PDA

View Full Version : What Resolution Should I Expect to Play At



GangGreen
4th Dec 2003, 05:36
I have a brand spankin' new ATI Radeon 9800XT, with the latest Catalyst 3.9 drivers installed. System is a P4 2.4Ghz, with 512MB RDRAM. I sort of figured I'd be able to play this game with all the settings maxed with this new card, but it really seems somewhat laggy above 1024x768 (and I have already set my mouselagthreshold to 0). Multisampling and bloom don't seem to affect this (ie at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 it's laggy with no bloom and no multisampling).

Is anyone else having similar issues? It's not a tremendous problem, as the game seems fine at 1024x768, but I guess I figured I'd have more success given that I just bought a top-of-the-line vid card.

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance,

GG.

Meteor_of_War
4th Dec 2003, 05:51
I have a 9800 Pro and i'm just playing at 1024x768.

I think it looks great at that res and i'm used to playing all my games that way anyways so..

GangGreen
4th Dec 2003, 13:11
Thanks for the input, but that doesn't really answer my question....If the higher resolution modes weren't meant for systems with the 9800XT, then what were they meant for. Did you try them?

I too can play (and be very happy) at 1024x768. The point is that I thought I'd be playing at a higher res with this card.

Meteor_of_War
4th Dec 2003, 15:07
The card is good for playing at higher resolutions than other lower video cards in 3d games, but it depends on the game too. If the game is taxing on your system or just isnt coded all that great it may be harder to play in those higher resolutions. I think it's just this game, if you tried to play say UT2k3 or another game at 1600x1200 i'm sure you'd be able to.

And no, i didnt even try playing Deus Ex2 at anything higher than 1024x768.

seamusmc1
4th Dec 2003, 17:16
Hardware:

P4 3.0c
2 Gigs Corsair Ram
ATI 9800XT
120G Seagate SATA HD
DX9b
Catalyst 3.9
(latest drivers for all hardware)

Even at 1024 resolution the performance is sub-par but definitely playable. I can't see any difference between 1024 and 1600 resolution, I still see the same jaggies and pixelation. (I just played through thief 2 at 1600 and it looks better then this game.)

For those who didn't read the readme, Anti-Aliasing is not supported with Radeon cards. Turning it on in game or in the ATI control panel only sucks up perf and makes the game look worse. (Yes, worse.) I feel sorry for the folks with lesser machines, though I have a feeling it performs better with NVidia video cards, the big-arse Nvidia logo at startup is just a tad of a hint.

I'm glad Meteor thinks it looks great and is happy with the graphics, but I have a 22 inch high end CRT and the jaggies are real distracting and disappointing. At this point in time I don't expect to pay for a game that looks 5 years old. Heck the original Deus Ex still looks gorgeous and is better looking then this sequel. Note: DXIW has a much more detailed environment then the original, its just that with the way its rendered, (by my ATI 9800XT), it doesn't look as good as most games available today.

On a positive note the game is fun and the story is good so far. Spent two hours trying to figure out how to get better perf and graphics and two hours playing it. The rag doll physics are awesome, when something drops whether its an npc or furniture it looks very natural.

Meteor_of_War
4th Dec 2003, 18:00
Originally posted by seamusmc1
I'm glad Meteor thinks it looks great and is happy with the graphics, but I have a 22 inch high end CRT and the jaggies are real distracting and disappointing.

It's probably due to the fact that i never use FSAA or AA in games so i'm used to it. I'm a framerate junkie and prefer performance over image quality and FSAA just kills that for me. seamusmc1 i assume you're used to using FSAA in all your games?

seamusmc1
4th Dec 2003, 18:27
Yes, that's why I own a 9800XT, so I don't have to give up perf for image quality. I can tell you, after playing with AA enabled for the last couple of years DXIW is real disappointing visually.

I believe after 30 fps the human eye can't see a difference. Since the 9700 Pro, the Radeon's strength has been that you could get great image quality without giving up perf. To a lesser extent this is true with NVidia's cards as well.

If a gamer doesn't have this class of video card, the point is moot. They probably never enbable AA and won't appreciate my 'pain' :D

On the other hand, even with AA disabled I should be able to see a difference in visual quality between a setting of 1024 and 1600 resolution. I don't see a difference in visual quality, though I do experience the expected hit in perf.

Meteor_of_War
4th Dec 2003, 19:24
Well then i guess all you can do is play it for the gameplay, not the graphics.

Thankfully i'm not jaded from playing with anti-aliasing all the time.

GangGreen
6th Dec 2003, 04:53
Is anyone able to play this thing smoothly at 1600x1200?

nightspore
6th Dec 2003, 08:10
I'm running it on a 9700 Pro AIW, and I have no problem using 6x fsaa, either in-game implementation or through the control panel, and it definitely looks a lot better than 1x.

I tried running the demo at 1280x1024, but dropped down to 1024x768 because I was dropping to 10-15 fps (using fraps) in the courtyard of the apt. building. I also dropped shadow quality from high to medium & am getting much better performance.

Also, while reading through the Ion Storm forums, someone mentioned that if you drop the resolution down one notch & then increase it again the game seems to run better. I tried it, and it actually works.

deluxxe
6th Dec 2003, 08:32
i play at 1024.
I also have no problems running AA. I disable it in my control panel, and enable it in-game. even 2x makes a big difference.
Frankly, i don't see how anyone can seriously enjoy todays' games without AA. those jaggies just make me want to turn games off. And seriously, with the new breed of cards, framerate drop is hardly noticable with AA on.
i haven't tried anything higher than 1024 yet.

the performance in this game could be way better, but it's playable, and looks great. Also, invisible war isn't exactly the type of game where you need 60+ fps to enjoy.

Athlon XP 2500+
1 gig Corsair Ram
nforce2 mobo
Radeon 9800pro

-del

GangGreen
6th Dec 2003, 14:18
I agree deluxe. I actually think it looks fine at 1024. In truth, I don't have a terribly discerning eye -- but when I drop 5 bills on a vid card I expect to run today's games at 1600.

thegrommit
6th Dec 2003, 14:27
Originally posted by GangGreen
I agree deluxe. I actually think it looks fine at 1024. In truth, I don't have a terribly discerning eye -- but when I drop 5 bills on a vid card I expect to run today's games at 1600.

I assume you're referring to a non US currency? You seem to have forgotten how much of a performance hog the original DX was when it was released. Yet a year later when hardware had caught up (and a few patches), it ran smoothly.

Uhura
6th Dec 2003, 14:58
Hey I have a "the way it´s meant to be played" graphic card. :D

It´s a FX5900, the highest safe overclock is 475/950, so I have the speed of a FX5950Ultra. I tested my system with 3DMark a lot of times (p4@2,75Ghz) and it´s only 13% slower than the P4 3,2Ghz HT (Dual-Channel) with 5950Ultra on Tomshardware.

So this graphics should run very fine on my PC, X2 does, XIII does, Max Payne 2 does etc.

But even without AA and AF, with low detail settings and 1024x768 DE2 is so *****in da*n slow, unplayable for me. The times were I played games <20fps are over!

GangGreen
6th Dec 2003, 15:43
Grommit, I don't know what country you live in, but here an ATI 9800XT plus shipping comes pretty close to $500.

chuparmiscojones
6th Dec 2003, 20:16
My system specs:

P4 3Ghz
2GB RAM
200GB HDD
Geforce FX 5900 Ultra
Sound Blaster Audigy 2

I also have the same problem as you do. I can't seem to get the game to run at a playable framerate at any resolution above 1024x768. Also, antialiasing has no effect on the game, it looks the same whether multisampling is at 1x or 4x. Not sure about this, but I think the game forces multisampling, as all the edges have a sort of washed out look to them, instead of looking sharp like they normally do in other games. Hopefully, a patch will be realeased soon that will fix these problems. Good luck to those of you without high-end hardware.

GangGreen
8th Dec 2003, 05:11
Well I've got it running smoothly at 1600x1200 now. I reinstalled the Catalyst 3.9 drivers and turned on "Overdrive". That seemed to do the trick...quite cool actually. The game's not half-bad once you actually start playing it.

Dunkerque
8th Dec 2003, 05:42
The human eye sees a difference much higher than that. The normal television is 29.7 frames per second but this isn't the same for computer. Try putting your refresh rate below or at 60Hz and you'll see a difference. In this case, the human eye can see a difference around 50-60 image per second. And the difference gets bigger if there is movement in the image (turning, not just a guy walking in front of you)

DXman
8th Dec 2003, 08:51
Seems that ati users with high end cards run the game with hardly any problems. I myself playing the game with my ati radeon 9600 pro 128mb on 1024x768 with decent frames; 20-30 fps. It'll play smoother with 800x600.

deluxxe
9th Dec 2003, 06:16
Originally posted by Dunkerque
The human eye sees a difference much higher than that. The normal television is 29.7 frames per second but this isn't the same for computer. Try putting your refresh rate below or at 60Hz and you'll see a difference. In this case, the human eye can see a difference around 50-60 image per second. And the difference gets bigger if there is movement in the image (turning, not just a guy walking in front of you)

exactly. and not only that... TV doesn't bog. it stays at ~30 fps regardless of how many explosions are on the screen at once. if you drop 10-20 frames at 60fps, it's no big deal. if you drop 10-20 frames at 30fps... well, you get the idea.

video games will NEVER run at a constant framerate. You can't compare video or film to a computer video card. it's just not the same thing.

thegrommit
10th Dec 2003, 03:30
Originally posted by GangGreen
Grommit, I don't know what country you live in, but here an ATI 9800XT plus shipping comes pretty close to $500.

Canada.

Ah well, yet another reason to buy a step or two down from the top of the line - that way I never feel burned ;)

But my point still stands. The original DX wasn't playable at 1280x1024 when it first came out - let alone 1600x1200. I think you're expecting a bit too much out of the card.

GangGreen
13th Dec 2003, 01:14
See above Grommit. It's now beautiful at 1600x1200. I just needed ATI's Overclock utility.

thegrommit
13th Dec 2003, 01:22
Originally posted by GangGreen
See above Grommit. It's now beautiful at 1600x1200. I just needed ATI's Overclock utility.

I'm curious - what clock speeds are you running at? And what framerates are you getting with what video driver settings?

GangGreen
13th Dec 2003, 01:35
Good question. Not sure how to figure out clock speeds actually. Particularly with Overdrive it varies. It uses a temperature sensor to determine the temperature in your case and rev's the card up according. First warranty covered overclocking program, I believe.

How do I measure framerates? All I know is that the game is smooth...there's no glitching or jerking when I move Alex D's head, including during firefights.

Random
13th Dec 2003, 03:29
Download Fraps (http://www.fraps.com).