Far Cry Question

[imported_Hi]

Im about to buy far cry because it is bargian bin now and i want to know if there is a bigger performance drop using HDR or 8xAA i am using a 6600gt and a amd 3400+

 

[Paktu]

I'd say HDR causes the bigger drop, ~35%

 

[Elfear]

I'd say they are pretty close. The only 8xAA available is super-sampling which kills performance.

 

[zakee00]

8X aa diffenately; thats just crazy talk...espically with your 6600GT. HDR is BARELY playable on my 6800 Ultra at 10x7 max details.
you can try it out, but i doubt you would find either playable.

 

[Pete]

Probably 8xAA.

My question is, why does it matter? 8xAA isn't a very playable option in any recent game with a 6600GT, AFAIK. And HDR isn't required to enjoy the game, as it wasn't even an option when the game was released. Is an answer one way or another going to prevent you from buying the game?

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: zakee00
8X aa diffenately; thats just crazy talk...espically with your 6600GT. HDR is BARELY playable on my 6800 Ultra at 10x7 max details.
you can try it out, but i doubt you would find either playable.

while i say that both HDR And 8XAA are out of your league with a 6600GT, i find farcry quite playable at 12x10, with HDR, and 4xAF and this is on my 6800GT clocked to 405/1100

8Xaa is a supersampling mode, and that just hammers performance, HDR also hammers performance, i dont think either are worth your time

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: zakee00
8X aa diffenately; thats just crazy talk...espically with your 6600GT. HDR is BARELY playable on my 6800 Ultra at 10x7 max details.
you can try it out, but i doubt you would find either playable.

Really?? Have played it 1280x1024 max details @level 7 HDR and 8xAF and apart from very ocassional slowdown (once 2 levels where it would drop to 20fps) it was very playable at constant 35fps.

 

[zakee00]

Originally posted by: McArra

Originally posted by: zakee00
8X aa diffenately; thats just crazy talk...espically with your 6600GT. HDR is BARELY playable on my 6800 Ultra at 10x7 max details.
you can try it out, but i doubt you would find either playable.

Really?? Have played it 1280x1024 max details @level 7 HDR and 8xAF and apart from very ocassional slowdown (once 2 levels where it would drop to 20fps) it was very playable at constant 35fps.

yeah..."very playable 35FPS" i dont find 35FPS enjoyable at all. if you guys do thats awesome, you can play at 12x10 with HDR, but I cant...i have to bump the res down a notch.

 

[BFG10K]

Probably 8xAA. In order to run that well you'd probably need to run FC at 640x480.

 

[Steffenm]

40fps and up is minimum for me in games like HL2. So I'm wondering, what's the point in buying the o-fabolous 6800GT/Ultra because of it's "super" features, when it isn't fast enough to run them at a good fps? Is this only a problem since todays game don't take advantage of those features in a nice enough manner, or will the 6800's always have these problems? My mind is still set on buying a X800 XT. OK, games look nice with HDR/Shaders but it isn't fast enough to play those effects smoothly, it seems... Or is this false?

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: Steffenm
40fps and up is minimum for me in games like HL2. So I'm wondering, what's the point in buying the o-fabolous 6800GT/Ultra because of it's "super" features, when it isn't fast enough to run them at a good fps? Is this only a problem since todays game don't take advantage of those features in a nice enough manner, or will the 6800's always have these problems? My mind is still set on buying a X800 XT. OK, games look nice with HDR/Shaders but it isn't fast enough to play those effects smoothly, it seems... Or is this false?

It seems smooth to me and looks pretty. Maybe 35fps is not confortable for you, I can see no jumps and gaming is fast as it is without HDR so... I wouldn't chage it for a X800XT, I guess is preferences, I like quality much more than 50+fps as far as it has no jumps and it is smooth.

 

[Steffenm]

Thanks, but do you think (in this case) FarCry's developers will enhance the HDR-feature, so that the lower-performing 6800-cards today will perform better in the future? I can't seem to make up my mind. Will I go for X800XT, 6800GT or 6800Ultra? the BFG 6800Ultra OC costs under $1 more than the X800XT here in Norway right now. But that is the only 6800Ultra card at that price... the rest is at least $80 more expensive. Why? (PNY, PoV, Gainward etc)

 

[McArra]

It depends on what you want, for me the extra features are worth, for some others it isn't and like speed better. It all depends on your preferences

 

[Steffenm]

Yup... It all comes down to finding the balance. I'll have to do some serious meditating about this. I've had my mind set om X800XT for weeks, but I'm turning more and more against the 6800 series after all this talk about HDR and Shaders, and especially after seeing you screenshots of FarCry with HDR enabled. But then again... X800XT runs that game at much smoother FPS'. Will it be worth the loss of "beauty"? Or is there really any noticable loss? I would like to see some really high quality 1600x1200 Extreme Max details .PNG screenshots from FarCry, preferably taken with the X800XT. I'll have to do some searching... Let me know if anyone finds any links for this cause. Would be a great help.

 

[imported_humey]

I played Farcry with my ti 4600 as new game with 10**x7** and most set high/med and again on my 6800U with 1600x1200 all maxed every setting then i turned of AA to try HDR at 7 and it still played ok.

Farcry loves 1 gig of ram and high mhz cpus, they both help as its direct 3d game and a new engine never seen before not like most games running old quake or unreal engines.

B4 anyone jumps on my toes, i not saying u need 1 gig just as most reviews agree 1 gig aint out of Q today for likes of farcry and 2.5gig + cpus or amd equiv.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: humey
I played Farcry with my ti 4600 as new game with 10**x7** and most set high/med and again on my 6800U with 1600x1200 all maxed every setting then i turned of AA to try HDR at 7 and it still played ok.

Farcry loves 1 gig of ram and high mhz cpus, they both help as its direct 3d game and a new engine never seen before not like most games running old quake or unreal engines.

B4 anyone jumps on my toes, i not saying u need 1 gig just as most reviews agree 1 gig aint out of Q today for likes of farcry and 2.5gig + cpus or amd equiv.

although it 'ran' well, it didn't looks so good on the GF4, did it?

i played the demo with my r8500 but didn't buy the game until (it was patched and) bargain bin a week ago (great if dufficult game with a crappy story, BTW) . . . .

my 9800xt (p4 @3.3Ghz/1GB PC 3500) manages it with all details hi and max and even some minimal 2xAA/4xAF at 10x7 with no significant slowdowns (the patch is essential)

i wouldn't dream of 8xAA unless i was running 6x4 or maybe 8x6 and that would kinda defeat the purpose

your 6600gt isn't much faster than my card . . . . i'd say forget the HDR and high AA and just max the details and resolution for your system

 

[imported_humey]

Obv it may have ran ok on my old ti 4600 but i didnt see nice effects as newer cards and it was near time to retire it lol.

I did have o/c the card 15% to play ok and original Call of Duty alos, although Call of Duty United Offensive didnt seem to strain it as much, but i went from a 3200xp + 1 gig ram to a 2600mobile runnig 450fsb 2.8gig + 1 gig ram.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: humey
Obv it may have ran ok on my old ti 4600 but i didnt see nice effects as newer cards and it was near time to retire it lol.

I did have o/c the card 15% to play ok and original Call of Duty alos, although Call of Duty United Offensive didnt seem to strain it as much, but i went from a 3200xp + 1 gig ram to a 2600mobile runnig 450fsb 2.8gig + 1 gig ram.

FC's water and reflections using Dx9 are incredible . . . . the differences between dx8 and 9 are mind-boggling . . . not to mention the foilage and 1.2 km draw distance (and pretty good AI . . . . gotta HATE the story, however . . . can you say corny?.

my 8500 barely ran the unpatched FC (demo) and it was o/c'd also . . . . otoh, the 9800xt has no problem at 10x7 with everything maxed . . . . 256MB of vRAM (plus 1 GB system RAM) really helps (even if the core is a bit "slow" nowadays).

 

[imported_Hi]

so even at 1024x768 it isnt playable with hdr or aa

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Hi
so even at 1024x768 it isnt playable with hdr or aa

look, it's a very good game . . . look in Software/Games for a recent FC thread i started . . . . a 6600gt will give very satisfactory fps at 10x7 with everythingh on and hi and maxed and even 2xAA/4or8xAF is possible . . . . try it out for yourself and report back to us.

you can also 'try' HDR - even if it's a slideshow, you can get an idea what it looks like - then turn it off; it's something you won't need or notice while actually PLAYing FC (which is a damn difficult game with no quicksaves - unless you install a hack - see my FC thread).

 

[cecco]

Honestly I don't even bother with the FPS counter. If it's smooth and playable I'm comfortable with it. I currently run far cry at 10x7 w/ 4aa/8af all settings maxed on a 1800+/9800PRO/1GB RAM. It really all comes down to what your comfort level between performance vs. quality is. I found that tweaking the os and outside game settings can sometime help. Enjoy FC!