ATI users: RUN FEAR at 30% higher performance!!!

Printable View

11-14-2005, 02:49 PM
KoHaN69

ATI users: RUN FEAR at 30% higher performance!!!

maybe this has been posted before.
that means im spamming.
oh well, this spam might save a few ppl sum great time in FEAR

ati engineers f-ed up.

if you rename your fear.exe to anything else, (fear1.exe)
you will get 30% guranteed fps boost.

FEAR.exe

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...RMAX_orig1.jpg

FEAR1.exe

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...X_orig_ren.jpg

Tested on venice64 2.4gz, crappy 200mhz ram
x800gto@16pipes @550/550

Running an custom 1280x1024 resolution, soft shadows ON, 4xAA, 16xAS (ALL MAX 1280x1024)

Without Soft Shadows:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...0x1024noSS.jpg
11-14-2005, 04:22 PM
Turok

My simple specs:

- A64 FX-57
- Sapphire x850xt (Dual-DVI) at stock
- Catalyst 5.11
- AA and AF is in "Application Settings" for better FEAR perforamnce with AA and AF
- Win XP pro SP2 (tweaked)

My FEAR settings are:

- FEAR is patched with version 1.02
- 1152x864
- Everything on PC perforamnce is at Maximum
- Everything on Video Card perforamnce is at Maximum (except Light and Shadow Details, which are at Medium because dont offer any noticable difference in image quality)
- Soft Shadow off, because it's a huge performance hogger, and it looks better without it, IMO
- 4xAA and 16xAF

This is what I get:

Beforethe tweak

http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/8982/fear14eu.gif

Afther the tweak

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/3...akedbat1vg.gif

KoHaN69, why is my x850xt (stock), which is close to your x800gto@16pipes @550/550, has a lower score (by comapreing the one without soft shadowing) even at a lower resolution?
11-14-2005, 07:06 PM
KoHaN69

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turok

My simple specs:

KoHaN69, why is my x850xt (stock), which is close to your x800gto@16pipes @550/550, has a lower score (by comapreing the one without soft shadowing) even at a lower resolution?

Cuz im sexier

http://howcanyousaynotome.tripod.com...tures/sexy.jpg
11-14-2005, 07:18 PM
Damien

Hahaha, that's really funny. I don't have fear so I can't test this out
11-14-2005, 07:35 PM
Aphex_Tom_9

so....WHY???
11-14-2005, 08:54 PM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by KoHaN69

Cuz im sexier

http://howcanyousaynotome.tripod.com...tures/sexy.jpg

For real, what makes your x800gto so special? We are running basically the same vid card speeds, Im running with a FX-57, and my benchmarks were on a lower resolution. I should be getting higher FPS, but Im getting lower even at a lower resolution.

It could be a driver issue where ATi's drivers favor more the newer GTOs over the x850xt. To check if this it strue, lets compare 3DMark05 scores

This is what I get:

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/549...k0563230yw.gif

depending on your score, we could assume if it's eather a problem with my system, or a problem with the ATi drivers.
11-14-2005, 08:58 PM
dnottis

Driver bug. Actually its a way for ATI to increase performance even more LOL jk.. it is a bug that decreases performance, ATI will update and correct in an upcoming driver they said.
11-14-2005, 09:25 PM
Damien

you score 6300 with an FX-57 and x850xt? Yeah something's definitely wrong, I scored higher then that with a winchester @ 2.6 and my x800gto..
11-14-2005, 10:33 PM
Heretic

What a strange driver bug...it just sees fear.exe and the performance runs away?
11-15-2005, 12:29 AM
KoHaN69

for that, i set all to MAX, even lights and all

i use omega 5.10a
and
im on win2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aphex_Tom_9

so....WHY???

Quote:

Originally Posted by KoHaN69

ati engineers f-ed up.
11-15-2005, 12:45 PM
-NOISE-

I'm not have FEAR yet, but when it will be, i'll try to look at this bug! :) Nice thing!
11-15-2005, 01:20 PM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turok

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/549...k0563230yw.gif

Those who dont have FEAR, but have a x800 or x850 series that's NOT a x800gto or gto2, could you run a 3DMark05 test?

I want to know if this is ATi making better drivers for the GTOs, or if it's a problem with my PC
11-15-2005, 02:32 PM
drcrawn

Turok:

6615 with x850xpe @ stock
200x13= 2.6ghz

Cats 5.10
11-15-2005, 03:15 PM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by drcrawn

Turok:

6615 with x850xpe @ stock
200x13= 2.6ghz

Cats 5.10

hmmm...
The extra 300 Marks is probably because of your -PE clocks, so I guess ATi drivers benefit GTOs more than the older x800's and x850's.

Or it could also be that Omega drivers run a lot better than Catalyst right now.
KoHaN69 said he's using the Omega 5.10a driver, so I guess Ill try a Omega driver and see how my performance changes.
11-15-2005, 04:13 PM
Turok

ok, this is what happened afther updateing to the Omega 5.10a

3DMark05 got lower:

Catalyst 5.11:

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/549...k0563230yw.gif

Omega (Cat 5.10a):

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/7...k0562507te.gif

FEAR benchmark:
Not too much of a improvement in FEAR. FEAR isnt really acurate all the time, so the extra FPS on Omega could of been luck or something.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/9...kedbat20wg.gif

Now, what's so special about the GTOs?
Do they make them with better memory? because the core is the same
Are the drivers better optimized for GTOs?
KoHaN69, could you test your GTO with 3DMark05 to compare?

BTW KoHaN69, Cat 5.11 seems to give me better scores than the Omega 5.10a drivers. The same could probably be true with your GTO. Try updating to Catalyst 5.11 for better performance
11-15-2005, 07:04 PM
KoHaN69

Turok - I'll try 5.11, its annoying to install new drivers every 2 weeks.

I only install the Omega's equilevant

i have results:

Omega5.10a Connect3d x800gto vivo @ 16 pipelines OCed to 579/579 67263dmarks

System:

Amd64 3000+ Venice 2.2ghz
htt 245 mhz
1.5gb ram (2x512 + 2x256) 333mhz
dfi lanparty ultraD nf4
Windows 2000 sp4
Psu: Ultraconnect 500w xconnect
Hd: Seagate 7200
11-15-2005, 07:17 PM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by KoHaN69

Turok - I'll try 5.11, its annoying to install new drivers every 2 weeks.

I only install the Omega's equilevant

i have results:

Omega5.10a Connect3d x800gto vivo @ 16 pipelines OCed to 579/579 67263dmarks

System:

Amd64 3000+ Venice 2.2ghz
htt 245 mhz
1.5gb ram (2x512 + 2x256) 333mhz
dfi lanparty ultraD nf4
Windows 2000 sp4
Psu: Ultraconnect 500w xconnect
Hd: Seagate 7200

Hmmm... It could probably be your 1.5 Gb of ram
FEAR lags on me a bit as it loads new enviroments and it does it when benchmarking too when entering the room that blows up, or rapidly accessing the room with water. Probably if I clock my x850xt to those clocks, I could get above 6726 marks. GPU doesnt give a huce difference in marks, so mine could probably be a bit faster with my FX-57
11-16-2005, 12:42 AM
OCmyself

hmmm just wondering does is work for my stone age 9800pro 128 ? :stick:
11-16-2005, 01:53 AM
Heretic

Try it and let us know...I think it should, unless this bug is specific to the x800 series and up, which I sincerely doubt.
11-17-2005, 06:16 AM
pancake

thats got to be the weirdest bug ever

before

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/6462/before4ob.jpg

after

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9707/after2uj.jpg

Turok: your scores seem stupidly low especially with a fx57 , i get around 7k with a 2.7 winnie
11-17-2005, 06:29 AM
Martinx

damn, you got as good as my score and i have a 6800GT. Nice.

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/3338/asdasda9fq.jpg
11-17-2005, 02:19 PM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by pancake

thats got to be the weirdest bug ever
Turok: your scores seem stupidly low especially with a fx57 , i get around 7k with a 2.7 winnie

note that my x850xt is @ stock (520/540) while your x800gto is @ 615/630. That's why you get easily over 7K
My FX-57 is also in stock, so Im at 2.8 Ghz
My FX-57 does 29s in 1M in S_PI @ stock, so I dont think my CPU is the problem
I think my main problem with FEAR is my memory. 3D Mark looks normal to me.
11-17-2005, 02:31 PM
g-a-m-e

Is this a joke? How can changing the name add 30% of performance ?

Well i tried it but it didnt do squad really ...

changed the FEAR thingy under program files/sierra and so on to FEAR1, scores are still the same even a bit lower ...

X800XT PE , sow, how can changing the name ad 30%, it looks like a bunch of bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: to be honest
11-17-2005, 03:45 PM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by g-a-m-e

Is this a joke? How can changing the name add 30% of performance ?

Well i tried it but it didnt do squad really ...

changed the FEAR thingy under program files/sierra and so on to FEAR1, scores are still the same even a bit lower ...

X800XT PE , sow, how can changing the name ad 30%, it looks like a bunch of bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: to be honest

hmmm...
What version is your Catalyst?
11-17-2005, 04:15 PM
g-a-m-e

latest .. 5.11 , ...you think the "bug" is fixed in the latest Catalyst ?
11-17-2005, 04:19 PM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by g-a-m-e

latest .. 5.11 , ...you think the "bug" is fixed in the latest Catalyst ?

No, because I have Cat. 5.11 installed, and it gave me a performance boost when i renamed FEAR.
Was just checking if this bug wasnt present in earlier drivers
11-17-2005, 05:03 PM
g-a-m-e

well what it does with me is that the highest framerate becomes much higher, but the min. framerate drop to ..

Average is 6 frames higher, but i get 8% below 40 fps instead of 0 ..
11-19-2005, 04:10 AM
pancake

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turok

note that my x850xt is @ stock (520/540) while your x800gto is @ 615/630. That's why you get easily over 7K
My FX-57 is also in stock, so Im at 2.8 Ghz
My FX-57 does 29s in 1M in S_PI @ stock, so I dont think my CPU is the problem
I think my main problem with FEAR is my memory. 3D Mark looks normal to me.

the fear runs were done @ 600/600

look at the boost i get with just a opteron 146 @ 3g

http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/9956/1465ve.jpg

with winnie @ 2.7

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/9707/after2uj.jpg
11-19-2005, 05:59 AM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by pancake

the fear runs were done @ 600/600

look at the boost i get with just a opteron 146 @ 3g...

Your screenshots are at 1024x768, so I assume that's your game resolution.
I did the same test as before (everything at max w/ 4xAA and 16xAF) but this time at 1024x768 and it's close to what you have

Note the following:
Although my FX-57 is at 2.8 Ghz (stock), which was 0.1 Ghz higher than your winnie, your vid card is clocked higher, which is the reason why your score is a bit higher on the winnie pic.

So it would be like this:

FX-57 @ 2.8 Ghz (stock)
x850xt @ 520/540 (stock)
Vs.
winnie @ 2.7 Ghz (stock)
x800gto @ 600/600 (stock)

To make sure this is true, try testing your new Opti with S_PI and you should get about 2.8s in 1M if your RAM is at 400Mhz 2-2-2-5 (like mine... ...yes, I have everything in stock :rolleyes: )

Here is the pic at 1024x768:

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2...aksmall5xm.gif
11-19-2005, 08:15 AM
pancake

i ran 3d05 with the opty and got 72xx , only another 200 points over my 2.7 winnie. maybe about 1000 points dosent seem that big of a gap for a extra 90mhz on the core. how come you havent overclocked your fx or x850? your rig looks watercooled if thats it in your sig
11-19-2005, 08:47 AM
dnottis

Quote:

Originally Posted by pancake

i ran 3d05 with the opty and got 72xx , only another 200 points over my 2.7 winnie. maybe about 1000 points dosent seem that big of a gap for a extra 90mhz on the core. how come you havent overclocked your fx or x850? your rig looks watercooled if thats it in your sig

3dm 05 is almost all video card - so overclocking your CPU doesnt yield the results that say we saw in 3dm 01 se.
11-19-2005, 10:01 AM
pancake

just ran 05 with gto2 @ 520/540 and got 63xx
11-19-2005, 11:55 AM
cantankerous

very weird, works with me on my new X1800XL with CAT 5.11.
11-19-2005, 04:50 PM
Turok

Quote:

Originally Posted by pancake

just ran 05 with gto2 @ 520/540 and got 63xx

see? :D
Now it scores like my x850xt at stock. (6323 Marks)
As you can see, 3DMark05 is very GPU dependent.

I think everything in my system is ok
I only found it strange how KoHaN69 was getting higher FPS at even higher resolutions with simmilar specs.
I think the reason for KoHaN69 performance is mainly because of the extra 512mb of system RAM.
I guess 1Gb isnt enough for FEAR :rolleyes:
11-19-2005, 10:24 PM
MaxxxRacer

X800GTO 655/600 I get 7800 points in 05 :D , and 15252 in 03 with a bit lower settings.
11-19-2005, 11:06 PM
KoHaN69

Turok-
its not ur ram, i have sh:banana:tty 2x512 @180mhz 3.5-4-4-8

Its all about the clocks of the vidcard
11-20-2005, 04:18 AM
jikdoc

this tweak works because ati detects fear and runs driver tweaks based on the demo version that decrease performance with the final version. no it hasn't been fixed with 5.11. i read about this at tweaktown.
11-28-2005, 07:39 PM
AgonxOC

Quote:

Originally Posted by pancake

i ran 3d05 with the opty and got 72xx , only another 200 points over my 2.7 winnie. maybe about 1000 points dosent seem that big of a gap for a extra 90mhz on the core. how come you havent overclocked your fx or x850? your rig looks watercooled if thats it in your sig

I cannot wait to get my Zalman 700Cu for my X850XT so I can Vmod. I get about 7130 in 05.

Alex
11-30-2005, 03:12 AM
DTU_XaVier

So, it's a driver prob... But can it be used on nVidia GeForce6 vidcards as well?? :)
12-02-2005, 05:48 PM
Hicks

Hmmm, how exactly do you do this tweak?

If you rename the EXE file it searches for it, and won't open the game. I made a copy of it, and renamed it, and i got worse performance.
12-04-2005, 03:56 AM
Holst

Didnt do much for me.

I was at 41,74,150 before and 44,80,157 after.

But that small variation may just be cache related.

I dont know my ati driver version.
12-10-2005, 04:18 AM
Mehmet_Ali

Thanx, this works for me.
12-14-2005, 11:24 PM
KoHaN69

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicks

Hmmm, how exactly do you do this tweak?

If you rename the EXE file it searches for it, and won't open the game. I made a copy of it, and renamed it, and i got worse performance.

maybe its x1000 series optimized

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:12 AM.

XtremeSystems