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

[thecoolnessrune]

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

I'm a gamer but my comps run on a GeForce 4 MX420, 440, and ATI Radeon 7000 respectively

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

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

I'm a gamer but my comps run on a GeForce 4 MX420, 440, and ATI Radeon 7000 respectively

one particular "gamer" has a *very capable* rig - all top of the line stuff ... except for a 9800p ... and spends hundreds of dollars each month on games
:Q

... and tells us we are *stupid* for spending too much on DX9 AGP cards
:roll:
so ... there are all types of games ... you would be a "budget gamer" and pretty well restricted to older titles

 

[rmed64]

Originally posted by: Ackmed


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.

I would say resolution is based on preference. If you have a 17 inch monitor like me, I can do 1280 res, but it looks too small on this screen, so I game at 1024. If I had a 21 inch, I'd most likely be at 1280 or higher.

As for CSS and the source engine, graphically its pretty easy on the GPU, but the CPU takes a strain when the action gets heavy on a packed 36 man server. I wouldnt call the engine that old.....HL2 came out what, 2.5-3 years ago? Same with the Doom 3 engine, and they are both still being used today by newer games like Quake Wars, Prey and Dark Messiah.

Still 2 of the best engines in terms of balance between visuals and performance to me.

 

[swtethan]

got the game today, its hard

 

[apoppin]

make*sure* you get the patch ... it "balances" the game so it is not so hard in the beginning

And Source Engine is the *least capable* of the modern engines

 

[RussianSensation]

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 rather interesting because Gears of War on a 42 inch Panasonic/Pioneer plasma (limited to 1024x768) blows the doors off Far Car, Doom 3, FEAR, HL2 at 1920x1200. Resolution alone doesn't mean a heck of a lot. Doom 3 at 800x600 was better than 95% of the games out at the time which you could have maxed out to 1600x1200 and they would still fail to impress. In-game image quality is more important than resolution, don't you think?

 

[BFG10K]

I don't see any visual difference from whatever AA modes I try in Stalker, so I just run without AA.

In first starting camp outside if you look at the exposed roof timber in the huts you'll see a slight reduction in jagged edges. But yeah, it's generally pretty poor.

Still looks good, but don't expect any currently available video card to use AA in that game.

To be honest I'll probably end up running it under DX8 as that HDR doesn't look that great to me and slows things down to a crawl.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

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.

i'm offended by you calling 1024 a budget resolution? okay. budget cards = 7300's and x1300's. good luck playing any modern game at 1024*768 with those cards

800*600 and below = budget
1024*768 and 1280*1024 = mainstream
1600*1200 and higher = high end

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

I don't see any visual difference from whatever AA modes I try in Stalker, so I just run without AA.

In first starting camp outside if you look at the exposed roof timber in the huts you'll see a slight reduction in jagged edges. But yeah, it's generally pretty poor.

Still looks good, but don't expect any currently available video card to use AA in that game.

To be honest I'll probably end up running it under DX8 as that HDR doesn't look that great to me and slows things down to a crawl.

uh-uh

it *really does* look great with FDL [HDR] DX9 lighting maxed

have you tried turning grass density way down? ... next to 'go' is grass shadows ... sun shadows then lighting distance to 50% or so ...

i can see the difference with AA on or off

if i am stopped and looking intently

most of the time i am being shot at or chased by mutant dogs and i don't have a lot of time to *admire* the world

and 1024 is a mainstream resolution

becoming budget

 

[CrystalBay]

I want to see the multi-core performance benches part 2 of this review.

 

[apoppin]

i think that is part 3

i'll keep checking

i'll post it here when i see it or someone else alerts us

and STALKER is *intense* ... i can only play it for a couple of hours at a time

the *hardness* reminds me of FarCry ... you feel every foot won is an "achievement"

and there are 7 endings ... 2 are "true"

lots of consequences and variations to the MQ depending on results and choices

also a lot like DE and SS2 ... in many ways

but don't expect a *story* ... i think the Devs liked "Total Recall" and really corny Sci-fi

 

[BFG10K]

it *really does* look great with FDL [HDR] DX9 lighting maxed

Most HDR implementations I've seen appear to smear the image and this one is no exception.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

it *really does* look great with FDL [HDR] DX9 lighting maxed

Most HDR implementations I've seen appear to smear the image and this one is no exception.

let me try again ... it looks a HELL of a lot *better* than with DX8 lighting
:roll:

or something is wrong with your rig

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Ackmed

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.

i'm offended by you calling 1024 a budget resolution? okay. budget cards = 7300's and x1300's. good luck playing any modern game at 1024*768 with those cards

800*600 and below = budget
1024*768 and 1280*1024 = mainstream
1600*1200 and higher = high end

Wrong, at least partially. You're finally coming around and calling 1280x1024 a mainstream res. You can have a mid to highend card thats just older, and still play at a budget res. Its not defined by the card you use. Dont be upset that you game at a budget res, its nothing to be embarrassed about.

 

[BFG10K]

let me try again ... it looks a HELL of a lot *better* than with DX8 lighting

From what I've seen so far DX8 looks much cleaner because the HDR appears to be blurring the sky and similar.

or something is wrong with your rig

There's nothing wrong with my rig, I just dislike most HDR implementations. Painkiller, Loast Coast and Riddick do it right.

 

[apoppin]

no problem for me



it's your "eyes"

 

[BFG10K]

It's subjective for sure.

Again I like the way Riddick, Painkiller and Loast Coast do HDR - they make things bright without smearing or blooming the image.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
It's subjective for sure.

Again I like the way Riddick, Painkiller and Loast Coast do HDR - they make things bright without smearing or blooming the image.

no disrespect meant, whatsoever

but it does come down to how you 'like it' ... just like in audio



in STALKER ... the DX9 maxed lighting is just so ...


uh ...

dynamic

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: apoppin
[

you're asking me?

[/quote]


Well as annoying as you are, I figure you are one of the few that actually play and enjoy games on this unit. :beer:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: apoppin
[

you're asking me?

Well as annoying as you are, I figure you are one of the few that actually play and enjoy games on this unit. :beer:
[/quote]

i guess i am OK with that ...

anyway

the *deeper* i get into STALKER the better i like it ...

i saw the *twist* coming from the very beginning [1st cut scene actually] and it is very ...
well disappointing if you want "substance".

well.. STALKER *isn't* ... absolutely IS NOT played for "the Story" ...
[you are the "marked one" who has amnesia and has many jobs to do and needs to survive the harsh world of "the Zone"]

in that way it follows the great tradition of FPS

it is "action" ... and yet "thinking" and many ways to solve something ... most ending in failure

for example i was supposed to help a scientist take 'readings' to fine tune my psi emitter ... one of 3 [big] things could happen ... and you STILL could complete the next quest [very differently from the other ways].

and there are SEVEN endings ... two being "true"

plus it is rather Open-Ended ... you can just explore if you so wish

and it "lives" ... the world is more *alive* than anything before it

and it is a real *challenge* ... it is rather like Far Cry in that regard ... different in that you "scavenge" dead bodies for gear and supplies and have a STRICT weight limit ... must eat and bandage wounds or you will continue to bleed [to death if you ignore it].
--weapon have different characteristics and often tend to 'jam' at the worst time ... you can only choose a couple at a time

clearly it pays homage to SS2 and worships DE

if you are looking for the "usual" it is NOT for you ... some people HATED it ... they gave up right away, it is pretty hard and the inventory is hard to juggle [you have to switch weapons WHILE they are shooting at you by entering the inventory screen]

anyway ... i absolutely *LOVE* this game ...
:thumbsup::heart::thumbsup:

i guess i am near the End ... probably a few sessions to go ... the Endings is expected to disappoint ....

STALKER isn't the Destination ...
--it is the journey

:moon: :sun:

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Ackmed

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.

i'm offended by you calling 1024 a budget resolution? okay. budget cards = 7300's and x1300's. good luck playing any modern game at 1024*768 with those cards

800*600 and below = budget
1024*768 and 1280*1024 = mainstream
1600*1200 and higher = high end

Wrong, at least partially. You're finally coming around and calling 1280x1024 a mainstream res. You can have a mid to highend card thats just older, and still play at a budget res. Its not defined by the card you use. Dont be upset that you game at a budget res, its nothing to be embarrassed about.

Wow.

First: Where did I say that 1280*1024 wasnt a mainstream resolution?
Second: Where did I say that I play games at a "budget" resolution? The games I play (Company of Heroes, CSS & DODS, Civ4, BF2) I run at 1280*1024.
Third: Our views of what is "budget" are always going to be different because of differences in what we're used to. You're used to 1920*1080 or whatever, I'm used to 1280*1024. To me, one step down from the resolution I game at isnt "budget". To you, it probably is since it's 4 steps down from your usual.

 

[apoppin]

UPDATE PART TWO

CPU Perfromance

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

Picking the right CPU for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. really is going to come down to what kind of graphics card you?re currently running. Based on our benchmark results, if you?re running one of the mainstream graphics cards like the GeForce 7900 GS, the CPU doesn?t play as great a role in your overall game performance: regardless of the CPU used, performance was basically the same across all systems at the resolutions of 1280x1024, 1600x1200, and 1920x1200. Perhaps if we?d tested at lower screen resolutions (or ran the game with static lighting) the results would have been different, but most gamers are probably going to want to play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. at 1280x1024 or better, and as we showed you in our first article, there?s a huge difference in image quality between static lighting and dynamic lighting.

With a faster GPU setup CPU performance becomes more important. The GeForce 7900 GTX SLI config clearly ran best with the Core 2 processors, with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 delivering the best overall performance in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. thanks to its 2.93GHz clock speed. The nearest Athlon 64 X2 processor, the X2 6000+, trails the Core 2 Extreme by 8%. Clearly this isn?t a huge difference, but it\\s plausible this gap would increase with a faster setup like a pair of GeForce 8800 cards running in SLI. Of course, you can?t do this until NVIDIA releases their updated S.T.A.L.K.E.R. driver for GeForce 8 cards. Hopefully that should occur any day now.

 

[apoppin]

i missed the best part of the conclusion

Another factor to keep in mind is AMD?s latest X2 pricing. In light of AMD?s recent price cuts, the X2 CPUs really become excellent bargains, with CPUs starting right below $80. And when you compare the performance of AMD?s X2 CPUs to the nearest priced Intel equivalent, the AMD CPU always comes out ahead. Intel is expected to cut Core 2 prices later this month though, so the advantage AMD enjoys now may not last much longer.

Clearly our results today have shown which component is more important for delivering good performance in S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: the graphics card. You?ll probably still want a fast processor for your other tasks and games, but clearly you don?t need the latest Athlon 64 FX or Core 2 Extreme for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.. The game doesn?t appear to take advantage of multi-threading yet, so quad-core CPUs will perform similarly to their dual-core equivalent, and of course, as you crank up the screen resolution you increase the burden on the GPU anyway.

So there you have it, our take on which system component is more important for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.. Up next we?ll be testing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. with the latest high-end cards. How much faster are the GeForce 8800?s in comparison to the GeForce 7 and Radeon X1900 cards? These are the types of questions we hope to answer in this article!

forget multi-core for STALKER stay tuned for hi-end ... Part 3

 

[PingSpike]

Doesn't SLI place a burden on the CPU itself?

I disagree with their conclusion that higher end video cards benefit from a faster cpu in this case. I think the results only show that an SLI configuration benefits from a faster cpu. I wish they had done just one test with a 8800gtx on the fastest c2d rig versus the slowest AM2 processor.

Look at the single card results though, across the board, even to the slowest chip available there is virtually no difference at all. The SLI has a difference, although its not massive. I think its just the overhead of the SLI config thats doing something here.

 

[apoppin]

part 3 deals with the 8800GTX