Far Cry shows how pitiful GeForceFX is in DX9 games

[Dr_s99]

some one plz tell me the how come nvidia's graphic card are great at performance on higher resolutions?
For example in benchmarking at the highest resoulution "1600x1200" nvidia is getting a way higher frame per second...then ATI

specially 9800XT that score 20-50 frames in C&C condition zero... while nvidia 5900 and 5950 bits it....

can some one also tell me how could if find out the FPS in Far cry....
if u want to know... i have a Geforce 4 Ti 4600... but when i'm playing the graphic is amazine... but when i shoot sometimes it just get jumpy for like 2 sec.
but GOOD like like the water in this game and the jungles.....lol

[OWA]

1) The Ultra High setting enables 2.0 shaders... however on FXs ONLY, 1.1 will be used.

??? I thought that was only in the demo and that the final version enables PS 2.0 for both cards. It shows PS 2.0 being used when I launch the game. Is there some other way I need to verify that to see if it is really being used?

[saturnotaku]

Originally Posted by OWA

Is there some other way I need to verify that to see if it is really being used?

I think if you open up the console immediately after the game starts it will show what PS version is being used.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by pharma

Some interesting benchies from a review that came out yesterday comparing FX 5950 to a 9800 XT when run on an FX 64 system.

http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/sh...ml?i=2009&p=11

Too bad that review is a review of a motherboard chipset and shows no details such as what video settings were used such as aniso, AA trilinear vs brilinear filtering etc etc. Also no screenshots comparing image quality were given. Of course none should be expected in a motherboard review.

Please if you are going to link to benchmarks about video cards, use some with some relevant information to video cards.

[Deathlike2]

I'm not sure about the full version... the demo BEFORE the 1.1 patch would consider my point to be true... not sure otherwise (eventually I might see hints of it somewhere).

[ringu61]

Edited by vamp: Ringu anything you put on this board I can remove, remember that

[DarcSchnider]

I dunno what issues some of you are having with out the FryCry 1.1 patch I have all details maxed using a 5900U with bios 5950U on a AMD 64 3400+ and I get zero lag. Mind you I only play all my games at 1024x768 I also have the following settings 8xAF 2xFSAA Quality mode using the the latest driver I think its the 56.65. 1024MB DDR400mhz. I also know sonmeone in our office who plays on a mid system with a 9600 card a with everything except shadows and seems to run mostly lag free. Mind you both us have Tweaked our Rigs 90%. Sounds like there maybe more issues with other things running on your machine, or drivers or perhaps it is a CPU or Hardware lack of power... I personal love my 5900U and wouldsay that if you figure FX suck perhaps you should learn more about computers before pointing fingers

[CaiNaM]

Originally Posted by Deathlike2

The truth is... people are forgetting some details...

1) The Ultra High setting enables 2.0 shaders... however on FXs ONLY, 1.1 will be used.

not true. first, setting the "lighting" to "very high" enables PS2.0 and VS2.0. second, it applies to fx series cards as well:

Apply TRILINEAR texture filtering
Driver description: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900
Full stats: HAL (pure hw vp): NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900
Hardware acceleration: Yes
Full scene AA: Enabled (Medium quality)
Projective EMBM: enabled
Detail textures: Yes
Z Buffer Locking: Yes
Use multitexture mode: Yes (8 texture(s))
Use bumpmapping : Yes (DOT3)
Use paletted textures : No
Current Resolution: 1024x768x32 Full Screen
Maximum Resolution: 1792x1344
Maximum Texture size: 4096x4096 (Max Aspect: 4096)
Texture filtering type: TRILINEAR
Use 32 bits textures
Gamma control: Hardware
Vertex Shaders version 2.0
Pixel Shaders version 2.0
Use Hardware Shaders for NV3x GPU
Pixel shaders usage: PS.2.0 and PS.1.1
Vertex shaders usage: VS.2.0 and VS.1.1
Shadow maps type: Mixed Depth/2D maps
Stencil shadows type: Two sided
*****************************************
shots of ati and nv using ps2.0:





PS1.1:



i'm not gonna get into the whole performance thing tho; we all know ps2 shaders on fx cards are lacking compared to ati.

for ati:

Apply TRILINEAR texture filtering
Driver description: RADEON 9800 PRO
Full stats: HAL (pure hw vp): RADEON 9800 PRO
Hardware acceleration: Yes
Full scene AA: Enabled (Medium quality)
Projective EMBM: enabled
Detail textures: Yes
Z Buffer Locking: Yes
Use multitexture mode: Yes (8 texture(s))
Use bumpmapping : Yes (DOT3)
Use paletted textures : No
Current Resolution: 1024x768x32 Full Screen
Maximum Resolution: 1920x1440
Maximum Texture size: 2048x2048 (Max Aspect: 2048)
Texture filtering type: TRILINEAR
Use 32 bits textures
Gamma control: Hardware
Vertex Shaders version 2.0
Pixel Shaders version 2.0
Use Hardware Shaders for ATI R300 GPU
Pixel shaders usage: PS.2.0 and PS.1.1
Vertex shaders usage: VS.2.0 and VS.1.1
Shadow maps type: Mixed Depth/2D maps
Stencil shadows type: Two sided
*****************************************

not sure why the difference in "maximum texutre size" tho.. anyone know?

[SuLinUX]

Originally Posted by Dr_s99

some one plz tell me the how come nvidia's graphic card are great at performance on higher resolutions?
For example in benchmarking at the highest resoulution "1600x1200" nvidia is getting a way higher frame per second...then ATI

specially 9800XT that score 20-50 frames in C&C condition zero... while nvidia 5900 and 5950 bits it.

FX5900U and 5950 are higher clocked and have more memory bandwith, when you up the resolution the cards memory bandwith becomes important.

[vampireuk]

Originally Posted by ringu61

Hahaha............No thank You~

OK I'll do it for you

[vampireuk]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

Good luck all, this post is my last post. Delete this post as well if you see fit. GeforceFX pitiful DX9 performance wont change even if I am banned, I am sorry.

We're not going to give you the pleasure of going to another forum and claiming we banned you for saying ATI is better than NVIDIA. It seems you can't handle a debate and got your panties in a twist when you can't handle something that was said. Buh bye now.

[CaiNaM]

Originally Posted by Moose

Too bad that review is a review of a motherboard chipset and shows no details such as what video settings were used such as aniso, AA trilinear vs brilinear filtering etc etc. Also no screenshots comparing image quality were given. Of course none should be expected in a motherboard review.

Please if you are going to link to benchmarks about video cards, use some with some relevant information to video cards.

i'm not sure why you're getting your panties all in a bunch... there are many cases where the fx series equals or betters the radeons; just not in DX9 shaders where ati excels.

those benchmarks really show nothing we haven't seen before, they just don't include any apps which use DX9 shaders extensively, where ati's strength lies. besides, you can't rely on a single benchmark/review anyways... regardless of whose review it is, it only paints a partial picture. at any rate, gripe about the poor selection of apps in this comparison, but neither the results nor the methodology is necessarily faulty.