In terms of realistic expectations

[SlyOnes]

Ok. To put it bluntly, I have not had great luck with computers. I've tried my best to get good hardware and just PLAY my games, but I am in a rut.

There are many ways to gauge performance and many ways to stack up your systems to others. Most of these resources have done little but to confuse the all hell out of me.

I have what (I believe) is considered to be a fairly good setup. Putting the fact that its a Dell aside (I've heard it all), it should be a little demon regardless.

Considering that I have an X6800 processor and an 8800GTX. What should I honestly expect out of my games?

I have grown so accustomed to looking at benchmark scores that when games drop below 60fps at maxed settings I freak out and think something is wrong with the whole thing. I want to be at peace with my setup and be sure that its in proper working order.

So basically what I am looking for here is some form of closure on all of this, because I would rather be playing my games and not tweaking them all day.

I decided to make this thread after I tried playing City of Heroes at max settings at 1680x1050 and seeing that running around the city has a fairly fluctuating framerate often going below 60fps. Considering this is the 8800GTX and COH isn't at all new anymore, it began to aggravate me to no end. How do I know if this is normal or not? I honestly don't.

My experiences with F.E.A.R. also didn't help matters much. I had a thread from not too long ago trying to figure out what I should be expecting from F.E.A.R. It seemed that eventually I was getting scores (from the in-game test) in line with other posters here, but the actual game experience felt amiss.

I was running at 1680x1050 with vsync on, and when the shooting or explosions started, it began to hop like a disabled bunny. Dropping down in the low 40s sometimes 30s if it became especially hectic. With vsync off, those drops were still present, though didn't drop AS low, and was less noticeable without vsync but still there. Another thing is with F.E.A.R.s single player, it would also bog down in firefights, sometimes looking in the direction of a flaming barrel would also produce a drop.

In World of Warcraft, most of the main Azeroth area seems fine, but a city like Shattrath will kill the framerate down into the 40s, rarely into 30s. Isn't this game's engine fairly primitive by today's standards?

Its just a bunch of things that make me question whether its normal or fine.

- Should I still see low framerates (30s) in parts of 3DMark05?
- Should explosions in BF2142 cause drops?
- Should a game being released this year like Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, drop below 60 when this card came out recently?

And lastly, if I am getting normal 3dmark scores and normal F.E.A.R. benches, is it still possible that something is wrong? And is there any way to check it?

Meh, I felt I needed to lay out all my thoughts on the matter because if I don't mention everything, it going to nag me. I know that the instances I mention would typically cause serious slowdowns, but I am just mentioning it all because I honestly don't know whats normal with this thing.

Im starting to think benchmarks do more evil than good. Because when I see a F.E.A.R. benchmark on an 8800GTX review saying 70+fps with max settings at a fairly high resolution, what am I supposed to think?

I know this is very bloated and I apologize if you have to sift, but I appreciate the words of anyone who could lend them and I thank in advance.


Here are my common scores:
Aquamark 3 gives me 147,519

GFX: 29, 142
CPU: 14,937

3DMark 05 - 16790-16870
3DMark06 - 11074
CPU Test: 2600 Marks

Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon 42.436 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest 43.471 FPS

CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley 0.824 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley 1.312 FPS

HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 46.182 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 54.469 FPS

I was told these were in line with my specs (no overclocking)

 

[mcurphy]

I didn't read through your post entirely, but from what I did gather, maybe my experience will help you gage your performance....

I have an E6600 OC'd to 3.3GHz with 2Gb of PC6400 RAM and an XFX 7950GT Extreme Edition GPU. My LCD is a Dell E228WFP 22" Widescreen @ 1680X1050. My OS is Win XP Pro.

I play city of heroes, and I must say that I have not experienced any lag AT ALL since I built and started playing on this rig a few months ago. Also, I might add, that I play on Freedom, which is the most active server, as you probably know.

With the new release of I10 I have experienced a little bit of lag with the Rikti raids, but honestly, it seems more like everything else is lagging and I am still in real time...if that makes any sense?

But anyhow, I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help...I just thought that maybe my specs and performance might give you something to go by

It sounds like that with your setup...you should not be experiencing any lag...at least not in CoH. Maybe there is something else that is causing the problem other than the hardware?

Maybe ISP connection...other apps in the background...something else.....I'm just throwing some things out there!

It seems like that with the hardware you described, you should expect nothing but the best. I can't vouche for any game but CoH, but really, it sounds like you have a high end system that should be kicking some ass.

I'll see if I can dig up my 3DMark benchies to give you some comparison as well....

 

[MarcVenice]

How much ram do you have ? Your 3dmark06 score seems to be okay. But dropping to 30 fps in WoW just plain sucks. But 30fps should still be playable, or when you see an explosion, does it look like somewhat of a slideshow ? Or do you just freak when everything runs normal yet you see the framerate dipping below 40?

 

[SlyOnes]

I guess I am trying to gauge whats normal for a card and CPU like this.

Im so conditioned to card reviews, benchmarks, and everyones sugarcoating that I honestly don't know whats normal to expect out of two pieces of hardware which are still frankly very new.

I mean, is it normal for WoW to drop in Shatt, and why is it normal? Why in WoW i have 60fps, ill turn around with my mouse quickly and the framerate will drop, but if I turn the camera around slowly it doesn't?

In F.E.A.R. it seems to be when more than one person is in a room firing, or when an explosion (or two) goes off in a crowded area, it can go under 60 and hit the 40s/30s. Is this to be expected? I honestly don't know because when I look at what other people say, they make it seem like its dandy all the time. I mean my F.E.A.R. in-game tests seem to be within other peoples ranges too, but I honestly don't know.

I mean, the 8800 GTX should play most of the games that come out this year pretty damn well. And yet this Quake wars beta often dips below 60 when a hint of shooting comes along.

I guess im so conditioned to 60 being what people shoot for and the fact that without vsync it all looks like an ocean.

I can't say I have unrealstic expectations, because I don't know what I should be expecting. It feels like my experience isn't panning out to what I keep hearing.

Is everyone basing their performance in F.E.A.R. by running around in empty rooms with nothing going on?

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: SlyOnes

Im starting to think benchmarks do more evil than good. Because when I see a F.E.A.R. benchmark on an 8800GTX review saying 70+fps with max settings at a fairly high resolution, what am I supposed to think?

Might want to stick to sites that report both minimum/average: Xbitlabs | Bit-tech

I don't think there are many games made in the past two years that will run at 60+fps 100% of the time once you go past 1280x1024. As you can see, the minimum fps is sometimes less than half the average frame-rate. What's important is how long it stays there.

You might want to check HardOCP's video card reviews because they plot graphs that detail frame-rates over a manual 90-second long play-through. (Not sure if it's 90 seconds, 5 minutes or whatever) The problem there is that they don't normally run the game with all settings maxed - their reviewer will dial down some settings until the game satisfies his idea of smooth & satisfying gameplay.

If you aren't satisfied with a X6800/8800GTX rig - well, imagine life for us regular folks.

 

[SlyOnes]

I know, and I apologize, I don't want to sound like im being a picky bastard or flaunting it off. Its just that I went from say an X850, 3.8GHZ P4 system to this and when everyone tells you its a massive upgrade, when things don't stay at what would be considered a completely smooth clip, it annoys me to no end, because I don't know what to expect as normal at this point.

I mean to be blunt. If I had an X850 that ran Call of Duty 2 ok, walking around in uneventful areas was perfectly fine and then it craps in heavy action scenes, and then I move to this and walk around beautifully when nothing goes on and then craps out in heavy actions scenes also, it doesn't seem like an upgrade where it matters.

 

[Worthington]

I'm not so sure there isn't something holding you back from getting all the performance you would expect from that hardware, if your getting less then 60 frames in BF2\2142 (assuming you haven't done something like set the AA to x16). I play 2142 frequently (at 1680x1050 and X8aa, VS+TB) and almost never drop below 60fps.. explosions or no. Thats with a stock 8800GTX and an 4400+

It's been a while since I've watched my frame rate through an entire round so I could be mis-remembering. I'll play a bit tonight with the frame counter running just to make sure. I only played the ET beta for a bit but I don't remember having any frame issues.

 

[SlyOnes]

I do recall playing BF2 at max setting and it running fine, I don't recall any drops.

I mean with this Quake Wars beta, I did a fraps bench and got 30 Min - 76 avg - Max 300.

But that was a 2 minute bench and overall, it dropped into the 50s, ALOT.

Another person with a setup similar to mine said he did a bench and got: minimum 57, maximum 99, and average 71

Does this mean, he won't get a 30? Or does it all depend on what was going on at the time.

This is all getting really frustrating.

 

[apoppin]

DL and run FRAPs. it is free and you can see for yourself exactly what your FPS is in any game you are running ... it runs in the corner
-and min FPS means just that ... it never dips below the minimum

i went from x850xt > x1950p >HD2900xt ..
... and .... P4EE@3.74Ghz to e4300@3.150Ghz

No - my new rig isn't *that* overwhelmingly faster - my old rig P4EE/x850xt was quite capable at lower resolutions up to 12x9. You have to realize that x850xt can't do SM 3.0 and the usual HDR. otoh when you play with 8800 or 1900/2900 you generally choose the more demanding pathway - it "looks" much better on the new cards even if the x800 is running the SM2.0 path pretty quickly.
--BUT it should also be smoother with the HW upgrade - unless you also upped the resolution or changed the CP to force HQ filtering at max settings where you were playing at medium before. i went from 11x8 or 12x9 to 14x9 with my upgraded rig and generally play with max details and 4xAA/16xAF with the newer games -except DX10 games.

FEAR [and later STALKER] had frame rates that dipped below 30 with my x850xt/P4 ... it was sluggish in firefights above 10x7 ... no more ... runs great with rig in sig at 14x9 totally maxed in-game settings inc Soft Shadows/16xAF

And lastly, if I am getting normal 3dmark scores and normal F.E.A.R. benches, is it still possible that something is wrong? And is there any way to check it?

yes, your drivers could be screwed up or your games or OS not patched and up-to-date .... you check it by comparing to others with similar rigs - as you are attempting now. Definitely try different GPU drivers.
-i understand that CoH in intense scenes is also pretty CPU dependent and can bog the fastest rigs with everything maxed but i have no experience with it.

Finally your "expectations" may have been too high for the amount of money you spent on the upgrade.

 

[SlyOnes]

How much more demanding than 1600x1200 is 1680x1050:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...8800_gtx_amp_edition/7

The fear test at 1600 (which also uses my processor) is fairly close to the F.E.A.R. in-game tests I get with those settings at 1680x1050.

If you think that they would be fairly similar, I then bring up this quote from that article:

"We used the built in benchmark for our testing. Although this isn't as stressful as many portions of the game, it does give a good indication of overall game performance."

Now, is this true? And if so, does that mean, its very reasonable for me to see framerates in the 30s at these settings in action in multiplayer and parts of single player?

This would help me out a bit.

Because I often wonder if I should worry when in action sequences I sometimes get 30s in games like F.E.A.R. and Quake Wars.

 

[apoppin]

How much more demanding than 1600x1200 is 1680x1050

you have it backwards ... 16x12 is slightly more demanding than 16x10
-i have no problem with 30s as a minimum ... there are those among us that totally disagree
-and we are talking SP ... MP has other factors

 

[SlyOnes]

Well thanks for clearing that up for me. I wasn't aware which Res was harder on the graphics cards. Though, when a game like F.E.A.R. says "this resolution is not tested/supported/optimized", that can present its own problems correct?

And would multiplayer be more demanding and leave more room for said drops into 30 or less? Because I figure removing AI and scripted sequences from the picture would actually make it better?

 

[CP5670]

I think a lot of modern games are partly to blame here. Games in general are less well optimized than they used to be and the framerate fluctuates much more wildly on almost any hardware. My X1900XTX is getting old now, but I'm finding it increasingly hard to get a completely consistent framerate even if I turn the resolution way down to 640x480.

That being said, you might have some separate issue. Some games like BF2142 are based on older engines and should run flawlessly on an 8800GTX.

And would multiplayer be more demanding and leave more room for said drops into 30 or less?

In most games, yes. I think it's because there is typically just more on-screen action in multiplayer.