• 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.

well..finally

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
how come on mine...it only goes up to 12 * 960???
i had to set my 12 * 10 in the config file
and turning off softshadow doesn't really help that much believe it or not
 
Originally posted by: MDE
Ugh, not looking good for my 6800GT. I was hoping to play at 1280x960 at least with 2xAA.
Click to expand...

I've got my 6800GT clocked to 430/1150 and it does ok at 1280x960 2xAA with most everything set to high except for effects, which I decided to set to minimum, as gunfire and particles seem to cause too much of a slowdown. Frames bottom out at 30, and spend most of the time between 40-50.

Honestly, the graphics are actually quite underwhelming, but surprisingly I'm finding the gameplay, especially the AI, to be much better than I had expected. At the extreme difficulty setting, this game is quite a challenge. Level design sucks though, way too boring and monotonous.
 
agree....i thought the graphics would be much better
it doesn't justify the performance
and after turning texture resolution to medium
i don't have the stutters anymore and frame rates are usually above 60
with heavy battles hanging around 43ish
pretty good...i guess i need to buy another gig of ram...*sigh*
 
Originally posted by: BespinReactorShaft
Anyone else here hoping that FEAR's system demands are simply way beyond its time (at least till end of 2006)? 🙁
Click to expand...

For no good reason IMO. The textures on the floors, walls etc etc look like ass in the demo, the graphics are mediocre at best aside from the player models, I don't know why it runs like crap, it shouldnt.
 
I don't have the full version, but on the multiplayer demo Im hitting an average of 50fps @ 1024x768, everything on maximum, 8xAF, no AA, no soft shadows and no studdering probs at all.

0% below 25fps

For 50fps, I have to admit, it pretty smooth. And I'm one who agrees with CP5670...under 60fps is usually disappointing.

AMD64 3000+ (Winchester - not OC)
Biostar 6100-939 mATX mb
EVGA 7800GT CO
1 gig Corsair VS
160 Seagate IDE HD
onboard sound

 
Well, something is screwed up on my computer. I can only play at a max of 1024x768. I force 1280x1024 in the config file, and the menu starts up at that resolution, but as soon as I try to run a benchmark, it switches to 1024x768. In the external config program, it also won't let me choose 1280x1024.

I think it has something to do with my monitor driver. If anyone knows how to fix it, let me know.

Here's the benches I ran:
A64 @ 2500mhz
1gb ram
AGP 6800nu (stock speeds)
Nvidia 77.72 drivers
Computer settings set to Maximum
1024x768 resolution
AA/AF settings were forced in the Nvidia drivers

0xAA, 0xAF High video settings:
min 26
avg 51
max 102

0% -25fps
45% 25-40fps
55% 40+fps

0xAA, 0xAF Max video settings:
min 9
avg 48
max 115

7% -25fps
38% 25-40fps
55% 40+fps

4xaa, 8xaf, high:
min 12
avg 27
max 61

4xaa, 8xaf, max:
min 11
avg 25
max 61


It is very playable at 1024x768 on a 6800nu as long as AA is turned off. I might install it on my geforce4 system to see how it runs 🙂

Edit: Just tried again with the 81.85 beta drivers and I got nearly the exact the same numbers.
 
The final has been optimized. As long as you don't play with soft shadows on, which imo makes the game look like crap/blurry, the game will run just fine. I was unable to play the demo at max settings + 1600x1200 but now I have no issues running the game at acceptable performance at max settings etc. I'm quite happy with the way my 6800 gt is performing.
 
It doesn't seem to be a RAM heavy game, but then again, I haven't played it much. Ram shouldn't affect the benchmark numbers since it it pre-loads the benchmark (and it fits in 1gb).

From what jiffylube1024 posted above, x800 numbers look disappointing. An x850xt pe should be about twice as fast as my video card, but look what he's getting.. And I recently just ordered an x800xt as an upgrade 🙂
 
Well, if it turns out I can't play at 16x12 with 2GB of ram and a 7800GTX with steady >30 fps, then I won't buy it. That's just pathetic for a game to come out and not be playable at high settings with a $500 video card.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Well, if it turns out I can't play at 16x12 with 2GB of ram and a 7800GTX with steady >30 fps, then I won't buy it. That's just pathetic for a game to come out and not be playable at high settings with a $500 video card.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and neither will a lot of other people. I think more games need to take after Half Life 2 - it may not be the best looking, although it still looks very nice, but it actually runs at playable frame rates on normal systems.
 
Source is a masterpiece when it comes to optimization. This is the way all engines should be coded.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Anyone with 2GB of ram and a 7800GTX care to post some benchies?
Click to expand...



I've got 2GB and gtx SLI, picked the game up at lunch, I'll be benching it at home this evening after I update drivers and do a quick(hahah, in a p180, nothing is quick)memory swap.

Oh, and btw, I was playing it on my laptop at work and hitting 115 max fps... at 640x480 with almost everything at low or medium, hehehe.
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Well, if it turns out I can't play at 16x12 with 2GB of ram and a 7800GTX with steady >30 fps, then I won't buy it. That's just pathetic for a game to come out and not be playable at high settings with a $500 video card.
Click to expand...

Wow we aren't talking about Tresspasser here, we aren't talking about a game that took to years to play at a decent frame rate. You guys that are getting pissed that you can't run it at extreme (yes 1600 is extreme) resolutions with every little goody on are just cry babies. Since Quake3 luanched we haven't seen many changes in engines and video usage till Doom3, at the end we got a series of cards that was twice as fast as the previous gen (5900-6800 and 9800 to X800) This has allowed us to get amazing high frames on games we were used to playing, now in the last year we have getting the second wave of high Quality games this time ones that stress the system abit, and you guys seem to have gotten to used to 1600. At most I would guess that 1280 is still the goal for solid frame rates.


man i just got lost in that rant. Basically I am saying is go back a year and remember how things where. We didn't escape that, we just saw lull on the software end and a surge in the graphics end. Remember if games didn't stress the sytem then their wouldn't be a reason for them to make better video cards.

Stop whining.
 
Originally posted by: Dkcode
Source is a masterpiece when it comes to optimization. This is the way all engines should be coded.
Click to expand...



It's a well coded engine yes, but also realize that HL2's map design wasn't overly complex. I think the game ran extremely well more due to good care and optimization of the LD side than the actual engine code.
 
Well the truth lies somewhere in between ppl

1. Source engine is a masterpiece
2. FEAR is BY FAR a lot more demanding game(soft shadows,volumetric lights and many more). Just turn them off if you don't like the framerate drop and you'll be fine.

Also for those that say FEAR does not look as good as HL2 , I'll recommend them to avoid those comments till they play the full version of the game. 😉
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Well, if it turns out I can't play at 16x12 with 2GB of ram and a 7800GTX with steady >30 fps, then I won't buy it. That's just pathetic for a game to come out and not be playable at high settings with a $500 video card.
Click to expand...

I agree - if 2 7800gtx's is going to be what is needed to play the game at 16x12 4aa 8af and full settings, that's really bad. HL2 is very close as far as graphics, yet it's is 2- 3 times faster. It really is sad how sloppy these companies are getting with their code.
 
Originally posted by: jim1976
Well the truth lies somewhere in between ppl

1. Source engine is a masterpiece
2. FEAR is BY FAR a lot more demanding game(soft shadows,volumetric lights and many more). Just turn them off if you don't like the framerate drop and you'll be fine.

Also for those that say FEAR does not look as good as HL2 , I'll recommend them to avoid those comments till they play the full version of the game. 😉
Click to expand...

I have the full version and I don't think it looks better than HL2. Some of the textures are pretty borings, especially the walls, streets, etc. As for the facny effects it supposed to have, it doesn't show in game. Maybe it's just the first part, I just started.

 
Originally posted by: Topweasel
Originally posted by: bamacre
Well, if it turns out I can't play at 16x12 with 2GB of ram and a 7800GTX with steady >30 fps, then I won't buy it. That's just pathetic for a game to come out and not be playable at high settings with a $500 video card.
Click to expand...

Wow we aren't talking about Tresspasser here, we aren't talking about a game that took to years to play at a decent frame rate. You guys that are getting pissed that you can't run it at extreme (yes 1600 is extreme) resolutions with every little goody on are just cry babies. Since Quake3 luanched we haven't seen many changes in engines and video usage till Doom3, at the end we got a series of cards that was twice as fast as the previous gen (5900-6800 and 9800 to X800) This has allowed us to get amazing high frames on games we were used to playing, now in the last year we have getting the second wave of high Quality games this time ones that stress the system abit, and you guys seem to have gotten to used to 1600. At most I would guess that 1280 is still the goal for solid frame rates.


man i just got lost in that rant. Basically I am saying is go back a year and remember how things where. We didn't escape that, we just saw lull on the software end and a surge in the graphics end. Remember if games didn't stress the sytem then their wouldn't be a reason for them to make better video cards.

Stop whining.
Click to expand...

Not whining, just stating I won't buy the game. Will they give a ******? No, and I don't care. I also only stated I wanted to play at 16x12, did not say anything about aa nor af. Is 16x12 extreme? Yeah, and so was the price and the performance of the GTX.

And in regards to what I bolded, it's great if they stress the video cards, but only if it's worthwhile. I'm not going to spend more money on a video card if the result is not an added value to the gameplay, physics, and/or graphics.
 
Originally posted by: jim1976Also for those that say FEAR does not look as good as HL2 , I'll recommend them to avoid those comments till they play the full version of the game. 😉
Click to expand...


I have been playing the full version of the game... for about 6 hours now (I think?).
I've gotten pretty far (Armacham HQ I think?).

It does NOT look as good as HL2.

It does NOT look as good as Doom3.

It does NOT look as good as Chronicles of Riddick.

All 3 games above, I have -- and I have *finished*.

While FEAR is a good *game*, the engine is absolute GARBAGE.

As an aside, as someone with ATI Hardware... both Doom3 and Chronicles of Riddick had better performing engines (on my ATI card) than FEAR.
They're OpenGL games. Fear is DX9.
WTF is going on?

Quick, someone get Monolith in touch with John Carmack...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top