Far Cry 2 slow performance on a single 4870

[sourthings]

Hello,

I wanted to know if anyone else has experienced this. I've been running Far Cry 2 on two machines, both at 1920x1200. One is using a 4870x2 with a quad core at 3.8ghz the other is on a 4870 512mb with a quad core at 3.6ghz. Both are using vista 64. Both systems are using completely maxed settings in the game with 4xaa and both are in dx10 mode.

Here is what is funny, on the 4870x2 rig, I get about a 50-55fps average, but on the rig with the 4870 512mb, it's getting a 10fps average in the benchmark run. I've used the 8.10s and the 8.10 hotfix drivers with the same results. What's funny is on the 4870 512mb system I see really low cpu usage with the game running on all four cores. Also there are times if I am in the game where the fps picks up and is playing nicely, then for no reason at all it will slow right back down again.

I've also tried using the set gfx_MaxFps 30/25 deal with the 4870 system to no avail. Has anyone else noticed this using a 4870 512 ? From the results I see with my 4870x2 system, I was expecting to see around at least 30fps or so on the 4870 512 system.

 

[Tempered81]

think it has to do with 1GB x 2 vmem in the X2, vs. 512mb. Try it without AA in DX9 on the 4870 512.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
think it has to do with 1GB x 2 vmem in the X2, vs. 512mb. Try it without AA in DX9 on the 4870 512.

OP has a prime scenario that shows us, performance is highly linked to memory capacity. We've all pondered the 512 vs. 1GB question, when and if 1GB would be necessary. I'm sure the debate will continue, but it's hard to deny that day is coming..

 

[SSChevy2001]

DX10 doesn't work well with Farcry2 right now, so don't bother using it. Currently I'm running everything max ( except shadows are very high ) 4xAA DX9 1080P, and it runs really smooth.

Personally ubisoft should of never butchered DX10.1 like they did.

 

[BenSkywalker]

DX10 doesn't work well with Farcry2 right now

Actually, it works quite nicely, faster then DX9.

Personally ubisoft should of never butchered DX10.1 like they did.

You may want to wait for new drivers before stating that.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Actually, it works quite nicely, faster then DX9.

Yeah if you like hitching in your game, at least for lots of ATi cards. Not to mention all the crashing that DX10 has, with DX9 not 1 crash.

You may want to wait for new drivers before stating that.

I hope ATi can fix ubisoft mess, but I doubt it. More than likely a patch is going to have to come right from ubisoft.

 

[postmortemIA]

perhaps you should disable 4xaa when you get 10fps....

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SteelSix

Originally posted by: jaredpace
think it has to do with 1GB x 2 vmem in the X2, vs. 512mb. Try it without AA in DX9 on the 4870 512.

OP has a prime scenario that shows us, performance is highly linked to memory capacity. We've all pondered the 512 vs. 1GB question, when and if 1GB would be necessary. I'm sure the debate will continue, but it's hard to deny that day is coming..

are you kidding

download and play the PT boats demo .. it runs great on a 4870/1GB and like a total slide show on the 512MB version .. even brings the X3CF with 512MB to a crawl while the 1GB whizzzes along

however, do not assume with FC2 .. it is buggy as hell with the Cat 8-10 drivers

i did a follow up to my FC2 bugged hotfix drivers article
[with another "missing texture" image contrast]

. . . the news is .. AMD will have a NEW hotfix tomorrow
:thumbsup:

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
perhaps you should disable 4xaa when you get 10fps....

:thumbsup:

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: SteelSix

OP has a prime scenario that shows us, performance is highly linked to memory capacity. We've all pondered the 512 vs. 1GB question, when and if 1GB would be necessary. I'm sure the debate will continue, but it's hard to deny that day is coming.

Greater than 512 MB has been necessary since about 2004/2005 for certain games like Doom 3 (Ultra quality) and Fear. I'm currently playing through Fear Extraction Point on my 512 MB 4850 and even at 1600x1200 with 2xAA it's very easy to detect texture swapping.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
perhaps you should disable 4xaa when you get 10fps....

:thumbsup:

Hmmm... I wonder why he didn't think at this. With only 512 mb of Vram, 4870 totally chokes at 1920X1200 with 4x AA. Use no more then 2X AA.

Open the command console ingame and type this:"gfx_maxfps 25 (or 30)"

This will greatly improve performance in dx 10, but it will still become sluggish from time to time. Best bet is to wait for the second fix, apoppin is talking about.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: SteelSix

OP has a prime scenario that shows us, performance is highly linked to memory capacity. We've all pondered the 512 vs. 1GB question, when and if 1GB would be necessary. I'm sure the debate will continue, but it's hard to deny that day is coming.

Greater than 512 MB has been necessary since about 2004/2005 for certain games like Doom 3 (Ultra quality) and Fear. I'm currently playing through Fear Extraction Point on my 512 MB 4850 and even at 1600x1200 with 2xAA it's very easy to detect texture swapping.

Are you sure you're not thinking about 256 MB? I remember that when Doom 3 came out 512MB cards weren't even out yet, and the ultra setting had a disclaimer saying that your graphics card should have 512MB of memory.

 

[AmberClad]

The 6800 Ultra was from the Doom 3 era, and there were versions of it that were 512MB, I'm pretty sure.

EDIT: I didn't remember the ATI equivalent of that time, so I had to Wiki it. It looks like the X800 XL had a 512MB version too.