Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA Legacy Graphics Cards

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-12-04, 03:40 AM   #157
Viral
Registered User of Women
 
Viral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,523
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by quik_2_win
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?
800MHz Rambus isn't 800MB/s, it's 1.6GB/s with a single stick and 3.2GB/s with two (saturating the FSB of his 2.4A completely).

Anyway, as others have said.. the main reason you are getting bad performance is because you are expecting too much from your hardware. Drop back to 1024x768. It may look quite a bit lower in detail, but unless you get better hardware thats the reality you have to face.
__________________
Q9550 w/ Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme | 4GB Team Xtreme Dark 800MHz CL4 | Gigabyte X48-DS5
ASUS Radeon 5870 | 240GB OCZ Vertex 2 | 1TB WD Green Power | BenQ V2400W 24" LCD
Corsair HX-1000w | LG GGW-H20L 6x DL Blu-Ray Burner/HD-DVD Reader | Coolermaster Cosmos S

Acer TravelMate 4002WNLCi: Pentium M 725 @ 1.6GHz | Mobility Radeon 9700/64MB | 2GB DDR400 | 15.4" WXGA
Viral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-04, 07:06 AM   #158
XanderF
Registered User
 
XanderF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Buried 40ft below the Lunar surface, near the crater Tycho
Posts: 256
Send a message via Yahoo to XanderF
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Nosing in....

Linky for the demo download? Torrent, preferably? I wanna see how it runs on my 5900XT overclocked to...well, silly levels.
__________________
Real Games.....Are Paper!
XanderF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-04, 09:07 AM   #159
kev13dd
Registered User
 
kev13dd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,431
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

I have to agree with the very first post in this section. I go out and buy a FX5900, 2600+ Barton, PC3200 ram, and slam it all into a nice mobo, and expect a pretty nice gaming PC. Instead I get a PC that can't handle Far Cry (demo at least) without lagging (which I consider below 30FPS) it lags with certain UT2004 maps when I have settings at default, and the max I am getting in 3DMARK03 is 4900!!! Oh and did I mention all of that is at 800x600 resolution? Pfft. The weak point? I believe its the fact I got a Nvidia card. I wish oh I wish I had just bought an ATI 9800 Pro instead of buying a Nvidia card to have bragging rights with my friends. I don't know about the new gen cards comming out, I still have hopes that Nvidia will dominate with them, and I'll support Nvidia in that so far. But currently- ATI is handling new gen games better than Nvidia. It disapoints me to know I have a PC that will lag on Doom or Half life 2, even when I have settings on the lowest =(

K
kev13dd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-04, 09:10 AM   #160
saturnotaku
Apple user. Deal with it.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The 'burbs, IL USA
Posts: 12,502
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

The 9800 is no prize pig in Far Cry either. Performance is generally good at 1024, but there are some situations (esp in areas where shaders are used + the flashlight) where performance drops to abysmal levels. We're talking as low as 20 fps here with no FSAA or AF. The 9800 is still the better card for this game, but the performance difference isn't totally like night and day.
saturnotaku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-04, 09:41 AM   #161
zoomy942
 
zoomy942's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bellevue, ID
Posts: 5,338
Send a message via AIM to zoomy942 Send a message via MSN to zoomy942
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by kev13dd
I have to agree with the very first post in this section. I go out and buy a FX5900, 2600+ Barton, PC3200 ram, and slam it all into a nice mobo, and expect a pretty nice gaming PC. Instead I get a PC that can't handle Far Cry (demo at least) without lagging (which I consider below 30FPS) it lags with certain UT2004 maps when I have settings at default, and the max I am getting in 3DMARK03 is 4900!!! Oh and did I mention all of that is at 800x600 resolution? Pfft. The weak point? I believe its the fact I got a Nvidia card. I wish oh I wish I had just bought an ATI 9800 Pro instead of buying a Nvidia card to have bragging rights with my friends. I don't know about the new gen cards comming out, I still have hopes that Nvidia will dominate with them, and I'll support Nvidia in that so far. But currently- ATI is handling new gen games better than Nvidia. It disapoints me to know I have a PC that will lag on Doom or Half life 2, even when I have settings on the lowest =(

K
thats odd. i have an athlon 2500+ at 2.3 ghz abnd a 5900 and 1 gig of rama nd all that.. and far cry runs great. i love it. it is so amazing that a game thats looks this pretty can run so well!
zoomy942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-04, 09:51 AM   #162
Dr_s99
geForce 4 Ti 4600
 
Dr_s99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 339
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

i''m oky with my Geforce 4 ti 4600....
not all graphics are on high, but still i get a good frame per sec.

my friend had a problem with his ATI radeon 9200, and that he couldn't play the game.
when he played it, it frozed... and then crashed....even if the everything was on low...
but his problem was solved when he updated his drivers... and now his playing it with no problem....
Far cry is nice.... i like the jungle and the water.... but too bad you can't do anything with the forklifter..you could only dirve...!
__________________
System info(s):
-----
Gaming/Work System :
ASUS G1
RAM: 2.0Gb
Hard drive: 160 Gb
VIDEO CARD: NVIDIA 7700Go 512Mb
OS: Windows Vista Home Pre.
----------------------------
Server/Work system:
CPU: AMD Athlon XP 2400+
RAM: 1.0Gb
Hard drive: 30 IDE,120 IDE
VIDEO CARD: Nvidia Geforce 4 Ti 4600
OS: OpenSuse 10.2, Windows 2003
Dr_s99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-04, 10:19 AM   #163
zoomy942
 
zoomy942's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Bellevue, ID
Posts: 5,338
Send a message via AIM to zoomy942 Send a message via MSN to zoomy942
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

yeah. thats no good, but i like using the vehickles as protection! and when i see a patrol boat.. no matter the mission objectives.. i take it and use it!
zoomy942 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-04, 12:00 PM   #164
XanderF
Registered User
 
XanderF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Buried 40ft below the Lunar surface, near the crater Tycho
Posts: 256
Send a message via Yahoo to XanderF
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by kev13dd
I go out and buy a FX5900, 2600+ Barton, PC3200 ram, and slam it all into a nice mobo, and expect a pretty nice gaming PC. Instead I get a PC that can't handle Far Cry (demo at least) without lagging (which I consider below 30FPS) it lags with certain UT2004 maps when I have settings at default, and the max I am getting in 3DMARK03 is 4900!!!
Well, 4900 is a very low score for that system. At least, a low *overclocked* score.

If you aren't overclocking a 5900, you are missing out on one of its key advantages over the 9800. The 5900 is a .13u process core, the 9800 is still the older .15u. Generally, that means the 5900s can clock higher - sometimes MUCH higher - than 9800s. IE., if there is a 25% performance difference in favor of the 9800, but the 9800 can only overclock by 10% and the 5900 can by 30%.....it narrows the gap, see?

In any case, check out my sig. That's a max-overclock, aircooled, vModded 5900XT, there (nVidia 'XT' = budget card). In the same system a max-overclock, watercooled, 9800XT (ATI's best and brightest) only scored 7100. My 9800 non-pro scores were around 6400.

Seriously, the GeForceFX is NOT a bad card. It isn't the knockout it could have been.....but it's not bad, either. You just have to play to its strengths more than is necessary with ATI and their 'brute force' method to solve the problem.

Quote:
It disapoints me to know I have a PC that will lag on Doom or Half life 2, even when I have settings on the lowest =(
I wouldn't go that far. HL2, maybe. *Maybe*. Remember, Far Cry is developed by a small team (?European?). They just don't have a fraction of the budget the HL2 or Doom3 team have had to create their engine. It's amazing it performs as well as it does for a 'no name third party' effort.

For example, we already know that Carmack is coding a path specifically to take advantages of the nv30 features (partial precision where possible, etc) to make the game perform great on these cards. Further, ATI has always been stronger in DirectX (Far Cry) than OpenGL (Doom3), whereas nVidia has always been the reverse - OpenGL (Doom3) over DirectX (Far Cry).

I say HL2 *maybe* just because it's....well, two things that make me question it. One, it's a "get in the game" (ATI partner) game. Second, it's DX rather than OpenGL. OTOH, nVidia STILL holds the major market share for add-on video cards. Valve would be discouraging the largest segment of their potential market if the game performed extremely poorly on GeForceFX cards. Expect to see SOME kind of optimizations for nVidia cards in HL2, even if it doesn't amount to an entire code path solely for them.
__________________
Real Games.....Are Paper!
XanderF is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 04-12-04, 12:59 PM   #165
fingermouth
The Geforce FX Guy
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 175
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

IM using the 5950 from a 5900 and i get good results know with this game, hell i beat the damn thing. Oh and Saturn, your avitar says your from some weird place. We know you from Naperville. Whats up with that.
__________________
fingermouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-04, 03:01 PM   #166
dan2097
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 205
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Expect to see SOME kind of optimizations for nVidia cards in HL2, even if it doesn't amount to an entire code path solely for them.
There were optimizations for the gffx series in the september HL2 benchmarks i.e. partial precision. They didnt help the fx 5200, 5600 significantly but did help the fx 5900 ultra quite a bit. The fx 5900 ultra still got beaten by the 9600 pro even with them at that time, it would have been annihilation without the gffx code path.

Nv3x scores with drivers later than the 52.16s are not comparable to ATI scores on 3d mark 03 due to 3d mark 03 specific optimizations.
dan2097 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-04, 06:09 PM   #167
quik_2_win
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 205
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viral
800MHz Rambus isn't 800MB/s, it's 1.6GB/s with a single stick and 3.2GB/s with two (saturating the FSB of his 2.4A completely).

... the main reason you are getting bad performance is because you are expecting too much from your hardware [insert] AGREE [/insert]. Drop back to 1024x768. It may look quite a bit lower in detail, but unless you get better hardware thats the reality you have to face.
Thank you for clarifying the "RAMBUST" theoretical bandwidth mystery! As you must have overlooked- I was already corrected several weeks ago (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...&postcount=107 ), but thanks again for your insight!
quik_2_win is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-04, 06:58 PM   #168
kev13dd
Registered User
 
kev13dd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,431
Default Re: Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

Ok time to clear up a few details

My Barton 2600+ (meaning 333 FSB with a 11.5 multiplyer locked) is running at stock, so is my video. I also forgot to mention its a 5900SE at stock speeds, so its got slower ram than a regular 5900. Everything is air cooled, I'm getting about 41C with max load (anywhere from 35-38 idle) on my processor. My ram is 512MB PC3200 DDR400 running asycronus from the CPU (meaning they can run at different speeds) so the ram isn't bringing me down at all. All this is plugged into a DFI KT400A (kinda weak mobo, but it shouldn't be lowering any scores too much). AGP 8x is on, and my OS is Windows XP Pro

So at stock speeds, 4900 might not be that bad for my system. I was still hoping for better, and definatly better than 30FPS on Far Cry Demo with only medium settings, and 800x600 running. That 30FPS is just looking straight ahead, in battle it can get lower and screw me up

Any ideas how to get my system running better, without putting it in danger? (when I bought it I didn't plan on any overclocking, was hoping the specs would handle what I needed them to at stock speeds) I am a bit paranoid about killing a system that is still not paid off. But if I can get it into higher speeds, and not put any of the parts in danger of dying within the next year, I'd be pleased. I know each video card and processor even of the same brand overclock different, but any ideas would be appreciated

K

P.s. Zoomy has the same vid card as me, so his experiences might be helpful in that area!
kev13dd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Far Cry 3 preview and E3 presentation footage News Archived News Items 0 06-06-12 10:30 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:10 PM.


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