Want to play F.E.A.R/Oblivion full gfx...

Dutch Guy · 19 Apr 2006 at 11:46

It's just not possible to play Oblivion smoothly with all GFX maxed on a 6800GT, see this link for performance with GFX maxed

Jimbo · 19 Apr 2006 at 12:28

No your right, my 6800gt isnt playing it maxed out, it could handle that as you say. It is though running it at a good setting and it looks fantastic to me.

tedmaul · 19 Apr 2006 at 13:15

I would also suggest a better CPU for Oblivion. I have the same cpu you've specced and i find it's pretty much 100% usage the whole time when playing the game. V.v. cpu intensive, and this seems to get overlooked a lot of the time in discussions about Oblivion performance issues.

Elrein · 19 Apr 2006 at 13:22

You will need to spend at least four times as much on the graphics card to get even close

DanTheMan · 19 Apr 2006 at 13:45

Dutch Guy said:
It's just not possible to play Oblivion smoothly with all GFX maxed on a 6800GT, see this link for performance with GFX maxed

Hmm that link suggest that going from 0xAA to 4xAA sees no fps loss, or am I reading it incorrectly? :confused:

EDIT: Ahhh nm that's after turning HDR off. Silly me.

Psyk · 19 Apr 2006 at 13:48

nO}{8 said:
I would say that that spec wont run it at full tilt, this should really be in the hardware forum. look at a minimum of a x1800xt for oblivion and fear, a 6600gt would barely run it at medium settings. ive got 2 7800gtx's and they still dosent run perfect on top settings.

My single 7800gt seems to run Oblivion on ultra high settings :confused:

Not all the sliders are all the way up but the autoconfig thing said to use ultra high settings.

Lanz · 19 Apr 2006 at 13:53

tedmaul said:
I would also suggest a better CPU for Oblivion. I have the same cpu you've specced and i find it's pretty much 100% usage the whole time when playing the game. V.v. cpu intensive, and this seems to get overlooked a lot of the time in discussions about Oblivion performance issues.

Ypu will find virtually all games will use 100% cpu no matter what cpu you have. But yeah, Oblivion is also a cpu hog, unlike a lot of other games.

pegasus1 · 19 Apr 2006 at 15:33

FEAR
1600x1200 2 x AA 4 x AF. All effects to max except softshadows.
plays well but 3 times during the game (for 2-3 seconds at a time) the FPS dropped massively.
Using the ingame test i got the following
Min FPS = 34
Av = 51
Max = 110

Dutch Guy · 19 Apr 2006 at 15:40

pegasus1 said:
FEAR
1600x1200 2 x AA 4 x AF. All effects to max except softshadows.
plays well but 3 times during the game (for 2-3 seconds at a time) the FPS dropped massively.
Using the ingame test i got the following
Min FPS = 34
Av = 51
Max = 110

The game test is a lot easier on the hardware than the game, if I get 51fps average in the test you get a lower framerate in the game.

nO}{8 · 19 Apr 2006 at 15:41

Psyk said:
My single 7800gt seems to run Oblivion on ultra high settings Not all the sliders are all the way up but the autoconfig thing said to use ultra high settings.

your version of acceptable performance is different to mine then, as the game dips below 30fps in the outdoor sections sometimes. Over 60fps 100% of the time is what I call acceptable.

Octavarium · 19 Apr 2006 at 15:49

Framerates are a curious thing - I am happy to play at anything above 30-40 but I like 50-60 really so that there is a cushion for when things get hot!!

Personally I run everything at max details on most games, but only when i'm playing offline - this way a sudden drop in FPS for whatever reason isn't going to cost anything.

Online however, is a different story. Despite being able to run HL2 at max settings at 8x AA, 16x AF and 1280*1024 I play CS:S online a medium details with no HDR, the only thing I max out is shadows.

The reason is that I am always first into a map because of the smaller load times, I get ridiculously high FPS, which keeps it silky smooth and also there is no risk of getting problems like 'bitty' sound at a bad time or CTD's when your PC has had enough.

Hlebio · 19 Apr 2006 at 16:03

Octavarium said:
Framerates are a curious thing - I am happy to play at anything above 30-40 but I like 50-60 really so that there is a cushion for when things get hot!!

Personally I run everything at max details on most games, but only when i'm playing offline - this way a sudden drop in FPS for whatever reason isn't going to cost anything.

Online however, is a different story. Despite being able to run HL2 at max settings at 8x AA, 16x AF and 1280*1024 I play CS:S online a medium details with no HDR, the only thing I max out is shadows.

The reason is that I am always first into a map because of the smaller load times, I get ridiculously high FPS, which keeps it silky smooth and also there is no risk of getting problems like 'bitty' sound at a bad time or CTD's when your PC has had enough.

Does the game still look okay on those settings though?

Octavarium · 19 Apr 2006 at 16:07

Hlebio said:
Does the game still look okay on those settings though?

Assuming you mean CS:S on medium... yes - better now I have my LCD.

I still have offline for max-eye candy :eek:

pegasus1 · 19 Apr 2006 at 18:31

Dutch Guy said:
The game test is a lot easier on the hardware than the game, if I get 51fps average in the test you get a lower framerate in the game.

True, but its a constant that other people can use as a decent yard stick.

Psyk · 19 Apr 2006 at 18:48

nO}{8 said:
your version of acceptable performance is different to mine then, as the game dips below 30fps in the outdoor sections sometimes. Over 60fps 100% of the time is what I call acceptable.

Ok fair enough. Sometimes it goes to around 20 when outdoor. But in that sort of game it doesnt bother me.

Eliot · 19 Apr 2006 at 18:48

DaveyD said:
FEAR is has a horrid engine that doesn't really give you as much performance for higher end stuff than compared to say Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 engines, so no, you're not going to get away with full detail settings on either of the games.

I've got the same motherboard, same processor, but an ATI X850XT, which I believe is a lot more powerful than the 6600, but I can be proven wrong. I only have 1GB of RAM. I can only run FEAR in around medium settings and get acceptable framerates on my PC (acceptable for my standards anyway, as I like it as smooth as possible without large drops/fluctuations).

Oblivion, similar, it runs well on medium settings, but there's slowdown on larger numbers of enemies or larger detail areas.

i have that card too (PE) it out performs sli'd 6600gts in some games. And stamps all over bf2
To the OP:
why dont you get a x800gto2 and mod it to x850 speeds, thats about the best bang for buck i guess. it costs 120quid.

pegasus1 · 19 Apr 2006 at 19:37

add a few more pounds and snap up an 1800. got to be the real bargain at the mo.

TomUK · 20 Apr 2006 at 01:53

edit: nevermind.

Dutch Guy · 20 Apr 2006 at 08:57

pegasus1 said:
True, but its a constant that other people can use as a decent yard stick.

It's not a decent yardstick because there are people saying they can run F.E.A.R. fine when they get a vaverage fps of 30 in the test but in the game it would be unplayable.

Bottom line:
If you want to play the latest games full GFZ options enabled you need a top of the line videocard, no way a 6600/6800/X800 can do it.

Needles · 20 Apr 2006 at 15:47

why not forget about spending all that money on basic pc parts and buy an xbox360 £300 + £50 on oblivion and you'll be flyin, fear is comin out for it also