x800 texture shimmering: FarCry video

[Bjorn]

Sorry but with a high end card halving perfromance for running it at the same settings as other cards in its price range is not reasonable .

It's not exactly the same settings though, it's FP24 vs FP32. Though you could argue that moving to FP32 without adding enough raw power wasn't a smart move from NVidia.

Has anyone forced the 6800 to run on the r3x0 path ? wonder if that has perfromanced halved to

From what i know, it could actually have the opposite effect on the 6800 (not halved but lower performance), assuming that the shaders are relatively short.

 

[jvd]

would be interesting to see


Btw i took down my videos. 2500megs of 3 gigs was downloaded. Sooo haha had to take them all down.

 

[Bjorn]

would be interesting to see

Maybe i should add that it depends on what the actual difference between the paths are. There might be some optimizations on the R300 path that the NV40 doesn't like that much f.e.

I based my comments on the Beyond 3D review where FP32 was faster when running short shaders.

 

[Graphics_Krazy]

Just tried this on a FX 5900 - both with Trilinear Opts on and OFF
Walls shimmer on it too. Looks like an App problem not card problem.

By the way - to enable on english game versions - go to Shimmer profile, edit the system.cfg -> rename the language entry to english (also for FX users change the MSAA to 4 in the cfg file)

 

[CarstenS]

I actually tried it yesterday.
Seems as if the performance gains from new driver 61.34 and the loss caused by the R300-Path (as Thomas told me, it's also using R300-instruction sorting and a different shadowing technique - so probably kind of worst-case scenario) do negate each other almost completely.

In my demo taken from shader-heavy Cooler-Level I've had the following results in 1280 with Far Cry Patch v1.1 applied:

60.72: 53,98fps
61.34: 60,83 fps
61.34 plus R300-Path: 52,31fps

With higher Levels of AA and AF applied, there's no (additional)performance loss within my margin of error.

 

[jvd]

doesn't sound to bad . Whats the x800xts getting at those settings ?

 

[CarstenS]

The Platinum Edition of X800XT gets approx. 62fps with all known optimizations turned off here (as was the case with the 6800).

So, still a healthy lead, i'd say.

 

[jvd]

The Platinum Edition of X800XT gets approx. 62fps with all known optimizations turned off here (as was the case with the 6800).

So, still a healthy lead, i'd say.

How about when it has its optimizations since they offer comparable image quality to nvidia with them off 8)

 

[CarstenS]

Sorry, i don't seem to get you here...?

 

[jvd]

Sorry, i don't seem to get you here...?

well u said 62 fps with all optimizations off.

I said how about with them on as it looks the same as the 6800 , when the 6800 isn't using optimizations 8)

 

[CarstenS]

Well, if that is, what you really think....

Without AF turned on it's only one optimization at work here - the trilinear-reducing one.
In this particular setting it accounts for about 2 fps.

 

[jvd]

Well, if that is, what you really think....

Without AF turned on it's only one optimization at work here - the trilinear-reducing one.
In this particular setting it accounts for about 2 fps.

only 2 fps !!!!!!!! oh my lord. What kind of an optimization gets 2fps. They must have had to make the image look like crap to get such a huge perfromance increase

 

[CarstenS]

Kinda expected this reaction, i might say...

You did notice, that:
- only one of three optimizations was active
- FC is limited by Shaders mostly, not Fillrate
- no AF was turned on

 

[jvd]

Kinda expected this reaction, i might say...

You did notice, that:
- only one of three optimizations was active
- FC is limited by Shaders mostly, not Fillrate
- no AF was turned on

quasar i was just being an ass

 

[CarstenS]

If you say so...

 

[cthellis42]

How many tests have we seen with brilinear (6800) and actual gameplay ?

Not nearly enough of those yet, either. (Of course with the 6800U lagging a lot in availability, that's to be expected right now. Reviewers given temporary access would have to cover the most important stuff first.)

It is, however, the process by which one does functional testing in ALL cases.

 

[ChrisRay]

Oh yes it can run farcry with SM2.0 on, just set the device ID to R300.

and how playable is it radar ?

can u play it on a mid end gpu like the 5600 or 5700 ? how is the performance against that of the radeon 9600?

Both my 5700 Personal Cinema and 5900 Ultra can play Far Cry with the r300 device id,

I just have to lower the resolution. Making IQ sacrafices to run them at full precision and effect. The game is "Not" unplayable. Unless you see 640x480 and 800x600 resolutions unplayable. Just because the card isnt as fast as the competition in directx 9.0 effects doesnt mean the card is completely unplayable with them.

well considering my sister is playing at 1027x768 with 2x fsaa and 8x aniso i would consider 640x480 for video cards that cost more than her 9600pro (125$ or less)

I mean really the 5900ultra ? a pretty much high end card running at 800x600 ?

I wasnt discussing the performance issue compared to the competition. No one has said its faster, But its not "unplayable"

I run Far Cry with 4x AA 4x AF @ 800x600 in r300 mode. And the game is perfectly playable. You just have to scale down resolution the shaders tend to be more impacted by fill rate than bandwith. At least for me.. Some spots it dips into really low fps, But on the average its fine. The only issue I'm explaining is the Nv3x can run these effects, It's not like the series is completely broken and completely unusable.

The idea that Far Cry games with DirectX 9.0 shaders being "unplayable" on Nv35/nv36 is grossly exxaggerated.

 

[jvd]

The idea that Far Cry games with DirectX 9.0 shaders being "unplayable" on Nv35/nv36 is grossly exxaggerated.

but to most that is unplayable . Where do u draw the line ? 800x600 ?

I guess we can argue then that half life 2 at sub 10 fps on a 5200 would be playable .


I doubt you will find many people that will want to play the game that way. Nor will u find many that will want to play at 800x600.

Anyway. Since we know we can play it on the nv3x series. Why doesn't nvidia provide the option for us to use full perscion on the nv3x in the drivers ?

 

[ChrisRay]

Where's that quote from? Like I said the game is playable at lower resolutions when you lessen the shader fill rate impact.

Everything else said of "whats playable" "Playable at what resolution" borderlines the line of subjectivity and becomes irrelevent. I wont get into a "subjective" Whats playable argument with you. It's pointless and an effort of futility. The misconception that these cards will never be able to run games with DirectX 9.0 shaders is exxaggerated, Thats not up for dispute until you border line subjectivity

 

[Blacklash]

I hear people saying this all the time. Running the card in r300 mode. How do you make Far Cry ID your card as a r300?