PDA

View Full Version : *Minimum* fps rates with 6800's


Decimator
01-11-05, 02:16 PM
I know it's not a statistic you see discussed that often, but whenever I bench a game I'm always looking out for it because those big dips in framerate are what can spoil a game for me, anyway, someone on another forum I was on said that the X800's are less prone to drops in framerate than the 6800's, does anyone that has used both agree with this statement? or have any idea why it would be the case?

superklye
01-11-05, 02:18 PM
it all depends on the situations and circumstances in which you're benchmarking

SH64
01-11-05, 02:21 PM
The min framerate dosent come all by itself . it pretty much comes as a result for lower avarage framerate .
so my answer would be obvious .. i get lower min fps in games than runs generally slower on my 6800 than my X800 & vise versa .

Decimator
01-11-05, 02:54 PM
The min framerate dosent come all by itself . it pretty much comes as a result for lower avarage framerate .
so my answer would be obvious .. i get lower min fps in games than runs generally slower on my 6800 than my X800 & vise versa .

Yeah, that figures, and I think there may have been an element of fanboyism in what he was saying, but you've got both cards so I'd be more inclined to trust your opinion on the matter.

I know that Far Cry is a notorious system hog, but I'm still slightly dissapointed by the framerate dips I get in it (often seems to happen when enemies appear) even though my settings are one notch below full @ 1024 x 768 (so I can't even get any benefit from the PS 3.0 optimisations)

CaptNKILL
01-11-05, 02:57 PM
A main factor in framerate dips is CPU bottlenecking... believe me, I know ;)

Decimator
01-11-05, 03:12 PM
A main factor in framerate dips is CPU bottlenecking... believe me, I know ;)

Yeah, that's one of my worries, I've got a P4 3.0c running at stock and I've seen benches that show how much faster games run on the Athlon 64's, even with a 6800 GT and 1 GB of RAM, so I have thought about buying some XMS 4000 RAM and clocking my P4 up to 3.5 or 3.6 Ghz, but a gig of that stuff costs 170 in the UK, so I might just have to live with the CPU bottlenecking. What was your experience by the way?

SH64
01-11-05, 03:15 PM
Yeah, that figures, and I think there may have been an element of fanboyism in what he was saying, but you've got both cards so I'd be more inclined to trust your opinion on the matter.

I know that Far Cry is a notorious system hog, but I'm still slightly dissapointed by the framerate dips I get in it (often seems to happen when enemies appear) even though my settings are one notch below full @ 1024 x 768 (so I can't even get any benefit from the PS 3.0 optimisations)

Since you mentioned FC .. let me give you an example for my actual gameply on 6800 & X800 . (see sig for system specs) .
thats from the Research demo @1600x1200,4xAA,8xAF :
X800XT-PE : Play Time: 23.67s, Average FPS: 63.89
Min FPS: 49.32 at frame 1391, Max FPS: 77.99 at frame 743
6800GT@U : Play Time: 27.17s, Average FPS: 55.65
Min FPS: 40.48 at frame 100, Max FPS: 69.99 at frame 738
see how changes in avarage FPS dramatically affects the Min FPS .
of course the CPU difference will play a role in this too .. but 400Mhz wont do much in the case above .

Decimator
01-11-05, 03:26 PM
Yes, those are pretty convincing numbers there, I've just remembered an article HardOCP did about the 1.3 patch for Far Cry where they looked at all the points in the game where the framerate took a bad hit (unfortunately HardOCP doesn't seem to be up at the moment)

http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1098809904DJ7a6BZMfd_3_3.gif