nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   NVIDIA Legacy Graphics Cards (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=26625)

Pantherman 03-28-04 08:53 PM

Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
My system really gags with Fry Cry. I'm running it at 1280X1024 with everything except for shadows set to Very High, and the game is almost unplayable in the carrier and really slow when driving a vehicle. Conversely, I've played the game with the same settings on a system with a 9800XT and 9800 Pro and the game is much faster. I've even installed the latest 1.1 patch. I've heard how pitiful the GeForceFX is with DX9 shaders. Now I can actually SEE the difference. Let's hope Nvidia can correct this problem with the new NV40. Otherwise, ATI will keep walking away with the performance crown. "The Way it's Meant to be Played" is a real JOKE!!! It seems ATI's cards are more suited to the newest games.

aaahhh52 03-28-04 08:59 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
5950 ultra here played at 1024x768 40-60 fps outside, 60-100 inside, then with aa and af enabled it drops about 10 fps, depending, but i can make up for it with oc'ing :fanboy:

Pantherman 03-28-04 09:47 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
My CPU doesn't even compare with yours, and your 5950 Ultra is also far better than my 5900. I still stand by this post. Unless you have a great CPU, the FX series really lags with DX 9. Of course, we've heard the ATI fans yelling about this. I haven't experienced it until now.

rellingsen 03-28-04 10:18 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
I don't think there is anything wrong with your card. It just that you may be playing at too high of a resolution. On my rig with a 9700 Pro clocked to a 9800 Pro sometimes it will slow up and chug along at that resolution with high settings in certain areas. It's only really silky smooth with high settings at 1024x768 for me.

Clay 03-28-04 10:28 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantherman
My system really gags with Fry Cry. I'm running it at 1280X1024 with everything except for shadows set to Very High, and the game is almost unplayable in the carrier and really slow when driving a vehicle. Conversely, I've played the game with the same settings on a system with a 9800XT and 9800 Pro and the game is much faster. I've even installed the latest 1.1 patch. I've heard how pitiful the GeForceFX is with DX9 shaders. Now I can actually SEE the difference. Let's hope Nvidia can correct this problem with the new NV40. Otherwise, ATI will keep walking away with the performance crown. "The Way it's Meant to be Played" is a real JOKE!!! It seems ATI's cards are more suited to the newest games.

FWIW...Not saying this is for certain....but 1280x1024 is kind of a funky resolution in certain games. I've seen (especially in racing games for whatever reason) that performance is actually better at 1600x1200. I know that is not the norm at all and goes against logic but I've seen it. I don't have Far Cry (yet) so can't speak for it.

quik_2_win 03-28-04 10:35 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
Er, I don't think you have the hardware to run FarCry at "1280X1024 with everything except for shadows set to Very High". Perhaps you should spend a few moments adjusting the settings so the game is playable whilst maintaining good image quality. Thats the thing with gaming on a PC- it's no X-box, it will require you to make adjustments. It's still fun, right?
BTW- what's 'Rambust" ?

Drumphil 03-28-04 10:36 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
"FWIW...Not saying this is for certain....but 1280x1024 is kind of a funky resolution in certain games. I've seen (especially in racing games for whatever reason) that performance is actually better at 1600x1200. I know that is not the norm at all and goes against logic but I've seen it. I don't have Far Cry (yet) so can't speak for it."

I'd put this at the bottom of the list of potential issues to worry about with regards to far cry performance.. Hey, maxpower, are you sure that the performance gain wasn't because AA is disabled by cards with limited vram if you set the resolution too hight.. Anyways, this issue has NEVER been picked up by ANYONE bechmarking the cards at different resolutions.

Clay 03-28-04 10:42 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Drumphil
"FWIW...Not saying this is for certain....but 1280x1024 is kind of a funky resolution in certain games. I've seen (especially in racing games for whatever reason) that performance is actually better at 1600x1200. I know that is not the norm at all and goes against logic but I've seen it. I don't have Far Cry (yet) so can't speak for it."

I'd put this at the bottom of the list of potential issues to worry about with regards to far cry performance.. Hey, maxpower, are you sure that the performance gain wasn't because AA is disabled by cards with limited vram if you set the resolution too hight..

Hey Drumphil we have this nifty quote feature... ;) You had me seeing double there for a second. :D Oh absolutely, this is not the reason I'm sure...just that I have seen this oddity at (rare) times with 1280x1024. I'm not aware of the disabling that you refer to.

quik_2_win 03-28-04 10:43 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
It's more likely that he's 'platform-limited' by his 800MB/sec "Rambust". Here lately people feel crippled by running PC2700 DDR which, in theory, offers over three times the bandwidth that he's feeding his CPU.
-suggestion, drop the 5900 in a modern dual-channel motherboard and then try those kinds of settings?

Drumphil 03-28-04 10:46 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MaxPower
Hey Drumphil we have this nifty quote feature... ;) You had me seeing double there for a second. :D Oh absolutely, this is not the reason I'm sure...just that I have seen this oddity at (rare) times with 1280x1024. I'm not aware of the disabling that you refer to.

(better?)

When you set AA modes you are usually given some indication of the max resolution for that AA mode on a given card.. (does with the ATI control panel anyway).. If you go over that res AA is disabled because the card doesn't have sufficient vram to hold that many pixels. This can happen with any card and is ram size limitation. Unlike texture storage, the frame buffer can't be augmented by AGP accessible system ram, so go over the limit and the AA is turned off, rather than just getting slower, like with textures being accessed from the main system ram.

Sorry my quote usage doesn't meet your high standards for posting..

Waltar 03-28-04 10:53 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pantherman
My system really gags with Fry Cry. I'm running it at 1280X1024 with everything except for shadows set to Very High, and the game is almost unplayable in the carrier and really slow when driving a vehicle. Conversely, I've played the game with the same settings on a system with a 9800XT and 9800 Pro and the game is much faster. I've even installed the latest 1.1 patch. I've heard how pitiful the GeForceFX is with DX9 shaders. Now I can actually SEE the difference. Let's hope Nvidia can correct this problem with the new NV40. Otherwise, ATI will keep walking away with the performance crown. "The Way it's Meant to be Played" is a real JOKE!!! It seems ATI's cards are more suited to the newest games.

:lame:


Pentium 4 2.4GHz w/ 400MHz bus
Gee, I wonder why it runs ****ty. 100mhz fsb processor.. Your processor is horrible and I'm not entirely sure how you plan on running one of the most stressful games ever released at "Very high" and 1280 x 1024 with a 2.4ghz processor. The godamn game chokes on a 9800xt at that level with a 3.2 800fsb processor. Try lowering your settings to something a tad more realistic. :rolleyes:

For example: Everything on high with shadows at medium gets me 50 / 60+ fps at 1024 x 768 with a 2500+ athlon oc'ed to 2.3ghz, 512 pc3200 and a 5800ultra.

ChrisRay 03-28-04 10:55 PM

Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Waltar
:lame:


Pentium 4 2.4GHz w/ 400MHz bus
Gee, I wonder why it runs ****ty. 100mhz fsb processor.. Your processor is horrible and I'm not entirely sure how you plan on running one of the most stressful games ever released at "Very high" and 1280 x 1024 with a 2.4ghz processor. The godamn game chokes on a 9800xt at that level with a 3.2 800fsb processor. Try lowering your settings to something a tad more realistic. :rolleyes:

For example: Everything on high with shadows at medium gets me 50 / 60+ fps at 1024 x 768 with a 2500+ athlon oc'ed to 2.3ghz, 512 pc3200 and a 5800ultra.



I think its his FSB that kills him more than his proccessor, Either way, I dont think his settings are realistic either,

Heck gouing from 133 to 166 FSB gives me about a 7% performance gain on my system. FSB makes a huge difference.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.