PDA

View Full Version : Sw Galaxies w/6800 GT/Ultra?


MrSavoy
07-18-04, 12:54 PM
Just curious as to anyones experiences with playign SW galaxies with the eye candy maxed with the new cards. I started playing this game a few weeks ago and got hooked on the trial. Went out and bought it and subbed. I pretty much play it every day even though this is my first MMORPG. Never thought I would be the type for this kind of game but its great. Im usually a pretty die hard FPS gamer but this game rocks. Playing with my rig (in sig) with eye candy about half way I usually avg around 25-30fps pending on action going on. I'm hoping with my GT I should be getting this week it should play heaps better. Any impressions guys?

Oh and I have the settings on my card at quality with 2xaa and 2xas on.

wEEt
07-18-04, 01:10 PM
What exactly do u wanna know? I don't think it'll run much fast, maybe (avg) 35-50. It's just ****ing CPU and RAM limited. The card can't do much.

crunchyjedi
07-18-04, 01:16 PM
I got my 6800 GT yesterday and fired-up SWG. Let me tell you, the game is gorgeous! :wonder:

Oddly enough, my framerate didn't change from my Ti4400. With the GT 6800, I am averaging around 25fps and sometimes I can hit 29. I tried maxing the visual settings and turning them all off, but again the framerate hovers around 25.

I think I might try using FRAPS instead of the built-in fps monitor.

In any event, when you see what the card does with that game, you will not be disappointed!

scott123
07-18-04, 01:21 PM
Looks like a CPU limited situation to me.

crunchyjedi
07-18-04, 01:29 PM
Looks like a CPU limited situation to me.

Yeah, at first I had thought so too. However, when I intially got SWG last year I was running an AMD XP 1300 system with 512MB of 2100 RAM. The frame rates were in the high teens, sometimes reaching 21fps (visual settings lowered). Shortly after, I added another stick of 512MB for a total of 1GB of 2100 RAM. I got a few extra frames to around 23-24fps, but mainly got a smoother gameplay without a stutter.

I upgraded last month to an AMD 64 3000 with 1GB of 3200 RAM and I got a consistent 25fps, sometimes up to 29. I don't think I've broken 30 though.

So I guess it could be CPU limited to an extent, but the gains with more CPU power seem to be marginal (in my experience, your mileage may vary).

Jas28
07-18-04, 01:44 PM
The game is frame rate capped. You will never get higher than 30 fps no matter what you do. I didnt notice a whole lot of performance upgrade when i got my 6800. The biggest preformance upgrade i got with galaxies was when i went from 512mb of ram to 1 gig. That made a HUGE difference for me.

jAkUp
07-18-04, 01:52 PM
This is one of my posts from a few weeks ago...

For those of you that play Star Wars Galaxies, here is a performance review on a 6800 Ultra. I do not play this game, but it is an extremely demanding game with all the options maxed, so I decided to give it a whirl.

The performance isn't great..hehe.. but my friend still wished to know my performance, so I used his account and played for a bit :) Here goes nothin:

Stock Clocks 425/1.1

1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF
2004-07-07 22:49:36 - SwgClient_r
Frames: 378 - Time: 26346ms - Avg: 14.347 - Min: 10 - Max: 20

1600x1200 2xAA/4xAF
2004-07-07 23:08:29 - SwgClient_r
Frames: 557 - Time: 22199ms - Avg: 25.091 - Min: 18 - Max: 29

Here are some screenshots of the action, you can see the FPS in the upper right hand corner (56k warning):
The ingame graphics options I used (http://img49.exs.cx/img49/4239/SwgClient_r2004-07-0722-49-13-46.jpg)
More graphics options (http://img49.exs.cx/img49/695/SwgClient_r2004-07-0722-49-22-56.jpg)
And yet more graphics options (http://img49.exs.cx/img49/7388/SwgClient_r2004-07-0722-49-26-50.jpg)
1600x1200 4x/16x (http://img49.exs.cx/img49/3172/SwgClient_r2004-07-0722-48-48-76.jpg)
Another 1600x1200 4x/16x (http://img49.exs.cx/img49/1958/SwgClient_r2004-07-0722-52-09-98.jpg)
1600x1200 2x/4x (http://img49.exs.cx/img49/6051/SwgClient_r2004-07-0723-09-38-40.jpg)

Its kinda strange because when I'm in the city, the fps can dip pretty low... sometimes as low as 13fps, but when I'm in the forest/or jungle, it runs amazing... 29fps it is usually locked at.

EDIT:
A few more screenshots:
1600x1200 2x/4x
Nice shadows on the water (http://img46.exs.cx/img46/2305/SwgClient_r2004-07-0810-37-57-03.jpg)
More dynamic shadows in relation to the sun (http://img46.exs.cx/img46/7632/SwgClient_r2004-07-0810-36-38-25.jpg)
Swaying foilage (http://img46.exs.cx/img46/4445/SwgClient_r2004-07-0810-33-10-40.jpg)
SM2.0 Water (http://img48.exs.cx/img48/1914/SwgClient_r2004-07-0808-23-15-64.jpg)

MrSavoy
07-18-04, 10:02 PM
Thats pretty much what I figured but I was curious as to what I can expect when I get my GT. Its all good I play with the gfx a little past half way maxed and it runs ok. Pretty much like everyone else here. I can see its very cpu/ram intensive. I also had a feeling it was fps capped at 30 since I never once broke 30 even in a small room looking directly at a wall with noone/nothing else around me. Thanks for the replies guys.

Blacklash
07-18-04, 11:30 PM
SWG runs like a dream on my rig and looks good. I can run any resolution or level of candy I want. Most often I play 1280x960 4xAA or 8xSAA, 16xAF. I would do 1600x1200 but I hate having to resize the gui interface, text etc everytime I drop down res or go up, default is too small at 1600x1200. Another thing my monitor only does 75@1600x1200 but 85@1280x960(1024) so I am there most often, unless playing something like Far Cry, or very soon, Doom III.

My GT is most often just at 400/1.10 which seems to be more than enough for what I play.

ssj4goku887
07-18-04, 11:48 PM
sony is pretty bad with making games look good while optimizing performance they suck at it. heh

Snakebitten
07-18-04, 11:55 PM
Funny thing... I'm a big MMORPG fan, and have played EQ, DAoC, and SWG fairly hardcore with the latest video cards at those times. I'm currently playing World of Warcraft beta, and I believe it has the best ingame graphics out of all of them when pumped up with high resolution, AA, and AF. Yes better than SWG.

WoW is just going to be one of those games that the graphics have to be checked out in person and the gameplay is probably better than all of those games as well. :)

wEEt
07-18-04, 11:59 PM
With 3.9GHz... ;)
And what I found out: You don't need to start the game with less than 1 gig of RAM, you wouldn't like it. The graphics card isn't the most important thing, although some SM2 effects really look very nice :D

Blacklash
07-19-04, 12:38 AM
When I started playing SWG I had a 2.8c oced to 3.2 with a 5700U. Naturally I could not run a lot of AA/AF but I could do 1280x960 with 4-8AF depending on where I was.

Most "lag" people complain about in these games does indeed come from low ram or one that is largely ignored, > a slow thrashing hard drive. Get one like mine or better. One of those WD Raptors and 1gig of ram will help in any online games you play.

If you have nice ram, a good cpu and video card but are 'lagging' watch your hard drive. It is most likely the culprit.

phantom1979
07-19-04, 01:46 AM
get more RAM. thats your main bottleneck. I went from 384mb to 768 and Theed/coronet/minig OP on dantooine sped up nicely. before my HD would grind for 2 minutes before freeing up and letting me move.

BTW, 6800 + 4x aa + 16x Aniso + shadows + 50% terrain detail = 30 fps outside of town. Very nice!

MamoVaka
07-19-04, 02:14 AM
Ridiculous,

a brand new 6800 Ultra should play galaxies at MAX detail flawlessly, I am SICKENED by this 13 fps in cities nonsense..

I know it's caused by the many players and shadows that the buildings create, but my lord.. The game is beautiful, but it should NEVER drop below 30 fps on these cards..

They messed up somewhere in designing the engine.

MrSavoy
07-20-04, 06:37 PM
Its the swap file mainly thats the problem. If you have like a gig and a half or 2 gigs of ram I bet the HD problems disappear. Or like someone else metioned a very fast HD to transfer the data.