT PE @ Default speeds, Catalyst 4.6.

2004-06-15 20:03:57 - FarCry
Frames: 4700 - Time: 143891ms - Avg: 32.664 - Min: 21 - Max: 80

I know it isn't quite the fair comparison here since I only played the last checkpoint...

I guess I'm just going to flat out ask the question gentlemen, feel free to tell me the truth even if it hurts.

Is something wrong with my machine? Are my numbers suspect or are they what I *should* be seeing? My system has a slight disadvantage vs. yours in clockspeed BUT I am using an XT and not a Pro... This just doesn't seem right to me.

[Blacklash]

I don't know what is up Rip seriously.

Here is the 'training area' you asked me to do up to the first big camp and jeep.(Has a tower there etc)

2004-06-15 23:12:32 - FarCry(Same as my carrier level save I am trying the CPU at 5:4 for 3.5)
Frames: 22677 - Time: 377422ms - Avg: 60.083 - Min: 29 - Max: 112

My carrier level was the whole fecking thing to small boat drop.

Do you make most your kills at range? or let alot of them get on top of you? I know if you have too many mercs swarming around you shooting that can hurt FPS for sure. < Grasping for staws here.

EDIT Ah well if you started benching there(ladder to main deck) that is the toughest area, so that could explain it.

I will try it with 2xAA and 16xAF this time (1600x1200) brb..

EDIT: part 2, Yeah If I wanted to play a hard level like volcano or factory (Intensive that is) with 16AF and AA (1600x1200) I would have to OC my card.

Training, to big merc camp (1600x1200, 2xAA/16xAF, CPU 3.5@5:4, X800Pro default clocks)
2004-06-15 23:39:15 - FarCry
Frames: 15768 - Time: 337407ms - Avg: 46.732 - Min: 24 - Max: 101

[Riptide]

I don't know what is up Rip seriously.

Here is the 'training area' you asked me to do up to the first big camp and jeep.(Has a tower there etc)

2004-06-15 23:12:32 - FarCry(Same as my carrier level save I am trying the CPU at 5:4 for 3.5)
Frames: 22677 - Time: 377422ms - Avg: 60.083 - Min: 29 - Max: 112
My results for the same run:
2004-06-15 23:56:12 - FarCry (Same as you last ran carrier on no AF/AA, 1600x1200)
Frames: 18285 - Time: 286481ms - Avg: 63.826 - Min: 23 - Max: 164

Strange eh? My min. is kinda ugly but avg. and max aren't bad.. I didn't play through the big camp, just up to it so we're clear on that detail.

My carrier level was the whole fecking thing to small boat drop.

Yeah, I was more concerned about my pathetic min. frame rates more than anything else. Which is why I went straight for the toughest part of the run (performance wise).

I don't make all my kills at range on the deck in the carrier level, just some of them. A few mercs always try and sneak around those boxes and get me but it's usually never more than two at a time and normally they don't get a shot off at me. ;)

EDIT Ah well if you started benching there(ladder to main deck) that is the toughest area, so that could explain it.

EDIT: part 2, Yeah If I wanted to play a hard level like volcano or factory (Intensive that is) with 16AF and AA (1600x1200) I would have to OC my card.

Training, to big merc camp (1600x1200, 2xAA/16xAF, CPU 3.5@5:4, X800Pro default clocks)
2004-06-15 23:39:15 - FarCry
Frames: 15768 - Time: 337407ms - Avg: 46.732 - Min: 24 - Max: 101
Man, my minimum frame rates just frickin suck. I am completely baffled and I think it's time to do a complete system rebuild before I allow myself to start breaking dishes, throwing things, pulling tufts of hair out, etc.. or otherwise give up and cry. ;) :D

[Blacklash]

Well you can certainly see the muscle of the XT in your max, those 4 extra pipes and the clocks as well. Still at default speed I think the Pro does fine. I mostly game at 1280x960 so I really don't have to OC unless I want to. I can do 4xAA/16xAF fine. If I want to venture into 1600x1200 of course best results will be with the OC. It kinda of shocked me though, even at default it is 'playable', but I have a preference for being close to 60FPS as much as possible. So that is why I would overclock at that resolution. I wouldn't fret too much the game seems very playable on your machine. If you upgrade that CPU/Mobo you will think you got a new card. I know when I run my rig at default then switch to 3.5 with the card overclocked it's a solid improvement.

I am torn what I am going to do about the CPU. I really want a stock 3.4c.

[Riptide]

I did a complete rebuild of my system and also moved to 128k stripe sizes to save on CPU utilization. Loaded sp2 just for the heck of it.

My scores are pretty much unchanged. As you can see by the below, I still manage to dip down to 23fps briefly during the carrier level. 16x12, no AF/AA

2004-06-17 21:33:39 - FarCry
Frames: 5000 - Time: 136662ms - Avg: 36.587 - Min: 23 - Max: 103

Dunno... Playable as you can see by the average but not very fast IMO. :(
Guess it's gonna take a new CPU/motherboard before I increase my performance here. I just wish I knew what it was that lets some of you outscore me so badly here even when you don't have an FX53. ;)

I just checked the 3dmark03 scores @ the xbitlabs review... They are testing w/athlon64 3400+ / x800xt, and they get 11,600 in 3dmark03. My system scores around 11,500... This would seem to indicate that my system is performing fine I would think. If I'm getting lower min. fps than other people in FarCry, then it's got to be some issue with the game and specific machines (as in mine) or there is something I'm missing here.

[fleshonbone]

Riptide,

At the risk of telling you something you probably already know, have you tried turning off AGP fast writes in BIOS?

It's a very antiquated feature, and in my experience causes a lot of problems as most mainboard mfg's don't seem to be able to use it properly - regardless, it won't make any difference performance wise.

I have seen this option cause a wide variety of unsolveable nightmares for people, yet it seems as though the majority of people enable this thinking it gives some sort of perf. boost which is not the case.

It is usually disabled by default in most modern BIOS' even with agp auto-detect on because of it's potential detriment to stability and/or performance vs. it's potential gains -which are basically nil these days.

[schuey74]

Well, just like Rip, I also did a format and fresh install of XP using a 128k stripe (from 32k before). The only differene being that I decided to use the onboard Promise controller on my P4C800-E DX instead of the ICH-R which I was using before. Bottom line is that I have significantly less CPU usage running my current raid array, but my loading times are significantly longer. I'd say by as much as 50%. Take a look at the benchies and I think you'll agree with me......I'll deal with the loading!

Stock clocks on the X800 Pro, 4.7 betas, and the same CPU speed (228 fsb with 1/1 memory @ 3/4/4/8). Red #s are from my old setup.

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 3.00GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 1022MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b (4.09.0000.0902)
Card name: R420
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6458 (English)

Detailed info dir:
C:\Program Files\BenchemAll\result\2004.06.17.10.25.11.\

-----------------------------------------------------------
Far Cry

Using Max settings.
Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo

640x480 not selected
800x600 not selected
1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 63.98 (58.45)

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 62.67 (57.69)

-----------------------------------------------------------
Unreal Tournament 2004

1024x768 154.42 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 209.30 fps, as-convoy: 80.78 fps, br-colossus: 173.18 fps )
1280x1024 143.31 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 188.69 fps, as-convoy: 82.75 fps, br-colossus: 158.49 fps )
1024x768 126.95 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 176.30 fps, as-convoy: 76.95 fps, br-colossus: 127.59 fps )
1280x1024 131.34 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 184.60 fps, as-convoy: 73.46 fps, br-colossus: 125.97 fps )


-----------------------------------------------------------

Quake III Arena

Demo name: four.dm_67
800x600 not selected
1024x768 3.3 seconds: 386.7 fps (3.5 seconds: 355.9 fps)
1280x1024 3.5 seconds: 363.0 fps (3.6 seconds: 345.5 fps)

[Blacklash]

Well, just like Rip, I also did a format and fresh install of XP using a 128k stripe (from 32k before). The only differene being that I decided to use the onboard Promise controller on my P4C800-E DX instead of the ICH-R which I was using before. Bottom line is that I have significantly less CPU usage running my current raid array, but my loading times are significantly longer. I'd say by as much as 50%. Take a look at the benchies and I think you'll agree with me......I'll deal with the loading!

Stock clocks on the X800 Pro, 4.7 betas, and the same CPU speed (228 fsb with 1/1 memory @ 3/4/4/8). Red #s are from my old setup.

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 3.00GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 1022MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b (4.09.0000.0902)
Card name: R420
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6458 (English)

Detailed info dir:
C:\Program Files\BenchemAll\result\2004.06.17.10.25.11.\

-----------------------------------------------------------
Far Cry

Using Max settings.
Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo

640x480 not selected
800x600 not selected
1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 63.98 (58.45)

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 62.67 (57.69)

-----------------------------------------------------------
Unreal Tournament 2004

1024x768 154.42 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 209.30 fps, as-convoy: 80.78 fps, br-colossus: 173.18 fps )
1280x1024 143.31 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 188.69 fps, as-convoy: 82.75 fps, br-colossus: 158.49 fps )
1024x768 126.95 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 176.30 fps, as-convoy: 76.95 fps, br-colossus: 127.59 fps )
1280x1024 131.34 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 184.60 fps, as-convoy: 73.46 fps, br-colossus: 125.97 fps )


-----------------------------------------------------------

Quake III Arena

Demo name: four.dm_67
800x600 not selected
1024x768 3.3 seconds: 386.7 fps (3.5 seconds: 355.9 fps)
1280x1024 3.5 seconds: 363.0 fps (3.6 seconds: 345.5 fps)


Good show Shuey, I know it was a pain in the arse but looks to have been worth it. Try a low OC on the Pro at 510/550, if you like, and really smile. Your bench'emall in Far Cry is now practically identical to the one I had.(With the CPU OC'ed of course)

[schuey74]

Thanks for the help in locating "the problem". It's too bad that Rip couldn't fix his, but he has a new rig on the way anyways so he'll be fine. Now I'm really happy knowing that when I drop in a 3.4c I should have no problem hitting 3.7/3.8 on my watercooling which should give me all the cpu power I need until the end of the year. When gaming I always run the card @ 540/550 since it's only on water now. Use to be 580/580 when I had it on a peltier, but I little condensation on your new vc will motivate you to take it off quick! Mid-July I will be upgrading to either an XT PE or a 6800U. That's when my best friend will be getting his b-day present, my X800 Pro, and I get myself an early christmas gift. Leaning heavily towards the XT PE, but I figure the next four to five weeks will give Nvidia a chance to impress me with new drivers and/or amazing Doom 3 benchies....

[Riptide]

Damn, giving away your X800 Pro for a present?? I thought I was nice for giving my friend my old 9700Pro... We need more friends like you! :D

Hopefully the 3800+ will help me out. I am just a little worried about the motherboard - a K8T800. Never gone VIA before...

[schuey74]

It's only $$$, can't take it with you when you're gone, and it is his :birthday:

Mobos is the primary reason I've never gone AMD. I hope they have a super stable one by the end of the year as I'd really like to give 'em a shot. I just don't think Intel will have anything to match them in gaming performance, at a reasonable price, anytime soon.

[Riptide]

I am taking a bit of a risk w/going VIA I guess. I will be pretty upset if my motherboard turns out to be a completely unstable POS even at stock speeds. I swear I will rip it out and send it back if that happens. I know it's an early release piece, so I expect a few problems. What I don't want is a ton of memory problems, games that crash to the desktop or blue screen, etc.. If the board is unstable I won't put up with it.

GlowStick has a K8T800 and I'm curious to see his impressions. From what I've read on abxzone, they are stable as long as you don't try to overclock them very much. The agp/pci lock has issues. But since I run at stock speeds I'm not to concerned about that..

I am hoping that this CPU/motherboard will put me closer to Arioch's performance in the game.

[fleshonbone]

I am taking a bit of a risk w/going VIA I guess. I will be pretty upset if my motherboard turns out to be a completely unstable POS even at stock speeds. I swear I will rip it out and send it back if that happens. I know it's an early release piece, so I expect a few problems. What I don't want is a ton of memory problems, games that crash to the desktop or blue screen, etc.. If the board is unstable I won't put up with it.

GlowStick has a K8T800 and I'm curious to see his impressions. From what I've read on abxzone, they are stable as long as you don't try to overclock them very much. The agp/pci lock has issues. But since I run at stock speeds I'm not to concerned about that..

I am hoping that this CPU/motherboard will put me closer to Arioch's performance in the game.

Riptide,

You might also want to check out the SiS 755FX referenced boards. I don't know about the 939, but I built 25-30 socket 754 boards for the mfg firm I work for using almost every socket 754 board available - the only board that ran consistently stable was the SiS755 based Foxconn. I did find out that the Asus, MSI, and Gigabyte 754 platform boards all have silent recalls mostly due to DIMM socket problems. While the foxconn did not have all the o/c tweaks available (I don't o/c comps at work, nor do I at home), it certainly has proven to be the most stable.

If you do some googles, the SiS chipset reviews for the A64 platform have been quite favorable. Remember that since the A64 does not use a northbridge, the memory performance of all the boards are nearly identical, so stability should be your prime consideration.

I've never personally been a fan of VIA, as I've worked with all different ranges of their chipsets across both platforms AMD and Intel; it always seems as though half the time they run great, and half the time they are complete nightmares - so it's kind of a roll of the dice...

I don't even know if the 755FX boards are available, but do a little checking, they are definitely a sleeper and I've had great success with their socket 754 based chipsets. I know SiS has been questionable in the past, and I had never used them before so I was skeptical, but after some of the headaches I had with the VIA based Asus, Microstar's, and Gigabytes, I had no problem going with them exclusively. I've never tried the SiS based Gigabyte nor any of the nForce boards - don't know how well the nForce would like an ATI card though.

good luck

[Riptide]

SiS kinda screwed me over with the 648. The first batches wouldn't even run PC2700 stable at relaxed timings, yet touted DDR333 support. Mine wouldn't even make it through setup, and this was after reading several favorable reviews. But I respect that your experience was different and that not everything they have made is necessarily a lemon. TBH I was kinda leaning towards an nforce3 250 solution if this via turns out to be a PITA. We'll see though.. I try to keep an open mind. ;)

Thanks for the suggestions.

[Arioch]

I wasn't real big on VIA before this system but the SK8V board I have won editor's choice awards when many websites did a socket 940 roundup.

[saturnotaku]

I wasn't real big on VIA before this system but the SK8V board I have won editor's choice awards when many websites did a socket 940 roundup.

It won editor's choice because there were no other choices, except Asus' own SK8N. :rolleyes:

[ragejg]

I outfitted my friend Greg (Eating the Holy) with that mobo, and he really does enjoy its features and stability. That mobo plus ECC RAM plus an Opteron plus 2x73gb SATA RAID0 = rock freakin solid. :D

[Sazar]

via's athlon solutions have been pretty good and generally ahead of nvidia's curve (primarily coz nvidia chose to release the 150 for socket 754 :rolleyes: )

on the whole the PRO platform for the k8t800 series is at least as good as the nvidia nf3-250 series and appears to have the added advantage of having been in place and gaining from its k8t800 setup...

its been solid for me :)

[Lfctony]

No AGP/PCI lock though for my MSI K8T, I would recommend an NF250 or even an NF150 to anyone that likes to overclock any time of the day.

[Arioch]

It won editor's choice because there were no other choices, except Asus' own SK8N. :rolleyes:

Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.html?i=1936)

Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20031117/index.html)

Well there are a few more than two anyway. I was originally going to get a NForce board but at the time I got my PC put together they were a bit lacking.

This board works great for me so I am not complaining and I like what Asus puts out in general.