Farcry HDR+AA on X1800, patch preview with lots of screenies!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Apple740

Gawd
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
640
The patch ain't out yet, so remember this is a preview. :)

Performance was better than i expected. 1280x1024/4xAA/8xHQAF, HDR rendering 7 was perfectly playable. I can't remember any situation where i went below 30fps, even not in heavy firefights. Well, look at the fps numbers on the screenies, they speak for themself.
Screenies are taken with HDR rendering 7. With rendering 2, which looks almost as nice as 7, you can expect ~20% better fps.



Farcry HDR+AA beta patch, X1800XT @ 690/800, Catalyst 5.12, 1280x1024/4xAA/8xHQAF, in-game everything max., HDR rendering 7.

1.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


2.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


4.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


3.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


5.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


6.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


7.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


12.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


11.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


16.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


10.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size


14.jpg

Click here for original 1280 size​
 

SPARTAN VI

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
7,965
As expected. FarCry with HDR + AA isn't playable anyway. Looks nice, though.
 

John Reynolds

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
203
Some of those shots are just flat-out beautiful.

Edit: Spartan, what's unplayable about frame rates in the 40s and 50s? Only one shot shows a fps lower than 40, which for singleplayer action is more than enough for me.

Edit 2: Heh, I can't count. OK, two shots show a frame rate of 38.
 

Chris_B

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 29, 2001
Messages
5,113
SPARTAN VI said:
As expected. FarCry with HDR + AA isn't playable anyway. Looks nice, though.


But oddly enough when 6800's were running at those frame rates last year with just hdr it was perfectly playable, conveniently.. :rolleyes:
 

quadnad

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,656
that looks really nice.....i've always liked farcry's color scheme and the lighting just enhances it...pity i didn't really like the story or game itself :(
 

Mabrito

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
7,004
SPARTAN VI said:
As expected. FarCry with HDR + AA isn't playable anyway. Looks nice, though.

It is, you just need a Crossfire setup ;)

Those screenshots are very very nice looking. God the Far Cry engine is so nice, even for being 2 years old.

How did you get Far Cry to do AA and HDR at the same time? Are you beta testing the patch or something?
 

Netrat33

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,894
those look great.

Plus i'm sure if you really wanted to be picky (give me a break spartan) you can lower it from 4xAA to 2xAA
 

fallguy

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 8, 2001
Messages
3,961
Lazy_Moron said:
It is, you just need a Crossfire setup ;)

I hope you are right. But SLI doesnt speed up HDR at all in Farcry. Which I think is pretty ironic because they pimped both technologies, yet ommited that little fact.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
3,081
It's too bad no other big games are using this engine :( I personally enjoyed it just as much as the other big ones, if not more.
 

Netrat33

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,894
retardedchicken said:
It's too bad no other big games are using this engine :( I personally enjoyed it just as much as the other big ones, if not more.

Supposedly some company did license it to make their game (turtle something)
but never heard from them. *shrug*
 

gtx4u

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
262
SPARTAN VI said:
As expected. FarCry with HDR + AA isn't playable anyway. Looks nice, though.

wtf? how is 30fps not playable? thaz really how much the human eyes can see or maybe 35 fps high.
 

gtx4u

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
262
Apple740 said:
The patch ain't out yet, so remember this is a preview. :)

Performance was better than i expected. 1280x1024/4xAA/8xHQAF, HDR rendering 7 was perfectly playable. I can't remember any situation where i went below 30fps, even not in heavy firefights. Well, look at the fps numbers on the screenies, they speak for themself.
Screenies are taken with HDR rendering 7. With rendering 2, which looks almost as nice as 7, you can expect ~20% better fps.



Farcry HDR+AA beta patch, X1800XT @ 690/800, Catalyst 5.12, 1280x1024/4xAA/8xHQAF, in-game eveything max., HDR rendering 7.

1.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


2.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


4.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


3.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


5.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


6.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


7.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


12.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


11.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


16.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


10.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size


14.jpg

Click here voor original 1280 size​

ADSL 20Mb - Telefonie - Mobiel - Inbellen - Product overzicht - Overige producten
Mijn abonnement - Helpdesk - Webmail - Homepages - Foto - Routeplanner - Zoeken
Feestdagen - Internet - Nieuws - Games - Erotiek 18+ - Filmfocus - GSM - Muziek - Dating - Reizen
Foutmelding

Error 403
toegang geweigerd




De datalimiet van deze homepage is voor vandaag overschreden. De pagina zal na middernacht weer beschikbaar zijn.


U wordt na 5 seconden doorgestuurd naar de homepage van Wanadoo.





Ga terug naar de vorige pagina.

Ga naar home.wanadoo.nl





Zoek en vind!
Zoeken naar Wanadoo Personal Homepages? Vul in het onderstaande scherm uw zoektermen in en klik op 'zoek'.

WHere is the screenshots?... and where the hell did u get this patch?
 

gtx4u

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
262
fallguy said:
I hope you are right. But SLI doesnt speed up HDR at all in Farcry. Which I think is pretty ironic because they pimped both technologies, yet ommited that little fact.

SLI's way of rendering in DX games is not the same as Crossfire. So we'll just see. But one of anandtech.com's articles did say that Crossfire is better than SLI's performance
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
2,492
Not bad for a beta patch, seems to be in the same position as the 6800's were last year with HDR though - ok performance at lower resolutions but go any higher and it's a slideshow, hopefully crossfire or R580 will sort this out
 

Shadow27

Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
646
Thats very very nice, and looks perfectly playable at those fps. My monitor only goes up to 1280x1024. Now I want that patch and an x1800xt to go with it :cool:
 

ClearM4

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
2,320
tornadotsunamilife said:
Not bad for a beta patch, seems to be in the same position as the 6800's were last year with HDR though - ok performance at lower resolutions but go any higher and it's a slideshow, hopefully crossfire or R580 will sort this out
Wtf how are you comparing HDR + AA to ANYTHING nvidia has when it can't even be done on nvidia cards. And how is 38fps or more not playable? Just dumb comments IMO.

PS. Beautiful screenshots. Anyone with Serious Sam 2 and an x1800 want to post some screenshots of HDR + AA. New SS2 patch fixed HDR problem.
 

Netrat33

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 6, 2004
Messages
4,894
ClearM4 said:
Wtf how are you comparing HDR + AA to ANYTHING nvidia has when it can't even be done on nvidia cards. And how is 38fps or more not playable? Just dumb comments IMO.

PS. Beautiful screenshots. Anyone with Serious Sam 2 and an x1800 want to post some screenshots of HDR + AA. New SS2 patch fixed HDR problem.


yea I don't get it. it's HDR+AA at HIGHER resolutions...AND it's 4xAA which is a pretty beefy in itself.
 

gtx4u

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
262
Netrat33 said:
yea I don't get it. it's HDR+AA at HIGHER resolutions...AND it's 4xAA which is a pretty beefy in itself.

Welcome to the next-gen of graphic cards, please sell all obsolete hardware and buy new ones and stop asking why, how.
 

pigpen

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
2,408
gtx4u said:
wtf? how is 30fps not playable? thaz really how much the human eyes can see or maybe 35 fps high.

The brain blurs single frames into movement at 30 fps. The eye can see, and the brain can interpret much more though.
 

gtx4u

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
262
pigpen said:
The brain blurs single frames into movement at 30 fps. The eye can see, and the brain can interpret much more though.

interesting....still 40~50 ain't bad
 

5150Joker

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,569
Beautiful, ATi owns in the IQ department as usual. Next card I'm getting is R580 for sure.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
2,492
ClearM4 said:
Wtf how are you comparing HDR + AA to ANYTHING nvidia has when it can't even be done on nvidia cards. And how is 38fps or more not playable? Just dumb comments IMO

Look, I know this is the ATi side and yes I'm glad we finally have HDR(FP16)+AA but if you're not going to listen to my comment don't bother quoting it. What I said was: 'seems to be in the same position as the 6800's were last year with HDR', by which I meant it's a similar scenario, last year we saw 6800's running HDR on FC at similar settings (well, without AA obviously and not as significant AF) at pretty similar resolutions at ok speeds (RE: http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=Njc4LDQ=).
 

5150Joker

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
4,569
tornadotsunamilife said:
Look, I know this is the ATi side and yes I'm glad we finally have HDR(FP16)+AA but if you're not going to listen to my comment don't bother quoting it. What I said was: 'seems to be in the same position as the 6800's were last year with HDR', by which I meant it's a similar scenario, last year we saw 6800's running HDR on FC at similar settings (well, without AA obviously and not as significant AF) at pretty similar resolutions at ok speeds (RE: http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=Njc4LDQ=).

Except with the 6800s you were limited to 1024x768. Also keep in mind nVidia doesn't render shadows properly in Far Cry.
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
2,492
5150Joker said:
Except with the GT you were limited to 1024x768. Also keep in mind nVidia doesn't render shadows properly in Far Cry.

LOL this is turning a brief observation comparing similarities into a mountain, obviously the X1800 is going to be capable of 'more' in terms of resolution etc. but my point still stands.

BTW can you give me some input on this nvidia shadow thing? Wouldn't it nullify all benchmarks if nvidia (I'm guessing you mean a wide range of cards by referring to the company) isn't correctly rendering shadows in Far Cry?
 

Mister E

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
2,631
Those are awesome coming from the r520. I'm sure the r580 will make 1600x1200 and higher with 4xAA/16xAF & HDR very very playable.
 

John Reynolds

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
203
R1ckCa1n said:
SM3.0 done right? I think so

Considering Far Cry is basically a SM2.0 game and HDR has nothing to do with DX9 shader models, a strange comment to make.
 

SPARTAN VI

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
7,965
Digital Viper-X- said:
I take it spartan has never played fear?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I have (and finished) FEAR. 1680x1050 4xFSAA 16xAF all maxed out, nothing like it.

And you bet your ass it's playable. If SLI 7800GTs can't handle it, nothing can.

wtf? how is 30fps not playable?

Nevermind dude, missed the part where he was talking about r_hdrrendering 2 instead of 7.

thaz really how much the human eyes can see or maybe 35 fps high.

I sure as hell can tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps. All this bullcrap, "the human eyes can only see blah-dee blah-dee blah" is driving me nuts. When did everyone become optometrists? If humans can only see 35fps, then life would be very choppy, my friend.

Anyway, to play at my native resolution- 1680x1050- I'm sure FarCry HDR + AA would be barely playable, if at all. But that's just me (and any other 2005fpw/2405fpw owner). Lastly, not trying to bash HDR + AA at all. It's pretty, and I like pretty.
 

fallguy

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 8, 2001
Messages
3,961
Some numbers; http://news.gzeasy.com/itnews/2005-12-11/itnews_4215.html

Have no idea how valid they are. But from the looks of it, seems pretty playable to me. Frames in the 40's. Doesnt show min frames though, and thats whats important. Also, Crossfire gets a boost in HDR, where as SLI does not. I dont know which to convert that in, and I see both 430/1200 and 550/1500 for GTX numbers.
 

.::MAGE::.

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
346
30+ FPS in single player is playable so a range of 30-60 FPS would be fine for me personally although I could feel the slowdowns but still not bad on those Farcry screens.

One thing that troubles me is the statements of IQ or this does this etc etc on whichever card. It's not the card's fault most of the time that a game looks the way it does it's the developers. Developers make or break a game and can choose to take advantage of what the newer cards have to offer and to utilize what they can do. Drivers play a huge role but if you design a game and at the time ATI and Nvidia are on release 5 of their drivers and later on come out with release 6 things can break or not work. It sucks yes but I think the only difference today is what games use what cards features and what you play. I will blame a game before I look at a video card in these reviews especially since there is a hell of alot more that can go wrong there. Games today eat up what? 2-6 gigs of space on average depending on your innards on your pc along with drivers it's going to hamper your performance too many variables it boggles the mind.

Anyways Farcray looks great I just don't play it anymore so HDR+AA in it is /yawn but I do enjoy seeing what is capable with older so I can look forward to future titles.

I also wouldn't put much stock in AT's article about crossfire AT is really putting out garbage this past year and seem to have brought on quite a few subpar reviewers. The AMD bias and a driver article incomplete for ATI really look bad for them. The forums over there are another pit of garbage which is sad it was such a great site with Anand back in the day.
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,340
SPARTAN VI said:
What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I have (and finished) FEAR. 1680x1050 4xFSAA 16xAF all maxed out, nothing like it.

And you bet your ass it's playable. If SLI 7800GTs can't handle it, nothing can.

realllllllly?
"The 256 MB GeForce 7800 GTX in SLI also manages to provide smooth game play at 1600x1200, but with 2X TR MSAA, which still makes for a great gaming experience."

quoted from the 512M GTX review on [H]. 2 7800GTX 256M Managed to get 66average FPS, with 2x AA / 16X AF, which means u with 2 7800GT cards, 4xAA must be around 40-45fps average, Somehow that doesnt seem too far from the numbers u saw on those farcry pictures :rolleyes:
 

Viper87227

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
17,949
Digital Viper-X- said:
realllllllly?
"The 256 MB GeForce 7800 GTX in SLI also manages to provide smooth game play at 1600x1200, but with 2X TR MSAA, which still makes for a great gaming experience."

quoted from the 512M GTX review on [H]. 2 7800GTX 256M Managed to get 66average FPS, with 2x AA / 16X AF, which means u with 2 7800GT cards, 4xAA must be around 40-45fps average, Somehow that doesnt seem too far from the numbers u saw on those farcry pictures :rolleyes:


Not that it would change much, but the resolution is slightly lower. 1600x1200 is more demanding than 1680x1050, which would gain him a few fps, though nothing huge. Still, 45fps is playable. Some of those shots were as low as 38fps. Not a huge difference, but still noticable.

And, to whoever said the eye can't see over 30-35 fps... bullshit. I can sure as fuck notice the diffference between 30fps and 60fps. Hell, had a perfect example today. Playing CSS, I usually hover arourd 100 fps (yeah I know the eye cant see at 100fps) but it was acting up today (yeah steam!) and I was getting 45-50fps. You sure as hell can bet I noticed. I could feel the game lagging, which motived me to go turn on fraps and confirm it was running slower. If at 50fps I could notice it was running choppy, you can bet your ass 30-35fps would be noticeable.
 

shoman24v

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
429
Why is it that the CryEngine is older then most new engines, Source, Fear, BF2, Doom 3.... and supports much more features?

In my opinion CryEngine>All.

Check out this thread, someone made some videos of what the CryEngine can do. Did you know that it's capable of Doom 3 quality shadows, Ground deformation, softshadowing, offset mapping etc.

offset5uj.jpg
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,340
Viper87227 said:
Not that it would change much, but the resolution is slightly lower. 1600x1200 is more demanding than 1680x1050, which would gain him a few fps, though nothing huge. Still, 45fps is playable. Some of those shots were as low as 38fps. Not a huge difference, but still noticable.

And, to whoever said the eye can't see over 30-35 fps... bullshit. I can sure as fuck notice the diffference between 30fps and 60fps. Hell, had a perfect example today. Playing CSS, I usually hover arourd 100 fps (yeah I know the eye cant see at 100fps) but it was acting up today (yeah steam!) and I was getting 45-50fps. You sure as hell can bet I noticed. I could feel the game lagging, which motived me to go turn on fraps and confirm it was running slower. If at 50fps I could notice it was running choppy, you can bet your ass 30-35fps would be noticeable.

=p my point is 45fps is playable, as u can see the majority of those SS is ABOVE 45fps, only 2 below 40, im sure playing fear at 1660x1080 at 4xaa/16x af will drop u below 40fps at one point or another even with 2 7800gt cards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top