PDA

View Full Version : Next Gen mode performance?



Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 11:34
So, I'm trying to figure out why this mode was even enabled on release... The performance is god awful and the visuals although nice don't justify the performance hit... Also the fact the huge performance drops are exactly the same regardless of resolution, or other settings AA/AF etc... Lead you believe whoever designed this mode are completely incompetent.

So what do you need for this to be playable? SLI/Crossfire? Just pisses me off PC users even though the hardware is more then capable get shafted again and again..

Specs like it matters..

XP SP2
X2 4400+@2800MHz
X1900XTX
2GB GSkill 500
X-FI SB Music..
Etc.. .

BunnyLover
15th Apr 2006, 11:37
Sigh... Another thread started on a topic already being discussed.

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=58345

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 11:41
Oo, K, I'll copy and paste it there.. .:o

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 13:18
So, I'm trying to figure out why this mode was even enabled on release... The performance is god awful and the visuals although nice don't justify the performance hit... Also the fact the huge performance drops are exactly the same regardless of resolution, or other settings AA/AF etc... Lead you believe whoever designed this mode are completely incompetent.

So what do you need for this to be playable? SLI/Crossfire? Just pisses me off PC users even though the hardware is more then capable get shafted again and again..

Specs like it matters..

XP SP2
X2 4400+@2800MHz
X1900XTX
2GB GSkill 500
X-FI SB Music..
Etc.. .

tested the same scene with different resolutions ? if performance is equal -> cpu limited which wouldn't a surprise with that damn shadows everywhere....

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 16:34
tested the same scene with different resolutions ? if performance is equal -> cpu limited which wouldn't a surprise with that damn shadows everywhere....

Yes the performance drops are the same at any given resolution, but performance in others areas where the framerate isnt disappearing into a black hole does scale accordingly.. And no I'm not CPU limited, If X2 Toledo at 2800MHz(5600+) isnt enough then were all screwed.. :D

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 16:41
Yes the performance drops are the same at any given resolution, but performance in others areas where the framerate isnt disappearing into a black hole does scale accordingly..


same drop with different resolutions in a scene -> cpu limited
good scaling framerate with resolution -> gpu limited

so...there must be some effect in the first scene which makes a cpu screem for help that isn't visible in scene 2




And no I'm not CPU limited, If X2 Toledo at 2800MHz(5600+) isnt enough then were all screwed.. :D

does tomb:raider legend really make use of dual core ?

an yes...you can integrate shadows/physics that easily will make a game slow on every cpu out there...

Jurjen
15th Apr 2006, 16:43
GPU costs for shadows also don't necessarily scale with screen resolution...

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 16:46
same drop with different resolutions in a scene -> cpu limited
good scaling framerate with resolution -> gpu limited

so...there must be some effect in the first scene which makes a cpu screem for help that isn't visible in scene 2




does tomb:raider legend really make use of dual core ?

an yes...you can integrate shadows/physics that easily will make a game slow on every cpu out there...

What physics ? The environment isnít interactive ?! And even with shadows turned off the framerate drops are the same.. And no its doesnít utilize dual core..

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 16:48
GPU costs for shadows also don't necessarily scale with screen resolution...

some would be so nice an test it by fps comparing with different overclock settings ?

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 16:54
some would be so nice an test it by fps comparing with different overclock settings ?

Gimme 5 min and ill drop down to 2GHz and see what the impact is... I bet theres none.. :)

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 16:56
Gimme 5 min and ill drop down to 2GHz and see what the impact is... I bet theres none.. :)


not cpu...GPU ;) (regarding shadows...)

...but slowing down cpu would be interesting, too

Jurjen
15th Apr 2006, 17:01
Well so there's also two different things. One is framerate in a particular view, which is just always low. The other is stuttering when something is being loaded or data is being swapped onto the videocard etc.

What are you guys talking about?

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 17:10
Well so there's also two different things. One is framerate in a particular view, which is just always low. The other is stuttering when something is being loaded or data is being swapped onto the videocard etc.

What are you guys talking about?

huge framerate differences between next gen on an off...

in short:

cpu limited ?
gpu limited ?
bandwith limited (graphics card) ?

Jurjen
15th Apr 2006, 17:19
Well, but the framerate _difference_ would be expected, right? It's either scaled up content from Xbox1, or what a 360 is doing...

And a 360 at this point is still a pretty powerful piece of kit compared to almost every PC.. If 360 runs it at 30fps I wouldn't really expect a current PC to run it that much faster...

So I would expect that it just needs all of those? More GPU? More CPU? Memory memory? More bandwidth?

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 17:26
I tried at 800*600 and used the end of the first level looking over the bridge just after you turn that corner..... At 2800MHz... 17FPS, at 2000MHz 17FPS... sooo.. yeah..

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 17:26
Well, but the framerate _difference_ would be expected, right?


yes but it would be nice to know what zu upgrade to make it run faster....




So I would expect that it just needs all of those? More GPU? More CPU? Memory memory? More bandwidth?

that's the question...there are people that benched a bit and say that with next gen on they have no fps difference between 640x480 and 1280x1024 +8xS AA +16xAF

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 17:27
I tried at 800*600 and used the end of the first level looking over the bridge just after you turn that corner..... At 2800MHz... 17FPS, at 2000MHz 17FPS... sooo.. yeah..

so it's just gpu power ? tried to underclock the gpu ?

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 17:34
so it's just gpu power ? tried to underclock the gpu ?

Nope, but thats not really something I can test, Overdrive is very limited and ATITool is buggy..

Jurjen
15th Apr 2006, 17:35
Could be main CPU memory bandwidth as well I guess.

Shocky
15th Apr 2006, 17:36
Could be main CPU memory bandwidth as well I guess.

Nope, I used 10*200 and 10*280 to test... so thats 200MHz vs 280Mhz FSB and still the same framerate drop.

Sumpfmolch
15th Apr 2006, 17:37
Could be main CPU memory bandwidth as well I guess.

wish i had a shader 3.0 graphics card to bench this game :D

well well...just reducing ddr speed from ddr400(200mhz) to ddr200(100mhz) to test this ?

Leak
15th Apr 2006, 17:50
tested the same scene with different resolutions ? if performance is equal -> cpu limited which wouldn't a surprise with that damn shadows everywhere....
It's not neccessarily CPU limited. Don't forget that today's graphics cards not only do the drawing, but also handle the scene graph - if the frame rate scales with resolution, the card is fill-rate limited; if it stays the same it's either the CPU or the GPU's transforming & lighting part is maxed.

I'd suspect the latter; you can do all this nice shadow stuff on the GPU nowadays...

np: Amorphous Androgynous - Billy The Onion (Alice In Ultraland)

Zeeblade
16th Apr 2006, 21:02
Well I'm not sure all I know is at 640 and then at 1600 it runs the same. I get the same lag in the same places. I thought geez at 640 it should fly but nope. Slows down at the same place.