8800gts 320 mb and Stalker, werid performance

J

jkmetal

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
290
This game is strange. I have max settings and dynamic lighting on and get an average of maybe 25 fps in the outdoors part right at the begining. I change the res from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 to 1600x1200 and besides a few fps more or less nothing changes. Even down to 800x600. AA and AF do result in a slight performance hit, but still, only a few fps on 1280x1024. Does this have something to do with the game and drivers? I have the lastest drivers for my 8800, have an amd x2 4600 and 2 gigs of ddr2 ram.
 
whcih 8800GTS 320 do you have

i have a Evga 8800GTS320mb i play stalker on a 1920x1200 24in monitor
and its 30fps with dynamic lightinng

maybe you have a heat issue ? or your card needs to be rma'ed
 
I've experienced similar with the 320 MB version. Cut down the AF level to 4X, and cut down the grass density to 50%.
 
Even if I turn the AA off it still has the same issues.
My card has never gone above 62c and usually idles at around 52c, so I hope its not heat.
 
hmm maybe you got a bad card i know they have good tech support
maybe you should call em
 
Well, what is everyone else getting at 1280x1024 full settings no aa no af?

Sometimes its upt to 40, then sometimes outside it drops down to 21. On every resolution except the lowest one which bottoms out 31.
 
dude i have the same card and i can run everything maxed out in almost all my games

at 1920x1200 with 20-30fps 1600x1200 is more playable and smoother

thats why iam getting a 640mb verison but the card is really fast
what kinda cpu you have how much ram do you have etc ?
 
I have an amd x2 4600
2 gigs of DDR2 667 Ram

I was just playing at 1680 1050 and at some places it would drop below 15 fps. Other times it would be at like 40 for a second then drop to low 30s. No aa no af.

I have the lastest drivers, all the patches, and I run windows xp pro.
 
What drivers are you running? Is the game patched? Try getting the Float32 mod -- it improves both visuals and FPS on G80 hardware.
 
Your problem is likely to be your CPU. Stalker is hard on your CPU and very finnicky if you use dynamic lights. I have the same performance problems as you only not as bad problably because my CPU is clocked @ 2.7ghz. I can drop resolution down and up and play with settings but it does not make a difference (I frequently dip in the 20s FPS range but it is not too bad to where I cant live with it).

Check out the bottom of this article - might explain a bit better.

http://www.digital-daily.com/video/stalker_test/
 
320mb is no where near enough for dynamic lighting. It uses ~400mb of memory even at very low resolutions. And ~700 at 2560x1600.
 
jkmetal said:
I have an amd x2 4600
2 gigs of DDR2 667 Ram

I was just playing at 1680 1050 and at some places it would drop below 15 fps. Other times it would be at like 40 for a second then drop to low 30s. No aa no af.

I have the lastest drivers, all the patches, and I run windows xp pro.
Click to expand...
ok since this is like the 3rd time you have mentioned AA I will chime in. You CANT use AA with anything but static lighting. If you force it in the Nvidia control panel you could end up screwing up the graphics. Also like SuperKeijo said dont try running full dynamic lighting.
 
apcor said:
Your problem is likely to be your CPU. Stalker is hard on your CPU and very finnicky if you use dynamic lights. I have the same performance problems as you only not as bad problably because my CPU is clocked @ 2.7ghz. I can drop resolution down and up and play with settings but it does not make a difference (I frequently dip in the 20s FPS range but it is not too bad to where I cant live with it).

Check out the bottom of this article - might explain a bit better.

http://www.digital-daily.com/video/stalker_test/
Click to expand...
Funny how Firingsquad came to the opposite conclusion. According to them the CPU doesnt mean crap when using dynamic lighting.http://firingsquad.com/hardware/stalker_cpu_performance/page4.asp
 
Yeah, FS article would have would have been what I would have thought at first glance, but, my personal experience tends to disagree. I am not making any claims on anything, but my experince is the same as the OP, resolution and settings have little impact on my frame rates when dynamic lights are enabled. I have tried 1280x800 and 2560x1600 and FPS does not flux more than 4-5 FPS. If not the CPU then I have no idea what else it could be. Also stalker is the only game where I have had to back off my CPU OC to keep my system from hard locking (play FEAR and Oblivion for hours no problems).

trek554 said:
Funny how Firingsquad came to the opposite conclusion. According to them the CPU doesnt mean crap when using dynamic lighting.http://firingsquad.com/hardware/stalker_cpu_performance/page4.asp
Click to expand...
 
I got the mod (float32), fooled around with some distance settings, and I have arrive at a playable 35 fps average. This game should be optimized better considering I can play oblivion with like 50fps avg on max with 2AA and 8AF.
 
I'll chime in. Like apcor said, I think STALKER is the game that showed me my overclock wasn't 100% stable. It rebooted in the tutorial! Actually it might not have been that... oh well. But I think SuperKeijo is on to something, if you've gone through all the resolutions and changed all the AF settings, then it's either the CPU or the graphics vram, and I'm willing to bet it's the vram. Changing resolutions doesn't hugely impact how much vram is being used, and if dynamic lighting is really that stressful on the video card, then that's probably it.

I play it with the exact same video card, CPU was overclocked to 2.7, now it's 2.5Ghz. I had AF all the way or at least half way up, full dynamic lighting, grass half distance and no grass shadows on (those two were personal preference, I liked being able to see what ws on the ground and I hated that the grass shadows only went like 2 feet in front of you, ugly as crap). Also I think Shadow quality may have been down a notch or two. I think I averaged around 30 FPS, but dipped low, probably quite low in some areas, and I play at 1280x960. It's not unplayable, but not where anyone obviously would like it to be. I find this game a little like Oblivion though, you can have a bit lower FPS and not be punished too much for it.

On a side note, I first fully noticed and appreciated the dynamic lighting when I went into a warehouse to help out some fellow stalkers against some bandits at night.... Started shooting, and the lights were flying off around me, then the lightning, ohhh the lightning. I didn't realize it at first but when I saw all the shadows from the roof in front of me, and realized how realistic and awesome it looked, and stopped shooting for a second and waited for the next lightning strike to appreciate it. It looks amazing, and is a good foreshadowing of things to come for video games.

For those types of graphics, I'll play that game with 20-30 FPS. No way I'll turn off full dynamic lighting to get better FPS anytime soon :D
 
hmm, odd stuff

i just installed stalker and worked my way through the first bit, you know, the raid on the autoshop, and then i went to the factory and killed a soldier or something, all ran quite smooth. but i havent really fiddled with the advanced settings yet, i just run at full dynamic lighting and high settings (no changes in the advanced panel) at 1440*900

my system:
intel e4300 @ 2.4
eVGA 8800GTS 320
2 GB ddr2

i would do some more fiddling with settings, but its way past sleepy time over here

slightly OT, but im quite impressed with stalker, but some parts do creep the fuck out of me, and having the absolute most crappiest weapon at the start doesnt exactly help, i feel like being sent into the wildernis with nothing more then a fricking catapult and some rocks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top