DX10 - a look to upcoming dissapointments

[MadBoris]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
There is no need to worry, DX10 games will be developed from the top down, not the bottom up (in DX10 card terms).

While many devs to develop to the lowest common denominator, that doesnt seem to be the case with the current run of DX10 titles on the way.

That's the way it should be I think atleast with a few games.
I somehow think those devs that got the cash, and also have cashcow games can really go for it and make big splash with DX10 (crysis will likely be that game, maybe FSX too since M$ has something to prove with DX10). Those 8600 cards are a real joke (worse than 7600gt), although they will be able to run the games, just probably not to well (get what you pay for ).

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: MadBoris

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
the whole point was just juvenile and ridiculous.

and it would be an absolutely stupid business decision on any game developers part to make a game where the minimum requiremement was the latest hardware. thank god developers arent boneheads in that sense.

Well, I think your still not seeing the picture. My focus is '06 games, as i mentioned, which ALL absolutely will be made to run DX9 and on 3 year old hardware. So I am not saying devs should somehow forget about 3 year old hardware for these games, any idiot knows that isn't happening. My point is the DX10 patches (focus with me), since DX10 begins with the 8800 series of cards (7 months old now), it's not too damn far fetched to say there is a big difference between 3 year old video cards and systems with 8800 GTS in them (DX10 platforms). Nor would it be far fetched, or "juvenile or ridiculous" as you put it, for devs to actually target the minimum DX10 hardware for their DX10 code. I'm willing to accept that most devs won't waste time on large differences in their DX10 code from DX9 (not cost effective), except for those that will be taking this time in converting their engines over for the future, from them we will likely see better DX10 differences and implementations with more bang.

Are you saying they should be targeting 3 year old hardware for the DX10 rendering paths, sounds that way to me, and that would be ridiculous.

no.

what i am saying is two things.

1- that to be sad that people with dx10 cards taht have 256mb ram can play dx10 games at lower settings is just idiocy. and that is what you said. i havent seen too many statements dumber than that on AT lately.

2- to only design games for the latest hardware is also a terrible business decision that limits your customer base to a very small enthusiast market. it doesnt mean you have to design games BASED on very old hardware, just that it can be played on older hardware in some form, while the latest generation of gear will make it look the best.

you keep saying 3 year old hardware.

the fact is you were sad about 3 month old, or EVEN NEWER, hardware being able to play dx10 games. you said these newer dx10 cards with 256mb ram made you sad that these pc builders had the right and ability to play dx10 games.

you said the stupid ******, now own up to it.

 

[MadBoris]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
no.

what i am saying is two things.

1- that to be sad that people with dx10 cards taht have 256mb ram can play dx10 games at lower settings is just idiocy. and that is what you said. i havent seen too many statements dumber than that on AT lately.
...
the fact is you were sad about 3 month old, or EVEN NEWER, hardware being able to play dx10 games. you said these newer dx10 cards with 256mb ram made you sad that these pc builders had the right and ability to play dx10 games.

you said the stupid ******, now own up to it.

Although not very legible, yeah I agree, that does sound pretty stupid. You think I am that stupid to affirm that? Where did i say that? Or did you read that into it?
My initial topic point is my surprise a few months ago in the developers now actually possibly targeting the low end value DX10 hardware as minimum specs for the upcoming DX10 stuff. I did not know this value hardware would be so bad or mem so small. Sure they will be able to play DX10 but not with alot of settings or large textures, and I doubt devs will be shipping texture packs for the high mem and low mem cards, so we will end up with smaller textures. That was my point.

I actually agree with the points you make, they are pretty obvious, sorry if i didn't communicate clearly enough.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225
STALKER wasn't exactly a good example...

why not?

it's a perfect example of how stressful rendering multiple realtime lightsources and shadows can be.

turn it off and you have 150+fps just like ut4....

and don't even start with the "poorly coded" crap unless you actually know how the source code works...

 

[BFG10K]

and don't even start with the "poorly coded" crap unless you actually know how the source code works...

We do know to some degree based on the shader mod which looks better and runs faster. Also if you read the original thread created by the modder he comments multiple times about how inefficient the shader code is.

Also IIRC the devs were promising a 15%-20% performance gain in the new patch so clearly there's room for improvement.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: apoppin
STALKER runs *awesome* on MY x1950p system for underground [and outside] levels using high settings with full dynamic lighting !
--at 14x9

well, the 1950p i have it on is a54 @ 2.5ghz & 2gb ram. with everything on max and full dynamic lighting, the underground lvls bring it to its knees with multiple light sources. same with my 2.7ghz X2 (2gb) & 640mb GTS (648/1512/2ghz)...

don't know about UTK4 but Unreal2's "new dx9" DE:IW challenged the best systems of the time ... even a much better coded Thief - DS could choke the best rigs
.... then

i didn't get Unreal 2 right away, so i didn't use it as an example.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

and don't even start with the "poorly coded" crap unless you actually know how the source code works...

We do know to some degree based on the shader mod which looks better and runs faster. Also if you read the original thread created by the modder he comments multiple times about how inefficient the shader code is.

Also IIRC the devs were promising a 15%-20% performance gain in the new patch so clearly there's room for improvement.

there generally is room. things advance, ppl learn how to use certain hardware more efficiently, etc.

still 15-20% improvement is not much when framerate drops into the low teens at max IQ settings....

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MadBoris

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
the whole point was just juvenile and ridiculous.

and it would be an absolutely stupid business decision on any game developers part to make a game where the minimum requiremement was the latest hardware. thank god developers arent boneheads in that sense.

Well, I think your still not seeing the picture. My focus is '06 games, as i mentioned, which ALL absolutely will be made to run DX9 and on 3 year old hardware. So I am not saying devs should somehow forget about 3 year old hardware for these games, any idiot knows that isn't happening. My point is the DX10 patches (focus with me), since DX10 begins with the 8800 series of cards (7 months old is the oldest now), it's not too damn far fetched to say there is a big difference between 3 year old video cards and systems with 8800 GTS in them (DX10 platforms). Nor would it be far fetched, or "juvenile or ridiculous" as you put it, for devs to actually target the minimum of actual DX10 hardware for their DX10 code. I'm willing to accept that most devs won't waste time on large differences in their DX10 code from DX9 (not cost effective), except for those that will be taking this time in converting their engines over for the future, from them we will likely see better DX10 differences and implementations with more bang.

Are you saying they should be targeting 3 year old hardware for the DX10 rendering paths, sounds that way to me, and that would be ridiculous.

not at all unreasonable .... but that is not the way you "came across" in your first post

OBVIOUSLY the Devs that are STARTING A-title games now ... or a nearly year ago would be thinking of "Dx10 Only" since their games will not be out till '09 when most of the gamers WILL have Vista and Multicore ...

Alan Wake *requires* multicore and Vista to run ... the top P4s with HT "maybe" able to manage it.
-and i think it is due late this year or early next year.

but the *popular* games will probably be dual-coded for quite awhile - like there are STILL games that will play on the DX8 pathway - today ... becoming harder to find and certainly less attractive.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: apoppin
STALKER runs *awesome* on MY x1950p system for underground [and outside] levels using high settings with full dynamic lighting !
--at 14x9

well, the 1950p i have it on is a54 @ 2.5ghz & 2gb ram. with everything on max and full dynamic lighting, the underground lvls bring it to its knees with multiple light sources. same with my 2.7ghz X2 (2gb) & 640mb GTS (648/1512/2ghz)...

don't know about UTK4 but Unreal2's "new dx9" DE:IW challenged the best systems of the time ... even a much better coded Thief - DS could choke the best rigs
.... then

i didn't get Unreal 2 right away, so i didn't use it as an example.

what resolution?

maybe something is wrong with your setup

i have everything completely maxed indoors with HDR and every slider to the right
at 14x9 ... very smooth

outdoors - with my old P4, i had to turn grass density down and grass shadows off including lighting distance down to 60% ... doubt i'll have to now with C2D

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: apoppin
what resolution?

1950 is 1480x900

GTS is 1690x1050

maybe something is wrong with your setup

i would find it hard to believe something is wrong with both setups. in fact, i'm hardly the only one that has made a similar observation. forums are full of posts regarding performance issues underground with full dynamic lighting.

i have everything completely maxed indoors with HDR and every slider to the right
at 14x9 ... very smooth

then perhaps your definition of 'smooth' differs from the rest of us.. in hardocp's review a 1959XTX couldn't even run STALKER @1280 with max settings and dynamic lighting (and this wasn't even indoor levels) on a 3ghz C2D:

"Unfortunately, the story was much different on the ATI Radeon X1950 XT. That video card simply could not handle S.T.A.L.K.E.R. with maximum settings, or even at 1600x1200 for that matter. We had to lower the resolution to 1280x1024, lower the HQAF level to 8x, and lower almost all of the in-game quality settings just to make the game playable."

or maybe CatalystAI is set to "performance" in your drivers? could be you have full settings in game but are not getting "max" settings due to Catalyst settings....

 

[apoppin]

i am going to check right now

i do notice that the nvidia drivers seem to have more "issues" than the ATi drivers with STALKER
... so your *belief* that "both machines" cannot be set up 'wrong' as your conclusion, is based on ... nothing

 

[CaiNaM]

doh.. duped...

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: apoppin
i am going to check right now

i do notice that the nvidia drivers seem to have more "issues" than the ATi drivers with STALKER
... so your *belief* that "both machines" cannot be set up 'wrong' as your conclusion, is based on ... nothing

well, other than i'm not so stupid as to mess up 2 pc's, let alone 1, and like i said, my observations seem to correlate with others (both reviews and forum users).

besides, after almost 20 years of building desktops and servers, they are not that hard to set it up

so did you finally upgrade your cpu?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: apoppin
i am going to check right now

i do notice that the nvidia drivers seem to have more "issues" than the ATi drivers with STALKER
... so your *belief* that "both machines" cannot be set up 'wrong' as your conclusion, is based on ... nothing

well, other than i'm not so stupid as to mess up 2 pc's, let alone 1, and like i said, my observations seem to correlate with others (both reviews and forum users).

besides, after almost 20 years of building desktops and servers, they are not that hard to set it up

so did you finally upgrade your cpu?

all i can say is *whatever* .. i read the reviews too and that *entire* HUGE thread in Games Forum ... you ATi rig might be set up wrong ... but at any rate, i *know* my C2D is more powerful than either of your CPUs ... as to your gtS, there seem to be issues with nvidia drivers and STALKER - much more so than with ATi drivers

'got it' .... your ATi resolution is the same as mine BUT your GTS is bogged down with a higher one ... makes sense now that BOTH of your rigs can't do STALKER maxed but mine can - especially those "last-gen" CPUs are gonna struggle with the resolution.

i just played STALKER ... patched to the latest [only] patch ... long enough to have a complete cycle of day into night with lightening and etc [btw, the C2D temps only rise about 3 degrees C - under max load]

*all* Sliders to the Right
[except the useless AA]
*all* setting Maxed ... FDL

and it is *smooth* ... even Fluid at 14x9 ... NO ... *zero* slowdowns
and i have been playing games and building rigs ... forever

that means Grass density is 100%, lighting distance is 100%, all the shadows are maxed --including grass and sun

did i miss anything ?


"new" rig is updated in sig


and you are 'so stupid' as to have posted the same thing twice-in-a row instead of editing :Q
-- everyone makes mistakes



[j/k'ing]

:laugh:

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: apoppin
all i can say is *whatever* .. i read the reviews too and that *entire* HUGE thread in Games Forum ... you ATi rig might be set up wrong ... but at any rate, i *know* my C2D is more powerful than either of your CPUs ... as to your gtS, there seem to be issues with nvidia drivers and STALKER - much more so than with ATi drivers

that doesn't explain why YOUR x1950pro/c2d @ 2.7 is much more powerful than a c2dex @2.9 and an x1950XTX that can't run max settings even @12x8.

'got it' .... your ATi resolution is the same as mine BUT your GTS is bogged down with a higher one ... makes sense now that BOTH of your rigs can't do STALKER maxed but mine can - especially those "last-gen" CPUs are gonna struggle with the resolution.

what i don't get is, removing my rigs from the equation altogether, why yours runs so much better than other rigs with better hardware, as shown above...

putting my GTS back in the equation, i can run max outside and keep 40ish fps; you have to turn down your sliders.. yet mine bogs down in underground levels but yours doesn't. doesn't make sense....

i just played STALKER ... patched to the latest [only] patch ... long enough to have a complete cycle of day into night with lightening and etc [btw, the C2D temps only rise about 3 degrees C - under max load]

*all* Sliders to the Right
[except the useless AA]
*all* setting Maxed ... FDL

and it is *smooth* ... even Fluid at 14x9 ... NO ... *zero* slowdowns
and i have been playing games and building rigs ... forever

that means Grass density is 100%, lighting distance is 100%, all the shadows are maxed --including grass and sun

so did you have to turn it down because of cpu before?

did i miss anything ?


"new" rig is updated in sig


and you are 'so stupid' as to have posted the same thing twice-in-a row instead of editing :Q
-- everyone makes mistakes



[j/k'ing]

:laugh:

bah.. i should sleep more instead of staying up all damn nite...

 

[apoppin]

yes ... i *did* have to turn grass density - way down with my P4 EE ... Grass shadows Off and lighting distance to about 60%

now they are *maxed* with C2D

and don't say "even at 12x10" [1310720]... that is more demanding than 14x9 [1296000]

MAXED i tell you
:Q

completely and 100% maxed out

--even *maxed* in the CCC

--i even just checked to make *sure* everything was HQ
[except AA which doesn't work]

i think you might benefit from a CPU upgrade, Mr C



--no idea about HardOCP
some of their reviews have been pretty variable ... especially with their apples to bananas comparisons
:roll:

i am using 7.4 cats

s m o o t h

nothing like that 4FPS min they got ANYwhere
--from looking at the GTX struggling at 16x12, i have to say they are full of it
:thumbsdown:

and *nothing* like the 'real world' reports we get from our own forums
-either STALKLER seems to run 'great' ... or like crap

i'd wait for the next patch - and the MAJOR optimizations that need to be made - before making ANY general conclusions about STALKER performance.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Stalker running smoothly on an X1950Pro with all sliders to the right at 1280x1024?

Fraps please!

Even my system runs Stalker like a pile of crap (usually under 50fps, so I can't enable vsync or I'm locked to 30fps) at 1680x1050, and it's not just the crap Nvidia drivers, and they are crap, it's also the buggy and unoptimised game.

It's not the ATI drivers being better with Stalker either, because you're making claims of better performance than my friend with an E6300 @ 3.2GHz and an X1900XT @ XT-X.

It's not your E4300 @ 2.76GHz either, my E6300 @ 3.5GHz would be blitzing this game were that the case.

 

[R3MF]

Originally posted by: MadBoris

Originally posted by: gneGne
Game developers wouldn't even have enough money, ESPECIALLY for high-end grahics if only the enthusiasts get to enjoy it.

DX10 is pretty much enthusiast only right now. The focus being DX10, I would say there is more high end DX10 parts than low end in circulation right now. I guess that makes DX10 enthusiast but it won't be that way far long. But yeah devs will be targeting DX9 for several years and usually 3 year old rigs, I hoped DX10 could be a nice leap, but alas not too likely.

yup, which is why i won't be joining the party until the G90 is released later this year.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

256MB is a sensible baseline to chase if only because of the popularity of cross-platform development these days, with both the 360 and the PS3 having roughly about 256MB as well.

of course for the PC, 256MB will only be the baseline for low end PC's, i.e. it will be assumed that the resolution of the PC's monitor will be 1280x1024, 1366x768 or 1440x900 (~1.2MP).

if you have a panel capable of 1680x1050, 1600x1200, then you should have at least 320MB of memory on a graphics adapter capable of pushing it.

if your panel is 1920x1200 or greater then your card should have 512MB or more, especially if you max out texture and IQ settings (which it is presumed you will if you have spent the money on a big panel, as you should have spent money on a monster PC too).

if someone is stupid enough to try and play crysis at 1920x1200 on an 8600GTS with 256MB of memory, then it's their own fault that the game runs like crap.

in the same way that buying an 8800GTS SLI rig to push a 1280x1024 panel is cretinous and stupid in the extreme.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Stalker running smoothly on an X1950Pro with all sliders to the right at 1280x1024?

no, he says he's running it @ 14x9 (i'm assuming 1440x900 WS)...

Fraps please!

Even my system runs Stalker like a pile of crap (usually under 50fps, so I can't enable vsync or I'm locked to 30fps) at 1680x1050, and it's not just the crap Nvidia drivers, and they are crap, it's also the buggy and unoptimised game.

It's not the ATI drivers being better with Stalker either, because you're making claims of better performance than my friend with an E6300 @ 3.2GHz and an X1900XT @ XT-X.

It's not your E4300 @ 2.76GHz either, my E6300 @ 3.5GHz would be blitzing this game were that the case.

i'm thinking he's gonna say there's something wrong with both you and your friend's systems.. or perhaps the 1950pro, despite it's specs is a much faster card than your friend's o/c'd 1900xt (or your GTS since it has "issues" with STALKER). maybe you should both trade up!

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: hans007
its not like dx10 is a huge performance benefit or even that much different than dx9.

the thing is your 8800gts still runs DX9 games much faster than every other card, so you'd gotten plenty out of it. stop whining.

it will be

and SOON

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200701/N07.0126.1423.58507.htm?Page=2

Rein: We always aim Unreal for systems that people don?t have yet. (laughs) Whether its UT or any Unreal game, so I think the sweet spot has yet to show up. Again, it?s 64-bit and a ton of RAM, like an NVIDIA dual 8800s and Core 2 Extreme Quad processor?you could certainly build a super rig, but UT3 with everything turned up all the way is still going to struggle on that kind of thing. A year from now, it?ll still be a game that is a showcase game for whatever hardware you happen to be getting then. That?s normal. That?s exactly the way we?ve done it every time from the original.

is that why ut2k4 ran on my system @ 75fps to up over 100fps (depending on the map) w/ all the details turned up when it first came out?

i don't think unreal had too much stress on my system either (tho i think i had dual voodoo 2's back then) but it's been so long ago i can't quite remember...

OP: any game with multiple realtime lightsources can bring g80 to its knees.. just run one of STALKER's underground levels using high settings with full dynamic lighting....

I remember UT struggling a fair bit at 1600x1200 on my TNT2/P3 600 system around the time of its release.
And that's without fancy extras like AA/AF

 

[40sTheme]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: apoppin
what resolution?

1950 is 1480x900

GTS is 1690x1050

maybe something is wrong with your setup

i would find it hard to believe something is wrong with both setups. in fact, i'm hardly the only one that has made a similar observation. forums are full of posts regarding performance issues underground with full dynamic lighting.

i have everything completely maxed indoors with HDR and every slider to the right
at 14x9 ... very smooth

then perhaps your definition of 'smooth' differs from the rest of us.. in hardocp's review a 1959XTX couldn't even run STALKER @1280 with max settings and dynamic lighting (and this wasn't even indoor levels) on a 3ghz C2D:

"Unfortunately, the story was much different on the ATI Radeon X1950 XT. That video card simply could not handle S.T.A.L.K.E.R. with maximum settings, or even at 1600x1200 for that matter. We had to lower the resolution to 1280x1024, lower the HQAF level to 8x, and lower almost all of the in-game quality settings just to make the game playable."

or maybe CatalystAI is set to "performance" in your drivers? could be you have full settings in game but are not getting "max" settings due to Catalyst settings....

No, I'm pretty sure my smooth is smooth (in STALKER smooth is 25+ fps) and I get that with everything maxed except grass density and grass shadows on my 7950GT/Pentium D 820/2GB RAM system.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: MadBoris
You know when i got my 8800 GTS several months ago, I was thinking to myself how developers sending out the first DX10 games this year (by patch update or standalone) are going to be able to go all out and really leverage these super fast new cards (8800 gts and gtx), basically leaping ahead years and generations of computer rigs by targeting the 8800 GTS 640MB as the min specs, saddled with a fast CPU. Normally they target three year old hardware, I thought this could be something very different.

Then later came a sore realization and disappointment - value DX10 products arrive. WTF

Now we have DX10 cards that people are buying with 256MB RAM, with abysmal performance equivalent to a 6800 ultra, some of them thinking they will play DX10 games, sadly they may.

Will this make my 8800gts with it's 640MB basically not fully leveraged when DX10 comes about in the coming months or will some devs just scoff and ignore those crap DX10 cards and build the soon upcoming DX10 titles with the new breed of top end cards in mind as the minimum specs?

I guess there are two ways to go for DX10, continued gradual game progression and nothing spectacular in them supporting low end GPU's with low texture mem capability. Or draw a line in the sand with the current top end GPU's as minimum spec and make the game usee all that RAM in textures, as well as push tons of other effects leveraging these two highend beasts.

I'm talking '07, early '08 DX10 games...Thoughts???

dude you got a long time to wait for DX10 games to be the norm. hell people here still use AGP *looks at apoppin*

cards like the 8800GTS and up are bought by mr computer enthusiast, and im sorry to tell you but we are very much the minority here. DX9 games will be around for a long time i suspect, thats what the majority have, all you guys buying into the DX10 before its even properly a-go are just going to get DX9+ garnish for a while.

and again, not everyone drops $400 on a gpu.... sub $200 is sometimes even hard to justify, but thats where the market is. to a game developer..... obviously you dont want to hang customers out to dry, but hanging the enthusiast out is the lesser of two evils.

like i said, i wouldnt worry about amazing DX10 games..... DX9 still got some long legs on it, we'll just get som DX10 trimmings to tide us over for a while, by the time full DX10 games appear you'll of bought a new graphics card anyway.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: MadBoris
Yeah I heard in a dev interview that apparently Crysis will not be able to be fully maxed out in settings regardless of any current commercially available hardware. That is promising and kind of scarry all at once.
I only have original FEAR, not the expansion, may check it out.

I guess when those first cards came out I was thinking the new amount of RAM being 640MB was going to be a new standard baseline for large 2048 textures and shadow maps, only to realize they now have 256MB as the common baseline. Just makes it seem like the 768MB or 1GB RAM cards are way overkill with all the 256MB value cards still majority.

:shocked:H MY G:shocked...

Yup, I remember a quote in a magazine where they said they had a mode which would make Quad-core dual GTX systems work with FPS in the low teens...

point is the game will still look incredible a few years from now. adds to replayability, reinstall later once you have newer hardware and get a different experience instead of a totally dated one thats kewl.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I remember UT struggling a fair bit at 1600x1200 on my TNT2/P3 600 system around the time of its release.
And that's without fancy extras like AA/AF

could have.

ut2004 came out march '04. i found these old benchmarks from april '04:

as-convoy 77.384071 fps
br-colossus 129.127090 fps
dm-rankin 180.265030 fps

that was my 9800pro or fx5900 (don't remember which; had both at the time)

this was either my x800pro or 6800gt (again, i had both at the time), benchmarked @ 1600x1200:

1600x1024 123.09 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 172.75 fps, as-convoy: 73.51 fps, br-colossus: 123.01 fps ); quite an improvement over my 9800pro

most of the old benchmarks i ran across from back then were of farcry, which actually taxed my system

result\2004.05.17.18.28.52. - x800pro stock clock

-----------------------------------------------------------
Far Cry

Using Max settings.
Map: Fort Demo

640x480 not selected
800x600 not selected
1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 56.25

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 56.15

1600x1200
run# 0: Average FPS: 49.00



-----------------------------------------------------------
Call Of Duty

Demo name: demobta00
800x600 not selected
1024x768 12.8 seconds: 59.4 fps
1280x1024 12.7 seconds: 59.8 fps
1600x1200 12.8 seconds: 59.7 fps

ahhh... memories

edit: looks like they were for the most part cpu limited back then; i was running a 3.2ghz northwood.

a little while later on an a64 @ 2.4ghz:

a64 2400mhz 6800gt 410-1000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Doom 3

Command line: Doom3.exe +set logFile 1 +set com_showFPS 1 +set timescale 7 +set r_mode <res> +playdemo demo1 +wait 1000 +timedemoquit demo1
640x480 not selected.
800x600 not selected.
1024x768 85.1 fps
1280x1024 68.8 fps
1600x1200 53.5 fps

-----------------------------------------------------------
Far Cry (sm3 path)

Map: Fort Demo

4xaa_8xaf_system.cfg
command line: -DEVMODE "r_sm30path 1"
640x480 not selected
800x600 not selected
1024x768
run# 0: Average FPS: 57.55

1280x1024
run# 0: Average FPS: 48.99

1600x1200
run# 0: Average FPS: 38.15



-----------------------------------------------------------
Unreal Tournament 2004

1024x768 164.68 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 234.24 fps, as-convoy: 80.13 fps, br-colossus: 179.67 fps )
1280x1024 151.04 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 203.18 fps, as-convoy: 76.67 fps, br-colossus: 173.27 fps )
1600x1024 127.32 fps botmatch (dm-rankin: 205.27 fps, as-convoy: 64.17 fps, br-colossus: 112.51 fps )

 

[Pugnate]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Nightmare225

Originally posted by: Kromis

Originally posted by: MadBoris
Yeah I heard in a dev interview that apparently Crysis will not be able to be fully maxed out in settings regardless of any current commercially available hardware. That is promising and kind of scarry all at once.
I only have original FEAR, not the expansion, may check it out.

I guess when those first cards came out I was thinking the new amount of RAM being 640MB was going to be a new standard baseline for large 2048 textures and shadow maps, only to realize they now have 256MB as the common baseline. Just makes it seem like the 768MB or 1GB RAM cards are way overkill with all the 256MB value cards still majority.

:shocked:H MY G:shocked...

Yup, I remember a quote in a magazine where they said they had a mode which would make Quad-core dual GTX systems work with FPS in the low teens...

It's funny how programming ineffeciencies are now bragging rights.

hahaha