Graphic Cards Ati 1900xtx

[TechHead]

TP2 480W? Quite decent. Try turning down the options a bit yaar, it's not as if all the games are that badly coded.

 

[Viperbooze]

Thats true. Im getting a gig ram this weekend hope things would be smooth. will keep ya updated. Thanx guyz

 

[MaxAxe]

Common, why do you guys say that Far Cry is badly coded. Though I know that game favors AMD and 64 bit tech but still, I dont have anything against the game. The options just need to be tweaked a little bit and the game should run fine.

Though I would agree that the proccy here could be the culprit and honestly if it was me, I would upgrade, but simply blaming an amazingly built game is not fair.

 

[Chaos]

^^Eh from where did farcry come into the picture :S.

 

[TechHead]

Common, why do you guys say that Far Cry is badly coded. Though I know that game favors AMD and 64 bit tech but still, I dont have anything against the game. The options just need to be tweaked a little bit and the game should run fine.

Though I would agree that the proccy here could be the culprit and honestly if it was me, I would upgrade, but simply blaming an amazingly built game is not fair.

Aside from being a braggart, you obviously have a very short attention span. If you had read the thread in it's entirety, you would have realised that the OP is talking about F.E.A.R : Extraction Point..

 

[Vandal]

Common, why do you guys say that Far Cry is badly coded. Though I know that game favors AMD and 64 bit tech but still, I dont have anything against the game. The options just need to be tweaked a little bit and the game should run fine.

Though I would agree that the proccy here could be the culprit and honestly if it was me, I would upgrade, but simply blaming an amazingly built game is not fair.

eh... pays to read carefully... or has that 8800GTX fried some brain cells as well...

secondly who says the game favors 64 bit tech?? On windows 32 bit? Joking are ya?

 

[Lord Nemesis]

Common, why do you guys say that Far Cry is badly coded. Though I know that game favors AMD and 64 bit tech but still, I dont have anything against the game. The options just need to be tweaked a little bit and the game should run fine.

Though I would agree that the proccy here could be the culprit and honestly if it was me, I would upgrade, but simply blaming an amazingly built game is not fair.

Maybe that gas mask is hindering your vision too much...:rofl: :rofl: come on man, we are talking but a 1900XTX here. It would tear thorugh a older generation game like farcry.

 

[Radeon]

Look at my config. .. i play at 1280*960 , 4x AA , 16x AF , maxed settings ... i get an min. 35 , avg. 78 and max 147 fps ..... hardly any slowdowns at any stage , except a few particular places (well memorised) ....

I don't believe you, for those settings you'd need X1900 CrossFire rig. I have very good hardware as well, and FEAR needs very fast CPU and GPU.

The main problem I could see, the author of this thread needs a good CPU first of all, and then may be a good RAM. However, even after that, I would sincerely think, he may need to drop few things down to medium in advanced settings, yet with Physics down to minimum.

FEAR game uses extensive use of Shaders, for 1440x900 resolution, he really needs good GPU setup.

 

[Udit]

I don't believe you, for those settings you'd need X1900 CrossFire rig. I have very good hardware as well, and FEAR needs very fast CPU and GPU.

The main problem I could see, the author of this thread needs a good CPU first of all, and then may be a good RAM. However, even after that, I would sincerely think, he may need to drop few things down to medium in advanced settings, yet with Physics down to minimum.

FEAR game uses extensive use of Shaders, for 1440x900 resolution, he really needs good GPU setup.

Sorry for going off topic but a Reality Update for Radeon was needed urgently

I have a X1800XT with 2GB DDR2 667 & a E6300 @2.33GHz & here is my score from the first FEAR game:

@1024x768 with everything max with 4xaa & 16xaf with soft shadows:



@1280x960 with everything max with 4xaa & 16xaf with soft shadows:



@1280x1024 with everything max with 4xaa & 16xaf with soft shadows:



& something extra:

How to make Fear 1280x1024:

youll have to manually change the resolution from your settings.cfg file located in the F.E.A.R user directory located here "C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Shared Documents\Monolith Productions\FEAR" on your comp.

"GammaB" "1.000000"

"GammaG" "1.000000"

"Renderer" "NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2"

"GammaR" "1.000000"

"BitDepth" "32"

"HardwareCursor" "1.000000"

"ScreenWidth" "1280"

"VSyncOnFlip" "0.000000"

"DeviceName" "\\.\DISPLAY1"

"ScreenHeight" "980"

change screen height to 1024 if it doesnt display in game.

A big thanks to arun_rulezzz for this

 

[Vandal]

FEAR's inbuilt benchy fluctuates wildly in the figure results. Same chipset cards will give different scores. heck the same card gives different scores!!

on a personal note u really need to swap out that crappy value ram

 

[Chaos]

^^Nopes... always 78-79fps for me at 1280x960. I'm not sure what you are doin. Udit fix the images .

 

[deathvirus_me]

[quote name='deathvirus_me']Look at my config. .. i play at 1280*960 , 4x AA , 16x AF , maxed settings ... i get an min. 35 , avg. 78 and max 147 fps ..... hardly any slowdowns at any stage , except a few particular places (well memorised) ....

I don't believe you, for those settings you'd need X1900 CrossFire rig. I have very good hardware as well, and FEAR needs very fast CPU and GPU.

The main problem I could see, the author of this thread needs a good CPU first of all, and then may be a good RAM. However, even after that, I would sincerely think, he may need to drop few things down to medium in advanced settings, yet with Physics down to minimum.

FEAR game uses extensive use of Shaders, for 1440x900 resolution, he really needs good GPU setup.[/QUOTE]

Really ?? Here u go ..



This was with the CPU at 2.42 GHz , and card running at stock 550/1400 .. game was running at 1280*960 , 4x aa , 16 af , maxed settings , ..... !!! The previous mentioned results were with the card running at 600/1500 ....

 

[Chaos]

^^Quality or High Quality in control panel? Quality results mean nothing cos NV Image quality at Quality setting is pi$$ poor.

 

[deathvirus_me]

Well .. i hardly see diff. between the four settings ... with the newer drivers , i do not use High Quality , as it force AA by default .. so its either Performance or High Performance .. and as if those were much diff.

 

[Chaos]

LOL High performance is so damn fugly.... texture shimmering all over the place heh.

 

[Radeon]

Sorry for going off topic but a Reality Update for Radeon was needed urgently

I have a X1800XT with 2GB DDR2 667 & a E6300 @2.33GHz & here is my score from the first FEAR game

@1024x768 with everything max with 4xaa & 16xaf with soft shadows:

Udit, I am happy for you that you're playing FEAR very well on your system. However, you failed to noticed what I am actually talking about. You play it at 1024x768 resolution, not so high Anti-aliasing either.

Try to play it on 1280x1024 with everything maxed. And everything includes everything. And as far as FPS goes, I don't like to play game if I am not getting constant 65 FPS. If I get less than 65FPS, then I had to compromise in quality, everyone has different standards.

 

[Vij]

65 fps???

can you make out the diff b/w 50 and 65?

 

[Radeon]

Yes, very well, thank you. And as I said above, everybody has different standards.

 

[Radeon]

Really ?? Here u go ..

This was with the CPU at 2.42 GHz , and card running at stock 550/1400 .. game was running at 1280*960 , 4x aa , 16 af , maxed settings , ..... !!! The previous mentioned results were with the card running at 600/1500 ....

Ok, and here's your older post:

Look at my config. .. i play at 1280*960 , 4x AA , 16x AF , maxed settings ... i get an min. 35 , avg. 78 and max 147 fps ..... hardly any slowdowns at any stage , except a few particular places (well memorised) ....

Well, first of all there's big difference between 78 & 61 FPS. Now, looking at that screenshot you posted above, it says 79% it's above 40FPS. While it also says, 61 is your average FPS, while 21% it's in between 25 & 40 FPS, so I don't think it's really good gameplay as far as I am concerned, it's very low. And then again, you said everything maxed, while I don't see your Anti-aliasing any higher than 4x (as you said). And more to add, I don't trust you either. Because I also own good hardware.

 

[deathvirus_me]

LOL High performance is so damn fugly.... texture shimmering all over the place heh.

Put it to high performance , and turn on all the filtering modes ... thats all ..

Well, first of all there's big difference between 78 & 61 FPS. Now, looking at that screenshot you posted above, it says 79% it's above 40FPS. While it also says, 61 is your average FPS, while 21% it's in between 25 & 40 FPS, so I don't think it's really good gameplay as far as I am concerned, it's very low. And then again, you said everything maxed, while I don't see your Anti-aliasing any higher than 4x (as you said). And more to add, I don't trust you either. Because I also own good hardware.

I think u missed this line :

"the previous mentioned results were with the card running at 600/1500"

Like i said .. even if u put in an SLi setup , u'll still get some low fps and the min. fps ... plus with a CPU like mine , i really couldn't ecpect more .. and about that 21% being in between 25-40 fps .. dude , i think u missed the fact , that i get an avg. of 61 fps with the card at stock ... does it make any sense to you ??