F.E.A.R. is ridiculous. Doesn't hit even 55fps at *1024x768 no AA* EVEN w/ FX-55 & 7800GTX

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Link


The graphics are not that good. They are only marginally better in some areas than Half Life 2 or Battlefield 2, and in other areas fall far short. A hell of a lot of monochromatic wall textures that look like something from 1998. The facial animations are no better than HL2, and yet:

For HL2 at 1680x1050, 4xAA, 16AA, High Detail I benchmark at 130-140FPS on my system.

For BF2, no wonder of efficient design itself, w/ all details high except dynamic shadows and 2xAA at 1680x1050, I max out the FPS cap at 99.9 for the majority of the game, depending on lagginess of the server.



For F.E.A.R. Fearfully inefficient , at 1024x768 without ANY anti-aliasing an FX-55 and 7800GTX gets low 50's FPS according to Bit-Tech's benchmarks

That is truly absurd to the point of being infuriating. The game itself might show some amazing turn-around perhaps, which would be nice. No one should have to have 3000 dollars in hardware to play a graphically mediocre game at sub 60fps at 1024x768 resolution. :disgust:





(taken from Software, mod pls delete from software forum)


 

IeraseU

Senior member
Aug 25, 2004
778
0
71
With the powerful new hardware out now, I think developers feel they can spend less time optomizing and just 'depend' on consumers throwing more hardware at the problem to obtain ideal performance. This has been the trend lately, imo.
 

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,498
560
126
Its pretty old news that Fear runs poorly on any PC, compared to other games. Hopefully the final game will fun better than the beta and demo.

btw, the "graphically mediocre game" portion of your post is your opinion, not fact. It looks a lot better than most games out there.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Their benchmarking methods are a bit hard to duplicate, but I can say that I played it on a 2.43ghz winnie and an x800x-pe with everyting cranked but medium textures and no soft shadows, x4aa, x16forced full, at 1280x720 and it kept out of the 20s. There are plenty faster systems out there than mine if you want more and with less turning things down to mimum makes it absolutly fly, so I think they did a good job making the game suitable for a wide range of hardware.
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Its pretty old news that Fear runs poorly on any PC, compared to other games. Hopefully the final game will fun better than the beta and demo.

btw, the "graphically mediocre game" portion of your post is your opinion, not fact. It looks a lot better than most games out there.


Yeah, you are definitely right. People are ripping the game when it looks pretty darn good. However, the performance really is pathetic. Not sure anyone can deny that with any type of solid arguement.

I'd love to see the game coded better, because I will definitely buy it if that is the case... But I would say the graphics are on par with HL2 with 1/2 to 1/3 the peformance. That is pretty unacceptable... The performance seems to match 'leaked' type demos, except that this demo wasn't leaked and was an official release.
 

Parkre

Senior member
Jul 31, 2005
616
0
0
Originally posted by: IeraseU
With the powerful new hardware out now, I think developers feel they can spend less time optomizing and just 'depend' on consumers throwing more hardware at the problem to obtain ideal performance. This has been the trend lately, imo.



I concur.
 

Drayvn

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2004
1,008
0
0
Ive played this game at 1280x1024 4xaa 8xaf everything on high and no soft shadows with an 3500+ Winnie and i definitly got over 55fps.

this is with a stock standard 7800GTX
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: Ackmed


btw, the "graphically mediocre game" portion of your post is your opinion, not fact. It looks a lot better than most games out there.

Umm.. you just chastised me for stating an opinion as fact but proceed to do precisely that in the next sentence.


But about 1/2 of the game looks crappy to me.

Pic 1

Pic 2

This above is what I'm talking about though. That is w/ no AA like the benchmarks, and again while parts of the game look real nice, these textures which make up around 1/2 of the game look like something from 5 years ago and nothing that should run at 55fps on a super-top of the line PC.

I interpret these crappy monocrhome textures as laziness/rush which is probably behind the terrible performance also.

I won't buy it but I'm amazed at how passively many accept that they need to upgrade to play this decently rather than realize that its designed like crap and demand better.

Certainly a trend that should not be seen in this industry are lazy designers relying on end-users to purchase super expensive hardware to make up for bad programming ... I doubt the vid card companies discourage this either.

Note that according to anandtech a 7800gtx should be able to render graphics at nearly the level of "Final Fantasy - Spirits Within" movie in real time
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Originally posted by: Drayvn
Ive played this game at 1280x1024 4xaa 8xaf everything on high and no soft shadows with an 3500+ Winnie and i definitly got over 55fps.

this is with a stock standard 7800GTX

It isn't that I don't believe you... well actually I don't. Anyway I am sure in many areas the game is probably higher than 55 FPS, but it is when the action starts that things bring the frame-rate to the teens or do I dare say, the "territble twos'. People are quoting the "average" frame rate which averages out those high frame rates from stairing at the soda machine in the game, with the staggering horrible frame frame rates from fighting four oponents. This then averages out to around "55" according to the link.

Also the OP mentioned "without any AA and AF" I cannot help but look and see that 8X AF is enabled...
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Originally posted by: Drayvn
Ive played this game at 1280x1024 4xaa 8xaf everything on high and no soft shadows with an 3500+ Winnie and i definitly got over 55fps.

this is with a stock standard 7800GTX

It isn't that I don't believe you... well actually I don't. Anyway I am sure in many areas the game is probably higher than 55 FPS, but it is when the action starts that things bring the frame-rate to the teens or do I dare say, the "territble twos'. People are quoting the "average" frame rate which averages out those high frame rates from stairing at the soda machine in the game, with the staggering horrible frame frame rates from fighting four oponents. This then averages out to around "55" according to the link.

Also the OP mentioned "without any AA and AF" I cannot help but look and see that 8X AF is enabled...
Corrected
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
Originally posted by: Frackal
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Originally posted by: Drayvn
Ive played this game at 1280x1024 4xaa 8xaf everything on high and no soft shadows with an 3500+ Winnie and i definitly got over 55fps.

this is with a stock standard 7800GTX

It isn't that I don't believe you... well actually I don't. Anyway I am sure in many areas the game is probably higher than 55 FPS, but it is when the action starts that things bring the frame-rate to the teens or do I dare say, the "territble twos'. People are quoting the "average" frame rate which averages out those high frame rates from stairing at the soda machine in the game, with the staggering horrible frame frame rates from fighting four oponents. This then averages out to around "55" according to the link.

Also the OP mentioned "without any AA and AF" I cannot help but look and see that 8X AF is enabled...

Read again, I said no "AA" and there is no AA. I did not say no AF


Ok, this is what I see:

Originally posted by: Frackal
Link


The graphics are not that good. They are only marginally better in some areas than Half Life 2 or Battlefield 2, and in other areas fall far short. A hell of a lot of monochromatic wall textures that look like something from 1998. The facial animations are no better than HL2, and yet:

For HL2 at 1680x1050, 4xAA, 16AA, High Detail I benchmark at 130-140FPS on my system.

For BF2, no wonder of efficient design itself, w/ all details high except dynamic shadows and 2xAA at 1680x1050, I max out the FPS cap at 99.9 for the majority of the game, depending on lagginess of the server.



For F.E.A.R. Fearfully enefficient , at 1024x768 without ANY anistropic filtering an FX-55 and 7800GTX gets low 50's FPS according to Bit-Tech's benchmarks

That is truly absurd to the point of being infuriating. The game itself might show some amazing turn-around perhaps, which would be nice. No one should have to have 3000 dollars in hardware to play a graphically mediocre game at sub 60fps at 1024x768 resolution. :disgust:





(taken from Software, mod pls delete from software forum)
 

jiffylube1024

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
7,430
0
71
Maybe it's just me, but many screenshots of this game look damn impressive. Sure there are some shots that show the engine in it's worst light (no pun intended) - with minimal cool looking items/textures around, but the detail in the character models looks stunning.

Looks to be a dog of a performer, though, and here's hoping that it's actually a good game. Graphics are one thing, but I won't be sitting through another Doom3-style snoozefest anytime soon ;) .
 

imported_g33k

Senior member
Aug 17, 2004
821
0
0
OP have you even tested this game for yourself? I can run this game avg 60fps in this system, 10x7 no aa/af. I benched the whole demo, from start to finish and got ~60fps using FRAPS. I had no slowdowns to speak of, I'm pretty sure a 7800 can run the game a whole lot better.

As far as graphics, they look good. Screenshots do not tell the whole story. Download the demo and run the game yourself. The game reminds more of Doom 3 graphics than any other game.
 

orangat

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,579
0
0
I haven't ran the bittech bench but I finished the demo and I definitely concur that FEAR is a terrible resource hog. It takes waaaay more resources out of proportion of the eye candy it gives.
 

Drayvn

Golden Member
Jun 23, 2004
1,008
0
0
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Originally posted by: Drayvn
Ive played this game at 1280x1024 4xaa 8xaf everything on high and no soft shadows with an 3500+ Winnie and i definitly got over 55fps.

this is with a stock standard 7800GTX

It isn't that I don't believe you... well actually I don't. Anyway I am sure in many areas the game is probably higher than 55 FPS, but it is when the action starts that things bring the frame-rate to the teens or do I dare say, the "territble twos'. People are quoting the "average" frame rate which averages out those high frame rates from stairing at the soda machine in the game, with the staggering horrible frame frame rates from fighting four oponents. This then averages out to around "55" according to the link.

Also the OP mentioned "without any AA and AF" I cannot help but look and see that 8X AF is enabled...

Umm well i meant that as an average, it would be bloody nice if thats my minimum! :)

 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,281
4
81
I have to say i'm somewhat with the OP on this one.

I've played the F.E.A.R. demo several times now, & while the graphics are good, they are not worthy of being as ridiculously resource-hungry as they are.

On my system (in sig), i am able to play at 1280x1024 with 4x AA & 8x AF, but it still stutters in spots, & gameplay is a tad below what i'd call smooth.

Considering i have the eqivalent of an FX-54, 2 GB of RAM, & the best AGP video card money can buy, i am rather unimpressed that i cannot play this game at the settings i'd like.

The other thing that's annoying is how when i had only 1 GB of RAM, it was unplayable at the aforementioned settings.
I had to run at 1024x768, & even that was choppy.

For those of us wanting to play these new games, 2 GB RAM is imperative, that much i figured out pretty fast.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,500
0
0
Originally posted by: g33k
OP have you even tested this game for yourself? I can run this game avg 60fps in this system, 10x7 no aa/af. I benched the whole demo, from start to finish and got ~60fps using FRAPS. I had no slowdowns to speak of, I'm pretty sure a 7800 can run the game a whole lot better.

As far as graphics, they look good. Screenshots do not tell the whole story. Download the demo and run the game yourself. The game reminds more of Doom 3 graphics than any other game.


Yep, have played it. No AA no AF... big deal.... games at 1024 don't look that great w/o AA. What detail settings
 

AznAnarchy99

Lifer
Dec 6, 2004
14,695
117
106
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Its pretty old news that Fear runs poorly on any PC, compared to other games. Hopefully the final game will fun better than the beta and demo.

btw, the "graphically mediocre game" portion of your post is your opinion, not fact. It looks a lot better than most games out there.


Yeah, you are definitely right. People are ripping the game when it looks pretty darn good. However, the performance really is pathetic. Not sure anyone can deny that with any type of solid arguement.

I'd love to see the game coded better, because I will definitely buy it if that is the case... But I would say the graphics are on par with HL2 with 1/2 to 1/3 the peformance. That is pretty unacceptable... The performance seems to match 'leaked' type demos, except that this demo wasn't leaked and was an official release.

It looks like Doom3 with light + bf2 optimizations to me. It wasnt mind blowing but it was good
 

Sentry2

Senior member
Mar 21, 2005
820
0
0
Originally posted by: kmmatney
stop whining and get a 7800GTX SLI setup! Geez....

From what I've heard and experienced SLI does next to nothing for the demo right now. I heard they were optimizing the game for SLI though...that would be nice. FEAR plays fine for me at 1600x1200 4x/8x everything maxed(no soft shadows). Runs like A$$ with soft shadows on though.