Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-14-05, 03:42 PM   #1
Sorrow
First Person Ownage
 
Sorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 492
Default PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

Well, I coded a chart only to remember that I don't have anywhere to upload it! Have no fear, I've made it into the picture!

Edit: I accomplished all of this by using Fraps and RivaTuner

Anyways, the point of this test was to test Pixel-Shader 3.0 and 2.0, and to test Vertex-Shader 3.0 and 2.0. I did a combination of each, results weren't that different. Though comparing PS3.0_VS3.0 to PS2.0_VS2.0 you can see anywhere from 5-12fps difference. Before every test (i.e. after testing ps3.0_vs3.0 two times) I restarted my comp so it would be "fresh" and no mem leaks were abound.

Here's the system:
AMD 64 3000+ @ stock speed for test
Giga-byte GeForce 6800GT @ stock speeds for test, 71.20 Drivers
1gb (512x2) GB Corsair Memory
80gb WD SATA HD

Tested Zone: StoneStair Byway. Approximate length of each test: 1 minute.

Set options in game: Balanced, Water reflections turned to Fastest(One time), Water was set on Cube Map (Good Quality), Animate Procedural Texture was left checked. Everything else stayed the same.

And here's the results:


If you want the source for chart if maybe for some odd reason you wanna put it on a site somewhere
Code:
<HTML>
<BODY>

<TABLE BORDER>
<TR>
<TH>Shader Settings</TH><TH>No Shadows</TH><TH>Character Shadows</TH><TH>Character and Environment Shadows</TH></TR>
<TR>
</TR>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS3.0_MinFPS_01</TD><TD>14</TD><TD>8</TD><TD>12</TD>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS3.0_MaxFPS_01</TD><TD>59</TD><TD>76</TD><TD>68</TD>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS3.0_AvgFPS_01</TD><TD>35.901</TD><TD>30.033</TD><TD>30.434</TD>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS3.0_MinFPS_02</TD><TD>19</TD><TD>11</TD><TD>12</TD>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS3.0_MaxFPS_02</TD><TD>85</TD><TD>66</TD><TD>77</TD>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS3.0_AvgFPS_02</TD><TD>39.652</TD><TD>29.259</TD><TD>32.716</TD>
<TR><TD><HR></TD><TD><HR></TD></TR>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS2.0_MinFPS_01</TD><TD>19</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>15</TD>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS2.0_MaxFPS_01</TD><TD>68</TD><TD>63</TD><TD>63</TD>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS2.0_AvgFPS_01</TD><TD>38.598</TD><TD>33.783</TD><TD>33.342</TD>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS2.0_MinFPS_02</TD><TD>22</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>10</TD>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS2.0_MaxFPS_02</TD><TD>78</TD><TD>62</TD><TD>82</TD>
<TR><TD>PS3.0_VS2.0_AvgFPS_02</TD><TD>40.936</TD><TD>33.825</TD><TD>34.454</TD>
<TR><TD><HR></TD><TD><HR></TD></TR>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS3.0_MinFPS_01</TD><TD>22</TD><TD>17</TD><TD>14</TD>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS3.0_MaxFPS_01</TD><TD>83</TD><TD>82</TD><TD>69</TD>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS3.0_AvgFPS_01</TD><TD>42.773</TD><TD>36.609</TD><TD>36.394</TD>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS3.0_MinFPS_02</TD><TD>21</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>14</TD>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS3.0_MaxFPS_02</TD><TD>85</TD><TD>63</TD><TD>64</TD>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS3.0_AvgFPS_02</TD><TD>42.821</TD><TD>34.007</TD><TD>34.367</TD>
<TR><TD><HR></TD><TD><HR></TD></TR>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS2.0_MinFPS_01</TD><TD>29</TD><TD>18</TD><TD>15</TD>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS2.0_MaxFPS_01</TD><TD>103</TD><TD>98</TD><TD>80</TD>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS2.0_AvgFPS_01</TD><TD>49.191</TD><TD>38.801</TD><TD>37.517</TD>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS2.0_MinFPS_02</TD><TD>21</TD><TD>16</TD><TD>18</TD>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS2.0_MaxFPS_02</TD><TD>96</TD><TD>71</TD><TD>84</TD>
<TR><TD>PS2.0_VS2.0_AvgFPS_02</TD><TD>50.187</TD><TD>39.058</TD><TD>36.836</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>

</BODY>
</HTML>
As you can see, between shadows and no shadows, PS3.0_VS3.0 has little or no difference in FPS. But the difference betwen ps3.0_vs3.0 and ps2.0_vs2.0 is quit obvious; almost a 10fps increase in the no shadows option. And almost an 8-9fps increase with Character and Environment Shadows turned on.

In the end, I believe forcing the 68xx cards to run in PS2.0_VS2.0 will have better performance overall.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed... redefine success.

AMD 64 3000+ (Newcastle) @ 2.25ghz
Gigabyte 6800GT @ 375/1085
Corsair 512x2 DDR400 RAM
Soltek nf3 150 mobo
Currently playing:
--Everquest II(Activated!), WoW (Cancelled), Counter-Strike: Source
http://miniprofile.xfire.com/s0rr0ws.png
Sorrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-05, 04:18 PM   #2
monkeydust
Registered User
 
monkeydust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 495
Default Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

Great job!
__________________
AMD X2 4800+
ASUS A8N-SLI
2 x 1GB OCZ PC3200 Platinum
eVGA 8800 GTS 620/1000
2 x 300gb Maxtor Maxline III SATA2 HD
Creative X-Fi / Logitech Z-5500
NEC 16X Double Layer DVD±RW Drive
Lian-Li v1200 w/OCZ Powerstream 600w PSU
Dell 2001FP 20.1" LCD
3DMark06 - 8553
monkeydust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-05, 07:13 PM   #3
Sorrow
First Person Ownage
 
Sorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 492
Default Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

Thnx

Note to be taken though, this is only the case with 68xx cards since they're the only ones that support PS3.0
__________________
If at first you don't succeed... redefine success.

AMD 64 3000+ (Newcastle) @ 2.25ghz
Gigabyte 6800GT @ 375/1085
Corsair 512x2 DDR400 RAM
Soltek nf3 150 mobo
Currently playing:
--Everquest II(Activated!), WoW (Cancelled), Counter-Strike: Source
http://miniprofile.xfire.com/s0rr0ws.png
Sorrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-05, 01:04 AM   #4
-=DVS=-
.:. Lafiel .:.
 
-=DVS=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Outerspace
Posts: 3,009
Question Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

Not bad FPS boost , how about quality any difference ?

Hmm can't find option to Force PS/VS 2.0 im pretty sure i saw it somewhere.
__________________
.:. Lian Li X500FX .:. i7 2600k .:. PNY GTX 680 .:. Corsair DDR3 8GB .:. Silverstone 800W PSU .:. Asus P8P67-M Pro .:. Crucial M4 SSD 512GB .:.

Last edited by -=DVS=-; 01-15-05 at 01:14 AM.
-=DVS=- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-05, 04:50 AM   #5
Subtestube
Anisymbolic
 
Subtestube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,365
Default Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

In the forceware DirectX tweaks section:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	here.png
Views:	492
Size:	17.6 KB
ID:	9695  
__________________
Dr Possible: Core 2 Duo E6400 on Gigabyte GA-965P-DS4. Galaxy GeForce 7600GT. 2GB Corsair XMS 2 DDR2-6400 RAM (CL5). ATi Theatre 550 Pro. Windows XP MCE. All stored in Piano black Antec Sonata II, with a broken door.

Mobile: ASUS M2400N, Pentium M 1.5 GHz. 512 MB DDR RAM. Intel EXTREME graphics. Windows XP SP 2 / Ubuntu 5.10.

Ridiculous DOES not have an 'e' in it. It comes from "ridicule" and has less than nothing to do with the colour red.
Subtestube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-05, 06:26 AM   #6
|MaguS|
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

Told ya that SM3.0 was broken... For all we know its Nvidia's fault since even in Farcry HDR gives a HUGE hit in performance. I honestly think that the 6x00 line does not have the power to run SM3.0 now... just a bunch of hype from nvidia on how great SM3.0 will be....

Sure, you can say SOE is to blame for coding bad but we really don't know that since all they need to code for is dx9c, they aren't specifically coding for the 6x00 line, just for dx9c features... maybe our hardware isn't really good enough to run those features that were so hyped... maybe ATI was actually right that going SM3.0 so early was stupid... hmmm

(BTW Nvidia owner Here)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-05, 06:28 AM   #7
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by egbtmagus
Told ya that SM3.0 was broken... For all we know its Nvidia's fault since even in Farcry HDR gives a HUGE hit in performance. I honestly think that the 6x00 line does not have the power to run SM3.0 now... just a bunch of hype from nvidia on how great SM3.0 will be....

Sure, you can say SOE is to blame for coding bad but we really don't know that since all they need to code for is dx9c, they aren't specifically coding for the 6x00 line, just for dx9c features... maybe our hardware isn't really good enough to run those features that were so hyped... maybe ATI was actually right that going SM3.0 so early was stupid... hmmm

(BTW Nvidia owner Here)
Nvidias HDR has nothing to do with SM 3.0 or the specification. Secondly. There is no gaurentee that "this" fix has anything to do with SM 2.0 running. All it does is force the drivers to recognise SM 2.0 as the highest possible shader number supported by the drivers.

This does not neccasarily cause the game to start forcing Sm 2.0 across the platform. I am a bit dubious of this fix because afaik EQ 2 doesnt even use SM 3.0 currently. Even if it were. There is absolutely no reason just having SM 3.0 enabled would cause performance to dip if its rendering the exact same thing.

I forced a 9800 Pro pathway and got no performance improvements on my 6800GT, Also seeing no difference in quality.
__________________
|CPU: Intel I7 Lynnfield @ 3.0 Ghz|Mobo:Asus P7P55 WS Supercomputer |Memory:8 Gigs DDR3 1333|Video:Geforce GTX 295 Quad SLI|Monitor:Samsung Syncmaster 1680x1080 3D Vision\/Olevia 27 Inch Widescreen HDTV 1920x1080

|CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.5 Ghz|Mobo:Asus M3n HT Deluxe Nforce 780A|Memory: 4 gigs DDR2 800| Video: Geforce GTX 280x2 SLI

Nzone
SLI Forum Administrator

NVIDIA User Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members
ChrisRay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-05, 06:33 AM   #8
|MaguS|
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

Actually, EQ2 is using SM3.0, It was being tested in Beta but not well. Testers were warned about going dx9c when it released. I didn't have my 6800GT during beta though so I can't say how well it ran.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-15-05, 06:36 AM   #9
ChrisRay
Registered User
 
ChrisRay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 5,101
Default Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

Sony uses DeviceID's for their rendering pathways. Anyway, I'd like some proof that it uses SM 3.0. I havent heard anything to that nature from Sony.
__________________
|CPU: Intel I7 Lynnfield @ 3.0 Ghz|Mobo:Asus P7P55 WS Supercomputer |Memory:8 Gigs DDR3 1333|Video:Geforce GTX 295 Quad SLI|Monitor:Samsung Syncmaster 1680x1080 3D Vision\/Olevia 27 Inch Widescreen HDTV 1920x1080

|CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.5 Ghz|Mobo:Asus M3n HT Deluxe Nforce 780A|Memory: 4 gigs DDR2 800| Video: Geforce GTX 280x2 SLI

Nzone
SLI Forum Administrator

NVIDIA User Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members
ChrisRay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-05, 06:47 AM   #10
Intel17
Is not an Intel fanboi
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Burlington, VT
Posts: 1,368
Default Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by egbtmagus
Told ya that SM3.0 was broken... For all we know its Nvidia's fault since even in Farcry HDR gives a HUGE hit in performance. I honestly think that the 6x00 line does not have the power to run SM3.0 now... just a bunch of hype from nvidia on how great SM3.0 will be....

Sure, you can say SOE is to blame for coding bad but we really don't know that since all they need to code for is dx9c, they aren't specifically coding for the 6x00 line, just for dx9c features... maybe our hardware isn't really good enough to run those features that were so hyped... maybe ATI was actually right that going SM3.0 so early was stupid... hmmm

(BTW Nvidia owner Here)
Someone's got to impliment SM3.0 in hardware...even if the performance is bad. Developers can add it into their projects which may not be out for a while. It's not nVidia's fault HDR in FC ran slow...it's because HDR is very resource intensive, since you're literally doubling the percision of the colors in your scene.

ATi is looking at it from a "gamers" standpoint, but from a developers point of view, you want to have as many useable (even at slow fps) features as you can for the developers to take advantage of.

This is why nVidia is the leader in graphics chips.
Intel17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-05, 10:26 AM   #11
Sorrow
First Person Ownage
 
Sorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 492
Default Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

Thing is, it would've been nice to TELL the players that they're making 68xx cards run in PS3.0, but instead just sat back and said nothing, making us think that we're still running the game in ps2.0
__________________
If at first you don't succeed... redefine success.

AMD 64 3000+ (Newcastle) @ 2.25ghz
Gigabyte 6800GT @ 375/1085
Corsair 512x2 DDR400 RAM
Soltek nf3 150 mobo
Currently playing:
--Everquest II(Activated!), WoW (Cancelled), Counter-Strike: Source
http://miniprofile.xfire.com/s0rr0ws.png
Sorrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-05, 04:27 PM   #12
Subtestube
Anisymbolic
 
Subtestube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 1,365
Default Re: PS and VS Performance in Everquest 2

SM 3.0 is fine in hardware. A project I've been working on for ages is VERY shader heavy. As soon as I compiled it under the FP40 and VP40 profiles under Cg I netted a massive 10 FPS boost (which is large when one was previously running at 25 FPS) due to the inclusion (I believe) of dynamic branching.

So, yes, nVidia have to my knowledge done nothing wrong as far as SM 3.0 goes. I'd be MUCH more willing to attribute blame to Sony here. That said, I don't have, and will not have, anything to do with the EQ series. I'd be VERY VERY dubious about claiming that nV doesn't know what they're doing with hardware implementations of SM 3.0 this time around. Sure, they screwed up 2.0 on the FX cards, but the NV40 seems much better suited to the newer tech.
__________________
Dr Possible: Core 2 Duo E6400 on Gigabyte GA-965P-DS4. Galaxy GeForce 7600GT. 2GB Corsair XMS 2 DDR2-6400 RAM (CL5). ATi Theatre 550 Pro. Windows XP MCE. All stored in Piano black Antec Sonata II, with a broken door.

Mobile: ASUS M2400N, Pentium M 1.5 GHz. 512 MB DDR RAM. Intel EXTREME graphics. Windows XP SP 2 / Ubuntu 5.10.

Ridiculous DOES not have an 'e' in it. It comes from "ridicule" and has less than nothing to do with the colour red.
Subtestube 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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 AM.


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