nV News Forums

 
 

nV News Forums (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/index.php)
-   Benchmarking And Overclocking (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77 (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=33192)

Dot50Cal 07-27-04 03:58 PM

Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
No performance gains were noticed except for a fluke on research in 1024 with 4xAA and 8xAA.

http://img70.exs.cx/img70/9743/1024aa.gif

http://img70.exs.cx/img70/3/1024noaa.gif

http://img70.exs.cx/img70/4675/1600aa.gif

http://img70.exs.cx/img70/6986/1600noaa.gif

Image quality comparisons show the same levels.
61.77:
http://img70.exs.cx/img70/3171/new1.png
61.76:
http://img70.exs.cx/img70/7101/old1.png

Notes:
-Sound was ENABLED

-Trilinear was forced via the control panel with all optimizations set to off.
The system that the tests were run on is as follows:

Pentium 4 2.4c @ 3.0
Geforce 6800 GT @ 400/1100 (Default is 350/1000)
1GB OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8 1:1
400 Watt Antec PSU with 18A on 12+
Abit IC7-G 875p motherboard

Sazar 07-27-04 05:04 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
did you retest that research level?

to see if the test indeed was a fluke?

or did you run through it one time?

Dot50Cal 07-27-04 05:27 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
Upon retesting with the 61.77's I got 68 FPS. However taking into account the 1600x1200 performance and the fact that Far Cry's demos have a tendancy to not render the same exact things (IE people can be several steps ahead of where they should be) I can only beleive its a fluke. I really dont want to re bench with the 61.76's as Im running the 61.77's right now. If there were a performance increase we should have seen them in the 1600x1200 AA tests as well.

Sazar 07-27-04 05:40 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
k.. I was just wondering if you had indeed rebenched it :)

was just clarifying...

nice job btw...

betterdan 07-27-04 06:04 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
Ok I did a few benches and saw really no change from 61.76 no sm3.0 and 61.77 no sm3.0 or with both drivers and sm3.0 enabled. There are some instances where 3.0 is making a difference however as i just started up farcry and took these screenshots with 3.0 enabled and disabled. These shots were at 1280x1024 everything maxed including water at ultra high, 4xAA and 4xAF. Trilinear optimizations on and AF optimizations off in the control panel. Using 61.77 and final directx 9.0c SP1 (no beta SP for me :))

Far cry SM2.0 76FPS
Far cry SM3.0 91 FPS
Difference of 15 FPS at same place in map

Far cry SM2.0 98 FPS
Far cry SM3.0 112 FPS
Difference of 14 FPS at same place in map


Damn it looks like you will have to right click the link, copy it and paste it into a new browser to see the shots.

betterdan 07-27-04 06:42 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
Removed the info cause I was a dumbass :retard:

Dot50Cal 07-27-04 06:45 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by betterdan
Just found this out...
You don't need to start farcry with any devmode or r_sm30path 1 commands anymore. If you have directx 9.0c, the 61.77 drivers, the newest fxc.exe file and farcry 1.2 just start it up and it's automatically enabled without the crappy yellow words at the top. To see if it's enabled just bring down the console and type \r_3m30path then hit enter. It should say \r_sm30path=1 which means it is enabled.

Argh! Its not true :)
"D:\Crytek\Far Cry\Bin32\FarCry.exe" "r_sm30path 1" works without dev mode. The console does say its on, however it isnt. If you type \r_sm30path 1 in the console you're FPS will go higher (certain areas).

betterdan 07-27-04 06:54 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
Sorry I got a little excited and posted it in a few place hehe
Ok you were right :) I'm gonna delete my false info :inform:

Dot50Cal 07-27-04 06:55 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
NP, You can just edit it until a mod comes along and deleted it.

betterdan 07-27-04 07:47 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
Mods please delete my last 2 posts

Ok I did some benches with the ubisoft timedemos and got the following.
All tests were run at Resolution: 1280×1024
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Antialising: None
Anisotrophic filtering: 1×
no sound
Using only 61.77 drivers

Regulator
SM2.0 Score = 49.19 FPS
SM2.0b Score = 49.83 FPS
SM3.0 Score = 50.93 FPS

Research
SM2.0 Score = 74.74 FPS
SM2.0b Score = 74.62 FPS
SM3.0 Score = 83.30 FPS

Training
SM2.0 Score = 54.42 FPS
SM2.0b Score = 53.97 FPS
SM3.0 Score = 53.77 FPS

Volcano
SM2.0 Score = 76.93 FPS
SM2.0b Score = 76.67 FPS
SM3.0 Score = 83.46 FPS

anzak 07-27-04 08:08 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by betterdan
Mods please delete my last 2 posts

Ok I did some benches with the ubisoft timedemos and got the following.
All tests were run at Resolution: 1280×1024
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Antialising: None
Anisotrophic filtering: 1×
no sound
Using only 61.77 drivers

Regulator
SM2.0b Score = 49.83 FPS
SM3.0 Score = 50.93 FPS

Research
SM2.0b Score = 74.62 FPS
SM3.0 Score = 83.30 FPS

Training
SM2.0b Score = 53.97 FPS
SM3.0 Score = 53.77 FPS

Volcano
SM2.0b Score = 76.67 FPS
SM3.0 Score = 83.46 FPS

Uhh since when is 2.0b enabled? So much happend while I was gone today.

Dot50Cal 07-27-04 08:13 PM

Re: Far Cry 61.76 Vs 61.77
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by anzak
Uhh since when is 2.0b enabled? So much happend while I was gone today.

I beleive the command is \r_sm20bpath 1. I dont know if it runs correctly on the 6800's though.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40 AM.

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