SM3.0 finally having a nice performance gain over older tech?

[McArra]

6800GT is quite faster than X850XT PE, is old tech showing it's limitations?

Xbitlabs benches

 

[McArra]

ooooops, thought I pussed edit

 

[jazzboy]

Hard to tell really. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this supposed to be a TWIMTBP game?

 

[McArra]

Yup. Anyways TWIMTBP games were generally faster in ATi a year or so ago. I don't think they coded it poorly just for ATi to get in bad light.

 

[Ackmed]

It looks to me as the game run poor on any setup, and they need to optimize the heck out of it. Its not what I would consider playable with any of those cards.

Its pretty well known Fear runs like crap. Even before rollo posted his trolling thread.

 

[McArra]

Leave Rollo alone! Stick to the thread, no need to start a war Ackmed!

 

[Munky]

The funny thing is that even a 10x7 w/o AA or AF none of the cards even break 50fps, and the minimum fps is in the single digits. Also notice that the Ati cards have slightly higher min fps. This tells me not only that the Ati cards have more brute force when the scene gets really complex with a lot of geometry and effects, but also that all those who bragged about future profing themselves with sm3 will be not be running the game with all the sm3 eye candy at decent fps.

I know this game is only in a beta stage, and probably hasnt been optimized yet, but if this is any indication of future games, it only confirms my theory that by the time many games start utilizing sm3 eye candy, the gf6 series will be too slow to run them with the eye candy enabled.

 

[Ackmed]

Im not. Dont get mad for me stating facts.

A thread with Fear being faster on NV cards, has been posted before. By rollo, which turned into a 7 page crap thread.

How about you get this silly thread locked, because its old news, and the game is several months off. And we all know the game runs very poorly on any card.

 

[McArra]

Ackmed, you should really try to stay away from this threads, you only throw crap. Now someone please stick to the thread and post opinions adn or technical explanations...

 

[Ackmed]

If throwing crap, is stating fact, then ok.

EVERYONE KNOWS Fear runs LIKE CRAP on ANY CARD.

If you wish to read more about it, check his 7 page thread; http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1626929&enterthread=y

Which he edited the title, and the first post after several days. There is no point to this thread, at all. It has been discussed.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: munky
The funny thing is that even a 10x7 w/o AA or AF none of the cards even break 50fps, and the minimum fps is in the single digits. Also notice that the Ati cards have slightly higher min fps. This tells me not only that the Ati cards have more brute force when the scene gets really complex with a lot of geometry and effects, but also that all those who bragged about future profing themselves with sm3 will be not be running the game with all the sm3 eye candy at decent fps.

I know this game is only in a beta stage, and probably hasnt been optimized yet, but if this is any indication of future games, it only confirms my theory that by the time many games start utilizing sm3 eye candy, the gf6 series will be too slow to run them with the eye candy enabled.

This is standard for first generation hardware. Try running a 9800 Pro or NV3.x in these games.

It is interesting to see SM3 does give a higher frame rate which is good for future development.

 

[VIAN]

Well, easy enough, you just have to turn down some settings.

Some games see very little change from Medium to High, but a big performance hit. Probably the crappy settings doom3 had. They uncompress the effects or something. Yeah - like that's an increase in image quality.

When is this game coming out anyway?

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
If throwing crap, is stating fact, then ok.

EVERYONE KNOWS Fear runs LIKE CRAP on ANY CARD.

If you wish to read more about it, check his 7 page thread; http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=31&threadid=1626929&enterthread=y

Which he edited the title, and the first post after several days. There is no point to this thread, at all. It has been discussed.

Reading the other thread right now, LOL @ rollo getting owned when his Ati-bashing backfires on him. :laugh:

 

[Megatomic]

I still don't own one SM3.0 game. I guess I don't care...

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: munky
The funny thing is that even a 10x7 w/o AA or AF none of the cards even break 50fps, and the minimum fps is in the single digits. Also notice that the Ati cards have slightly higher min fps. This tells me not only that the Ati cards have more brute force when the scene gets really complex with a lot of geometry and effects, but also that all those who bragged about future profing themselves with sm3 will be not be running the game with all the sm3 eye candy at decent fps.

I know this game is only in a beta stage, and probably hasnt been optimized yet, but if this is any indication of future games, it only confirms my theory that by the time many games start utilizing sm3 eye candy, the gf6 series will be too slow to run them with the eye candy enabled.

This is standard for first generation hardware. Try running a 9800 Pro or NV3.x in these games.

It is interesting to see SM3 does give a higher frame rate which is good for future development.

The 9800p is a 3 year old card, but there were plenty of dx9 games a few years back that ran well on it. HL 2 runs well, FarCry runs well too, and even before there were dx9 games like Max Payne 2 that the card just brezed through no problem. The Nv30, even though it looked better on paper, with features like dx9+, longer-than-required shader length ability and 32-bit presicion, still sucked at dx9 games, but that's a whole other topic.

What is standard however is when Ati or Nvidia try to pimp features that the card will not run at acceptable fps. Ati, for example, had the trueform feature, and I only know a handful of games that use it, but when you enable it in HL2, the performance gets a lot worse. The same thing goes for Nvidia with the HDR and soft shaows and all that crap, the performance takes a huge hit when the features are enabled, and sometimes other features like AA are disables in addition to that.

I know there was a bunch of people in this forum who earlier this year toted sm3 as the the deciding factor of Nv superiority with their gf6 cards, and what happened now? With this game, you now actually have to turn off features like AA and AF, with or without sm3, just to have playable frame rates on a single gf6 card, and thats at 10x7 resolution. So much for future-proofing...

 

[McArra]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: munky
The funny thing is that even a 10x7 w/o AA or AF none of the cards even break 50fps, and the minimum fps is in the single digits. Also notice that the Ati cards have slightly higher min fps. This tells me not only that the Ati cards have more brute force when the scene gets really complex with a lot of geometry and effects, but also that all those who bragged about future profing themselves with sm3 will be not be running the game with all the sm3 eye candy at decent fps.

I know this game is only in a beta stage, and probably hasnt been optimized yet, but if this is any indication of future games, it only confirms my theory that by the time many games start utilizing sm3 eye candy, the gf6 series will be too slow to run them with the eye candy enabled.

This is standard for first generation hardware. Try running a 9800 Pro or NV3.x in these games.

It is interesting to see SM3 does give a higher frame rate which is good for future development.

The 9800p is a 3 year old card, but there were plenty of dx9 games a few years back that ran well on it. HL 2 runs well, FarCry runs well too, and even before there were dx9 games like Max Payne 2 that the card just brezed through no problem. The Nv30, even though it looked better on paper, with features like dx9+, longer-than-required shader length ability and 32-bit presicion, still sucked at dx9 games, but that's a whole other topic.

What is standard however is when Ati or Nvidia try to pimp features that the card will not run at acceptable fps. Ati, for example, had the trueform feature, and I only know a handful of games that use it, but when you enable it in HL2, the performance gets a lot worse. The same thing goes for Nvidia with the HDR and soft shaows and all that crap, the performance takes a huge hit when the features are enabled, and sometimes other features like AA are disables in addition to that.

I know there was a bunch of people in this forum who earlier this year toted sm3 as the the deciding factor of Nv superiority with their gf6 cards, and what happened now? With this game, you now actually have to turn off features like AA and AF, with or without sm3, just to have playable frame rates on a single gf6 card, and thats at 10x7 resolution. So much for future-proofing...

Of course, but look what the poor X850XT PE does, it doesn't beat 6800GT, and not only that, @1280x1024 no AA/AF the 6800GT is around 33% faster.... now tell me Serie 6 is not more futureproof.

 

[zendari]

Not sure if this has to do with SM3. Doom 3 was faster on a 6800 GT than a x850xtpe. Conversely, the x800 XL is often comparable to the 6800 U in HL2 and Farcry.

Plus FEAR is still in beta, with this level of performance its nowhere near relase.

 

[Todd33]

Benchmarking a unoptimized beta game that you cannot buy is dumb. Reviewers need to use their heads, stick to finished retail products.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: McArra
Of course, but look what the poor X850XT PE does, it doesn't beat 6800GT, and not only that, @1280x1024 no AA/AF the 6800GT is around 33% faster.... now tell me Serie 6 is not more futureproof.

yet the minimum framerates are generally better on the ATI cards, and all the minimum framerates are far to low to be considered playable anyway. If you have to turn less stuff down on the ATI cards to hit a minimum of 30fps; then I'd say the x850xt-pe proves more "futureproof" in this game.

 

[McArra]

I guess those low fps are due to not having enough RAM memory, as it happens in Battlefield 2.

 

[Megatomic]

I hope that's true McArra. I can upgrade to 2GB but I can't get a 7800 card (no PCI-e slot).

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: McArra
Of course, but look what the poor X850XT PE does, it doesn't beat 6800GT, and not only that, @1280x1024 no AA/AF the 6800GT is around 33% faster.... now tell me Serie 6 is not more futureproof.

Since minimum frame rates at even 1024x768 dropped down to single digits on every card tested, I'd say it's more a case of the game being "sales proof".

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
It looks to me as the game run poor on any setup, and they need to optimize the heck out of it. Its not what I would consider playable with any of those cards.

Its pretty well known Fear runs like crap. Even before rollo posted his trolling thread.

Rollo isn't a troll!

 

[kylebisme]

I have always considered the flamebaiting fanboy a form of troll.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Has anyone done benchmarks for fear yet with the 7800?