Want to play F.E.A.R.?

[Greenman]

I just went to the F.E.A.R. web site and checked out the video and screenies, the best of it looks about as good as HL2. It would need to be ten times better before I'd even consider droping $600 on a new card to run it.
I've never played any game at more than 1024x768 (on a 19" crt), it looks the same to me no matter how high the res, and the game I play most is 6 years old and works just fine on a 64meg pci video card (TFC).

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Greenman
I just went to the F.E.A.R. web site and checked out the video and screenies, the best of it looks about as good as HL2. It would need to be ten times better before I'd even consider droping $600 on a new card to run it.
I've never played any game at more than 1024x768 (on a 19" crt), it looks the same to me no matter how high the res, and the game I play most is 6 years old and works just fine on a 64meg pci video card (TFC).

If it looks the same to you no matter what the res, you're not looking? 16X12 has so many more pixels per square inch than 10X7 it's almost impossible not to see the difference. (no offense)

Things in the distance are where it really shows.

Anyway, I'm upgrading my 5 year old to 6800GT SLI in the next week or two. (parts are here, need the time) I'll be sure to post some 7800GTX benches on his A64 3200 to compare to my A64 3800. People seem fond of saying "You have to have the FX55 for 7800s!".

We'll see.

 

[Regs]

I remark about the performance of FEAR Beta...

When Far Cry came out with the 9800pro in town, it could maybe do 12x1024 at the most with Max Quality. Then they x800s and 6800's came out and you could easily play the game at 16x12. That's why im a little hesitant to call Rollo's comparison of last generations similarity performance gap accurate.

 

[archcommus]

I like how Rollo implies I'd be satisfied by buying a 7800. Sorry, but some people don't think 20 FPS is worth six hundred whopping dollars.

And actually, the X800 XL didn't do too bad. For $180, that's pretty damn sweet.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo


Anyway, I'm upgrading my 5 year old to 6800GT SLI in the next week or two. (parts are here, need the time) I'll be sure to post some 7800GTX benches on his A64 3200 to compare to my A64 3800. People seem fond of saying "You have to have the FX55 for 7800s!".

We'll see.

First - a few posts back - the real reason for owning a 7800gtx slips out . . . and now we have the REAL reason for the OP starting this thread.

show-off

:roll:

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Rollo


Anyway, I'm upgrading my 5 year old to 6800GT SLI in the next week or two. (parts are here, need the time) I'll be sure to post some 7800GTX benches on his A64 3200 to compare to my A64 3800. People seem fond of saying "You have to have the FX55 for 7800s!".

We'll see.

First - a few posts back - the real reason for owning a 7800gtx slips out . . . and now we have the REAL reason for the OP starting this thread.

show-off

:roll:

Everyone has their own priorities. Just let them have them.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Rollo


Anyway, I'm upgrading my 5 year old to 6800GT SLI in the next week or two. (parts are here, need the time) I'll be sure to post some 7800GTX benches on his A64 3200 to compare to my A64 3800. People seem fond of saying "You have to have the FX55 for 7800s!".

We'll see.

First - a few posts back - the real reason for owning a 7800gtx slips out . . . and now we have the REAL reason for the OP starting this thread.

show-off

:roll:

Everyone has their own priorities. Just let them have them.

let me have mine.



:roll:

get it?

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

I didn't feel like reading all of the thread, but I'll say this. I played the beta, it's very taxing, easily the most taxing game I've played to date. I have an X800 Pro and I have to run it in 10x7 mostly medium settings with no AA or AF. Framerates remain above 30 pretty much all of the time, games fun as hell and looks pretty good to boot.

You'll definitely need a 16 pipe 256mb card in order to play this with max details and AA/AF, in 10x7. Not that it takes a supercomputer to run it, I played it on a 9800 pro in 8x6 and enjoyed it just as much. Just don't expect to be able to max out the eye candy unless you have a top of the line system.

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I didn't feel like reading all of the thread, but I'll say this. I played the beta, it's very taxing, easily the most taxing game I've played to date. I have an X800 Pro and I have to run it in 10x7 mostly medium settings with no AA or AF. Framerates remain above 30 pretty much all of the time, games fun as hell and looks pretty good to boot.

You'll definitely need a 16 pipe 256mb card in order to play this with max details and AA/AF, in 10x7. Not that it takes a supercomputer to run it, I played it on a 9800 pro in 8x6 and enjoyed it just as much. Just don't expect to be able to max out the eye candy unless you have a top of the line system.

It's a BETA. That never holds true by the time a game retails. If it WAS true the game would sell like sh!t. Doom 3 was exactly the same...everyone said it would be the most taxing game to date, you'd need a such-and-such top of the line system to play it well. Then, I got it, and ran it perfect on my XP 2100+ and 9800 Pro. I put the settings on the High presets and ran it at 10x7 with moderate AA and AF settings. I imagine the same will hold true for this game.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Everyone must now go fork over $1200 for an SLI 7800GTX setup so that they can play the beta of a crappy game, YAY!!!

This is the be all, end all of ATI for sure :roll:

 

[MBrown]

10 pages of this? Wow. Anyway the game sucks so nobody should even be thinking of buying the game.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: MBrown
10 pages of this? Wow. Anyway the game sucks so nobody should even be thinking of buying the game.

Wow- where do you get "10 pages"? Reading this on your cell phone mini browser?

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: Greenman
I just went to the F.E.A.R. web site and checked out the video and screenies, the best of it looks about as good as HL2. It would need to be ten times better before I'd even consider droping $600 on a new card to run it.
I've never played any game at more than 1024x768 (on a 19" crt), it looks the same to me no matter how high the res, and the game I play most is 6 years old and works just fine on a 64meg pci video card (TFC).

If it looks the same to you no matter what the res, you're not looking? 16X12 has so many more pixels per square inch than 10X7 it's almost impossible not to see the difference. (no offense)

Things in the distance are where it really shows.

Anyway, I'm upgrading my 5 year old to 6800GT SLI in the next week or two. (parts are here, need the time) I'll be sure to post some 7800GTX benches on his A64 3200 to compare to my A64 3800. People seem fond of saying "You have to have the FX55 for 7800s!".

We'll see.

I decided that perhaps I was missing something, maybe I do indeed need a $1200 sli setup, so I booted up HL2 and cranked the res up to 1600x1200 and really looked at the details. And yes, it is a bit nicer looking, but not something I'd notice if I wasn't looking for it. Perhaps my vision isn't good enough, or perhaps I just don't care enough, either way, I won't be getting a new video setup. (Side note, since I just saved $1200 on video cards, I went and ordered new windows for my house).

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

I don't understand why everyone is trying to stress the fact that it's a beta so much. The game is due for release in a few months, it's not like it's within it's first stages of development.

When Doom 3 came out the 6800 series was top of the line, and it ran the game with flying colors. Carmack said himself the game would run well on most platforms, I don't recall hearing anything about it going to run like shyt.

It's a beta for a game that's near completion, and unless you've played it like I have I don't think your opinions on what it will be like hold much water. Does it take a supercomputer to run it? No, I've said that before. But from experience, it is the most taxing game I've played to date, and it will take a very powerful machine to run it with the eye candy wow factor a lot of people are so used to.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I don't understand why everyone is trying to stress the fact that it's a beta so much. The game is due for release in a few months, it's not like it's within it's first stages of development.

let me explain it to you then . . . STALKER was in an IDENTICAL position last year . . . . there were beta benchmarks and it was scheduled for release in a FEW WEEKS according to its website and major retailers.

Well, guess what? it's a NO SHOW.

Perhaps the devsgot bought out by a console maker for it's exclusive launch . . . who knows?

HL2 was delayed for an ENTIRE YEAR after a release date was announced [and there were benchmarks also].

So this "BETA BS" may never make it to market . . . or it may be a year late . . .
:roll:

 

[HDTVMan]

Seriously cant they benchmark the darn game at 640x480 and 800x600 so the rest of us might get an idea what we are in for? Maybe the game is playable at lower res?

Is this so darn difficult that they benchmark everything at such high resolitions now?

 

[EightySix Four]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: MBrown
10 pages of this? Wow. Anyway the game sucks so nobody should even be thinking of buying the game.

Wow- where do you get "10 pages"? Reading this on your cell phone mini browser?

Hello, there's 10 pages of this discussion in the forum....

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I don't understand why everyone is trying to stress the fact that it's a beta so much. The game is due for release in a few months, it's not like it's within it's first stages of development.

When Doom 3 came out the 6800 series was top of the line, and it ran the game with flying colors. Carmack said himself the game would run well on most platforms, I don't recall hearing anything about it going to run like shyt.

It's a beta for a game that's near completion, and unless you've played it like I have I don't think your opinions on what it will be like hold much water. Does it take a supercomputer to run it? No, I've said that before. But from experience, it is the most taxing game I've played to date, and it will take a very powerful machine to run it with the eye candy wow factor a lot of people are so used to.

Your own example can be used against you...lol...Doom 3 alpha was the same way.

Though it doesn't SEEM there is a lot to be optimized, there is. Now, yes, Doom 3 was alpha and this is beta. But if they expect to sell any, they will have to cater to the mainstream of FX5500 and Radeon 9600 cards. Most people don't even have the meager-performing 6800GT, yet. Even I only have the 6800NU...and trust me I'm WAY ahead of my gamer friends in this regard. In fact, today one of my friends just picked up a 9600 Pro from his FX5200. Yeah, I know...:Q

In the past with taxing games like this, cards that could play it fine were $200. Now they're $300-400. I'm sure its getting on peoples' nerves. Take Quake 3, another of Carmack's games, for example. It raped every card at the time. I picked up the $200 Voodoo 3 2000 to play it...and I was fairly happy with performance.

Besides, where is the beta available? Do you have to be on a beta-testing team? I'd like to see how bad my new-last-year graphics card is put to its knees.

All this considered, the screenshots AREN'T that impressive. It looks like HL2 had a bad mipmap day and the shadows got a little beefier. The inside of that one room looked so plain.

After all maybe you're right...Carmack is a coding genius and he has the potential to speed stuff up...maybe these guys don't...

Optimizing at the lowest level always delivers the best performance increase...so even if they simply changed all their add functions to SIMD SSE3 code, it would be so much faster. Of course only on Prescotts and Athlon 64 Rev. E...but a lot of people have SSE2 now on P4s and A64s...you get my point.

It all depends on how they work...personally I try to optimize it from the beginning so I don't have to worry about it later...but I don't develop huge projects like games either.

 

[DidlySquat]

If they only expect to sell to people who have a $1200 video setup they will have to charge $1200 per copy to just break even (developing a game costs a few millions). But on plus side, people who spend $1200 on the hardware may just as well be willing to spend $1200 for this game - after all it's supposedly the "cutting edge" which means it's worth any price because when you buy the best you will never regret it as a "wise" man once said....

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I don't understand why everyone is trying to stress the fact that it's a beta so much. The game is due for release in a few months, it's not like it's within it's first stages of development.

let me explain it to you then . . . STALKER was in an IDENTICAL position last year . . . . there were beta benchmarks and it was scheduled for release in a FEW WEEKS according to its website and major retailers.

Well, guess what? it's a NO SHOW.

Perhaps the devsgot bought out by a console maker for it's exclusive launch . . . who knows?

HL2 was delayed for an ENTIRE YEAR after a release date was announced [and there were benchmarks also].

So this "BETA BS" may never make it to market . . . or it may be a year late . . .
:roll:

It may be on time as well.

What happened with Stalker has absolutely nothing to do with this game.

Duke Nuke'm Forever didn't make it to market either, Bikini Karate Babes did. Wow. Funny how that works. Even though Duke Nuke'm didn't make it, I can play Bikini Karate Babes whenever I want, and AFAIK, it was on time for it's release.

Why you're even trying to make this argument is beyond me Apoppin', it's pretty obviously flawed.

It could be ATI wants them to release it like this as an incentive to buy a R520.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: crazySOB297

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: MBrown
10 pages of this? Wow. Anyway the game sucks so nobody should even be thinking of buying the game.

Wow- where do you get "10 pages"? Reading this on your cell phone mini browser?

Hello, there's 10 pages of this discussion in the forum....

Must be your browser/settings. I have 4.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I don't understand why everyone is trying to stress the fact that it's a beta so much. The game is due for release in a few months, it's not like it's within it's first stages of development.

When Doom 3 came out the 6800 series was top of the line, and it ran the game with flying colors. Carmack said himself the game would run well on most platforms, I don't recall hearing anything about it going to run like shyt.

It's a beta for a game that's near completion, and unless you've played it like I have I don't think your opinions on what it will be like hold much water. Does it take a supercomputer to run it? No, I've said that before. But from experience, it is the most taxing game I've played to date, and it will take a very powerful machine to run it with the eye candy wow factor a lot of people are so used to.

Your own example can be used against you...lol...Doom 3 alpha was the same way.

Though it doesn't SEEM there is a lot to be optimized, there is. Now, yes, Doom 3 was alpha and this is beta. But if they expect to sell any, they will have to cater to the mainstream of FX5500 and Radeon 9600 cards. Most people don't even have the meager-performing 6800GT, yet. Even I only have the 6800NU...and trust me I'm WAY ahead of my gamer friends in this regard. In fact, today one of my friends just picked up a 9600 Pro from his FX5200. Yeah, I know...:Q

In the past with taxing games like this, cards that could play it fine were $200. Now they're $300-400. I'm sure its getting on peoples' nerves. Take Quake 3, another of Carmack's games, for example. It raped every card at the time. I picked up the $200 Voodoo 3 2000 to play it...and I was fairly happy with performance.

Besides, where is the beta available? Do you have to be on a beta-testing team? I'd like to see how bad my new-last-year graphics card is put to its knees.

All this considered, the screenshots AREN'T that impressive. It looks like HL2 had a bad mipmap day and the shadows got a little beefier. The inside of that one room looked so plain.

After all maybe you're right...Carmack is a coding genius and he has the potential to speed stuff up...maybe these guys don't...

Optimizing at the lowest level always delivers the best performance increase...so even if they simply changed all their add functions to SIMD SSE3 code, it would be so much faster. Of course only on Prescotts and Athlon 64 Rev. E...but a lot of people have SSE2 now on P4s and A64s...you get my point.

It all depends on how they work...personally I try to optimize it from the beginning so I don't have to worry about it later...but I don't develop huge projects like games either.

I am thinking for a project of this size that the code is not going to change substantially in the three months before it launches?

I'm not a game developer, but the software is beta, which AFAIK is "close to done"?

Even just from a logical standpoint they're taking pre-orders with a 10/4 ship date. They've told the press the ship date is October. They need some time to press the CDs and put together the packaging, get their product to the stores.

Do you really think they're making substantial changes in the code that will all of the sudden double performance on last gen cards?

I've got $10 that says if this game launches on time (10/4) the performance will not be significantly different. Bet?

 

[fstime]

This thread is wasting anandtech's bandwidth, get it out of here.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BouZouki
This thread is wasting anandtech's bandwidth, get it out of here.

LOL

It's nice you think you are the thread police Bouzouki- everyone needs a hobby. :roll:

Yeah, you wouldn't expect to see a discussion of a new game's first benches in the video card forum. :roll:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
I don't understand why everyone is trying to stress the fact that it's a beta so much. The game is due for release in a few months, it's not like it's within it's first stages of development.

let me explain it to you then . . . STALKER was in an IDENTICAL position last year . . . . there were beta benchmarks and it was scheduled for release in a FEW WEEKS according to its website and major retailers.

Well, guess what? it's a NO SHOW.

Perhaps the devsgot bought out by a console maker for it's exclusive launch . . . who knows?

HL2 was delayed for an ENTIRE YEAR after a release date was announced [and there were benchmarks also].

So this "BETA BS" may never make it to market . . . or it may be a year late . . .
:roll:

It may be on time as well.

What happened with Stalker has absolutely nothing to do with this game.

Duke Nuke'm Forever didn't make it to market either, Bikini Karate Babes did. Wow. Funny how that works. Even though Duke Nuke'm didn't make it, I can play Bikini Karate Babes whenever I want, and AFAIK, it was on time for it's release.

Why you're even trying to make this argument is beyond me Apoppin', it's pretty obviously flawed.

It could be ATI wants them to release it like this as an incentive to buy a R520.

Your premise is flawed. Your Title and Topic Summary are FALSE:

Topic Title: Want to play F.E.A.R.?
Topic Summary: Looks like you need 6800SLI+

You cannot play FEAR and may never be able to play it . . . you cannout use beta benchmarks form an unreleased game to make ANY point.

IF it does get released, you most certainly will NOT need 6800+ SLI.

i don't think i can make it any clearer . . . but then your true purpose of this thread was revealed in several of your posts.
:roll: