Fear Extraction Point benchmarked

[BFG10K]

ATi takes out the single card crown (even beating a 7950 GX2) but nVidia takes the multi-GPU crown due to SLI scaling better than Crossfire.

Click.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Ouch. Performance is terrible across the board IMO!

 

[JackBurton]

God damn, this is going to punch my 6800GT in the face.

Ok, WTH? Why does Quad SLI score lower at 1280x960 than 1600x1200? When the res was increased to 1600x1200 it scored almost double compared to 12x9. What is that about? I sure would like to increase the res on my card and have a game run faster.

Edit: I should have done some reading. Only one chip working. That would explain it.

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

ATI and NVidia must love Monolith - every time they put out a game it's guaranteed to bring the latest hardware to its knees.

 

[josh6079]

*Sighs*

Oh alright. I'll move one of the settings to "Medium" for crying out loud!!!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
ATI and NVidia must love Monolith - every time they put out a game it's guaranteed to bring the latest hardware to its knees.

Well nVidia does advertise in the games

 

[Noema]

Well, just played throught the demo at 1280x960 with mid-high settings (2x FSAA; 16xAF) and the game pretty much ate my poor 7800gs AGP alive. Plus having 1GB of RAM hurts too: the game stutters and pauses pretty much every single time a new enemy comes into scene or I open a door or enter a new area

 

[Avalon]

I wouldn't touch that expansion with a ten foot pole. Hated the original game. Performance doesn't seem too hot either.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: Avalon
I wouldn't touch that expansion with a ten foot pole. Hated the original game. Performance doesn't seem too hot either.

why didn't you liike it? granted, it did have that whole flashlight thing going on, but it was definitely unlike anything else i had ever played, in story and gameplay. I loved it, but anyway...

 

[akshayt]

FEAR is a good game. Those hoping to get more FPS by ed settings must know that it won't help. On a 7600GT, 12x9/10 16x AF:
MAX settings : 35FPS
Med settings : less than 37FPS
practically no increae

you will need to reduce to low if you want an increase.

Besides, the game is not as intensive as the previous one, a single 1900xt/7900GTX can handle the gamefinet at 12x9 MAX 16x AF no AA

 

[Zenoth]

The level design of the original was enough for me to stop playing and sell it after taking the time ti beat the single-player mode.

But if I stay objective and look at the performance ... well that's crazy. Looks like current-gen GPUs are still having trouble in DX9 games. Granted, that's only a few of them, but it still happens today. I wonder though ... if Valve worked on that engine, it might have scaled a lot better for "lesser" systems. Heck, H-L: E1 looks much better than that, and my system can run it smooth enough with all settings at high, 6x A-A-A, 8x HQ A-F at 1280x960.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
God damn, this is going to punch my 6800GT in the face.

Ok, WTH? Why does Quad SLI score lower at 1280x960 than 1600x1200? When the res was increased to 1600x1200 it scored almost double compared to 12x9. What is that about? I sure would like to increase the res on my card and have a game run faster.

Edit: I should have done some reading. Only one chip working. That would explain it.

plus i think Quad SLI has too much overhead or whatever at low res and you gotta realy crank it to get the performance out of it

 

[BFG10K]

Why does Quad SLI score lower at 1280x960 than 1600x1200?

According to the article it enables compatibility mode at that resolution so only one core is running out of the four.

Those hoping to get more FPS by ed settings must know that it won't help.

Run everything at maximum but reduce shadows to low and you should get a large performance gain.

 

[BassBomb]

hmm thats odd, i was able to play the demo at same settings as the original game with same FPS

 

[jim1976]

Actually w/o soft shadows and 2xAA @16X12 I found the demo pretty smooth.. I liked FEAR and I will certainly buy this one as well

 

[LittleNemoNES]

4xAA is too much for FEAR, IMO. I use 2x.
Funny thing is that Oblivion looks better and yet I can use 4xAA+HDR+16xAF @ 1680x1050 with amazing FPS (average 60fps)

 

[MBrown]

The seemed demo run fine on my rig. I guess I'll try maxing it out and fraping it when I get home from school.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: gersson
4xAA is too much for FEAR, IMO. I use 2x.
Funny thing is that Oblivion looks better and yet I can use 4xAA+HDR+16xAF @ 1680x1050 with amazing FPS (average 60fps)

Different engines (obvioulsy) that play into one GPU's strengths and the other's weaknesses. FEAR runs liked greased butter with 4xAA/16xAF on dual GTXes @ 1680x1050 (everything maxed, cept soft shadows), 8xAA is playable, but it feels a little 'thick'... However, when I used to play Oblivion, nothing from NV could top my XTX, I even prefered it to the GX2 (mainly for HDR+AA)... Sadly, we can't install different cards in the two PCEe slots and switch between them...

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Hyperlite

Originally posted by: Avalon
I wouldn't touch that expansion with a ten foot pole. Hated the original game. Performance doesn't seem too hot either.

why didn't you liike it? granted, it did have that whole flashlight thing going on, but it was definitely unlike anything else i had ever played, in story and gameplay. I loved it, but anyway...

I just found it boring, repetitive, and not scary of shocking in the least, but that's OT and will be the last I express my feelings about the game in this thread, since it's meant to be looking at the performance of the expansion, not for others to listen to me complain about it

 

[blckgrffn]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: Hyperlite

Originally posted by: Avalon
I wouldn't touch that expansion with a ten foot pole. Hated the original game. Performance doesn't seem too hot either.

why didn't you liike it? granted, it did have that whole flashlight thing going on, but it was definitely unlike anything else i had ever played, in story and gameplay. I loved it, but anyway...

I just found it boring, repetitive, and not scary of shocking in the least, but that's OT and will be the last I express my feelings about the game in this thread, since it's meant to be looking at the performance of the expansion, not for others to listen to me complain about it

I played the game with friends, drinking beer, all of us jumping with the surround sound, etc. That's probably what made the game fun. Plus, you could pop peoples heads off!

The performance does pretty much suck though in F.E.A.R. It's really too bad that so many gamers get shut out of seeing it all. I know it is a chicken and an egg problem when it comes to graphics and hardware, but it doesn't seem like we are getting dividends from decent hardware from this graphics engine.

Heck, I bet Unreal 3 will treat todays hardware better than this. We can hope anyway...

Nat

 

[akshayt]

The only thing I don't like in Fear is that I can never max out my settings. When I had a 6600GT, I didn't use SS and played at 10x7(not maxed out). Now with a 1900xtx, Extraction Point runs much better than the orignal Fear but all I play is 12x9 MAX and still no SS. They should make the SS lighter I feel.

I actually don't thing that there is too much reason to complain, the lighteing has become much better now. 1900xt/xtxs still play the game at 12x9 MAX no AA 16x AF no SS, and other games like Call of Juarez, Oblivion, GRAW, Serious Sam 2, we can't play these games at better settings either. So I don't feel that there is too much to complain about. Although I would love either 4x AA or SS or even both.

As for Unreal Tournament 2007, yes it does treat todays hardware better than this. A 6800Ultra at 10x7 with all options maxed out can dish 30FPS, not sure whether it is minimum or average, but maybe minimum. Also, to play with everything maxed out like 4x AA 8x/16x AF at 12x9/16x12, I think it won't take more than a 7800GT/7800GTX SLI which is more or less a single 1900xtx in such a game.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
The level design of the original was enough for me to stop playing and sell it after taking the time ti beat the single-player mode.

But if I stay objective and look at the performance ... well that's crazy. Looks like current-gen GPUs are still having trouble in DX9 games. Granted, that's only a few of them, but it still happens today. I wonder though ... if Valve worked on that engine, it might have scaled a lot better for "lesser" systems. Heck, H-L: E1 looks much better than that, and my system can run it smooth enough with all settings at high, 6x A-A-A, 8x HQ A-F at 1280x960.

if Valve worked on it - it would have no shadows other than 'fixed', a non functional flashlight [that doesn't interact with other light sources] and terrible particle effects and AI.
Valve would have nice models, however.

The engine that powers FEAR does so much more than Source.

Unfortunately Soft Shadows still take up way too much gfx HP for what little they 'improve'.

 

[akshayt]

Do you think that a 1900xtx can play Fear at 12x9 MAX SS 16x AF with an avg of 60FPS, I am talking of the orignal Fear