3D Performance with S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

[apoppin]

UPDATE PART TWO

CPU Perfromance

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/stalker_cpu_performance/
-----------------------------------------------------------

check it out ... i didn't see this anywhere

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/stalker_mainstream_3d_performance/

AA doesn't work very well with the HDR [FDL] ... it's effects are called "subtle"

and nvidia promises a patch soon to enable g80 sli for it

all said ... it runs very smoothly on my rig in sig @ 14x9 with everything *maxed* -except (1) only 4xAA ... (2) no shadows on grass ... (3) lighting distance is 60% ... and (4) grass "density" way down.

love the game!
:heart:

 

[apoppin]

let me whet your appetite:

due to the nature of the game, we can?t present you 100% identical screenshots. This is because in the game, nothing stands still: your character?s hands bob up and down while standing still, and the game world is always changing. A gust of wind for instance, may blow dust and debris across the game?s landscape, trees and other foliage sway in the breeze, or perhaps a mutated dog will come out of nowhere to attack you. The environment inside STALKER truly is a living, breathing world. In other words, nothing truly sits still to pose for an identical screenshot. You may see haze that isn?t as thick in one screenshot from the next, or characters may be slightly out of place, just ignore it

Graphically S.T.A.L.K.E.R.?s X-Ray game engine is quite impressive. According to the developer, up to a million polygons can be on-screen at any one time, and the game sports the latest eye candy effects, including HDR lighting, parallax and normal maps, 3.0 pixel/vertex shaders, per-pixel lighting and soft dynamic shadows. In fact, the game is so demanding that many card owners with DX9 cards like the GeForce 6800 and Radeon X800 have been forced to play the game in DirectX 8 mode. This is because the game?s dynamic lighting model performs so many calculations it can bring many DX9 cards to their knees: get to aggressive with the graphics settings, and you can bring a modern GPU like the GeForce 7900 or Radeon X1900 to a sluggish crawl.

evidently 4 cores also make a difference ... as does 512MB vRAM vs 256

 

[schneiderguy]

If this is a "mainstream" article why didnt they test at 1024*768... I want to know what framerate the 7600gt will get at that resolution! :|

edit: no AA support sucks also

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
If this is a "mainstream" article why didnt they test at 1024*768... I want to know what framerate the 7600gt will get at that resolution! :|

edit: no AA support sucks also

dude ... read the *whole* article ...

first ... there is AA support but it is subtle ... a ATi patch may enable it completely

and

S.TA.L.K.E.R. is a very demanding game graphically, but fortunately you can get good frame rates with the game with today?s latest mainstream graphics cards. You can find GeForce 7600 GS cards for right around $100 at many online retailers, while PriceGrabber listings for the Radeon X1300 XT start under $100. Unfortunately neither of these cards were quite able to hit what we?d consider playable frame rates with dynamic lighting enabled, but with a few more tweaks to our config file and a little bit of overclocking (the 7600 GS can typically hit 7600 GT speeds especially with better cooling) we think frame rates in the 30 fps range would have been possible, especially at 1280x1024.

the CPU makes the biggest difference in delivering playable frame rates with STALKER ... --strangely they are testing with Core2Duo - but just add about +30% more fps for 10x7 over 12x10... very roughly guesstimated

--from *their* comments you can expect at least 30 FPS at 10x7 with your GT

10x7 is no longer considered mainstream as most common LCDs are 12x10
--which very nicely equals my 14x9

edited

 

[GZFant]

Runs great everything maxed on 1280X1024 with grass density on medium!

A643000+
7900GT
2mb ram

Easily one of my favorite games of all time =)

Then again, I am not too picky with fps since I usually run low mid-low range computers.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
If this is a "mainstream" article why didnt they test at 1024*768... I want to know what framerate the 7600gt will get at that resolution! :|

edit: no AA support sucks also

1024x768 is more like "budget", not mainstream.

 

[JPB]

Everything maxed here.

1440x900
All ingame settings maxed
8xaa
8xaf

On rig in sig

Games plays really smooth...looks nice too. Ill bench with fraps and take some screenies.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
If this is a "mainstream" article why didnt they test at 1024*768... I want to know what framerate the 7600gt will get at that resolution! :|

edit: no AA support sucks also

1024x768 is more like "budget", not mainstream.

that's kinda elitist

i guess *PC* would be to say they are CRT and 'the past' ...

LCDs are now mainstream and the present... and typical is 12x10

i imagine Part 2/3 will deal with Hi-resolution screens and GTX/gtx-SLI and DC vs QC

i am looking forward to *my* future

--and i would say, JPB, the *difference* between your rig getting *all* details maxed and mine getting *most* is your faster GPU.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: apoppin

dude ... read the *whole* article ...

first ... there is AA support but it is subtle ... a ATi patch may enable it completely

All the in game "AA" is doing is blurring the entire scene slightly.. it's like the "AA" in GRAW, and it sucks Also, I would think AA would be impossible for any card because of the lighting system they are using... again, like GRAW. Neither ATI nor nvidia cards can do AA.

1024x768 is more like "budget", not mainstream.

the steam hardware survey says 41 % of people use 1024*768. thatt's pretty "mainstream" if you ask me

besides, not all of us (me included ) can afford to have $300 video cards to run at higher resolutions

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: schneiderguy
If this is a "mainstream" article why didnt they test at 1024*768... I want to know what framerate the 7600gt will get at that resolution! :|

edit: no AA support sucks also

1024x768 is more like "budget", not mainstream.

that's kinda elitist

i guess *PC* would be to say they are CRT and 'the past' ...

LCDs are now mainstream and the present... and typical is 12x10

i imagine Part 2/3 will deal with Hi-resolution screens and GTX/gtx-SLI and DC vs QC

i am looking forward to *my* future

No, not really. Its more of a realist attitude. 1024x768 is a budget resolution. I havent used it in at least 5 years, probably more if I really think about it. If you cant run at a higher res than 1024x768, your PC is a budget PC. 1280x1024 is more mainstream.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: apoppin

dude ... read the *whole* article ...

first ... there is AA support but it is subtle ... a ATi patch may enable it completely

Do you know what game most steam users play? CS:S. My phone could play that at 1024x768.

Take a gander at a poll on these very forums; http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1657533&enterthread=y&arctab=y

Clearly it backs me up. 1280x1024 is easily the most mainstream res. And that poll was created in August 2005. Imagine what it would look like now.

 

[BigShroom]

Getting a little bit off topic aren't we guys?

Question for the OP, do you have full dynamic lighting on with those settings? I get about 23fps average running around the bar area with my setup. Inside the bar it slows to a painful 15fps. This is with the game patched to 1.0001 version, resolution at 1280x1024.

e4300@3ghz
4gb ddr2 667mhz
x1950pro 256mb

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: apoppin


love the game!
:heart:

So is it worth buying? I have been tempted.......

 

[BigShroom]

Originally posted by: ronnn

So is it worth buying? I have been tempted.......

Yes. If your system is beefy enough to handle it.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Do you know what game most steam users play? CS:S. My phone could play that at 1024x768.

Take a gander at a poll on these very forums; http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1657533&enterthread=y&arctab=y

Clearly it backs me up. 1280x1024 is easily the most mainstream res. And that poll was created in August 2005. Imagine what it would look like now.

im not sure how CSS runs has anything to do with what resolution people run at If anything people would run it at a higher resolution because it runs so great on most cards. I run CSS at 1280*1024

these forums are hardly consistent with what most gamers have in their PC's. most people here have high end video cards. most people who game dont have a high end video card.

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Do you know what game most steam users play? CS:S. My phone could play that at 1024x768.

Take a gander at a poll on these very forums; http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1657533&enterthread=y&arctab=y

Clearly it backs me up. 1280x1024 is easily the most mainstream res. And that poll was created in August 2005. Imagine what it would look like now.

im not sure how CSS runs has anything to do with what resolution people run at If anything people would run it at a higher resolution because it runs so great on most cards. I run CSS at 1280*1024

these forums are hardly consistent with what most gamers have in their PC's. most people here have high end video cards. most people who game dont have a high end video card.

90% of my cs:s clan have a x1900 or 7900 or higher

 

[Stumps]

hmmm, might have to get myself a copy of S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

It looks pretty cool.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: apoppin

dude ... read the *whole* article ...

first ... there is AA support but it is subtle ... a ATi patch may enable it completely

All the in game "AA" is doing is blurring the entire scene slightly.. it's like the "AA" in GRAW, and it sucks Also, I would think AA would be impossible for any card because of the lighting system they are using... again, like GRAW. Neither ATI nor nvidia cards can do AA.

1024x768 is more like "budget", not mainstream.

the steam hardware survey says 41 % of people use 1024*768. thatt's pretty "mainstream" if you ask me

besides, not all of us (me included ) can afford to have $300 video cards to run at higher resolutions

again... ATi *may* be able to do HDR + AA

of course it *blurrs* it ... that's "what" AA does ...

ANYway, it says there aren't many jaggies to begin with

and that is a pretty old survey ... you're barely hanging onto the butt-end of mainstream ...
and losing ground
=====================

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: apoppin


love the game!
:heart:

So is it worth buying? I have been tempted.......

you're asking me?
:Q




...

absolutely .... it is like no other FPS ... read the big thread in SW

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=33&threadid=2014414&enterthread=y

and *give -in* to temptation
:evil:

at least in this case

 

[swtethan]

okay i gotta go get this gameeeeeeeee


lets play

 

[BFG10K]

again... ATi *may* be able to do HDR + AA

No because the problem has nothing to do with HDR, it's with the game's deferred shading. If you run the game under DX8 with no HDR you still can't force AA.

Also in case you weren't aware G80 can run HDR + AA like ATi can.

of course it *blurrs* it ... that's "what" AA does ...

No, what Stalker does isn't true AA, it's a simulated hack done through shaders. The game's 4x setting pales in comparison to what regular 4xAA can do.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

again... ATi *may* be able to do HDR + AA

No because the problem has nothing to do with HDR, it's with the game's deferred shading. If you run the game under DX8 with no HDR you still can't force AA.

Also in case you weren't aware G80 can run HDR + AA like ATi can.

of course it *blurrs* it ... that's "what" AA does ...

No, what Stalker does isn't true AA, it's a simulated hack done through shaders. The game's 4x setting pales in comparison to what regular 4xAA can do.

i *know* what STALKER's aa ... does ... very little ... but there isn't really much jaggies to begin with and the performance hit seemed very reasonable

oops, i guess i misread this about the MSAA and assumed something else about its implementation ... yeah, i know about g80

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/stalker_mainstream_3d_performance/page2.asp

UPDATE 3/28/07: We received the following from NVIDIA: "The trouble is not HDR+AA but rather the game's deferred shading engine which is fundamentally incompatible with hardware MSAA. Essentially it's the same issue as Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter's engine. This is why the developer implemented a shader based AA (the slider in the game) but as you noticed, its effect is quite subtle. We have a new driver coming which gives some perf improvements and SLI for G80. Will keep you posted!"

i thought they could tweak the shader based AA further

--anyway good news for you ... a new nvidia driver is on the way

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Do you know what game most steam users play? CS:S. My phone could play that at 1024x768.

Take a gander at a poll on these very forums; http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...hreadid=1657533&enterthread=y&arctab=y

Clearly it backs me up. 1280x1024 is easily the most mainstream res. And that poll was created in August 2005. Imagine what it would look like now.

im not sure how CSS runs has anything to do with what resolution people run at If anything people would run it at a higher resolution because it runs so great on most cards. I run CSS at 1280*1024

these forums are hardly consistent with what most gamers have in their PC's. most people here have high end video cards. most people who game dont have a high end video card.

Because it uses an engine that is very, very, very, very old. So old any machine out there can play it. It doesnt change that 1024 is a budget res. Im not sure why that offends you.

Most people here do not have high end cards. Most here have mainstream cards, and game at a mainstream res.

 

[PingSpike]

1024x768 is pretty much a budget resolution these days. Most people have older or budget PCs so its not surprise that its a pretty popular resolution. I used to run my CRT at that, never had any complaints. The only reason I changed resolutions is that LCDs look like ass at non-native resolutions.

I could get away with cheaper video cards back with my CRT, thats for sure.

 

[Munky]

I don't see any visual difference from whatever AA modes I try in Stalker, so I just run without AA. Still looks good, but don't expect any currently available video card to use AA in that game. At least with the interesting gameplay I don't notice the jaggies that much.

edit: I've monitored the video mem usage of the game, and at 1280x960 with high settings it uses up all 512mb that I have.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: munky
I don't see any visual difference from whatever AA modes I try in Stalker, so I just run without AA. Still looks good, but don't expect any currently available video card to use AA in that game. At least with the interesting gameplay I don't notice the jaggies that much.

edit: I've monitored the video mem usage of the game, and at 1280x960 with high settings it uses up all 512mb that I have.

I guess I'll stay away from this game.

I always have to run my games at high settings and it looks like this game will rip my XTX a new one at 1920x1200.