512MB does matter! for Call of Duty 2

[Gamingphreek]

There is no way that is right. How can a 512mb card have a bigger impact, with lower detail and lower filtering options as opposed to the higher options.

Not saying 512mb makes no difference but, there is no way it is a bigger difference at 10x7 0x/0x than it is a 10x7 Max filtering.

Waiting on AT review.

-Kevin

 

[ruiner5000]

 

[ruiner5000]

we have the 81.80s, but nvidia will only let us publish results for the 6150 with them so far.

 

[Enoch2001]

I don't get the comment about the Zsmoke not working on the ATI cards; I'm running an old Radeon 9800 Pro with 128 megs of RAM and I had the smoke on; worked fine.

Of course, I had to play at 640 x 480. ;-)

That said, it was nicest looking game I've ever seen at 640 x 480, next to Doom 3.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: ruiner5000
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=m...index&req=viewarticle&artid=182&page=1

And I thought we ran that 512mb launch lan party for nothing. CoD2 will bring your box to a crawl with high settings.

99.9% of gamers who own $600 video cards don't game at pathetic 1280x1024 (or lower) reso. From your own link, the 7800GTX manhandles the panties off the X850XT PE and X800XL 512MB @ 1600x1200 and higher reso. Thanks for confirming it

Sorry, but you have zero proof of that. 1280x1024 is the most used res, from various polls on the subject. Saying that 1 out of 100 with a GTX uses a res higher than 1280x1024 is ignorant.

He didn't say 1 out of 100. He said 99.9% which leaves 1/10th of 1% so it would actually be 1 out of 1000. I think you should learn how to read more carefully before posting something so far off the mark. We can't be ignorant now. You're no exception.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: eastvillager

Originally posted by: munky
Using 512mb of video ram is not the result of poor coding - maybe they actually use enough high-res textures to require it. So far all the other modern games I've tried have been a disapointment in terms of texture quality. They may look good from a distance, but you walk up next to a wall, and you can see that the texture resolution is not high enough. I havent tried this demo yet, but if it does deliver better textures, then it's one more reason to get a 512mb card. Sooner or later, all future games would benefit from 512mb vram.

it is poor coding. It isn't the resolution of the textures that are the problem, it is how many of those textures you need. Well, maybe it would be better to call it poor game design. Todays hardware can push an ungodly amount of polygons, we really don't have to rely on stupidly complex textures to simulate a complex surface with complex lighting anymore.

If you walk right up to a wall, you don't need that many textures in your card at that point, do you?

But all the textures are stored in the vram, whether theyre currently visible or not. At least that's how the OpenGL programming model would suggest - you load a texture from some image, and then you create a texture "object" that resides in the local video mem. After that, you no longer need the image, and all textures are accessed through their objects. Furthermore, the texture objects remain there for the lifetime of the program in the local vram until you explicitly delete them. That would suggest that all the textures in a given game level must be stored in the video mem, even if you're looking at a wall that only shows one texture.

Another point is that vram is not only for textures. There are ways of storing the vertex data in the vram as well, and it offers a significant speed boost over storing the vertex data in the system ram.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: eastvillager
it is poor coding. It isn't the resolution of the textures that are the problem, it is how many of those textures you need. Well, maybe it would be better to call it poor game design. Todays hardware can push an ungodly amount of polygons, we really don't have to rely on stupidly complex textures to simulate a complex surface with complex lighting anymore.

It's not poor coding. 'Poor' is a relative term...I don't know of any remotely modern game that doesn't use textures.

Yes, it IS the resolution of the textures that's part of the problem. A 128x128 texture is going to take up more than a 64x64 texture (four times more assuming no compression).

If you walk right up to a wall, you don't need that many textures in your card at that point, do you?

Yes you do, because swapping them in and out every frame would be absolutely impractical. The whole point of VRAM is to have the data there when you need it.

Do you realize how long it would take to vectorize every texture? There's no promise of any more performance there either.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: ruiner5000
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=m...index&req=viewarticle&artid=182&page=1

And I thought we ran that 512mb launch lan party for nothing. CoD2 will bring your box to a crawl with high settings.

99.9% of gamers who own $600 video cards don't game at pathetic 1280x1024 (or lower) reso. From your own link, the 7800GTX manhandles the panties off the X850XT PE and X800XL 512MB @ 1600x1200 and higher reso. Thanks for confirming it

Sorry, but you have zero proof of that. 1280x1024 is the most used res, from various polls on the subject. Saying that 1 out of 100 with a GTX uses a res higher than 1280x1024 is ignorant.

He didn't say 1 out of 100. He said 99.9% which leaves 1/10th of 1% so it would actually be 1 out of 1000. I think you should learn how to read more carefully before posting something so far off the mark. We can't be ignorant now. You're no exception.

Not to mention he made a mistake... If you read it carefully, he reversed the figure around AND got it wrong! /clap for ackmed! Again, you notice how he uses the word "Ignorant"... Seriously, I am not sure about anyone else here, but I am sure Ackmed would have got the sh!t beat out of him growing up. With a mouth like that, I am not sure too many seniors would take kindly to be called ignorant. Then again, maybe the internet made him that way... ? Who knows.

 

[CP5670]

Why is that UT's S3TC textures looked way, way better than any of those in modern games but ran perfectly fine on a 32MB card? Is it the quantity of textures or the bump maps or what?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: ruiner5000
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=m...index&req=viewarticle&artid=182&page=1

And I thought we ran that 512mb launch lan party for nothing. CoD2 will bring your box to a crawl with high settings.

99.9% of gamers who own $600 video cards don't game at pathetic 1280x1024 (or lower) reso. From your own link, the 7800GTX manhandles the panties off the X850XT PE and X800XL 512MB @ 1600x1200 and higher reso. Thanks for confirming it

Sorry, but you have zero proof of that. 1280x1024 is the most used res, from various polls on the subject. Saying that 1 out of 100 with a GTX uses a res higher than 1280x1024 is ignorant.

He didn't say 1 out of 100. He said 99.9% which leaves 1/10th of 1% so it would actually be 1 out of 1000. I think you should learn how to read more carefully before posting something so far off the mark. We can't be ignorant now. You're no exception.

Not to mention he made a mistake... If you read it carefully, he reversed the figure around AND got it wrong! /clap for ackmed! Again, you notice how he uses the word "Ignorant"... Seriously, I am not sure about anyone else here, but I am sure Ackmed would have got the sh!t beat out of him growing up. With a mouth like that, I am not sure too many seniors would take kindly to be called ignorant. Then again, maybe the internet made him that way... ? Who knows.

Well, that very well could be what happened. Most teenagers that got beat up on in school usually grow up hating the world. (Blanket Statement)

Anyway, does anyone know how to actually "play" the demo back that was just recorded?
I have recorded one, but the /demo xxxxxxx command will not work. Little help here?
Thanks.

 

[ruiner5000]

There is no way that is right. How can a 512mb card have a bigger impact, with lower detail and lower filtering options as opposed to the higher options.

Not saying 512mb makes no difference but, there is no way it is a bigger difference at 10x7 0x/0x than it is a 10x7 Max filtering.

Waiting on AT review.

-Kevin


Jeff has been doing this since 1998, when he was 15. I would expect more respect for him than that from you. I sat there watching him do them benchmarks 10 feet from me. This is of course a demo, and in the release I would expect some changes, and maybe texture optimization will be one of those, but for this demo release, with the x800xl 512, with the cat 5.9s those are the results.

 

[ruiner5000]

record timedemoname
timedemo1 timedemoname
cg_draw fps 1 to show frames per second

 

[Gamingphreek]

Im sorry if i come across as an a$$ but why in the world would i believe you? Additionally, when did i demand respect or say that he deserved any less. Stop getting all uppity just because someone questions the results.

Im very happy for "Jeff". I have been building computers since i was like 6 or 7, i still make mistakes when i build.

Optimizations have nothing to do with this. Common video card knowledge is the answer. When running high res with high texture filtering, you consume much more VRAM than if you were running a low resolution with no texture filtering. However, these benchmarks contradict that knowledge, as there are much larger increases with 512mb at low res than there were at high res.

Im not saying you guys are stupid (If indeed you really work there and what not), but something is seems wrong.

-Kevin

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Im sorry if i come across as an a$$ but why in the world would i believe you? Additionally, when did i demand respect or say that he deserved any less. Stop getting all uppity just because someone questions the results.

Im very happy for "Jeff". I have been building computers since i was like 6 or 7, i still make mistakes when i build.

Optimizations have nothing to do with this. Common video card knowledge is the answer. When running high res with high texture filtering, you consume much more VRAM than if you were running a low resolution with no texture filtering. However, these benchmarks contradict that knowledge, as there are much larger increases with 512mb at low res than there were at high res.

Im not saying you guys are stupid (If indeed you really work there and what not), but something is seems wrong.

-Kevin

Agreed. None of us are above mistakes... The ones that are, are simply legends in their own mind.

 

[ruiner5000]

Yeah, you do. Yeah, this is a demo. We know that. There will be driver updates, there will be demo updates, there will be a final game release, there will be be patches, there will be addional vid driver updates, there will be pci-e/agp driver updates for the chipsets. Thousands upon thousands of combinations are possible, thousands upon thousands of results are possibe. This is a snapshot in time. Results will change. These are the initial results, and they indicate that a 512mb card improves performance. Yeah, I've been computer gaming since the TI 99/4A. They had a nice pacman clone. That makes it for 25 of my 30 years. SFW. Seems all is quiet on this news here so far.

record timedemoname
timedemo 1
demo timedemoname
shift ~ to get the result

sorry about the mistake on the post

 

[ruiner5000]

yeah, humans make mistakes, no kidding. it appears i did posting here.

 

[Gamingphreek]

What was the point of that post. Im not sure what you were trying to point out there.

-Kevin

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: ruiner5000
yeah, humans make mistakes, no kidding. it appears i did posting here.

Again, no offense if you are who you say you are, but an adult; moreso a person who writes reviews, would not be this jumpy about people questioning the results. Sorry if this comes across bad, but i am just having a hard time believing everything you have said now.

And adult does not take offense to the statements i have just posted; im sure everyone would agree that they are valid, possibly wrong, possibly right; but valid nonetheless.

-Kevin

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

I'll bet they originally wrote CoD2 for the Xbox360 with its 512mb video ram, then did a sh1tty job porting and optimizing it for the PC. Probably just Infinity Ward being lazy.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Originally posted by: eastvillager
Purely a coding issue. If you need 512MB of textures in a single screen, you're writing some REALLY poor code.

The push from 256 to 512 just doesn't make any sense from a technical standpoint. There isn't any artistic/creative force out there that needs 512MB of textures for a scene. At that point, you shouldn't be using textured polygons anyways.

This is why I tend to stick with games with the good engines in it.

ie. Doom3 engine based games, Source based, and UE3 (when released) based. All capable of these quality visuals (or so), and MUCH easier on hardware.

Why companies build crappy in house engines instead of fork over the dough, must be a casualty of capitalism

 

[ruiner5000]

I'm defending my brothers results. You wouldn't defend anyone in your family? If not I'm sorry for you. I'm glad your questioning results, we all should. Insulting my brother with no basis for that is another matter. I got an idea, why don't you go duplicate the tests, and then you will have all the bases covered.

 

[JeffTom]

Yeah, people do make mistakes, such as saying that because there is a larger number of frames per second difference between two completely different results, that there must be a mistake.


You're not comparing it percentage wise. Of course the difference with no AA and no AF with the already much larger, higher score, will be more of a difference in sheer numbers than the lower score with 4XAA and AF enabled.


Once you do the math, and you factor in that running anti-aliasing will also eat some GPU power, let me know what you come up with

Jeff

 

[JeffTom]

As a note, no offense, but in the review I clearly say how you record and run timedemos. This has been the easiest game I've ever played to figure out how to score benchmark results without any manual. The UI is still based off the Quake 3 engine so most of the same console commands work, and not only that but brining up in the console and typing a letter will bring up all the console commands that are within that range. Say, type "D" in the console and "demo" will come up.



Also, everyone before you manhandle the developers, it clearly states throughout the game that this is a pre-release demo. As in not final, I'm sure many things will change when it is released and not only that, this is a new engine, who knows how it handles different cards, I'm sure there are some kinks to work out and running FRAPS, yes, I achieved the same results. It might be off, there might be a mistake, but the mistake above you thought you saw, I just pointed out well, a mistake in how you drew your conclusion.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: ruiner5000
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=m...index&req=viewarticle&artid=182&page=1

And I thought we ran that 512mb launch lan party for nothing. CoD2 will bring your box to a crawl with high settings.

99.9% of gamers who own $600 video cards don't game at pathetic 1280x1024 (or lower) reso. From your own link, the 7800GTX manhandles the panties off the X850XT PE and X800XL 512MB @ 1600x1200 and higher reso. Thanks for confirming it

I don't think anyone will be running CoD2 @ 20X15 8XAA and 16A AF anytime soon..
(smoothly)

 

[Gamingphreek]

The math is correct.

Look at the first 2 benchmarks on the last page (Page 3).

With no AF the 512mb delivers a huge 333% performance gain (Against the X800 256). With AF/AA on that is cut to "merely" 200%. Logic would suggest that you would see a larger gain with more textures in the VRAM than without. While AF takes processing power, you still do not see anywhere near a 133% drop in performance simply from 4x AF AA.

-Kevin