X800 Performance Issue - or CPU issue?

[Riptide]

Okies... I am starting this thread since it's an issue entirely to itself. Please see my sig for system specs.

During the carrier level in farcry (the battle up on the deck at the top) my system is dropping down to as low as 19fps briefly, and averages only around 23-26 during the fight once you climb up the ladder and begin the battle. Others like Arioch are getting better performance, but his system is different than mine and he has an FX53. What I am trying to get to the bottom of is whether my system is slower than it should be through here or if it's to be expected... Keep in mind this is the most demanding spot in the game according to HardOCP's review of the X800Pro.

If I turn AA and AF off the system performs nearly identical. Those settings have almost -0- impact with regard to fps through this area on my machine.

Does anyone feel like running a test through this area with their machine? Try running it in 1600x1200x32 and see how low your fps dips during the battle on the top of the deck.

Also, according to the HardOCP review of the -PRO- (I have an XT) it dropped down to as low as 22fps during the battle on top with a P4 3.4c and @ 1280x1024 2xAA/8xAF.

Basically, is something wrong with my machine or is this the expected performance I should be seeing?

For reference, check out this:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI4LDI=

[Sazar]

I get dodgy performance @ 12x10 (ie I can notice a little lag here and there) with 2xAA and 4xAF... (latest cats give a nice speed boost :D)

haven't checked with fraps or anything but if its like that its got to be fps in the teen's...

I have a feeling that perhaps your processor is a limiting factor...

check out some other reviews or perhaps wait and see if brent posts here and check with his findings... yer the only person I know with a PE @ the moment

/me is all jealous and stuff...

[Riptide]

I e-mail'd Brent over @ HardOCP and I hope he has time to field my question. I guess if anyone can tell me if I have a legitimate concern or if I'm just being paranoid it's him - after all, he did bench in that same area and with a similar (though not identical) machine and settings. Considering the Pro's numbers that he got through that area I'm probably worrying about nothing. But the fact that Arioch got such higher numbers than me kinda has me scratching my head. I know my system isn't 40% slower than his, so why such a lower figure?? :confused:

Thanks for the feedback though and hopefully Brent will put this to bed for me. :)

[saturnotaku]

That part of the game is extraordinarily tough on any system. My 9800 Pro/Barton setup would drop frames severely at that point in the game at 1024x768 no AA or AF. Another sticking point is at the volcano level, in the first part where you get a whole lotta trigens fighting. At both those points, my framerate would drop below 10 (as low as 8 fps).

Rip, I haven't tested the part you mentioned on my 5700 Ultra yet. But in the volcano part, my GeForce card gives me more than twice the performance. It's a huge improvement. I'll see if I can check the deck level in a bit but I think it might be an ATI issue.

[Sazar]

i have a feeling the fx53 woulda performed better regardless... the cpu does help out a bit and athlon64's are generally better for gaming than p4 solutions...

hopefully brent can help you out though m8...

[Riptide]

Thanks guys. Based on the numbers I saw Brent get in his X800Pro review w/1280x1024 2xAA 4xAF on a P4 3.4c I think I am likely all worried about nothing. It dipped down to 22fps in that area for him, so my numbers don't seem all that far out of line I guess given my specs. Just a bit disappointing. ;)

You know though, never hurts to post a thread or two and see what others are getting and/or their opinion on the matter.

Man, if it really is my 3.0c that's holding me back there it's just hard to believe Arioch's CPU would really give him that huge of a boost in that area over mine. I knew the FX53 would be faster... but golly, 40% or so?? Sheesh...

Just had an idea... I will try the same spot with my hardware and use the same exact settings Brent did in his review. I should get a boost in performance over what he got due to my XTPE, but it shouldn't be a huge increase seeing as my CPU is a bit slower than his review machine. But there should be a difference, and I believe I should get at least a few fps faster through there at the settings he used.

[acrh2]

Why don't you oc your cpu? My 3.0C does 3.6 GHz on air no problem, and that's with pretty crappy ram. That would already give you 20% toward Arioch's score.

[Lfctony]

His motherboard only allows minimum overclocking.

[schuey74]

Rip, the same thing happens to me on my X800 Pro. No matter the AA/AF, It drops into the low 20's, regardless of the clocks on my card.

[Riptide]

Rip, the same thing happens to me on my X800 Pro. No matter the AA/AF, It drops into the low 20's, regardless of the clocks on my card.
Thanks schuey man. :) Looks like it's normal behavior then, nothing for me to worry about I guess.

I take it we both need a CPU/motherboard upgrade then? Who's buying?? ;)

What CPU/motherboard are you running with dude?

[Blacklash]

If you read the articles at Firingsquad on CPU scaling you will see you need roughly a P4 at 3.2 to push the X800Pro well. When I game it is at 250x4 on my FSB which =3.5 on my rig. It makes a remarkable difference over my stock 2.8c settings. Then again I bought my Motherboard, CPU and Ram with the explicit intent of overclocking. If you go P 4 you can't go wrong with the IC7-G, it's quality all the way.

If you want to see something amusing, check Rage3d where my Rig at 3.5 matches a fellow with athlon 64 3400 and a Pro at default speeds. In all honesty I actually edge him out by a few FPS. Of course this is Far Cry we are talking about at 1024x768 or greater and not UT2003/04 at 800x600 with no candy on.

[schuey74]

P4 3.0 @ 3.5 on an Asus P4C800-E DX w/ a gig of ram. So basically the same as you with a bit more CPU power.....I'm probably hitting 22 fps where your @ 20. :rolleyes:

I'm kinda hoping that this setup can last me until the end of year when I'll be able to (hopefully) setup a nice .09 AMD64 rig w/ PCI-Express. Perhaps the next Far Cry patch can tidy things up a bit as it's a little disheartening to have your top of the line CPU chocking, although it is the only spot in the game where the game stays @ around 20 fps for any length of time. I don't want to spend a grand to go from 22 to 28 fps in that one spot while the rest of the game runs almost identically. Anyways, I only play in devmode nowadays and those drops don't really matter much then. :angel2:

[Blacklash]

P4 3.0 @ 3.5 on an Asus P4C800-E DX w/ a gig of ram. So basically the same as you with a bit more CPU power.....I'm probably hitting 22 fps where your @ 20. :rolleyes:


Son, I will match you frame for frame in any game you wish to bench.

EDIT Sorry about that Schuey, the Athlon crowd has worn me down to my last nerve. I too am not going to spend 700plus dollars on a CPU alone to say I am 'uber'. At the 400dollar mark and below OCed P4's do fine. Heck, this 2.8c was 178usd, not bad for what it returns.

[schuey74]

Son, I will match you frame for frame in any game you wish to bench.
Dad, since you're a whole year older than me, are you saying you want to run a benchathon........bring it on!!! Only joking, but I would like to compare some benchies as I used to have the IC7 and tossed it out in favor of the Asus, plus you are obviously running a higher fsb so I'd like to know if that makes any difference at all.

Far Cry, UT2004, and Code Creatures thru benchemall sound ok? 10x7, 12x10, No AA/AF and 4xAA/8xAF (thru control panel). Cat 4.6s and stock clocks on the X800......we are looking for bottlenecks outside of the video cards, correct?

[Riptide]

If you read the articles at Firingsquad on CPU scaling you will see you need roughly a P4 at 3.2 to push the X800Pro well. When I game it is at 250x4 on my FSB which =3.5 on my rig. It makes a remarkable difference over my stock 2.8c settings. Then again I bought my Motherboard, CPU and Ram with the explicit intent of overclocking. If you go P 4 you can't go wrong with the IC7-G, it's quality all the way.
I myself have had reasonable experiences w/Abit. My BE6II and my BH6 were good boards. I don't know about the IC7 though. My friend had one and that northbridge fan was an issue. Talk about a serious *nightmare* to get it fixed with Abit. Their RMA process is the worst I have ever experienced. You have to get a PayPal account in order to do it, or at least when we did it. He had to have my help in order to get his board RMA'd since he didn't have a credit card (I know, I know, oddball). Still, that is just retarded as hell IMO.

If I were going to replace my D875 it'd be w/Schuey's P4C800-E deluxe.

If you want to see something amusing, check Rage3d where my Rig at 3.5 matches a fellow with athlon 64 3400 and a Pro at default speeds. In all honesty I actually edge him out by a few FPS. Of course this is Far Cry we are talking about at 1024x768 or greater and not UT2003/04 at 800x600 with no candy on.
My machine isn't even coming close to Arioch's FX53. He can get that portion of FarCry (carrier up top on the deck) to never dip below 30, and mine barely maintains 25fps average. Maybe I'm making a bigger deal out of it then I should but it's pretty disappointing that my 3.0C sucks wind so badly there. :(

And from Schuey's statement further up about it behaving the same way on his system I'm having to think it really is our CPUs that are holding us back there. His system is behaving exactly like mine, or nearly so.

[Blacklash]

Dad, since you're a whole year older than me, are you saying you want to run a benchathon........bring it on!!! Only joking, but I would like to compare some benchies as I used to have the IC7 and tossed it out in favor of the Asus, plus you are obviously running a higher fsb so I'd like to know if that makes any difference at all.

Far Cry, UT2004, and Code Creatures thru benchemall sound ok? 10x7, 12x10, No AA/AF and 4xAA/8xAF (thru control panel). Cat 4.6s and stock clocks on the X800......we are looking for bottlenecks outside of the video cards, correct?

No no, set 4xAA and 16xAF through your Far Cry system.cfg then select that under the 'custom' option for Bench'emall. I already have some for the card at default. Here's Far Cry. I will have to redo the 4xAA/16xAF bench because I oc'ed when I did it yesterday. Here's the old post:

Far Cry set to very high/ultra high, max quality selected in bench'emall, high quality selected in the driver for mip map detail level/texture preference, and my system running at 3.5(running at 3.5=CPU or FSB 250x4), the card at default clocks.

Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 1024MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b (4.09.0000.0902)
Card name: RADEON X800 PRO
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6451 (English)

Detailed info dir:
C:\Program Files\benchemall\result\2004.06.13.21.19.09. - New Sequence\

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

Using Max settings.
Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo

640x480 not selected
800x600
run# 0: Average FPS: 66.32

1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 66.91

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 62.94

1600x1200
run# 0: Average FPS: 50.19

EDIT:This is same as above, save 4xAA/16xAF set in the system cfg, then that selected with custom selection option in Bench'emall. Again card at default and mip/texture in driver "high quality".

Benchmark session result
Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 1 (2600.xpsp2.030422-1633)
Processor: Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz (2 CPUs)
Memory: 1024MB RAM
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0b (4.09.0000.0902)
Card name: RADEON X800 PRO
Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6451 (English)

Detailed info dir:
C:\Program Files\benchemall\result\2004.06.14.18.57.14. - New Sequence\

-----------------------------------------------------------
Far Cry(4xAA/16xAF/Card Default Speed)

Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo

Custom config file: C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Crytek\Far Cry\system.cfg
640x480 not selected
800x600 not selected
1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 65.38

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 60.08

1600x1200
run# 0: Average FPS: 45.16

You can ignore this if you like. It's the same benches but with the card OCed.

Far Cry

Using Max settings.
Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo

640x480 not selected
800x600
run# 0: Average FPS: 66.40

1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 67.69

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 65.49

1600x1200
run# 0: Average FPS: 58.81

EDIT:
Here I told Bench'emall to use a "custom config file" and directed it to my system.cfg file in my Far Cry folder. This way I could have the game apply 4xAA/16xAF. Besides that the settings are the same, Far Cry set to very high/ultra high, high quality selected in the driver for mip map detail level/texture preference, and my system running at 3.5, the card at 540/1120.

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

Map: Fort Demo: BenchemallDefaultDemo

Custom config file: C:\Program Files\Ubisoft\Crytek\Far Cry\system.cfg
640x480 not selected
800x600 not selected
1024x768 not selected
1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 63.82

1600x1200
run# 0: Average FPS: 54.03

[Arioch]

Well I tried running the game with both AA off and AA on through that battle on the top of the carrier. With the AA off I get frame rates in the mid to upper 30s for lows and mostly 40s and 50s for highs. With 4xAA turned on in game (control panel set to application preference) I get frame rates in the lower 30s for lows and into the 40s for highs.

I still think it is just due to the fact that the CPU comes into play at those high settings. I think you are okay but maybe swtiching to a motherboard with better overclocking ability would help. With the socket 939 AMD64 boards out now would be a good time to see AMD can do for you.

[Riptide]

You were in 16x12 Arioch? Just making sure. :)

[Arioch]

yes

[Arioch]

jAkUp has a highly overclocked system and I notice I manage to score 3k more than him on 3dmark01. I don't want to set off some Intel vs. AMD flame war here but right now it's pretty much common knowledge that the high end AMD 64 CPUs outperform the high end Intel CPUs right now in gaming applications.

[Riptide]

You're getting almost twice the frames I am... Your system owns mine in this game. Evidently the FX53 isn't just a bit better than my 3.0, it's flat out *superior*. :p

I can't afford a CPU/motherboard right now though so looks like I get to suck wind for another six months.

[Blacklash]

jAkUp has a highly overclocked system and I notice I manage to score 3k more than him on 3dmark01. I don't want to set off some Intel vs. AMD flame war here but right now it's pretty much common knowledge that the high end AMD 64 CPUs outperform the high end Intel CPUs right now in gaming applications.

No flame war Arioch. I concur. The top AMD does stomp the top Intel in game performance and many other areas. I was pissed off at certain people with athlon 64 3400 and those with remarkably less saying my overclocked rig(3.5,250x4) couldn't match their own when I did in Far Cry benches at the same settings with the same video card>X800Pro(default).

If I only had 400 dollars to plop down on a CPU I'd get a 3.4c and OC the heck out of it. If price is not an issue Athlon all the way. Again I agree when we are talking about the top Athlons/Intels.

Right now I am in a boat that to upgrade my ram to my desired level will almost cost as much as said CPU. I may just get the CPU. You seen prices on PC 4000 ram and up?

[Sazar]

:)

soon hopefully rip will have his dream come true...

[Arioch]

I just saw that jAkUp posted his 3dmark01 score with his 6800 Ultra and its in the 24K range like in his sig.

[Blacklash]

Yep even with the Rig at 3.5 and the Card at 540/1120. I hit 22 FPS once with 4xAA/8xAF@1600x1200. That's the whole carrier level til 'dropping the boat'. High quality set in my driver CP for Mip and texture level, of course.

4xAA/8xAF@1600x1200(3.5CPU|540/1120X800Pro)
Far Cry-Carrier level
Fraps Numbers
2004-06-14 20:17:34 - FarCry
Frames: 27452 - Time: 536782ms - Avg: 52.141 - Min: 22 - Max: 117

Maybe my 299 dollar GT will do better, we will see :D