• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FEAR unoptimised in ATi drivers?

L

Lonyo

Lifer
Beyond 3D forums
Discovered through Warp2search.net and EliteB.

Anyone here have ANY ATi card (even 9xxx/Xxxx cards, as well as X1xxx cards <-- yes, that is stupid, but don't blame me) had any experiences of this?
Looks like the anti-Quack, since it's an optimisation bug which reduces FPS Rage3D 😛

Plus for ATi users, it might get your FPS up a bit.
 
Originally posted by: bjc112
X1xxx cards <-- yes, that is stupid, but don't blame me) had any experiences of this?
Click to expand...

Why is that stupid?
Click to expand...

It was more the X's and the x's in the names, ie: the Xxxx series (eg: X700, X800) and X1xxx (X1800, X1600 etc), nothing to do with the cards themselves, more the nomenclature when you replace numbers with x's to cover the whole range of cards 😛
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Beyond 3D forums
Discovered through Warp2search.net and EliteB.

Anyone here have ANY ATi card (even 9xxx/Xxxx cards, as well as X1xxx cards <-- yes, that is stupid, but don't blame me) had any experiences of this?
Looks like the anti-Quack, since it's an optimisation bug which reduces FPS Rage3D 😛

Plus for ATi users, it might get your FPS up a bit.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see if the IQ changes at all; maybe they are automatically disabling some optimization that looks bad in FEAR? Does renaming other apps to the same executable name as FEAR change their results?

It could also be something like "Quack" was (where they were trying to optimize something for the game but got it wrong in one driver version), but in this case having the bug reduce performance rather than increasing performance but reducing IQ like it did for Quake.
 
Originally posted by: CATALYST MAKER at Beyond3D
It?s a "bug" in that we simply got an IF statement backwards Thanks for pointing this out to us, you have just helped us get a big performance gain. Of course there is no difference in the rendering, it?s just a CATALYST AI game specific optimization that was good for the demo version, but backfired in the final version. We will get it sorted out in a future Catalyst (not 5.11 which is being posted tomorrow by the way).

Any other help anyone can provide in bringing up our performance, make sure you send it my way.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: Creig
Originally posted by: CATALYST MAKER at Beyond3D
It?s a "bug" in that we simply got an IF statement backwards Thanks for pointing this out to us, you have just helped us get a big performance gain. Of course there is no difference in the rendering, it?s just a CATALYST AI game specific optimization that was good for the demo version, but backfired in the final version. We will get it sorted out in a future Catalyst (not 5.11 which is being posted tomorrow by the way).

Any other help anyone can provide in bringing up our performance, make sure you send it my way.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's pretty funny. Dont these guys test and benchmark the drivers before releasing them?
 
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: Creig
Originally posted by: CATALYST MAKER at Beyond3D
It?s a "bug" in that we simply got an IF statement backwards Thanks for pointing this out to us, you have just helped us get a big performance gain. Of course there is no difference in the rendering, it?s just a CATALYST AI game specific optimization that was good for the demo version, but backfired in the final version. We will get it sorted out in a future Catalyst (not 5.11 which is being posted tomorrow by the way).

Any other help anyone can provide in bringing up our performance, make sure you send it my way.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's pretty funny. Dont these guys test and benchmark the drivers before releasing them?
Click to expand...

Yes, but there were some pretty big performance differences between the demo of FEAR and the released retail version. What would they have benched it against to know that it was running slower than normal? Although I guess in this case, they could have verified that 'running without optimizations' is faster than 'running with optimizations'.
 
God. Now they find this!

All I know is that my X850XT PE @ 600/620 dropped into the low-teens at certain points in FEAR (mind you I was running it at 1680X1050, 8x AF); my new BFG 7800GT @ 460/1150 doesn't seem to go below 30fps at the same settings and gives a smoother experience.

I noticed that the X850 didn't gain any performance from the demo to the final version; all that was improved is that the heavy stuttering of the demo disappeared in the retail version. Looks like a driver fix in the future may bump up performance even more for ATI. Good stuff, because this game paints a bad picture for future game engines chugging high end graphics cards.
 
I just tested this on my X800XT. I can't see any difference in quality but maybe there is maybe tere isn't...

Anyways this is with 2xAA 8XAF
1280x768
CPU settings on maximum
Video - lighting settings on medium, shadows on low
the rest on maximum

I ran the test with FEAR.exe 3 times and 3 times with TEST.EXE

FEAR.exe results

min 32, 33, 34
avg 55, 55, 56
max 121, 121, 121


TEST.exe resulsts
min 43, 42, 43
avg 67, 67, 67
max 134, 135, 137
 
Any way for someone to do a quicksave, load up, take a SS without moving, rename the .exe, take another SS from th esame load point, then post them up, or run them through an image comparison program of some sort?
 
Unfortunately both vendors are using application specific optimizations these days but at least with ATi you can disable them through Catalyst AI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top