Post Your FEAR Performance Test Results Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dIsRuPtIvE

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 29, 2001
Messages
315
I'm interested in seeing how different settings and cards stack up in the performance test. Feel free to post your's here. I ran the test twice, hence the dual numbers.

FPS
Min: 23, 23
AVG: 44, 44
Max: 98, 94

FPS Distribution
Below 25 FPS: 9%, 3%
Between 25 and 40 FPS: 40%, 44%
Above 40 FPS: 51%, 53%

SETTINGS (1024x768)
Graphics: I set mine to High except I turned Soft Shadows to ON
Physics: SP Max, MP Max

I'm happy with that :) Let's see yours.
 
F.E.A.R settings:

1280x1024
2x Anti-Aliasing
8x Anisotropic Filtering
No Soft Shadows
Everything else Maximum
Sound Hardware Mixing, EAX 2.0, and Advanded HD

NV settings:

81.85
AA/AS app pref
High Quality
LOD Clamp
Click to expand...


 
I never even noticed the test button, I'll have to try that when I get home
 
MGDMN said:
Click to expand...
Didn't you run your test at 1280x960 . Your screen shot is at that res. and from my experience 1280x1024 isn't an option in FEAR at least not for me; 1280x960 however, is available.
By the way I attempted to override this in the cfg and it defaulted back to 640x480 when I ran it. :confused:
 
bladeiai said:
I never even noticed the test button, I'll have to try that when I get home
Click to expand...

Ditto, I've been using Fraps and pure eyesight to find a perfect balance, still haven't found it.
 
dIsRuPtIvE said:
Didn't you run your test at 1280x960 . Your screen shot is at that res. and from my experience 1280x1024 isn't an option in FEAR at least not for me; 1280x960 however, is available.
By the way I attempted to override this in the cfg and it defaulted back to 640x480 when I ran it. :confused:
Click to expand...

perhaps setting the cfg file to read-only after changing the resolution?

btw i dont have the game just shooting in the dark ;)
 
Everything 'maximum' in game, sound config, vsync config, and resolutions as listed. 1.01 patch installed.



benches.jpg


benches2.jpg
 
pandora's box said:
perhaps setting the cfg file to read-only after changing the resolution?

btw i dont have the game just shooting in the dark ;)
Click to expand...


as long as you don't change a config option, it won't overwrite the file. I noticed this behaviour when I was playing at 1920x1200. I went into options and changed vsync to on... and it reset the resolution too.

You can set vsync in the config file too, though, so I don't even go into the config menus anymore.
 
dIsRuPtIvE said:
Didn't you run your test at 1280x960 . Your screen shot is at that res. and from my experience 1280x1024 isn't an option in FEAR at least not for me; 1280x960 however, is available.
By the way I attempted to override this in the cfg and it defaulted back to 640x480 when I ran it. :confused:
Click to expand...

After you changed the cfg, you cant go into the "display" option or i'll reset the resolution.. you can check the setting in the performance option...


anyone notice the game pauses?? is it b/c i only have one gig of ram?
 
taichi said:
After you changed the cfg, you cant go into the "display" option or i'll reset the resolution.. you can check the setting in the performance option...


anyone notice the game pauses?? is it b/c i only have one gig of ram?
Click to expand...
I see thanks!

Yes, I have brief pauses at times, if I'm not mistaken this is a sound issue. If you'll notice (at least in my case at any rate) you'll get the pause immediately before a new sound(s) begins.
 
eastvillager said:
Everything 'maximum' in game, sound config, vsync config, and resolutions as listed. 1.01 patch installed.



benches.jpg


benches2.jpg
Click to expand...

I knew I should have stuck with the 78.05's! Look at the minimum frame difference! :mad:
 
settings

1600 x 1200

physics = max
effects = max

x2 fsaa
x8 anisotropic

whql driver 78.01

25 min 0 below 25
40 avg 63 between 25-40
78 max 37 above 40
 
THICK QUESTION ALERT!!

This is on the demo right? not the full game....and theres a 1.01v patch for it?

I happily played at 1280x1024, as taichi says you can go into 'Display options' after youve changed it but you can check the screen res in 'performance options'
 
Buztafen said:
THICK QUESTION ALERT!!

This is on the demo right? not the full game....and theres a 1.01v patch for it?

I happily played at 1280x1024, as taichi says you can go into 'Display options' after youve changed it but you can check the screen res in 'performance options'
Click to expand...

No, this is the full game. :)
 
eastvillager said:
Everything 'maximum' in game, sound config, vsync config, and resolutions as listed. 1.01 patch installed.



benches.jpg


benches2.jpg
Click to expand...
might be already asked.. but what video card(s) is this?
 
acroig said:
I knew I should have stuck with the 78.05's! Look at the minimum frame difference! :mad:
Click to expand...

That's because they do not allow for vsync to work in some rendering modes... it will say it's on, but it isn't. I tried this last night after seeing that post and the screen tearing with those drivers is pretty bad on my rig.. ymmv

BTW - I think that's on a GTX SLi setup..


Oh - and I run FEAR @ 1600x1200 with soft shadows off, volumetric lighting off, but everything else at MAX with 4x AF and 2xAA and it's very nice. All "computer" settings at max also. I don't have all the numbers (at work now) but 60% of my frames were over 40fps. Very immersive game. I <3 it so far.. :)
 
tranCendenZ said:
make sure to use the new patch, gains are HUGE in performance
Click to expand...

Where did you hear this? Its the exact same for me. I didnt see any performance increase in the patch readme. I only ran the benchmark to compare though.
 
1280x960
Everything Max except volumetric lighting and texture resolution are set to medium. No soft shadows.
No AA, 4xAF

Min: 31
Avg: 66
Max: 146

7800GT (450/1150)

I'm running the demo version and, from what I've heard, performance is said to increase in the retail version if you patch it to 1.1.
 
Ran a couple tests on the Full version patched to 1.01 ,6800GT at stock clock speeds / 78.01 forceware drivers, Fear settings are Default "High" for graphics & computer wich means Soft Shadows are OFF/ 4X AF / No AA / 1024x768:



And the following result is why you DONT want to run with Soft Shadows enabled on a 6800GT :) (The rest of the settings were the same as above,all I did was enable soft shadows):



Rest of my PC specs are in my Sig below.
 
Settings: 81.85 drivers

Quality in NV control panel, trilinear ops off, transparancy AA and Gamma AA enabled, 2xqAA, 16x Ansio, soft shadows enabled, everything maxed except water, 12x9, triple buffering on:

Minimum: 40FPS
Average: 61FPS
Maximum: 136 FPS

Seems pretty good

BFG 7800GTX, AMD 3500+, 2gb Corsair VS, Audigy 2 ZS

 
Youch, am I reading this correctly? FEAR did better with the older drivers?

How was IQ? Anything significant?
 
I noticed a lot od tearing with the older drivers... but ymmv I reckon.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Youch, am I reading this correctly? FEAR did better with the older drivers?

How was IQ? Anything significant?
Click to expand...

I didn't notice any IQ differences between the WHQL 7* driver I tested and the .85 driver, but the ingame bench is kind of short. I did notice some lighting wierdness with the inbetween driver.
 
I was comparing benchmarks with this game. The fps for you guys are around 40 - 50. Is that perfectly playable with this game? Or is that the way the game is meant to be play at? Im just wondering because im so used to playing UT2004 where you get frames past 100.
 
well - do no excpet frames like ut2004 unless you have a GTX SLi setup.. or are willing to turn all of the IQ features way down, or off. I have been trying to keep my minimum to 30 with 70% (or there abouts) of my frames over 40! anything over 40 looks pretty good. imo.
 
Athlon 64 Winchester 3000+ @ 2300Mhz
1GB Corsair XMS PC3200C2 @ 210Mhz 2-3-2-5
SB Audigy MP3+ w/ X-Fi drivers
6800nu @ 400/830 12/6 w/ 81.85 Image Settings: High Quality

F.E.A.R. Settings:





Results:


I need to say that the benchmark isn't a very good indicator of actual gameplay performance. The results seem to be much higher than they are when you are actually running through and playing the game.
 
revenant said:
well - do no excpet frames like ut2004 unless you have a GTX SLi setup.. or are willing to turn all of the IQ features way down, or off. I have been trying to keep my minimum to 30 with 70% (or there abouts) of my frames over 40! anything over 40 looks pretty good. imo.
Click to expand...

even with SLI, you don't get ut2004 framerates.

There is a curious aspect of the game that mitigates the low framerates, at least in single player. Just about every time you'd be suffering from a low framerate(huge firefight) is also the same time you'll be dropping into bullet time anyways(which has the effect of slowing everything down).

While the benches I posted for 1920x1200 would be crap for multiplayer, they're working out fine for single player. I can occassionally feel a bit of sluggishness if there are lots of reflective surfaces(like a water scene with multiple light sources) but that is the only time it is really noticeable.
 
eastvillager said:
even with SLI, you don't get ut2004 framerates.

There is a curious aspect of the game that mitigates the low framerates, at least in single player. Just about every time you'd be suffering from a low framerate(huge firefight) is also the same time you'll be dropping into bullet time anyways(which has the effect of slowing everything down).

While the benches I posted for 1920x1200 would be crap for multiplayer, they're working out fine for single player. I can occassionally feel a bit of sluggishness if there are lots of reflective surfaces(like a water scene with multiple light sources) but that is the only time it is really noticeable.
.
Click to expand...

ok - granted yes, but I was being extremely general when I said that... you'll never get the same perf on the same system game for game (no where near), but a medium non-SLI system might have similar performance on ut2004(in general) as a high perf SLI setup... but the advanced IQ settings, physics, etc all make it very difficult to compare those two like apples to apples... anyways, it is well known that FEAR would be this year's resource PIG and it's nice for peeps with dual GTXs for sure, but I know those setups do struggle even so... amazing! it's one damn pretty looking game, tho.. wow. best texture shading I have seen yet.. imo

I like how it does that bullet time change when you're about to hit a rough patch... that was a good call by someone. :D
 
No screens of test (don't know how you guys do that) but:
With rig in my sig
1280x960
everything on max
no AA
no soft shadows
Runs great. Get a little hitching every now and then but it seems more like ram or sound causing it. So far in heavy action I haven't noticed any frame lagging at all. Most of the time when it gets really heavy your in bullet time anyway so......

Best game in a long time!!!
 
Is FEAR ever going to offer 1280x1024 resolution? Thats what i play all my games on. Any info about that?
 
Carbon_Le said:
Is FEAR ever going to offer 1280x1024 resolution? Thats what i play all my games on. Any info about that?
Click to expand...
The only way you'd be able to play FEAR at 1280X1024 with your system listed is if you turned everything to Off or Minimum.

Other than that I have no idea, the demos didn't offer it and the final version was the same. I doubt they'd add it later as well.
 
I found that my old "smooth" feeling was happening because I had vsync off. There is just no way I had it on and got smooth play with my settings maxed...(minus vol lighting and soft shadows) ....but with the 81.84s using (forcing in the drivers) split-frame rendering, I can run FEAR @ 1600x1200:

AA = 2x
AF = 8x
all settings @ max except for no volumetric lighting or soft shadows...

low: 25
avg: 59
max: 176

92% of the rates were above 40.

That's pretty acceptable for me for now.
 
A64 Winny @ 2.2ghz
1gb PC-3200 @ 2-2-2-5 1T
6800 Ultra @ stock

1280x960 [or whatever it is]
soft shadows off
everything else on maximum
0xAA
8xAF

0% below 25
40% 25-40
60% 40+

seems just fine ATM
 
One more thing... enabling Vsync with the 81.85 drivers does work and it keeps all tearing from happening, but I took such a performance hit... and the game seemed to stutter even when the frames were moving at a good rate, sort of choppy. plus anywhere there was flashing lights would get very choppy. Anyways, it was really not worth it to keep that on, imo, so I played around with the 81.84 drivers and fround that split-frame rendering showed a lot less tearing than alternate frame rendering did, from my tests... it's really very slight, actually, and I have already tuned it out really.. I can run with AA on and all the eye candy maxed but still no vol lighting or soft shadows.. but that's cool... it still looks bad-ass on my 23" @ 1600x1200 with those settings. wow.

Aaaanyways, that's on a 6800 series SLi setup...and ymmv, but just thought this was interesting... From what I have read now, the 81.85 drivers seem to be great for improving performance on the 7800 series cards and FEAR, but not for the 6800s.... I can't wait to get a pair of GTXs (next month) to play with... whew... and try Quake4 also. :)

EDIT: this is crazy, but I went to try alternate frame rendering again, and the screen tearing was all but gone... wow. but I can't run with AA on, but it's smooth and fast again,, whew...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top