I'm getting the same stuttering on my GTX 260 as well. I am still running the 178 series drivers so I hope th 180.42 sort this out, but with my FPS being 40+ it still stutters every few seconds or so at random.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Printable View
I'm getting the same stuttering on my GTX 260 as well. I am still running the 178 series drivers so I hope th 180.42 sort this out, but with my FPS being 40+ it still stutters every few seconds or so at random.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Terrible performance with HD4870 CrossFire with the hotfix. Ultra high at 1920x1200, 4xAA 16xAF and I get about 20fps. :(
Update: Disable AI Catalyst, Adaptive AA and I have 35 fps in game average. Look like CrossFire doesn't scale that well though since eventhough I disable CrossFire I still get similar result.
I'm really disliking this game so far. I enjoy the physics and gameplay a bit, but the graphics really blow.
Running all settings at MAX (Ultra High and the last few at Very High (The ones that cant go higher)) with Bloom and HDR at 1680x1050 2xAA, and it runs great twice at sgood at crysis at mid settings in 1200x1000. All smooth!
Old 175.19 driver 8800GT 835/1970/1905
You used the graph with the graphically bound settings :rolleyes: The 4870 does not scale well in this game, so you have to look at a lower resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Look at this one:
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/scree...hmark_test.png
In the above, the Q6600 gives the same performance as a processor clocked 600mhz higher.
I'll be giving it a go in the next few days, when I finally get home. Gaming Rig in Sig, 1920x1200.
My question is, why did they only test GTX260 SLI? Because of the price point? (~$500 vs $500 for 4870 x2)
Just odd, if they were testing SLI, why didn't they test GTX280 SLI and 4870 x2 CrossfireX?
And the rest of your rig specs?? video card is not all that you need to plat well...Quote:
Originally Posted by nullface
Oh sry, forgot i removed my sig.
3.6GHz E3110 and 2GB Dominator 6400C4D 800MHz 4-4-4-12 on a Commando, nothing special.
I just cancelled my order because of the dodgy widescreen support.
If someone wanted to make nVidia look better, they might run without AA. Nobody with high end gear is going to want to run with 0xAA, and ATI's 4k series pretty much gets AA for free. At 1600x1200, anything up to 8xAA doesn't chop off much framerate.
Running pretty well on G80 so far. Not any better than Crysis for the visual quality you get IMO, but the game with 180.42 certainly runs pretty well.
Currently doing 1680/1050, Very High graphics, DX9, no AA. That's with the 8800 GTS 640mb in my sig of course.
This is all of course with none of the jittering/stuttering that you get with lack of VRAM.
Gotta love that extra RAM on old G80, I'm raping my friend's 8800 GT. Hah, G92 is trash :D
As for FPS, if you're curious, 31 FPS minimum, 67 FPS maximum, 38 FPS average. This is from playing with Fraps on last night and just running all over
the place.
http://img.techpowerup.org/081023/Untitled148.jpg
Run 1 is dx9 and Run 2 is dx10. Exact same settings (1680*1050 and ultra high preset) and using hotfix drivers. What's going on? Does dx10 perform better or did I make a mistake?
Here are the original result files:
http://dl-client.getdropbox.com/u/20...2021.18.43.rar
System in sig.
No.with the hotfix DX10 performs better but the game it's buggy with the hotfix drivers on Vista :(
Yes DX10 performs better, but the HDR option in the menu is greyed out. That does not happen with DX9. But the game looks like if it had HDR with DX10 too. And of course you have those annoying lags everywhere.
Yep, it stutters a bit as visible from the green graph line. But surely if thats fixed it will perform better?Quote:
Originally Posted by XS2K
I thinks its forced on in dx10. The files I posted above show hdr being on dx10 even though it was greyed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I let these results speak for themselves
Test Setup:
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 4.0 GHz (500x8)
Cellshock 2x1GB @ DDR2-1000 4-4-4-8
NVIDIA 8800GT 512 MB @ 705/1750/1015 MHz
NVIDIA ForceWare 180.42
Windows XP SP3 32bit & Windows Vista SP1 32bit
Config:
1280x960, AA2x and settings in pic. From "Ultra High" config I've set Shading, Geometry and Shadows to "Very High" as I find this optimal for my comp and I've compared the IQ and there's no noticable difference for me by lowering these settings (in fact it almost looks like it looks better with Shading on Very high on my 8800GT) and I gain a couple of FPS by it. I tested both DX9 and DX10 mode in Vista vs XP and the performance results are very interesting.
3 Loops of "Small Ranch" were used and the graph using the average result between the 3 runs were used.
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/4...board04jo7.jpg
Results:
(Windows XP, Windows Vista DX9 and Windows Vista DX10, in that order)
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7251/fc2xpez1.th.jpg http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/5...istaxv0.th.jpg http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/4...istaoo9.th.jpg
http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/4802/fc2graphpl2.jpg
This table shows the %-advantage for Vista DX9 and DX10 mode compared to Windows XP FPS rate.
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/3...centagedy9.jpg
This is the first game that I've benchmarked where Vista has even offered an advantage over Windows XP and the advantage by using DX10 mode is huge! I guess this advantage is mostly when using Antialaising, as the game is supposed to support DX10.1. I could perhaps test 1600x1200 and AA4x for example later if I'm not too lazy as I'm willing to bet the difference might be even slightly greater then. Finally I get a good reason to dualboot with Vista. :up:
Thumbs up for the devs for this game finally being able to properly use DX10.
EDIT: Ooops, updated the %-table to show correct FPS values for Vista DX10 mode. xD
No nvidia card currently supports dx 10.1. So thats not the reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
I was referring to this thread by that statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost101
"NVIDIA can use the DX10.1 effects in Far Cry 2"
Nice OS results, RPGwizard. This is giving me some reasons to upgrade to VISTA DX10 now :)
I think the point is when you benchmark DX9 vs 10 is the changed API execution. And the 20% increase could account for the 20-40% smaller execution overhead on the API vs DX9. In short, devs are finally on an optimized DX10 state.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD
XP vs Vista could be small better run things. Disk etc.
Yea that's what I meant, only a performance advantage, of course the image quality is the same and that goes for XP too what I've seen but performance is significantly worse though. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I'm pretty sure the advantage may even rise slightly if changing to higher res and higher AA mode. I'd also need to check how it compares like with AA disabled though but I'll do it sometimes this weekend when I'm not too busy (wanna play this awesome game but also gotta study for physics test next week and I got maths test tomorrow xD)
here is an OC'd core i7 965 EE running FARCRY2:
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/x58-...ry-2/6149.html
"Next, we checked out the performance of GeForce GTX 280 SLI on the Core i7 965XE/ ASUS P6T Deluxe X58 board setup. We can observe that at "Enthusiast Mode", Crysis Warhead is mostly GPU limited and is almost unplayable at 2560x1600 resolution. For Far Cry 2 with settings at "Ultra High", 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 resolutions are becoming CPU limited while at 2560x1600 resolution, it is balanced between the CPU and GPU. Let us know what benchmarks you would like to see.
Avg. FPS
1600x1200 1920x1200 2560x1600
Far Cry 2
98.71 91.27 69.33
Crysis Warhead
46.01 40.12 16.15"
If they coded for it nVidia will be able to use multisample readback in FC2.
"It's useful to point out that, in spite of the fact that NVIDIA doesn't support DX10.1 and DX10 offers no caps bits, NVIDIA does enable developers to query their driver on support for a feature. This is how they can support multisample readback and any other DX10.1 feature that they chose to expose in this manner."
Source:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3334&p=7
still trying to firgure out why it runs so poorly in dx10. Even crysis ran better in dx10 on vista 64.
ohwell on very high @1680 2xAA the game runs at around 50FPS in dx9 and looks great..will wait for patches.
whats up with that sniper in airfield though:rofl:
hits you from across the map, no matter what.
I made it home about 2hrs ago. Played the game for an hour or so, then ran the benchmark. Lots of stuff going on in the background, so the numbers might not be accurate.
Gaming Rig in sig.
http://www.needmoreboost.com/wes/fc2-settings.jpg
http://www.needmoreboost.com/wes/farcry2-results.jpg
I'll try re-running it tomorrow with noting going on in the background, also might knock it down to 4xAA.
BTW, Running Vista Business x64, with hotfix drivers.
EDIT: Decided to run it quick with everything maxxed out. Also, the FOV thing is annoying in 16:10.
http://www.needmoreboost.com/wes/fc2-settingsUH.jpg
http://www.needmoreboost.com/wes/fc2-resultsUH.jpg
Ranch Small BTW.