Only 60fps at 1024x768

Mountain Man · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by ripkord
:/ so much for the scalability, thats shocking for a computer of that spec.

To quote (I believe) id software's Tim Willits when talking about the next generation of video game engines: "Gamers are going to have to get used to a new concept. 1280x1024 at 100 FPS--forget it."

That 60 FPS on top tier hardware is with an engine pushing that hardware to its very limit and possibly even a little beyond. That's Half-Life 2 with every single detail turned up to max. In other words, when pushed to the max, that hardware is able to achieve a jaw-dropping 60 FPS. You just need to have a little perspective to appreciate it.

Now if you're worried about your FPS dropping during an intense multiplayer firefight, all you have to do is tweak the settings until you have performance you're happy with.

dawdler · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by Kenny
What exectly is the AF function?

What does it do?

Imagine being nearsighted. Then imagine someone gave you your sight back, absolutely perfect sight. That guy is named AF

Well, it aint perfect, but its ALOT clearer with AF than without. Basicly it moves the details (ie what use to be a 3m circle around) on the texture all the way through the end of the scene. Textures dont blur anymore (they still get smaller, so they are obviously not as clear as closeby, but that's a sideeffect of 3D

). The difference can be massive in some games.

http://w1.855.telia.com/~u85528876/EF2Compare.bmp

I took that a while ago, to note that FSAA and AF actually improves the scene and not blur it. Look at the lights in the ceiling.
(top is no FSAA/AF, bottom is 4xFSAA/16xAF I beleive (or 2xFSAA, cant remember, I know it wasnt 6x at least))

dr_rat · Sep 11, 2003

Re: Re: Only 60fps at 1024x768

Originally posted by Gordon'sFreeman
Movies run at 15 frames per second so wtf is the big deal?

Films run around 24-25 frames and they have blurred motion which helps the eye cope with that frame speed. Video games don't include motion blur so need much higher frame rate for the eye to see the movement properly and not to be all jerky

FluxCap · Sep 11, 2003

yeah, I am not happy. I only have a 2ghz with a 9800 Pro so this is troubling news indeed. Oh well, I guess I will upgrade next year.

Kyle2 · Sep 11, 2003

you know what's really funny is when i built my computer two years ago i said "Kyle, J00 R TEH G0D!!!1 N0 0T|-|3R PC C4|\| B34T J00!!!1 J00 R0(}{0RZ M3 B0}{0RZ!!!1" Here I am two years later thinking "Kyle, you're a ****ing dumbass."

Think · Sep 11, 2003

Why did't they test the 9700pro instead of the 9600pro? but the fps should be like 54 with 9700pro i hope.

un0x · Sep 11, 2003

you DO notice the difference between 100 and 60 fps. Im a 'hardcore' cs player and im used to play with 100 fps. Now I play with 60 (or lower) and the game just 'feels' different.

Btw, my point is that I have fps drops... the 9800pro should be better than my Geforce 3 shouldnt it? my Gf3 got 100 everywhere, the ati doesnt :/

but again.. i will try to find out when im at home.. I only got my new system yesterday.

Kyle2 · Sep 11, 2003

you know, it really won't make a big ****ing difference since everyone else will be running at 60fps also so your 1337 hacks will still work

Guest · Sep 11, 2003

HELL i have a P4 1.5 Ghz, ATI Radeon 9500 pro 128 mb card, and 768 ram (just upgraded from 256 ram)... i think the game will just fine at 1024 x 768...

also remember that 20,000 polygons have been made into 1..so it will go easy on ur pc..

FluxCap · Sep 11, 2003

My only point was:

Gabe:
2.8ghz, 9800 Pro, no AAorAF and possibly vsync on at 1024 = 60fps

Me:

2.0ghz, 9800 Pro, 4AA&8AF, vsync on at 1152+ = 40 to 45 with big drops into the 20s with a lot on the screen with multiplayer.

dawdler · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by Think
Why did't they test the 9700pro instead of the 9600pro? but the fps should be like 54 with 9700pro i hope.

9600 Pro and 9800 Pro is the top of the line in their fields. The 9700 Pro, although very good (around 50 compared to 60 might be quite accurate, depends if they use any of the expanded features the 9800 have that the 9700 dont), is an older version that isnt really a point with benchmark now. If you buy something, you buy the 9800np which is about as fast.

Originally posted by illspirit44
also remember that 20,000 polygons have been made into 1*..so it will go easy on ur pc..

*If the graphics card support it

Guest · Sep 11, 2003

well maybe the game was still being optimized more at the time gabe said that..

Kyle2 · Sep 11, 2003

you could just run it at a lower resolution and turn off some of the advanced fancy crap that'll only look good for the first day or two fluxcap...

Edit: wtf in the time it took me to write this 2 other people posted... go die or something

un0x · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by Kyle2
you know, it really won't make a big ****ing difference since everyone else will be running at 60fps also so your 1337 hacks will still work

dunno if ur talking to me but Im talking about HL1.. 100 fps is standard in teh l33t cs w0rLd ;p

Kyle2 · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by un0x
dunno if ur talking to me but Im talking about HL1.. 100 fps is standard in teh l33t cs w0rLd ;p

crap, thought you were talking about hl2. whatever, i'm not thinking right now

un0x · Sep 11, 2003

yes

this topic isnt very clear

but i think ek0st0ns was also talking about Hl1

actually.. 60fps in HL2 would be great

Sideshow · Sep 11, 2003

The 9800pro score compared to the 9600pro score is just to damn low.. i mean the 9600pro is so much cheaper then the 9800. With all the fancy 8x1 pipes and 256bit memorybus the 9800 should kill the 9600pro...

Maby they ran the benchmark with vsync@60hz on just like they did in the E3 demo and the 9800pro kept the fps at 60 the whole time.

Mountain Man · Sep 11, 2003

Have gamers gotten so spoiled that they complain about a "mere" 60 FPS with full detail? For us gamers on a budget who can't afford bleeding edge hardware, full detail is something we don't even consider. We tweak until we're satisfied with the performance vs. visuals and just enjoy the damn the game rather than fretting over the fact that the all detail sliders aren't over to the right.

bizzy420 · Sep 11, 2003

Movies run at 15 frames per second so wtf is the big deal?

15 frames...man i dont know where u get your information, but that is totally wrong. they run at 24-30 frames, but its then doubled which = around 60frames.

AmishSlayer · Sep 11, 2003

I for one...don't even have to worry about this 60fps stuff....I'll be getting 10-20 with my all-powerful FX5600....I wish I could've gone with the ATI....
If I find somebody to sell my 5600 to, I plan to buy an ATI
I've heard in a few places that the 9500pro is better than the 9600pro...is that true? and if so..by how much? What will be better for the future?

Kenny · Sep 11, 2003

The 9500 Pro is out of production.

AmishSlayer · Sep 11, 2003

But it's still on newegg's product list...

rootbin · Sep 11, 2003

quite frankly, i'm dissapoined by the 60fps on radeon 9800pro as well. with fsaa and as on, what will i get? 30? maybe less? i just paid over $1000 for a computer that barely runs the latest game?

Typhon · Sep 11, 2003

yay 1.7gig p4...oh well.

OCybrManO · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by rootbin
quite frankly, i'm dissapoined by the 60fps on radeon 9800pro as well. with fsaa and as on, what will i get? 30? maybe less? i just paid over $1000 for a computer that barely runs the latest game?

... at the absolute highest detail settings.

It is not uncommon for a top-of-the-line system to run a next-gen game at barely playable speeds with all the fancy features on... hardware will catch up.

AmishSlayer · Sep 11, 2003

Looks like everyone will have to turn some things down to get the results they want with AA and AF....Me...I have to turn those settings to low....

nbk-brando · Sep 11, 2003

I was browsing the forums and stumbled upon this post, are the people complaining about 60fps new to gaming?

Unreal anyone? One of the main reasons Unreal did so well, is it's new engine and raising the bar in graphic capability. When it was released (1998), people would BRAG about getting 35-40 fps. On average, most people had around 25-30 fps. And it was great.

Epic made the decision to push the envelope, make the game playable, and let the hardware companies catch up. This move made the game (1) an industry benchmark, and (2) one of the most graphically amazing games available.

Please remember, folks, that if you didn't have someone like Valve reaching for the stars, we would all still be playing pong.

Arno · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by AmishSlayer
Looks like everyone will have to turn some things down to get the results they want with AA and AF....Me...I have to turn those settings to low....

I have an FX5600 as well. Judging from those benchmarks I'm probably gonna play in DX8 mode 800x600 with some relatively unimportant detail options turned off. Hopefully that will get me around 35fps.

I rather have jagged highres textures then smooth lowres textures, IMO. So I won't bother with AA.

Aaron · Sep 11, 2003

Damn im gutted, im running a 2.8 p4, with a radeon 9800 pro, and i thought i would last a while before i had to go upgrading. i wanted atleast 75fps. Ill try reducing the detial but i cant reduce the res, looks shit on a big monitor. I hope the 3.8 drivers help.

Also when the say 60fps, does that mean its constant? because i hate it when fps rates go up and down all the time.

FluxCap · Sep 11, 2003

Not sure about constant Aaron but we should know a lot more tonight when they get the benchmark. I am staying up late for that !

AmishSlayer · Sep 11, 2003

Yeah... maybe for some reason.. shadows will be a huge fps-hog...I can do without shadows...

I'm gonna see what I can do to keep my res. at 1024. That's my goal...but if I have to turn down detail too far..I'm gonna goto 800x600 on higher settings.

Sideshow · Sep 11, 2003

The score is avg. fps taken from all the scenes that was in the E3 demo, if i haven´t got it wrong.

bizzy420 · Sep 11, 2003

Not sure about constant Aaron but we should know a lot more tonight when they get the benchmark. I am staying up late for that !

what time tonight do u think they'll post more info?

Mountain Man · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by rootbin
quite frankly, i'm dissapoined by the 60fps on radeon 9800pro as well. with fsaa and as on, what will i get? 30? maybe less? i just paid over $1000 for a computer that barely runs the latest game?

Since when is 60 FPS at maximum detail counted as "barely runs the latest games"?

Scudded · Sep 11, 2003

Definently not disappointed, in fact, I was expecting less with all settings on. 60 frames per second is great.

Guest · Sep 11, 2003

dam u guys are worried? I got a 1.5 ghz pc with ati radeon 9500 pro 128 mb and 768 ram.. eh.. i hope i can run it smooth on 1028 x 768..

Xtasy0 · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by bizzy420
what time tonight do u think they'll post more info?

midnight.

FluxCap · Sep 11, 2003

Yep. Midnight. I am sure some other sites other than anandtech will get it before then.

Ahnteis · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by illspirit44
dam u guys are worried? I got a 1.5 ghz pc with ati radeon 9500 pro 128 mb and 768 ram.. eh.. i hope i can run it smooth on 1028 x 768..

That will depend on how many details you're willing to turn off in order to have a higher resolution.

Personally I'd rather have details, AA and AF then resolution.

Scudded · Sep 11, 2003

Originally posted by illspirit44
dam u guys are worried? I got a 1.5 ghz pc with ati radeon 9500 pro 128 mb and 768 ram.. eh.. i hope i can run it smooth on 1028 x 768..

Wow. You're computer is exactly* like mine

*) apart from the processor, I have a 1.6 ghz

Only 60fps at 1024x768

Newbie

Newbie

dr_rat

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Guest

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Guest

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Tank

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Spy

Guest

Guest

Xtasy0

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Spy

Similar threads