Tomb Raider Legend 'performance'

juno_first · 4 Apr 2006 at 18:53

There is a demo of this game...
Tomb Raider Legend with HDR runs very badly on my system (see sig.).
With all effects on except AA; FPS are: min=15, average=25, max=70
HDR & full screen effects really kill the FPS and my system is no slouch; I can't afford another £660 for graphics cards -wtf.
Turning off AA only improves things by 2 FPS.
FPS remain the same at all resolutions -this suggests a lack of CPU power even though I'm at 2.75 now (with dualcore patches) -the game appears to be using both cores.
Booting up on only one graphics card actually speeds things up by 3 FPS :confused:

, I can't believe 16x PCI-e has such an impact -only in this game.
The FPS are erratic as in: the same viewpoint can give wildly different FPS at different times :confused:

When e.g. jumping for the first time or walking round a corner the game freezes for 2 seconds, eh -isn't 2 gig of RAM enough or 256mb local texture memory enough?
Tried different drivers etc. with no joy

Farcry with HDR in xp64 runs really sweet, even with a 5km view distance, is there an XP64 bit version of Tomb Raider Leged ?.

Before anyone says to turn off HDR, I think the game looks WAY WAY better in HDR and the thought of playing without this would be like driving a Skoda with a Porsche engine. :rolleyes:

(no offence to Skoda owners).

Overslop · 4 Apr 2006 at 19:11

Wow, you look really evil! :eek:

Vita · 4 Apr 2006 at 19:14

Try re-installing the demo? It could be a currupt version. I don't really know as my system is not in the league of yours. But that's all I can think of at the moment, or try re-seating your graphics card(s).

ScarySquirrel · 4 Apr 2006 at 19:14

That is very strange, im running on an Opteron 146, 2gb OCZ Platinum RAM and an X1900XT and it runs fine, should be fine on your system too.

sunlitsix · 4 Apr 2006 at 19:15

is there even HDR in the demo?

SpudMaster · 4 Apr 2006 at 20:04

sunlitsix said:
is there even HDR in the demo?

what i was thinking, you cant enable the next gen stuff in the gemo :confused:

juno_first · 4 Apr 2006 at 20:09

when enabling *extra* ahmm content in the options, it drops fps by 90% lol

Albaba · 4 Apr 2006 at 22:31

Runs very bad here too. Loads of jerks and pauses, very annoying! And its nowt to do with the demo either.

P4 3.4ghz
7800GT oc to 480/1.14ghz
2gig of crucial

I knocked it down to 1024x768 and turned AA off for a slight improvement.
Shouldnt have too though!
I have literally just built this pc a few weeks ago so i think its ridiculous that i should need to upgrade so soon. A badly coded game IMHO

Ali

Noxis · 4 Apr 2006 at 23:13

Albaba said:
Runs very bad here too. Loads of jerks and pauses, very annoying! And its nowt to do with the demo either.

P4 3.4ghz
7800GT oc to 480/1.14ghz
2gig of crucial

I knocked it down to 1024x768 and turned AA off for a slight improvement.
Shouldnt have too though!
I have literally just built this pc a few weeks ago so i think its ridiculous that i should need to upgrade so soon. A badly coded game IMHO

Ali

Your CPU letting you down there - probably bottle necking that gfx card.

queamin · 4 Apr 2006 at 23:32

I wonder if it another sloppy port from xbox360

Q

juno_first · 5 Apr 2006 at 00:05

some of the textures are really high res.

, perhaps its like ultra high in quake 4 & a 512mb card would help ?, anyone try a 512mb card with the game ?
I got a speed boost by stopping depth of field.
I'm at a bit in the game now & with extra content the fps dropped to 9 :eek:

at any resolution, but when stopping extra content fps go up to 140 :confused:

Holy crap -for the first time ever at default clock speed my 7800's just past 115c & I got thrown back to Windows with a message stating that my clock speed had been lowered :eek:

. The side of my case is soo hot I can't touch it & thats with a 12cm fan bowing out.
I find the game runs faster by booting up on 1 cpu.

sja360 · 5 Apr 2006 at 00:16

juno_first said:
some of the textures are really high res. , perhaps its like ultra high in quake 4 & a 512mb card would help ?, anyone try a 512mb card with the game ?
I got a speed boost by stopping depth of field.
I'm at a bit in the game now & with extra content the fps dropped to 9 at any resolution, but when stopping extra content fps go up to 140
Holy crap -for the first time ever at default clock speed my 7800's just past 115c & I got thrown back to Windows with a message stating that my clock speed had been lowered . The side of my case is soo hot I can't touch it & thats with a 12cm fan bowing out.
I find the game runs faster by booting up on 1 cpu.

sounds like the fans on your 7800's are either knackered or the bearings are going.

Albaba · 5 Apr 2006 at 08:29

Your CPU letting you down there - probably bottle necking that gfx card.

Dont think so as Oblivion is running just fine @ 1600x1200

Ali

8BaLL · 5 Apr 2006 at 16:19

Well i am running the full game at the moment i have with nothing overclocked for now

Gigabyte KN8
Athlon 64 3700+
1 gig of ram
ATI X800 GTO 128mb

And it runs like a gem
No lag and all settings are on high but res 1024x768

But is not europe version (Imported)

juno_first · 5 Apr 2006 at 17:53

8BaLL said:
Well i am running the full game at the moment i have with nothing overclocked for now

Gigabyte KN8
Athlon 64 3700+
1 gig of ram
ATI X800 GTO 128mb

And it runs like a gem
No lag and all settings are on high but res 1024x768

But is not europe version (Imported)

Mine runs like a gem with no next gen content / full screen effecs; giving 200fps but it looks like a ps2 then. A lot of scenes with all effects on it drops to 9fps but looks fantastic.

Goksly · 5 Apr 2006 at 17:59

Anyone tested this game with a X1800 or above and decent cpu? Tis going to be 5hrs before i play this.... damn tinternet!"

chaparral · 5 Apr 2006 at 18:05

Goksly said:
Anyone tested this game with a X1800 or above and decent cpu? Tis going to be 5hrs before i play this.... damn tinternet!"

Running it at 1920x1200 with next gen on....with my amd 4400 x2 at 2300mhz and ATI x1900xt-x...Been running fine so far
I have AA turned off..and all the other settings turned on.

Goksly · 5 Apr 2006 at 18:26

ah that sounds more like it. Does this game benefit from dual cores?
Hopefully I will be able to run 1280 with some AA and next gen on.

juno_first · 5 Apr 2006 at 18:34

FPS

spec as in sig now though now clocked at 2.75 (giving 8000 in 3dmk06).

(lower resolution has little effect on FPS & no AA gives extra 2 FPS -wow)

1 cpu / 1 graphics card -All effects =20fps

2 cpu / 2 graphics cards -All effects =20fps

2 cpu / 2 graphics cards -All effects on except next gen content =96fps

Check out the higher res textures with next-gen on (could post more screenies to show).
The game obviously does not take advantage of multi-threading or 2 graphics cards as older games like COD2/Quake4 do.
A 64bit version would help as well as good programming.
I've sen the 360 version in the shops on an LCD & it looks to have blurred textures (like the PC with no next-gen) but with excessive HDR. I have
I tried the 1.1 update & found no difference, I'd guess its just an attempt to kerb the use of copied versions with extra protection.

Farcry on the 360 & the textures are really low res -like playing an xbox1, the water is good though, the 64bit PC version with HDR+5km view distance is far superior !

nO}{8 · 5 Apr 2006 at 18:49

it sounds like another case of consolitus to me