F.E.A.R. is ridiculous (first benchmarks show not even 55fps at 1024x768 w/ 7800gtx/FX-55)

[Polish3d]

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:

 

[Fenixgoon]

thats odd.. guess they fubared the game between the SP demo release and the MP beta release.

on the MP beta, i ran 800x600 everything low/off, 4x FSAA, and usually had 30-40 fps on a horribly underpowered system (not the one in sig)

 

[Maximilian]

No way will it be like that when its released, if it is then it'll be one heck of a flop as who has a 7800 and an FX chip?? Not many people.

 

[Paludis]

meh they've got a few months, they'll be able to optimise it a bit more surely

I hope so, anyway.. it is a bit painful to be running at such a poor fps at 1024x768...

 

[marmasatt]

Yeah, this is crazy. I thought the recommended spec's were outrageous too. I mean people are starting to have 3.0's, 2 Gig of Ram and 256 Meg cards for video but not many of us. I was underwhelmed by the performance and look of it when I played the demo. Did not look *or* play that great on my humble but reasonable system. It was decent, but not all that. It certainly better bring more to the table upon release than what we saw either in looks or performance. The SLO MO feature was cool though.

On a different but related topic (which has been discussed a few times already) I really don't know if I'll be shelling out the $ 50 beans to get this in the first 2 months like I was planning on doing........It was good but I wanted to be blown away.

 

[Slogun]

Well, the conclusion they reached at the link you provided was this:

"F.E.A.R. looks to be a top game, based on these initial impressions. The atmosphere is great, the action is exciting, and the engine looks pretty damn sweet."

I played the demo, and was dismayed to find that it won't be released until October.

 

[Polish3d]

I disagree

 

[Slogun]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I disagree

"To each his own"

 

[Sixtyfour]

7800gtx is a waste of money with 256MB memory.

Main difference between those 2 tested cards is the amount of memory, 256 vs 512.

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=822&pageID=1709

There is other titles tested too, and those results seems to prove my point, F.E.A.R need lots of memory.

 

[blurredvision]

I agree with the OP. HL2, BF2, and Doom 3 run gorgeous on my system with 4xAA/8xAF, with resolutions at 1680x1050, typically everything set as high as it'll go. But the FEAR demo runs like complete sh!t at 1024x768. Looks to be a game to take a peek at when it comes at, but in the shape it's in now, I don't want to touch it.

I thought about posting on this same exact thing when the FEAR singleplayer demo was released, but decided not to since everyone else seemed to like it.

 

[BespinReactorShaft]

Originally posted by: marmasatt
It certainly better bring more to the table upon release than what we saw either in looks or performance.

 

[BFG10K]

It may be worthwhile to wait for the first performance patch before picking up the game.

 

[stnicralisk]

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour
7800gtx is a waste of money with 256MB memory.

Main difference between those 2 tested cards is the amount of memory, 256 vs 512.

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=822&pageID=1709

There is other titles tested too, and those results seems to prove my point, F.E.A.R need lots of memory.

Yay 512mb card to get a nice 60 fps at 1024!

 

[entropy1982]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=28&threadid=1675447

 

[Slogun]

cross posting...

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1675698&enterthread=y

 

[Polish3d]

I know I asked in the other thread for this one to be deleted. Its a shame you can't delete posts here.

 

[ntdz]

HL2 is just one of the best engines ever made. It looks great and runs perfectly smooth at high fps. I dont think any engine even comes close to it in terms of fps and looks, including doom3.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: ntdz
HL2 is just one of the best engines ever made. It looks great and runs perfectly smooth at high fps. I dont think any engine even comes close to it in terms of fps and looks, including doom3.

did you play doom 3 all the way through? The hell levels seem to outpace Far Cry and HL2 to my eyes.

 

[skace]

FEAR isn't one of those games that I have any concern about benchmarking. I don't plan to play it competitively in multiplayer. I plan to enjoy the single player experience, at whatever setting the game will run at. If that ends up being 480x320 then so be it.

 

[deadlock]

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.

I find that surprising. I get 50s to 60s on my setup (7800GTX SLI & X2 4400+) at 1280x1024 with 4x AA and absolute max everything else.

Ok, granted SLI, but still the performance hit you seem to be experiencing is pretty bad. Sure something ain't right?

And just for the record, I thought the demo was awesome.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: deadlock

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.

I find that surprising. **I get 50s to 60s on my setup (7800GTX SLI & X2 4400+) at 1280x1024 with 4x AA and absolute max everything else.

Ok, granted SLI, but still the performance hit you seem to be experiencing is pretty bad. Sure something ain't right?

And just for the record, I thought the demo was awesome.

Its not my system man, its the article's benchmarks...


And uh.... you have 2 7800GTXs in SLI and a 4400+ and you only get 50 FPS at 1280x1024?

Frankly, for the graphics, or lack of, that SUCKS IMO.

Its not your hardware, its the game

 

[larry89]

Do not buy the game then.

 

[Polish3d]

no f*ing kidding

 

[hans030390]

The game isn't out yet, and that's with all the graphics settings on high (maybe not AA or AF)

its no wonder it does "poorly"...last time i checked though, 55fps was GOOD. (wait then again that is on high end........erg....i'm not worried, it did fine on my system)

 

[SynthDude2001]

I thought it was just me...I was only running at 1280x960 and it was little more than a slideshow on my 6800GT. I realize my card isn't the highest of high end anymore, but I shouldn't have to run cellphone-like resolutions to get playable framerates.

Edit: And yes, the graphics didn't impress me that much either, from what I've played so far. They're decent I suppose, but definitely not much (if any) ahead of, say, Half-Life 2...which gives me constantly over 60fps at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed. :roll: