disappointed with 8800gts

snowdog · 12 Jun 2007 at 20:45

You're prolly playign the wrong games, launch up TDU in full 8x AA and 16X AF, HDR, maxed ( wich btw would never even work on ** old x800) and ull see how nice a 8800 is

.
CoH + dx10 patch also likes 8800 series.

oweneades · 12 Jun 2007 at 20:57

willhub said:
I guess its the dynamic lights that kill performance then, surely the X800 cant run it with dynamic lights, withought that my fps in stalker is hardly ever below 60 and going up to 200+ in some places, just as soon as I enable dynamic lights, my cpu starts to struggle and my ram is low.

Put simply dynamic lights in stalker completely kills the framerate.

More annoyingly however it doesn't seem to do it consistantly either.

eg:

Earlier this evening after a fiasco that meant I had to completely reinstall the game ( :mad:

) I thought I would try with dynamic lights on and initially things looked good. 45-60fps in the opening sections. However my glee was cut short once I walked over to fox and looked at the wall behind him (just the wall) I was getting 16fps! I looked back around and it shot up to 40 again.

cue me: :confused:

Also I have noticed that reducing the settings in game actually reduce my framerate.

cue me even more: :confused:

f666 · 12 Jun 2007 at 21:35

snowdog said:
TDU

Had it running with my x800, although not on the levels you describe, shame about it being a pos game when I tried it out

f666 · 12 Jun 2007 at 21:37

pastymuncher said:
What res are you playing at? I went from Sli 7800gt's to a Superclocked EVGA 8800gts 320mb and even i noticed a big difference. Did you use Driver Cleaner to get rid of all traces of your old ATI drivers?

1024x768

yup, totally removed drivers with uninstall, full driver cleaner routine

guess I am just picky, expecting more for the money

FreeStream · 12 Jun 2007 at 21:42

Its your CPU.

My X1900XTX @ stock gets 11.5k on a 3.456ghz C2D.

Overclocked it hit 14.5k.

So yea, its your CPU. Overclock it or get C2D.

Darkwave · 12 Jun 2007 at 22:00

Concorde Rules said:
Its your CPU.

My X1900XTX @ stock gets 11.5k on a 3.456ghz C2D.

Overclocked it hit 14.5k.

So yea, its your CPU. Overclock it or get C2D.

Agreed, and 1024x768 is only making it worse.

fraseredwards said:
guess I am just picky, expecting more for the money

Not at all. The problem is you've put an awesome engine in a Skoda, and are trying to do 200mph in 1st gear.

At lower resolutions modern graphics cards get very lazy, and if you haven't got a super-duper CPU that's capable of reducing the bottleneck then you're only going to get the worst of it. I'd overclock the CPU to the maximum and run in a higher resolution (if your monitor can support it, if not then crank up the detail, AA/AF etc.)

bfar · 12 Jun 2007 at 22:25

I wouldn't blame your CPU straight off - have you tried a clean install? A GTS should blow your old x800 away utterly. My gtx absolutely destroyed my old x1900xt on a 4800+ cpu.

Something's wrong.

At least try like for like with game settings. How does the new card benchmark against the old one with the same settings? If it isn't a huge increase then reinstall windows.

willhub · 12 Jun 2007 at 22:31

fraseredwards said:
Had it running with my x800, although not on the levels you describe, shame about it being a pos game when I tried it out

X800 can run TDU at max, 4xAA, all high no HDR, I did @ 1440x900 and was getting around 40fps.

james.miller · 12 Jun 2007 at 22:33

stalker will bring an 8800gtx to its knee's and still look like crap. try playing some other games lol

willhub · 12 Jun 2007 at 23:07

james.miller said:
stalker will bring an 8800gtx to its knee's and still look like crap. try playing some other games lol

You see its things like this that **** me off tbh, second best graphics card on the market and it cant run **** like stalker, I mean look at F.E.A.R, I dont think stalker has much better graphics than that apart from loads and load and loads of bump mapping or something, yet F.E.A.R runs a hell of a lot better than stalker, its pathetic, why cant game developers take more time and efford when making a game instead of getting it out as quick as possible to make more money :mad:

, CoJ is allot better graphics than stalker and that runs a hell of allot better tbh it does on my rig on max settings and I cant even dream of playing stalker on max but shoes how much better CoJ is yet CoJ is still a crappy coded game, how worse can this get? I hope Crysis or UT3 marks to start of most games been properly coded.

Tom|Nbk · 12 Jun 2007 at 23:15

willhub said:
You see its things like this that **** me off tbh, second best graphics card on the market and it cant run **** like stalker, I mean look at F.E.A.R, I dont think stalker has much better graphics than that apart from loads and load and loads of bump mapping or something, yet F.E.A.R runs a hell of a lot better than stalker, its pathetic, why cant game developers take more time and efford when making a game instead of getting it out as quick as possible to make more money , CoJ is allot better graphics than stalker and that runs a hell of allot better tbh it does on my rig on max settings and I cant even dream of playing stalker on max but shoes how much better CoJ is yet CoJ is still a crappy coded game, how worse can this get? I hope Crysis or UT3 marks to start of most games been properly coded.

Getting it out as quick as possible??!?, do you know how long it took to make S.T.A.L.K.E.R ?, it was one of the longest development windows in gaming history and was once regarded as vapourware. Be glad you got the game at all after all that time

Teaf · 12 Jun 2007 at 23:28

oweneades said:
Yup for a quick comparison I scored 13.4k (ish) with my BFG OC 8800GTS 320mb when my E4300 was at 2.4ghz, now at 3ghz I score 15.8k

Ouch, didn't think that the e4300 @ 2.4 would be that much of a bottleneck for a 8800 GTS 320mb.

bfar · 12 Jun 2007 at 23:35

james.miller said:
stalker will bring an 8800gtx to its knee's and still look like crap. try playing some other games lol

runs sweet for me :confused:

willhub · 13 Jun 2007 at 07:02

Tom|Nbk said:
Getting it out as quick as possible??!?, do you know how long it took to make S.T.A.L.K.E.R ?, it was one of the longest development windows in gaming history and was once regarded as vapourware. Be glad you got the game at all after all that time

Ok I was wrong about stalker, that makes it even more so pathetic that it took so long to develop and yet it runs crap and does not look that good.

oweneades · 13 Jun 2007 at 07:46

flibby said:
Ouch, didn't think that the e4300 @ 2.4 would be that much of a bottleneck for a 8800 GTS 320mb.

I was quite suprised as well.

I will have to disagree with people who say stalker looks rubbish. Come off it.

There are certain sections and models that looks very impressive indeed, however others don't look quite as good.

What is rubbish however is just how badly dynamic lights affect performance.

willhub · 13 Jun 2007 at 09:13

oweneades said:
I was quite suprised as well.

I will have to disagree with people who say stalker looks rubbish. Come off it.

There are certain sections and models that looks very impressive indeed, however others don't look quite as good.

What is rubbish however is just how badly dynamic lights affect performance.

It does look rubbish for the performance you get, I thinnk F.E.A.R is just as good looking as stalker.

james.miller · 13 Jun 2007 at 09:13

i think f.e.a.r looks much better, as does condemned

go go 38fps

f666 · 13 Jun 2007 at 09:30

Ulfhedjinn said:
Agreed, and 1024x768 is only making it worse.

not sure how a lower res will hamper performance, if anything the card should be able to cut through it better?

Ulfhedjinn said:
The problem is you've put an awesome engine in a Skoda, and are trying to do 200mph in 1st gear.

At lower resolutions modern graphics cards get very lazy, and if you haven't got a super-duper CPU that's capable of reducing the bottleneck then you're only going to get the worst of it.

don't really agree that the x2 4600+ and 2gb of ram are akin to a skodaesque computing experience, now if I was running a socket A then you might be able to use that metaphor...

Ulfhedjinn said:
I'd overclock the CPU to the maximum and run in a higher resolution (if your monitor can support it, if not then crank up the detail, AA/AF etc.)

noted.

f666 · 13 Jun 2007 at 09:33

bfar said:
I wouldn't blame your CPU straight off - have you tried a clean install? A GTS should blow your old x800 away utterly. My gtx absolutely destroyed my old x1900xt on a 4800+ cpu.

Something's wrong.

At least try like for like with game settings. How does the new card benchmark against the old one with the same settings? If it isn't a huge increase then reinstall windows.

not done a clean install

as stated above the 8800 gts does provide vastly superior benchmark results, as for subjective results in the games tried so far the performance has not been mind blowingly better

willhub · 13 Jun 2007 at 09:35

james.miller said:
i think f.e.a.r looks much better, as does condemned

go go 38fps

Thats pathetic FPS aint it? you got 16xAA/AF or something? If its 38fps for you, whats it gonna be like on the exact same spec system with an 8800GTS