• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Oblivion PC performance

E

Ehren8879

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
4,507
I'd like some feedback from those of you playing Oblivion on the PC.
What video hardware are you playing on and what visual settings offer you acceptable performance?
Especially if you have an X8x0 series card. I'd like to know how well my x800xl will push this at 1280.
 
My thoughts exactly. Actually, developers should have users run a timedemo (perhaps for an in-game bonus?) that would upload computer specs and FPS scores to a database, where people could see how different rigs ran the game. Probably not feasible, but it would solve the question of "Can my computer run [X Game]?"
 
Exactly. I really want to give the game devlopers my money for this accomplishment, but only if it'll run to my liking on my hardware. There's nothing worse than dropping $50 on a PC game to find that your hardware isnt up to snuff. Chances are I'll be playing without HDR or AA, definitely going to have AF on and I have to play at 1280x1024 no exception.

Who am I kidding I'm gonna buy it anyway. I'd really like to know what to expect though.
 
I'm using x800 XT PE running on amd 64 3000+ and 2 gigs value ram. It is running allright I'm still trying to tweak it. For some reason HDR isn't supported even though I remember playing HL2 with HDR and I am sure my card supports it.
 
HDR+AA is not supported by any video card at this time for Oblivion, to enable HDR+AA has to be coded into the game, you cant force it with gfx card utilities either, rumor has it a patch will happen eventually that will allow it to take place.. but for now only the 360 does HDR+AA but the 360 has poorer performance that a top-notch PC in terms of fps
 
I am in favor if HDR over AA at 1600x1200 becuase the jaggies are not as bad at that res anyways... but it depends on their HDR implementation also.. sometimes it makes things look too shiny.. sort of a laminated world.. and sometimes it makes high lighting look very washed out.. we'll see... I'll play around with it tonight and report results..

Is there any setting for dual core cpus? I finally used that setting in Quake4 last night, didn't know it was there.. lol. and it really improved performance! I was quite happy. again, the game was in dev before dual cores were so popular.. so maybe no for now.. patch later?
 
Blakestr said:
I'm using x800 XT PE running on amd 64 3000+ and 2 gigs value ram. It is running allright I'm still trying to tweak it. For some reason HDR isn't supported even though I remember playing HL2 with HDR and I am sure my card supports it.
Click to expand...

Isnt HDR really suppose to be a SM 3.0 feature yet Valve coded it in SM 2.0 language for Source based games? Dont know where I heard this, but it sounds familiar.
 
1680x1050 max everything ( HDR on ) and its smooth as silk :D Very nice engine...no stutters or anything
 
P4 3.0 / 1gb 3200 / Radeon 9800 Pro 128

Medium/low settings, 1024x768, no AA, no aniso. Runs OK at times, and like absolute crap at others. Usually see around 20-30fps outside in the wilderness, 15-25 in cities with people walking around, and 10-15 in combat with more than 2 enemies.

Probably going to uninstall this until I can afford an upgrade (4-5 months). This game absolutely begs for a powerful system; without it, you really miss out on a lot of the immersion, atmosphere, and ambience.

:(

edit: Wishful thinking...

32662.jpg
 
Colonel Sanders said:
Probably going to uninstall this until I can afford an upgrade (4-5 months). This game absolutely begs for a powerful system; without it, you really miss out on a lot of the immersion, atmosphere, and ambience.
Click to expand...

Hmm. It wasn't long ago we were all playing these types of games at 640x480, minimal graphics effects, etc and they were still perfectly enjoyable. Don't fall into the mind set of good graphics = good gaming.

I would think 1024x768 with low graphics (which you could pull off) would still be enjoyable, unless of course you just don't like the game :)
 
Opty 165
1GB Ram
7800GT

1280 x 1024 "Ultra high" settings. HDR enabled. Runs like a champ and looks great.
 
Colonel Sanders said:
P4 3.0 / 1gb 3200 / Radeon 9800 Pro 128

Medium/low settings, 1024x768, no AA, no aniso. Runs OK at times, and like absolute crap at others. Usually see around 20-30fps outside in the wilderness, 15-25 in cities with people walking around, and 10-15 in combat with more than 2 enemies.

Probably going to uninstall this until I can afford an upgrade (4-5 months). This game absolutely begs for a powerful system; without it, you really miss out on a lot of the immersion, atmosphere, and ambience.

:(

Crappa. I want at least some high settings at native res and mostly 30 FPS and above. I was going to pick up this game tonight, but I believe I will be holding out until I hear from more users with comparable hardware.
Click to expand...
 
Tweakin said:
Hmm. It wasn't long ago we were all playing these types of games at 640x480, minimal graphics effects, etc and they were still perfectly enjoyable. Don't fall into the mind set of good graphics = good gaming.

I would think 1024x768 with low graphics (which you could pull off) would still be enjoyable, unless of course you just don't like the game :)
Click to expand...

It's basically just the knowledge that I'm missing out on like half of the experience that the game offers (e.g. walking out into the wilderness for the first time for me was like "WTF, this is sooo choppy..." instead of "Holy *^^&!")

It just feels like a rip off to be playing the game and knowing you're missing out on such an awesome presentation.

I do like the game itself.
 
Ehren8879 said:
Colonel Sanders said:
P4 3.0 / 1gb 3200 / Radeon 9800 Pro 128

Medium/low settings, 1024x768, no AA, no aniso. Runs OK at times, and like absolute crap at others. Usually see around 20-30fps outside in the wilderness, 15-25 in cities with people walking around, and 10-15 in combat with more than 2 enemies.

Probably going to uninstall this until I can afford an upgrade (4-5 months). This game absolutely begs for a powerful system; without it, you really miss out on a lot of the immersion, atmosphere, and ambience.

:(

Crappa. I want at least some high settings at native res and mostly 30 FPS and above. I was going to pick up this game tonight, but I believe I will be holding out until I hear from more users with comparable hardware.
Click to expand...


you shouldnt be suffering that much.. how much background resources do you have running?
Click to expand...
 
Tetrahedron said:
you shouldnt be suffering that much.. how much background resources do you have running?
Click to expand...

That first part was suppose to be a quote but i screwed it up. As for me I generally have no background resources besides temp monitors running when gaming. I'm torn whether or not to pick this beast up tonight. I suppose if I dont like it I can always sell it here on the forums.
 
game set me to high quality - 1024x768 and the graphics have been some the best I've seen yet. Zero problems - although it did crash when I was alt tabbing to IM a friend but thats listed as a problem in the readme so its all good.

amd xp 3200+
1 gig ram
bfg 6800 ultra o/c

I love this game!
 
I have a

dual core Opteron 165 at 2.5 ghz
Asus A8N SLI premium motherboard
1 7900 GTX (710/1850)
2 GB Mushkin DDR 500 memory (clocked at 455 mhz at 2.5-3-3-8)

I will be installing the game soon, and will post my impressions max frame rate/settings soon.
 
I'm interested in the performance differences between the 6800 series and the X800s mainly because of ATI's lack of SM 3.0 support for that generation. I wonder just how much of a difference it makes between IQ and general performance.
 
Xenozx said:
I have a

dual core Opteron 165 at 2.5 ghz
Asus A8N SLI premium motherboard
1 7900 GTX (710/1850)
2 GB Mushkin DDR 500 memory (clocked at 455 mhz at 2.5-3-3-8)

I will be installing the game soon, and will post my impressions max frame rate/settings soon.
Click to expand...

Please do, but we've basically established that it runs pimpin' sweet on newer hardware. Looking for you last gen guys out there.
 
I've got a last generation card (6800 Ultra). It gave me 1024 * 768 with high quality for default. I have tweaked it a bit, but it seems to run really smooth in town and indoors, but suffers a little outdoors. It might be my processor though, but its not exactly slow either. Nvidia guys will have to update their performance, because tommarrow they are releasing a drivers optimized specifically for Oblivion. Hopefully it smooths some things out and makes it an even better game.
 
FlipperBizkut said:
Opty 165
1GB Ram
7800GT

1280 x 1024 "Ultra high" settings. HDR enabled. Runs like a champ and looks great.
Click to expand...


REALLY? Alright! I have the exact same spces + 2GB of RAM.
 
Ehren8879 said:
thanks for that link Mayhs
Click to expand...

nps :D

**is hard going a bit slow at the moment? as in the hardwebsite takes longer to load pages than before...
 
Specs in sig, since I'm on 2405FPW the lowest widescreen rez I can go is 1680x1050, haven't tweaked it yet but the default ultra high at 1680x1050 is kind of laggy.

NEVERMIND, I turned off V-sync and it's now running pretty damn smoothly.
 
Mayhs said:
nps :D

**is hard going a bit slow at the moment? as in the hardwebsite takes longer to load pages than before...
Click to expand...

little bit. though it's better than it was a few hours ago
 
Ehren8879 said:
little bit. though it's better than it was a few hours ago
Click to expand...

yeh its sped up just a bit slower then usual...

hmm the last 2 gens of ati/nvidia are coping extrmely well
 
Anyone out there running this game on a setup that's close to mine? I have a feeling my processor is going to hold me back--a lot.
 
ghostchamber said:
Anyone out there running this game on a setup that's close to mine? I have a feeling my processor is going to hold me back--a lot.
Click to expand...
Its definately gonna hold you back. Your card is already bottlenecked by the cpu as it is. Its gonna be bad with this one, just make sure you keep the view distance lower and also foliage draw in, because that is gonna be the biggest hit.
 
1280 x 1024 highest settings. HDR enabled.

X2 3800
7800 GT
1GB Crucial Ballistix

No benny hill or anything just smoth sailling.
 
I just installed it and I have a 7900GT. I'll let you know my settings in a few minutes.
 
Please. I am about to get a 7900GT in just a bit. If I can get Bloom+2AA 8AF and max everything at 1440x900 I be happy :D
 
someone report what its like on a x1900xtx....

I have a good rig imho.

x1900xtx, 2 gigs of ram running at ddr 510, 3700+ overclocked at FX57 speeds....

But I still wonder if it can run at 16by12 with HDR enabled....if it doesn't I am screwed because thats my LCD's native res.
 
kdog said:
someone report what its like on a x1900xtx....

I have a good rig imho.

x1900xtx, 2 gigs of ram running at ddr 510, 3700+ overclocked at FX57 speeds....

But I still wonder if it can run at 16by12 with HDR enabled....if it doesn't I am screwed because thats my LCD's native res.
Click to expand...

you can go lower then your Native res. Usually while gaming you wont be able to tell much of a diff between 1600x1200 and 1280x1024. Usually you will only notice issues with really fine text.
 
On an LCD, if you go lower than Native res, it looks like you are playing at 640by480.

i tried that with FEAR when I had my old rig....it did not look good.
 
I have the 20.1 inch dell LCD with a Native res of 1600x1200. Its connected to my second gaming rig since I use a CRT for my main rig :D

anyway, I will admit that running a game (lets say UT 2004 for exampe) at 1600x1200 makes it look best, but I have a 9700 pro in that machine and its not gonna run UT smoothly at 1600x1200 so I backed it down to 1280x1024. It does come in ever so slighly blurry, and it gets worse as you move down to 1024x768 or 800x600 but at 1280x1024 its barely noticable. If you where having trouble at 1600x1200 moving it down a notch would give you much better frame rate, and a hardly noticable difference in picture sharpness IMO.
 
I'm past the first 3 save points, all indoors so far. I'm running at 1600x1200 with HDR and all distant rendering options enabled with 16xAF forced in the control panel and all AF optimizations disabled (7900GT @ 540/1750, 84.21 drivers, X2 3800+ @ 2.55GHz).

The lowest FPS for an area i've seen in FRAPS is the mid-40s so far. This rules. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top