Full Dynamic Lighting absolutely kills my system in STALKER!

[Matt2]

I posted this in the software forum, but my results were so odd that I need to know if other X19xx series owners are experiencing the same thing.

Opteron 170 @ 2.8GHZ
2GB PC-4000
DFI CFX3200 Crossfire mobo
X1900XTX @ 690/800
Catalyst 7.4
Vista

STALKER v1.0003

1920x1200
Settings cranked to full, Full Dynamic Lighting

Min- 11
Max- 20
AVG- 13.59

1920x1200
Settings cranked to full, AA Full, Static Lighting only

Min- 43
Max- 47
AVG- 44.8

1360x768
Settings cranked to full, Full Dynamic Lighting

Min- 22
Max- 30
AVG- 24

1360x768
Settings cranked to full, AA full, Static Lighting only

Min- 45
Max- 133
AVG- 91

All settings were benched in exact same area of game.

Full Dynamic Lighting obviously kills my framerates in STALKER regardless of resolution. CPU issue? GPU issue? Driver issue? Vista issue?

 

[josh6079]

I bet the game's engine is another factor. Depending on how an application uses HDR, it can be a anything between a noticeable slow-down to a wrecked slide-show.

Either case, the only thing we can do is wait for driver updates and/or patches to see if they help. Perhaps some XP users could report their results to eliminate the possibility of it being a Vista issue.

 

[Jules]

Ok i see now. your Opty is at 2.8ghz. It aint CPU limited. GPU id say if you want a boost in performance.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
Ok i see now. your Opty is at 2.8ghz. It aint CPU limited. GPU id say if you want a boost in performance.

I tend to agree, but I have a hard time believing dynamic lighting kills performance even at 1360x768!

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
Ok i see now. your Opty is at 2.8ghz. It aint CPU limited. GPU id say if you want a boost in performance.

I tend to agree, but I have a hard time believing dynamic lighting kills performance even at 1360x768!

I searched for your rig earlyer at it was at 2ghz from anandtech rigs but now that i see it at 2.8ghz its fine. Dynamic Lighting is very demanding. If you got the cash id say Upgrade your card to a 2900XT or something similar.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth
Ok i see now. your Opty is at 2.8ghz. It aint CPU limited. GPU id say if you want a boost in performance.

I tend to agree, but I have a hard time believing dynamic lighting kills performance even at 1360x768!

I searched for your rig earlyer at it was at 2ghz from anandtech rigs but now that i see it at 2.8ghz its fine. Dynamic Lighting is very demanding. If you got the cash id say Upgrade your card to a 2900XT or something similar.

I know, that stupid My Anandtech system rig thing sucks. I had it to where when you clicked on "rig" in my sig and it went straight to my page, but now it wont do it. Also, I most definitely did not put my CPU as "AMD ADM Opteron" LOL.

Anyways, I'm gonna see what's up on Monday with the HD2900XT. If it's worth it, I'll wait a week or two and try to nab one at ~$379

 

[BFG10K]

Something is wrong with your static scores and I suspect it's the fact that the game doesn't like Vista.

On my 8800 GTS I get 148 FPS with full details (including AA) on the static path.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Something is wrong with your static scores and I suspect it's the fact that the game doesn't like Vista.

On my 8800 GTS I get 148 FPS with full details (including AA) on the static path.

Static scores at 1920x1200? Or 1360x768?

 

[BFG10K]

Static scores @ 1920x1440.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Stalker runs like rubbish on pretty much any system with full dynamic lighting on, despite what some claim.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Stalker runs like rubbish on pretty much any system with full dynamic lighting on, despite what some claim.

define "rubbish"?

I get pretty good Frame rates at 1280x1024, maximum quality, FDL enabled on my setup.

It runs nice an smooth even when a lot is happening on screen.

STALKER runs like crap on systems with only 1GB, but step up to 2GB and it's a completely different game...it runs so smooth.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: Stumps
define "rubbish"?

Naturally, everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes rubbish framerates and I covered that in another thread. Personally I like my first person shooters to run at a constant 60fps with vsync on, but I understand that the vast majority of people can settle with 30fps or even lower.

Problem is that Stalker even drops all the way down to 30fps for me at times in 1680x1050 and did in 1440x900 with full detail settings and dynamic lighting, so some things must be turned down for it to run well for me. I also have to sacrifice vsync to avoid mass stuttering since the framerate is so inconsistent (good coding job there by GSC.)

Turn off dynamic lighting and suddenly it's doing the business with three-digit framerates, so obviously dynamic lighting in this game is a system killer. Probably because DX9 as a whole was simply "tacked on" in a panic effort to counter the release of Half Life 2.

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: Stumps
define "rubbish"?

Naturally, everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes rubbish framerates and I covered that in another thread. Personally I like my first person shooters to run at a constant 60fps with vsync on, but I understand that the vast majority of people can settle with 30fps or even lower.

Problem is that Stalker even drops all the way down to 30fps for me at times in 1680x1050 and did in 1440x900 with full detail settings and dynamic lighting, so some things must be turned down for it to run well for me. I also have to sacrifice vsync to avoid mass stuttering since the framerate is so inconsistent (good coding job there by GSC.)

Turn off dynamic lighting and suddenly it's doing the business with three-digit framerates, so obviously dynamic lighting in this game is a system killer. Probably because DX9 as a whole was simply "tacked on" in a panic effort to counter the release of Half Life 2.

you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: Stumps
define "rubbish"?

Naturally, everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes rubbish framerates and I covered that in another thread. Personally I like my first person shooters to run at a constant 60fps with vsync on, but I understand that the vast majority of people can settle with 30fps or even lower.

Problem is that Stalker even drops all the way down to 30fps for me at times in 1680x1050 and did in 1440x900 with full detail settings and dynamic lighting, so some things must be turned down for it to run well for me. I also have to sacrifice vsync to avoid mass stuttering since the framerate is so inconsistent (good coding job there by GSC.)

Turn off dynamic lighting and suddenly it's doing the business with three-digit framerates, so obviously dynamic lighting in this game is a system killer. Probably because DX9 as a whole was simply "tacked on" in a panic effort to counter the release of Half Life 2.

you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

No, I can definitely tell the difference between 30 and even 40 FPS. There's no set FPS that the human eye sees at, and if there was, it would be higher than even 60. :disgust:

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Stalker runs like rubbish on pretty much any system with full dynamic lighting on, despite what some claim.

I haven't had a problem with my 8800GTS @ 1680x1050, all max settings including dynamic lighting.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Stalker runs like rubbish on pretty much any system with full dynamic lighting on, despite what some claim.

I haven't had a problem with my 8800GTS @ 1680x1050, all max settings including dynamic lighting.

Well, I see definite stutters with a GTX. Performance really does vary wildly, a very bad job by GSC. They had, what, 7 years to optimize the engine?

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Stalker runs like rubbish on pretty much any system with full dynamic lighting on, despite what some claim.

I haven't had a problem with my 8800GTS @ 1680x1050, all max settings including dynamic lighting.

You are using XP I bet, Vista sucks for stalker.

Oh and download the new patch that just came out, it is supposed to help.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: Stumps
you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

You do realise that what you just said only really applies to interlaced CRT televisions that have motion blur, right?

Computer monitors use progressive scan, don't have motion blur, and the human eye can discern up to and beyond 70fps when viewing them. "72fps" is generally the figure thrown around for "the illusion of reality", seriously Google is your friend.

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Stalker runs like rubbish on pretty much any system with full dynamic lighting on, despite what some claim.

I haven't had a problem with my 8800GTS @ 1680x1050, all max settings including dynamic lighting.

Like I said though, everyone has different standards as to what is "a problem" framerate. Full dynamic lighting drops my framerate from triple digits to 30-50fps, which to me is not acceptable.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar

Originally posted by: Stumps
you do realise that the human eye can't see any more than 30 fps right? anything more isn't nessecary and is more of a placebo effect.

If you are already getting 30 frames per second or better, then the game is running smoothly.

You do realise that what you just said only really applies to interlaced CRT televisions that have motion blur, right?

Computer monitors use progressive scan, don't have motion blur, and the human eye can discern up to and beyond 70fps when viewing them. "72fps" is generally the figure thrown around for "the illusion of reality", seriously Google is your friend.

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Stalker runs like rubbish on pretty much any system with full dynamic lighting on, despite what some claim.

I haven't had a problem with my 8800GTS @ 1680x1050, all max settings including dynamic lighting.

Like I said though, everyone has different standards as to what is "a problem" framerate. Full dynamic lighting drops my framerate from triple digits to 30-50fps, which to me is not acceptable.

the human eye may be ablke to discern all it wants but most lcds are limited to 60Hz anyway. but yeah anything around 30 fps is considerd relativtly smooth. 20-25 is smooth for games like oblivion. anyless and there is definite stuttering.

 

[CP5670]

I am planning to pick up this game in a week, once my final exams are over. I'll probably turn off the dynamic lighting right away, as it seems that it is the only way to get decent framerates. The graphics don't look that great anyway, so it won't be a big loss as long as the game is good otherwise.

Personally I like my first person shooters to run at a constant 60fps with vsync on

I agree. If a game falls below 60 more than just intermittently, I turn down some graphical settings right away.

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: CP5670
I agree. If a game falls below 60 more than just intermittently, I turn down some graphical settings right away.

Yeah. It's something I can cope with easily in strategy or role-playing games, but not shooters.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Stalker runs like rubbish on pretty much any system with full dynamic lighting on, despite what some claim.

BS

i get over 30FPS with FRAPS running continuously while playing

*all* sliders to the right ... every in-game setting fully maxed

at 10x9 ... FDL

STALKER runs very smoothly for 30s .... no dropping to the 20s

perhaps you are an "elitist" who *suffers* with thirties
:roll:

 

[humanure]

I average ~25-30 FPS with full lighting on, 1600x1200, dropped as low as 18 in the short test I just ran. With static lighting FPS averages -80, minimum 70, sometimes got into triple digits.

xeon 3060@3.5, x1900xtx, 2GB

 

[Ulfhednar]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ulfhednar
Stalker runs like rubbish on pretty much any system with full dynamic lighting on, despite what some claim.

BS

i get over 30FPS with FRAPS running continuously while playing

*all* sliders to the right ... every in-game setting fully maxed

at 10x9 ... FDL

STALKER runs very smoothly for 30s .... no dropping to the 20s

perhaps you are an "elitist" who *suffers* with thirties
:roll:

You keep saying this but aren't willing to back it up in any way, shape, or form.

You might try doing so before you continue to spout clap-trap.

Oh look, benchmarks. Close enough to 1440x900 too before you make that silly argument again, and I should point out that I did play Stalker in 1440x900 for a while on my Hyundai Imagequest X90W so I think I know you're talking crap.

Of course, you've said a bunch of times now that you're not willing to take any screenshots or text-benchmark runs with Fraps and that I am to continue believing what I want to believe. Therefore I will continue to believe you're talking a load of bollocks.

 

[apoppin]

and you are full of it

perhaps you don'k know how to optimize your rig ... who cares


i DID run FRAPS ... in game for a long time .. over several maps .. it *runs* consistently in the 30s .... from low 30 to high 30s ... everywhere

and since you will call me a liar - anyway - i don't need to prove anything to someone who is a complete jerk to me :|