Company of Heroes directx10 patch released

[thilanliyan]

Tried the patch. Unfortunately this new driver won't let me go above 1024x768 (read of others with the same problem) so I tested at that resolution. All settings maxed in game, 4AA, default control panel settings.

DX10
44.5/62/21.7 average/max/min.

Will test in DX9 and report back.


EDIT:
In DX9, all settings the same (I think)
47.9/60/27 average/max/min

Is there maybe a CPU limitation? Only the min takes hit going from DX9 to DX10 at 1024x768 anyway.

 

[CaiNaM]

it plays fine for me on my GTS (and i only have an avg cpu).
2.4ghz X2

avg 28.4
max 59.5
min 14.5

it is an RTS, after all.....

not sure what my DX9 #'s were as i never ran the perf test.

edit: also, according to this review the 2900xt is not significantly faster than a GTS, so i see no reason why nvidia fans/owners would be in an uproar. The Ultra and GTX are moderately faster, as one would expect.

heck, in this review the GTS is actually faster..

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: solofly
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/507/1/

What the hell?

Is everyone with a 2900XT benching in DX9 or what?

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
it plays fine for me on my GTS (and i only have an avg cpu).
2.4ghz X2

avg 28.4
max 59.5
min 14.5

it is an RTS, after all.....

not sure what my DX9 #'s were as i never ran the perf test.

edit: also, according to this review the 2900xt is not significantly faster than a GTS, so i see no reason why nvidia fans/owners would be in an uproar. The Ultra and GTX are moderately faster, as one would expect.

heck, in this review the GTS is actually faster..

WTF?

What settings?

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: golem

Originally posted by: solofly
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/507/1/

Does this review match the results most people are getting? It seems like from a sampling of forum comments that the HD2900XT was doing better under Directx10, but this reviews seems to show different?

Are they doing something right that others are missing or are they doing something wrong?

Yeah, something isn't quite right there.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
it plays fine for me on my GTS (and i only have an avg cpu).
2.4ghz X2

avg 28.4
max 59.5
min 14.5

it is an RTS, after all.....

not sure what my DX9 #'s were as i never ran the perf test.

edit: also, according to this review the 2900xt is not significantly faster than a GTS, so i see no reason why nvidia fans/owners would be in an uproar. The Ultra and GTX are moderately faster, as one would expect.

heck, in this review the GTS is actually faster..

WTF?

What settings?

on mine?

1680x1050, all setting on "high"

 

[Kromis]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
it plays fine for me on my GTS (and i only have an avg cpu).
2.4ghz X2

avg 28.4
max 59.5
min 14.5

it is an RTS, after all.....

not sure what my DX9 #'s were as i never ran the perf test.

edit: also, according to this review the 2900xt is not significantly faster than a GTS, so i see no reason why nvidia fans/owners would be in an uproar. The Ultra and GTX are moderately faster, as one would expect.

heck, in this review the GTS is actually faster..

WTF?

What settings?

on mine?

1680x1050, all setting on "high"

Ahh...very nice!

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
it plays fine for me on my GTS (and i only have an avg cpu).
2.4ghz X2

avg 28.4
max 59.5
min 14.5

it is an RTS, after all.....

not sure what my DX9 #'s were as i never ran the perf test.

edit: also, according to this review the 2900xt is not significantly faster than a GTS, so i see no reason why nvidia fans/owners would be in an uproar. The Ultra and GTX are moderately faster, as one would expect.

heck, in this review the GTS is actually faster..

I get similar performance (13.4 min/27.4 avg) with all maximum settins @ 1680x1050, that's a 640MB GTS @ 625/2000. Still, when playing the actual game I find it unplayable.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

Originally posted by: solofly
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/507/1/

What the hell?

Is everyone with a 2900XT benching in DX9 or what?

That's what I'm thinking now that I read that review. I'm going to install the game later if I have time(date tonight) and see what I get. E6600 @ 3.3, 4gb of ddr2-800, and 8800GTX @ 635/2070

 

[Herradura]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
it plays fine for me on my GTS (and i only have an avg cpu).
2.4ghz X2

avg 28.4
max 59.5
min 14.5

it is an RTS, after all.....

not sure what my DX9 #'s were as i never ran the perf test.

edit: also, according to this review the 2900xt is not significantly faster than a GTS, so i see no reason why nvidia fans/owners would be in an uproar. The Ultra and GTX are moderately faster, as one would expect.

heck, in this review the GTS is actually faster..

WTF?

What settings?

on mine?

1680x1050, all setting on "high"

The games runs fine on high but I think what most of us are talking about is that on DX9 we had our setting all up to ultra with 4xx and now with the same setting we get crap atleast thats what im saying

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
it plays fine for me on my GTS (and i only have an avg cpu).
2.4ghz X2

avg 28.4
max 59.5
min 14.5

it is an RTS, after all.....

not sure what my DX9 #'s were as i never ran the perf test.

edit: also, according to this review the 2900xt is not significantly faster than a GTS, so i see no reason why nvidia fans/owners would be in an uproar. The Ultra and GTX are moderately faster, as one would expect.

heck, in this review the GTS is actually faster..

I get similar performance (13.4 min/27.4 avg) with all maximum settins @ 1680x1050, that's a 640MB GTS @ 625/2000. Still, when playing the actual game I find it unplayable.

weird.. i haven't had an issue. i've only played thru the very first campaign tho (since the patch i no longer show my save games), so it's not as if that's conclusive, but all in all, i've never found an RTS as 'unplayable' or 'poorly playable' averaging 30fps.

Crysis or some other FPS certainly would not be acceptable at those framerates for me, but so far it seems fine for me.

with "ultra" where possible, and "high" everywhere else i get

23.0
49.1
11.6

this is with 4xaa. for some reason tho CoH crashed, likely due to 32bit vista and memory allocation...

Originally posted by: Herradura

The games runs fine on high but I think what most of us are talking about is that on DX9 we had our setting all up to ultra with 4xx and now with the same setting we get crap atleast thats what im saying

true, but the thread is being muddled with crap like "2900xt runs it better" yada yada yada, which i think is not only irrelevant, but from what some review sites have published, utter bull$h|t.

yea, it seems a great expense (performance) for the return (what visual improvements are subtle), but being an RTS i have yet to really feel the "ill effects".

it could simply be poorly done as it's not only an "addon", but also one of the first attempts at DX10 implementation. while it could certainly be this generation (both nvidia and ati) just can't handle it, imo a ground up "dx10 implementation" would be more representative.

 

[terentenet]

It's VERY poorly coded. DX10 titles should be DX10 only, not a pull down menu with DX9/DX10 selection. That's sh*t and you all know that. What's so intensive in this game that video cards can't push more than average 30fps? If you look at Crysis screenshots, you can see much more effects, better textures, great physics. Yet, from the looks of it, the game runs smoothly.
With CoH, even the best systems are brought to their knees. Memory leakage all over the place. The same game loads and memory usage is all over the place. Sometimes, RAM load is 98%, other times is 40%. Buggy as hell.
Talking DX9 - DX9, I get more fps in Oblivion, outdoors with HDR-8xAA and all on high.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: terentenet
It's VERY poorly coded. DX10 titles should be DX10 only, not a pull down menu with DX9/DX10 selection. That's sh*t and you all know that. What's so intensive in this game that video cards can't push more than average 30fps? If you look at Crysis screenshots, you can see much more effects, better textures, great physics. Yet, from the looks of it, the game runs smoothly.
With CoH, even the best systems are brought to their knees. Memory leakage all over the place. The same game loads and memory usage is all over the place. Sometimes, RAM load is 98%, other times is 40%. Buggy as hell.
Talking DX9 - DX9, I get more fps in Oblivion, outdoors with HDR-8xAA and all on high.

You wont see DX10 only games for 3-4 years, so get used to it.

 

[TheSlamma]

"* For GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB and GeForce 8600 GTS, medium quality texture setting is recommended. High levels will cause slowdowns due to insufficient texture memory. "

Damn 320 isn't enough

 

[Zenoth]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: terentenet
It's VERY poorly coded. DX10 titles should be DX10 only, not a pull down menu with DX9/DX10 selection. That's sh*t and you all know that. What's so intensive in this game that video cards can't push more than average 30fps? If you look at Crysis screenshots, you can see much more effects, better textures, great physics. Yet, from the looks of it, the game runs smoothly.
With CoH, even the best systems are brought to their knees. Memory leakage all over the place. The same game loads and memory usage is all over the place. Sometimes, RAM load is 98%, other times is 40%. Buggy as hell.
Talking DX9 - DX9, I get more fps in Oblivion, outdoors with HDR-8xAA and all on high.

You wont see DX10 only games for 3-4 years, so get used to it.

I was wondering ... if a PC title has ever been released so far that's only a DirectX 9 game, I mean that it wouldn't be possible at all to change the game's options to make it DX8 for example, was there ever a DX9-only game released ? And I mean a PC game here, not a Console port. I know that plenty of games by today's standards feature DX9 effects, but most, if not all of them can be tweaked via the in-game options to "downgrade" the effects, or even have command line parameters to allow only DX8 render (Half-Life 2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. to name only those).

A period of three to four years is perhaps a little exaggerated though. I think that the PC gaming market is more ready today for DX10 than it was four years ago for DX9. It seems to me that we see DX10 content within a mere 6 to 7 months after its announcement (was it somewhere in 2006 ? around October or November ?). How long did it take for a game to feature mostly DX9 effects ? Was it Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire Divided somewhere back in 2003 ? That was like a year after DX9 was released.

 

[Rebel44]

My results with Vista64 C2D @ 2,6GHz, 2900xt @stock :
1920x1200 4xAA 4xAF all settings at max
Avg. 18,6
Max. 34,4
Min. 5,9

same settings just 8xAA 16xAF:
Avg. 10,5
Max. 23,6
Min. 3,7

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
I was wondering ... if a PC title has ever been released so far that's only a DirectX 9 game, I mean that it wouldn't be possible at all to change the game's options to make it DX8 for example, was there ever a DX9-only game released ?

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time required a DX9 card I believe. Splinter Cell Double Agent required an SM3 card. Can't think of anything else right now.

Originally posted by: Rebel44
My results with Vista64 C2D @ 2,6GHz, 2900xt @stock :
1920x1200 4xAA 4xAF all settings at max
Avg. 18,6
Max. 34,4
Min. 5,9

same settings just 8xAA 16xAF:
Avg. 10,5
Max. 23,6
Min. 3,7

Could you overclock that CPU and try it again? Not sure if it would make a huge difference but just to be sure there is no bottleneck. Considering there are lots more particles and effects I think it could have an effect.

When I get a chance I'll check the effect of CPU speed as well.

 

[terentenet]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Rebel44
My results with Vista64 C2D @ 2,6GHz, 2900xt @stock :
1920x1200 4xAA 4xAF all settings at max
Avg. 18,6
Max. 34,4
Min. 5,9

same settings just 8xAA 16xAF:
Avg. 10,5
Max. 23,6
Min. 3,7

Could you overclock that CPU and try it again? Not sure if it would make a huge difference but just to be sure there is no bottleneck. Considering there are lots more particles and effects I think it could have an effect.

When I get a chance I'll check the effect of CPU speed as well.

It's very CPU dependent. I use a quad core, only ONE core gets loaded. Constant usage 25% (one core 100%) @ 3.6GHz. So yes, CPU limited all the way.

EDIT: Don't know what happened, I just played a little. Smooth as butter on DX10, all high and ultra where possible @ 2560x1600.
It might have something to do with the fact that I disabled SLI for CoH? It was enabled by default in Forceware 158.45

 

[Fadey]

With my rig in my signature i get 26fps average @1920x1200 8xcsaa and everything in game as high as it can go (ultra / high). Are you guys using your control panels to force af on?

 

[Rebel44]

Originally posted by: terentenet

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Rebel44
My results with Vista64 C2D @ 2,6GHz, 2900xt @stock :
1920x1200 4xAA 4xAF all settings at max
Avg. 18,6
Max. 34,4
Min. 5,9

same settings just 8xAA 16xAF:
Avg. 10,5
Max. 23,6
Min. 3,7

Could you overclock that CPU and try it again? Not sure if it would make a huge difference but just to be sure there is no bottleneck. Considering there are lots more particles and effects I think it could have an effect.

When I get a chance I'll check the effect of CPU speed as well.

It's very CPU dependent. I use a quad core, only ONE core gets loaded. Constant usage 25% (one core 100%) @ 3.6GHz. So yes, CPU limited all the way.

EDIT: Don't know what happened, I just played a little. Smooth as butter on DX10, all high and ultra where possible @ 2560x1600.
It might have something to do with the fact that I disabled SLI for CoH? It was enabled by default in Forceware 158.45

Those results are from performance test - in game I have 35 - 50 FPS all the time in 1920x1200 all max 4xAA 4xAF - so no complains.
Still stock cooling - so I´m not gona push it further now (I should get my TR 120 Ultra X next week - availability is bad in Europe) but game is perfectly smooth right now - after that I will OC CPU and GPU higher and compare results.

 

[VERTIGGO]

I ran some benches with the HD2900XT stock clocks. (vsync is probably still running):

on Auto Dx10 0xAA 16xAF
14.5 29.7 55.9

Utrafied Dx10 0xAA 16xAF and 1280x800 (windowed)
17.4 32.9 58.9

Ultrafied Dx10 8xAA 16xAF (basically as hard as i can push until my 3007 arrives)
2.4 8.8 18.5

ouch

These screens are with the last settings. However, I played this game mostly with Auto and 4xAF 16xAF quite smoothly and the only difference I noticed was the lack of mushy grass and the ground was slightly less detailed.

Oh, and i had to crop down for photobucket's stupid 800x600 rule IOT keep pixel accuracy.
http://i24.photobucket.com/alb.../vertiggo/panther1.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/alb...16/vertiggo/grass1.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/alb...16/vertiggo/smoke1.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/alb...rtiggo/motionblur1.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/alb...16/vertiggo/flame1.jpg

 

[VERTIGGO]

somebody wanted pics?

 

[manimal]

nice pitcs!


I do think things look a ton better, I am starting the game over on my vista partition with all maxed save for AA witch is at 8X. Will post impression.

 

[Woofmeister]

Starting from the shortcut with Vsync diabled (yeah, I get why NVIDIA is telling us to do that now) and with everything set to best possible and 4xAA at 1920 x 1200, my slightly overclocked 8800GTX (I'm non-SLI for obvious reasons) gets:

30.9
69.7
3.8 (wtf?)

Actually, the 3.8 is because of one weird stutter right when the German soldier is looking out at the horizon and the searchlights first pop on. Otherwise, it runs pretty smooth.

I don't have any option for AF in game, I assume everyone's setting that at driver level?

Edit Setting 4xAF using Nvidia Control Panel and going to 8xCSAA made a big difference in the quality of the images. Frankly, the game really looks good.

30.5
56.9
3.9 :|

Boy, this game is a memory hog. Even after a restart, the game is using 80-85% of my two GBs of RAM just to run the test.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Zenoth

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: terentenet
It's VERY poorly coded. DX10 titles should be DX10 only, not a pull down menu with DX9/DX10 selection. That's sh*t and you all know that. What's so intensive in this game that video cards can't push more than average 30fps? If you look at Crysis screenshots, you can see much more effects, better textures, great physics. Yet, from the looks of it, the game runs smoothly.
With CoH, even the best systems are brought to their knees. Memory leakage all over the place. The same game loads and memory usage is all over the place. Sometimes, RAM load is 98%, other times is 40%. Buggy as hell.
Talking DX9 - DX9, I get more fps in Oblivion, outdoors with HDR-8xAA and all on high.

You wont see DX10 only games for 3-4 years, so get used to it.

I was wondering ... if a PC title has ever been released so far that's only a DirectX 9 game, I mean that it wouldn't be possible at all to change the game's options to make it DX8 for example, was there ever a DX9-only game released ? And I mean a PC game here, not a Console port. I know that plenty of games by today's standards feature DX9 effects, but most, if not all of them can be tweaked via the in-game options to "downgrade" the effects, or even have command line parameters to allow only DX8 render (Half-Life 2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. to name only those).

A period of three to four years is perhaps a little exaggerated though. I think that the PC gaming market is more ready today for DX10 than it was four years ago for DX9. It seems to me that we see DX10 content within a mere 6 to 7 months after its announcement (was it somewhere in 2006 ? around October or November ?). How long did it take for a game to feature mostly DX9 effects ? Was it Star Wars Galaxies: An Empire Divided somewhere back in 2003 ? That was like a year after DX9 was released.

There aren't that many games that have DX9 pathways only as the minimum. Neverwinter Nights 2 and Oblivion are 2 examples which come to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L..._require_pixel_shaders

GRAW is another.