How do you get 60+ minimum FPS?

bfar · 23 Feb 2007 at 14:29

dgmug said:
this is y in my opinion its pointless buying a top of range card always buy a middle card and upgrade more often .take for instance 8800gtxs 500 roughly two months ago can get em for 320 now some places, 200 loss in two months is crazee(could have brought 8800gts for the diff) and not a dx 10 game in site.i remember fear and peeps spending close to a grand to get reqiured frames so looked good for a 15 quid game ,but peeps will buy em no matter anyways so maybe its a pointless.

Most of us just get what we want from whats available at the time. If you can afford to have high end hardware, then get high end hardware. If you can't then don't.

I spent heaps on a GTX, but it still has great resale value, so the price difference is nominal. In the end it will probably cost me around £100 to have owned it for 5 months. Thats not too bad.

drunkenmaster · 23 Feb 2007 at 15:08

errm, a x1900xt can still get 60+ in almost every game available at 1680x1050 and most of them with high levels of aa/af. the few games that won't run that fast tend to be either horrifically badly coded(oblivion), or rts games bases on cpu performance, however neither game, and generally neither style of game need 60fps to be playable.

the x2800xt does actually have a pretty huge amount of juice under the hood as does the 8800 series. plenty of games run along at 100fps + still at high res.

remember a lot more sites are testing in mainly 1600x1200 and up now due to the power of cards. anandtech now tests in 1600x1200 minimum(well has done for a while), infact all the barcharts are based on 1920x1200 but they show 1600x1200, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 in tabled results. normally sites also show everything with highest quality settings enabled, like quake 4 can do "ultra" quality with the textures uncompressed, seems to be no real reason to do it but it kills performance. fear uses softshadows and personally i thought they sucked, but also killed performance(though i think anand don't use them). we're talking best possible gfx and the x1900, what must be well over a year old now and only a small upgrade from an even older x1800, can keep up with almost every new game in the highest quality.

often dropping one shader quality level down, or some kinda reflection will increases fps and make little difference.

Cyber-Mav · 23 Feb 2007 at 15:17

drunkenmaster said:
the x2800xt does actually have a pretty huge amount of juice under the hood as does the 8800 series. plenty of games run along at 100fps + still at high res.

Rainbow Six Vegas

could you point out the 100fps+ in that benchmark please :confused:

a lame rez of 1280x960 with no AA or AF and 63fps is all the 8800gtx has to show :rolleyes:

im gonna wait till g100 or x3k range appear before i buy any other gfx card.

BubbySoup · 23 Feb 2007 at 15:23

Just to go off topic a little, that graph stinks of lousy graphics engine.

What game is it?

LoadsaMoney · 23 Feb 2007 at 23:54

squiffy said:
Run all games 640x470, lowest detail, no aa

For The Win.

Smooth · 24 Feb 2007 at 00:10

BubbySoup said:
Just to go off topic a little, that graph stinks of lousy graphics engine.

What game is it?

Rainbow Six Vegas.

A sloppy console port, so it's to be expected.

james.miller · 24 Feb 2007 at 00:15

yes rainbow 6 is a tragically poor effort. it has nothing to to with the cards so lets not use it to make any comparisons

agnes · 24 Feb 2007 at 00:42

i hate the way people think of the g80's as over kill, and sli as over kill.... just wait, in 6 months with some new dx10 titles on our doorsteps, users such as my self wont be laughin away with 100+ fps on 2048x1536 (im on a 21" CRT, sig needs updateing)... its gonna be just like the OP stated, the games will overtake the gfx, and my grands worth of gfx cards will be put into the shadow and pushed back as useless.

ags, rant over

p.s. i got 2 GTX's simply for the fact i wanted a 1-2 year proof system that allowed me to play dx10 titles a year later with decent settings. NOT foru current games.. if i wanted to play current games, id sick my old 7900 GT's back in sli.

Dark_Angel · 24 Feb 2007 at 00:48

Mav, WHY is it every thread you mention rainbow Six? The game is programmed BADLY.

It is NOT the fault of the GPU.

It is like saying that Need For Speed Underground on the 360 pushes the console to much (when if you turn the view so you are looking behind you, suddenly the FPS goes up)

Or halo 1 on the PC, where you needed a massive PC to run it decently.

It is just badly programmed. It is NOT the fault of the PC. you sould stop using Rainbow 6 as a comparison.

agnes · 24 Feb 2007 at 00:55

Dark_Angel said:
Mav, WHY is it every thread you mention rainbow Six? The game is programmed BADLY.

It is NOT the fault of the GPU.

It is like saying that Need For Speed Underground on the 360 pushes the console to much (when if you turn the view so you are looking behind you, suddenly the FPS goes up)

Or halo 1 on the PC, where you needed a massive PC to run it decently.

It is just badly programmed. It is NOT the fault of the PC. you sould stop using Rainbow 6 as a comparison.

Agree

ags

Zefan · 24 Feb 2007 at 00:57

Some games even have caps on them, such as SWG, that had a 30fps cap if I recall correctly.

geff_r your sig is too big, 75pixels maximum height.

agnes · 24 Feb 2007 at 01:58

Zefan said:
Some games even have caps on them, such as SWG, that had a 30fps cap if I recall correctly.

geff_r your sig is too big, 75pixels maximum height.

caps? ive never heard of that, sure you dont mean vsync?

ags

Zefan · 24 Feb 2007 at 02:13

agnes said:
caps? ive never heard of that, sure you dont mean vsync?

ags

No I mean caps. I never use vsync and some games just never seem to go above a certain fps. I'm sure it's very easily programmable.

I think it's quite rare now though, I do know what you mean about vsync holding back fps.

drunkenmaster · 24 Feb 2007 at 13:55

yes, wow, you posted a graph without saying which game, and you picked one of a tiny handful of games that are writen by retards as ports which perform like crap.

also, why oh why do people go on and on and on about dx10 games will kill gfx cards? who says, there are new graphical effects i'm sure they can do with dx10, doesn't mean they'll use them, doesn't mean the new stuff in newer cards won't deal with it very well. its possible that dx10 does a lot of the stuff from dx9 faster so games could run better in dx10.

the reason for new versions of dx and opengl is to add functionality AS WELL AS increase efficiency of stuff already being done.

"We still don't know how the first DX10 games are going to look. Giving the graphics engine access to virtual memory will open the door for superhigh-resolution textures, and the geometry shader will make it easier for games to generate complexity; but many of the changes in DX10 will yield performance improvements rather than new graphical effects. The initial DX10 games will look better than DX9 games only if developers actually invest the newly freed power into additional onscreen clutter or more-sophisticated shader effects."

i guess one of the first ways to tell the difference between dx9/10 performance might be in comparing flight sim x and COH(possibly supreme commander) once they get dx10 updates and see if performance drops, if quality improves and how much each goes up and down.

Corasik · 24 Feb 2007 at 17:30

Zefan said:
Some games even have caps on them, such as SWG, that had a 30fps cap if I recall correctly.

geff_r your sig is too big, 75pixels maximum height.

Yes, Doom3 for instance is hard coded to run the game logic at 60fps, and outside the timedemo environment, I think it caps the framerate at 60fps max.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Feb 2007 at 17:51

Dark_Angel said:
Mav, WHY is it every thread you mention rainbow Six? The game is programmed BADLY.

It is NOT the fault of the GPU.

It is like saying that Need For Speed Underground on the 360 pushes the console to much (when if you turn the view so you are looking behind you, suddenly the FPS goes up)

Or halo 1 on the PC, where you needed a massive PC to run it decently.

It is just badly programmed. It is NOT the fault of the PC. you sould stop using Rainbow 6 as a comparison.

it uses the unreal engine 3, so the unreal engine 3 is programmed badly.

has history tells us games in the past using a common engine have had very similar performance, e.g:

quake 3, startrek elite force and other games based on quake 3 engine performed similar to quake 3.

source engine - halflife 2, SIN episode 1 performs similar to hl2 since its the same engine.

unreal tournament 2004, unreal enigne 2, PARIAH also based on UE2 has similar performance to ut2004.

so common sense says that to expect that UT2007 to perform similar to rainbow six vegas AND Roboblitz since its going to be based on the same game engine.

and there are many other similarities like the ones i have posted above with different game engines.

have subscribed to this thread and will do a "holy thread revival batman" when ut2007 is out and performs the same as rainbow 6 vegas.
then i can say "I told you so".

hopefully i will be wrong and UT2007 ends up running faster than half-life 2.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Feb 2007 at 17:58

drunkenmaster said:
i guess one of the first ways to tell the difference between dx9/10 performance might be in comparing flight sim x and COH(possibly supreme commander) once they get dx10 updates and see if performance drops, if quality improves and how much each goes up and down.

microsoft claims that dx10 will be 6 times faster than dx9. does that mean a setup something like a single 8600gs running vista and dx10 will be faster than a setup running 2 x 8800gtx sli with xp and dx9? assuming the game is the same on both machines but dx10 patches are installed on the dx10 machines version of the games?

why is it that i very much doubt this and think that microsoft is full of crap? :confused:

Dark_Angel · 24 Feb 2007 at 18:00

Cyber-Mav said:
it uses the unreal engine 3, so the unreal engine 3 is programmed badly.

From the videos I have seen, and from what I have read, Unreal runs fine. Besides, Vegas on the 360 has none of the problems. Sure, Multiplayer it looks pants, but other than that.

It really was just converted to quickly, they didn't spend time on any version. It is Ubisofts way of late, make good games, but let them down with bad coding.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Feb 2007 at 18:13

iv not seen vegas run on the xbox, im assuming it would be very good since the xbox hardware is quite beefy with its 3 cores etc.

Dark_Angel · 24 Feb 2007 at 18:21

Cyber-Mav said:
iv not seen vegas run on the xbox, im assuming it would be very good since the xbox hardware is quite beefy with its 3 cores etc.

Yes, but as far as I am aware, the problems are mostly GPU related on the game. Either way, the basics of it are, the game is just programmed badly. It is a GOOD game, but Ubisoft rushed it.

I am not saying that you could use an 6600GT and they could get it to give you 60FPS @ 16x12, but certainly do better than they managed.