PDA

View Full Version : Performance on PCI-E 6800GT



Lexicon
9th Jan 2005, 02:39
I have an A64 3500+ on an NForce 4 MB and 2GB PC 3200 DDR ram. On top of this I have a BFG PCI-E 6800GT OC and I can say that this game still does not run the way it should. With that said is there going to be any patch to address these issues? I would like to think that this game was made with a quality standard in mind. It runs fine on the Xbox so why was this game released on PC when it does not run up to standards?

There was going to be a Ver 1.2 is this still on?

Quillan
9th Jan 2005, 04:31
Please define "the way it should" for us. What issues specifically are you referring to? If you're expecting to average 100+ FPS in this game, I don't see it happening. If you're getting an average framerate of below 40, then there is a problem somewhere. What you're saying is a little vague.

Lexicon
9th Jan 2005, 07:26
I am not sure what FPS I am getting but I can tell they are not what they should be for a system of this type. Every other game runs at near 100FPS with full settings including AA and AF. With thief 3 the frame rate is playable but it seems horribly unoptimized for the PC. I have seen the Xbox version and it runs fine from what I saw. So it would be nice to see a patch that has a lot of code to actually fix this game to make it more playable on PC's. On the V1.1 patch is says things about a V1.2 patch. But I am not sure if we will ever see a V1.2? What I am talking about is overall performance. Is there a cap on the frame rate? Even when I disable AA and AF the game does not perform any different is seems. The NPC bug is a bad thing also. There is some need for more quality control IMO.

Mr. Perfect
9th Jan 2005, 08:05
Your machine is probably somewhere around here (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/graphics-cards-2004_35.html) as far as Thief performance. If it's any consolation, you should see the charts for Deus Ex 2 (http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/graphics-cards-2004_16.html), which came a few months before Thief 3 and uses the same engine.

The game was pretty much tailor made for the Xbox, and then quickly ported to PC.

Lexicon
9th Jan 2005, 09:00
Yes, those benchmarks are sucky. I wonder why Eidos would approve of porting Xbox games to PC with out QC? All well there are better games on the horizon that are made for PC and nothing else. Can’t wait for BF 2 and others of this type. Lets all pray for a 64-bit OS soon.

Rommel_1891
9th Jan 2005, 18:09
I'm confused why Eidos would take a game that has been developed for PC, then pull a 180 and develop the sequel for the console. I haven't seen TDS on a console, but I can't imagine it being nearly as immersive or playable with a control pad given all the controls that you need to use. :confused:

Brother52
10th Jan 2005, 13:49
Originally posted by Lexicon
I am not sure what FPS I am getting but I can tell they are not what they should be for a system of this type. Every other game runs at near 100FPS with full settings including AA and AF. With thief 3 the frame rate is playable but it seems horribly unoptimized for the PC. I have seen the Xbox version and it runs fine from what I saw. So it would be nice to see a patch that has a lot of code to actually fix this game to make it more playable on PC's. On the V1.1 patch is says things about a V1.2 patch. But I am not sure if we will ever see a V1.2? What I am talking about is overall performance. Is there a cap on the frame rate? Even when I disable AA and AF the game does not perform any different is seems. The NPC bug is a bad thing also. There is some need for more quality control IMO.

You say the game is playable, so what are you complaining about? A bet the xbox version isn't running with the same resolution, AA etc that your PC is, so the PC should look a lot better.

Lexicon
10th Jan 2005, 21:05
Basically what I am saying is that this game is poorly made for the PC. They should have either taken the time to convert this game to Xbox after it was made for the PC or not have put it on Xbox at all. Xbox and its limitations should come last when developing a game. I mean just think how bad Far Cry, and Doom 3 would be if they would have made it for the Xbox first. I only hope that the specs of the Xbox 2 are close to what I have.


The image quality is not the best in this game. Textures look like crap so this game should literally be running at 100FPS. If it were made for the PC it would support SM: 2.0. and also the textures would be nice to look at. I guess I expect a lot from a GAME these days.


I get 80FPS avg. on Doom 3 with 4x AA and AF at 1280x1024. And about the same with Far Cry at even higher AA and AF.

Komag
10th Jan 2005, 22:21
I have Athlon XP 2500+ (1.8ghz) and a GeForce 6800 GT (AGP 8x), and I run Doom 3 almost as good as you:
1024x768, 4xAA, 4XAF, 50-60fps average.

Thief Deadly Shadows runs very smooth for me with the same settings, 1024x768, 4xAA, don't know exact framerate but almost as good as with Doom 3

I have 1.5gig pc2700 memory, maybe the extra memory helps?

Lexicon
10th Jan 2005, 23:26
Some more memory will help me out I think. Right now I have 1GB PC3200 @ 430MHZ. 2.5 - 3 - 3 -3. It's fast but with some of the newer games out now the HD is being accessed instead of the memory so I need about 2GB of the same I think.

Mr. Perfect
11th Jan 2005, 05:32
As far as the bad texturing goes, get John P.'s textures (http://www.graphics-by-john-p.com/textures/Thief-DS/index.shtml) and the game will look significantly better.

Lexicon
11th Jan 2005, 05:40
I downloaded those today they are nice. But I think the game should have already looked that way. It's only because of the Xbox that this game did not use SM 2.0 and have high RES textures out of the box. But all well I can see that PC gaming will be going to **** soon.


*end *****ing*