Relatively low performance in FarCry with new computer?

S

splooger

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
239
I'm using HardwareOC BenchTools to benchmark Farcry at 1600x1200, max settings, 4X AA 4X AF, and am only averaging about 37 fps with my new 939 Athlon 64 53-FX, 2 GB RAM, BFG GeForce Ultra OC. If I OC by video to 450/1200 I average about 39 fps. This is with Farcry 1.2 using SM 3.0. Shouldn't I be getting about 50 fps? It would seem I should be getting higher fps than this judging from the benchmarks around the Web.
 
rancor said:
make sure aa and af are off?
Click to expand...

The scores I've seen show the use of AA and AF and comparable systems to mine are scoring around 50 fps at these settings.
 
The game is highly cpu dependent its eats em for lunch but that does seem low, cause on my 2.53 intel with a gf gt everything fully goin, I'm getting 30-40. SM 3.0 didn't change anything cuase my cpu is bogged down.
 
rancor said:
The game is highly cpu dependent its eats em for lunch but that does seem low, cause on my 2.53 intel with a gf gt everything fully goin, I'm getting 30-40. SM 3.0 didn't change anything cuase my cpu is bogged down.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Any advice on how to speed up my performance? I'm pretty pissed because I sunk about $3,400 into this computer.
 
splooger said:
That's what I thought. Any advice on how to speed up my performance? I'm pretty pissed because I sunk about $3,400 into this computer.
Click to expand...

What kind of water are you using? I heard Ultra high water is a big hit, and i don't know if those benches used it or not.
 
the cry engine doesnt' really let ya drop just phsyics or ai levels unfortunatly :/ As long as its not lagging don't worry about it too much. Definitly not the water, I'm on ultra on everything.
 
JackieChanIsGOD said:
What kind of water are you using? I heard Ultra high water is a big hit, and i don't know if those benches used it or not.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what level the benchmark sets the water but I would assume "max settings" means just that.
 
I bet you've disabled all the optomizations. Go into your forceware CP and start fiddeling with tri/ansio opts among other things. I think the slight IQ loss is defintely worth the performance increase, especially considering ATI cards come with the opts on by default and don't allow you to disable them.
 
The Batman said:
I bet you've disabled all the optimizations. Go into your forceware CP and start fiddeling with tri/ansio opts among other things. I think the slight IQ loss is defintely worth the performance increase, especially considering ATI cards come with the opts on by default and don't allow you to disable them.
Click to expand...

Can you be more specific about these optimizations or give me a link? Do the Geforce 6800 Ultra benchmarks use these "optimizations" by default?
 
right click on your desktop, Nvidia Digital Display, Performance and Quality settings. Fiddle around with them there...don't always rely on benchs, espeicially since you have the card. Test it out for yourself. And no, the opts come disabled by default.
 
The Batman said:
right click on your desktop, Nvidia Digital Display, Performance and Quality settings. Fiddle around with them there...don't always rely on benchs, espeicially since you have the card. Test it out for yourself. And no, the opts come disabled by default.
Click to expand...

I put my settings to best performance and averaged 49 fps. Do sites that benchmark normally have these set on best performance or best quality or what?
 
splooger said:
I put my settings to best performance and averaged 49 fps. Do sites that benchmark normally have these set on best performance or best quality or what?
Click to expand...

They typically have it on the default which is performance. Performance itself still has the trilinear opts disabled [which screws with any apples to apples you'd have from nvidia vs ati]. So yes...the majority of hardware websites are run by tools.

Far Cry has always been an Nvidia game, even version 1.1, my GT running under the R300 path will kill any Pro put in front of it.
 
Hard to say.... is the system well configured? Just because its an FX53 doesnt mean your CPU/Memory is all that faster than the same clockspeed Barton.

What are all the system specs, hard to judge without indepth info on all your clocks and settings.

Just how fast IS that video card vs what you were hoping for?

Ultimately you may suffer from excess-expectations.
 
uwackme said:
Hard to say.... is the system well configured? Just because its an FX53 doesnt mean your CPU/Memory is all that faster than the same clockspeed Barton.

What are all the system specs, hard to judge without indepth info on all your clocks and settings.

Just how fast IS that video card vs what you were hoping for?

Ultimately you may suffer from excess-expectations.
Click to expand...

Naw we fixed his problems. He's getting a good 12-15 frames more than we he first started posting.

If he installs the 65.62 Forceware betas he'll probabley end up getting another 5-10 FPS boost.
 
The Batman said:
Naw we fixed his problems. He's getting a good 12-15 frames more than we he first started posting.
Click to expand...

I don't think the problem is really fixed since I sacrificed visual quality to get the increase by using settings that aren't typically used in benchmarks, as you said yourself. The way I understand it, most people with similar systems are getting about 50 fps without changing their visual quality defaults.
 
just turn up the eye candy and drop a res if need be.....

you should be running maxed out settings no prob at 1280x1024 4/8 aa/af..

now we know how some people get high scores.


THEY are the ones turning everything off...roflmao...
 
splooger said:
I don't think the problem is really fixed since I sacrificed visual quality to get the increase by using settings that aren't typically used in benchmarks, as you said yourself. The way I understand it, most people with similar systems are getting about 50 fps without changing their visual quality defaults.
Click to expand...

Hell no, 50FPS? I get about 30-40 on my OCed GT [4xAA 8xAF, Ultra High, forced R300]. Most benchs you see are typically MAXIMUM frames...not average [and even more importantly minimum].

Your performance is perfectly in-line with all the people at Nvnews...hell it's a little bit better even. Try installing the 65.62s if you still want more performance. But outside of that stick a fork in yourself...you're done. :D
 
theelviscerator said:
THEY are the ones turning everything off...roflmao...
Click to expand...

You mean turning everything ON...they come off by default. Fair is fair, if you whiners get to have trinlinear and ansio opts, I don't see why we can't have them as well.

And I see you still haven't changed your sig even though you got those scores running D3 at 1024x768 [thanks for posting your pics and proving it too I might add].

What a lamer. :rolleyes:
 
splooger what demo are you running exactly post your results from the exact demo you run...

my system runs far cry pretty well and with all settings maxed in game water ultra and 4x/8x aa af at 1600 I get only 41fps..oops was forced 6/16 in prev mark (DC settings)


Resolution: 1600×1200
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Pier, demo: 1.tmd
Pixel shader: default model
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 8×

Score = 41.51 FPS
 
theelviscerator said:
splooger what demo are you running exactly post your results from the exact demo you run...
Click to expand...

I use this program:

http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=830

I can't figure out how to use the ingame benchmark program.

Here is the results of a new ultra detail setting:

Resolution: 1600×1200
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Pier, demo: 1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 8×

Score = 26.11 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 26.07 FPS (Run 2)
Average score = 26.09 FPS

:(

Maximum quality:

Resolution: 1600×1200
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Pier, demo: 1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 8×

Score = 37.42 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 36.99 FPS (Run 2)
Average score = 37.20 FPS

:( :( I should be getting close to 50 here.
 
merely post the copy from the html doc it generates...you get like 9 demos to choose from in my version you need to specify which demo cuz some are slower/faster than others...
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution: 1600×1200
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Pier, demo: 1.tmd
Pixel shader: default model
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 8×

Score = 29.10 FPS


wow that new ultra is beyotch...LOL...

i am running version 1.1 of farcry also...default shaders...

I think you are pretty close to right...actually........x800s do rock in FC....

Stories on the web get taller with the teller you know what I mean....I much more trust someone who's expertise I am familiar with...
 
If I put CP options on 'performance' and 'blend,' I get this:

Resolution: 1600×1200
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Pier, demo: 1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 8×

Score = 40.49 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 39.88 FPS (Run 2)
Average score = 40.18 FPS
 
theelviscerator said:
where are you getting the idea you should score more?
Click to expand...

I see benchmarks at X-Bit labs were they are getting 41 fps average (on pier level) on a slower processor (Athlon 3400+ I think they used) without resorting to lowering their IQ or OC their video like I have to do to get that.
 
there is something wrong he should be getting 50-60, let me know what ya get with your 3dmark tests. Time to crash but just check it out and post it I'll look at it tomorrow.
 
splooger said:
I see benchmarks at X-Bit labs were they are getting 41 fps average (on pier level) on a slower processor (Athlon 3400+ I think they used) without resorting to lowering their IQ or OC their video like I have to do to get that.
Click to expand...


from what i gather they were using fraps while doing walkthroughs certain areas..not recorded timedemos so do what they were...walking through training area and just looking at your avg fps on screen...

ah here...I see what you mean.....

41 you get 37......seems a bit suspect doesnt it...


http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/farcry20b/pier_1600_candy.gif
 
The benchmark started at 8/11/2004 12:17:42 AM

Resolution: 1600×1200
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Pier, demo: 1.tmd
Pixel shader: default model
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 8×

Score = 36.29 FPS

That's at stock everything.

I'm going to OC my GT now to 425/1100 and see what she gets.

Edit: The benchmark started at 8/11/2004 12:22:09 AM

Resolution: 1600×1200
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Pier, demo: 1.tmd
Pixel shader: default model
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 8×

Score = 37.31 FPS

This was at 425/1100. I'm going to run the test under SM2.0b now, see if it even works.

Edit2: The benchmark started at 8/11/2004 12:26:50 AM

Resolution: 1600×1200
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Pier, demo: 1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 2.0b
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 8×

Score = 39.45 FPS

IT WORKED. And it even gave a small FPS boost. This was at 425/1100 BTW. SM3 is next.

Edit3: The benchmark started at 8/11/2004 12:39:43 AM

Resolution: 1600×1200
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Pier, demo: 1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 8×

Score = 46.22 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 44.82 FPS (Run 2)
Average score = 45.52 FPS

NOTE: There was MASSIVE graphical corruption occuring, hence the whole running it twice. It isn't from the OC either, I set it back to default speeds and still got the same results. I'm thinking it could be from the drivers I'm using [65.62s]. I'm going to rollback to the 61.77s and see what happens.

Well I tried the 61.77s. No-go, still ran like garbage. I don't know what it could be from. Guess I'll wait for the official 1.2 patch and the official SP2.
 
splooger said:
I'm using HardwareOC BenchTools to benchmark Farcry at 1600x1200, max settings, 4X AA 4X AF, and am only averaging about 37 fps with my new 939 Athlon 64 53-FX, 2 GB RAM, BFG GeForce Ultra OC. If I OC by video to 450/1200 I average about 39 fps. This is with Farcry 1.2 using SM 3.0. Shouldn't I be getting about 50 fps? It would seem I should be getting higher fps than this judging from the benchmarks around the Web.
Click to expand...

what is your memory timing? and try to run it on 1gb (remove one of the sticks if you are using 2x1gb ram)
 
blue_heart71 said:
what is your memory timing? and try to run it on 1gb (remove one of the sticks if you are using 2x1gb ram)
Click to expand...

Memory timing is 3 3 3 8 as I recall. Why would removing 1 GB RAM help?
 
splooger said:
I get about 12,400 at stock speeds using the defaults. That seems a little low too :(
Click to expand...


That about right 3dmark03 doesn't test cpu only really the gpu. I get around the same as well. I'm guessing something to do with memory or game settings that are slowing it down.
 
splooger said:
Why am I scoring lower than you guys when I have a faster processor? :mad:
Click to expand...

Motherboard, bios revisions, ram, ram settings, various settings.

Look at the review of the Abit & Asus mobos on the front page of [H]. The Abit stomps the Asus in most benchmarks with the same exact processor, set-up, etc.

There are so many variables, quit being so anal about not having exactly the same FPS as some website who probably tweaked everythign to the max. (performance settings/not quality, optimizations on, etc.)

Your performance is still great, and about where it should be. Don't sweat the petty stuff.

P.S. You should spent about $1000 less on the next step down on everything!
A64 3500 or 3800 instead of FX (then overclocked a little)
GT instead of 6800 Ultra (overclocked to Ultra speeds)
etc.

That way you dont feel like a schmuch,
when people are scoring within a few percent (<5-10%) of you,
even thought you spent 50% more than them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top