Far Cry framerate question

[MJCfromCT]

Hi all,

I have a quick question about Far Cry...with my system specs, what framerate should i be seeing in the game? Right now i run it at 1024 w/everything on "high" and no AA...at times it is decent, but then other times i notice it getting choppy...i haven't measured the fps but i'm guessing it dips to about 30 at some points...especially when using the binoculars, i'll notice if i am using them and looking through a lot of foliage, the framerate will drop to around 5-15 fps...almost forgot the specs :) here they are:

2700+
1GB 3200
R9800 Pro
A7N8X-E Deluxe
140 GB HDD

Thanks a bunch :)

[MadPistol]

Well, that sounds right. If you're really concerned about frame rate, do the auto-configure option. I did that on my game, and the game runs beautifully. almost constant 60 fps, everything on high, no AA or AF. here are specs I'm running. Almost equivilent to yours

2.8 Ghz P4
1 Gig PC 3200
Geforce FX 5900 128mb
120GB HD
350-watt Antec PSU
Intel 875P mobo

A disk Defrag could help your performance slightly, but I wouldn't bank on it.

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Im using similar specs (half the RAM but CPU's at 2.3Ghz) but with 2xAA on and i didnt have any real bother with FPS at all during the game, all ran nice and smoothly. It might be worth browsing the far-cry community forums, if memory serves there are lot of people on both NV and ATi having issues (though ive not had problems) with performance as a result of the lighting settings

--Jakk:t

[MJCfromCT]

Thanks MadPistol and Jakk,

I'll have to check out the Far Cry forums and see if I find anything useful there...if I do i'll be sure to post back :)

[Vampiel]

My spec's are pretty simular to, actually yours are a little better. Though I dont have everything on high, some but not all. No AA and 1024x768 16bit.

I would try turning it to 16bit, 32bit gives it a huge performance decrease and the quality is not that much better.

[MadPistol]

If you're in it for the color of the game (trust me, the color in FarCry is gorgeous), it does make somewhat of a difference. Like most ideas, it is purely preference.

[Rabbitrunner51]

For some reason I also clicked the auto configure option and it runs absolutely beautiful...with my FX5900 card at 2X AA and AF...
How does the game work and run for those of you with the 9800 cards?
I believe this game was made for the high end Fx cards..as it is just gorgeous all around ..at least for me.

MJCfrom CT.....you shouldn't be having many problems with this game as you definitely have the power ,ram and card for this.....I think just because there are so many fiilled pixels and graphical features...it may have a tendency to want to suck everything up..but I didn't notice anything to even worry about here. All this fps talk is just not worth the time to even fret about.....it is made very well ..and i did not see any missing frames or faults at all...which is amazing.
Running it on 1024 X 768 @ 32 bit

[MJCfromCT]

After doing auto-configure, it lowered my settings just a tad...it changed my machine specs from "high" to "medium" but left all the advanced options on "high"...now when i run the game i get between 40-60 fps...but still, when i use the binoculars and zoom in on something that is far away and in dense jungle, the framerate drops to around 15...is this normal, or am i just being paranoid? :)

[MadPistol]

you shouldn't be paranoid first of all. Second of all, yes, this is normal. Detail in each frame increases quite dramatically with the binoculars. Don't worry about it.

[bblqj78]

See here also...

http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160647&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

I muddled arround with this for a while...and found it to look best at 1024x768 with everthing set on very high apart from shadows which was at medium. Also...set ur BIOS Aperture to 256 also...this gives a slight performnace boost.

[klipschman]

1600x1200 all settings to very high- aa medium-anistropic 1x Loving the framerate! I dont know how to see the fps, but my guess would be at worst, usu heavy fighting with much dirt aflyin', around 15 or so.

Anyone clue me on how to show fps?

[bblqj78]

FRAPS1.9D

http://www.fraps.com/downloads.htm



:t

[klipschman]

Originally posted by bblqj78
FRAPS1.9D

http://www.fraps.com/downloads.htm



:t

Thanks, I got the fraps, nice little tool. I noticed many of you are playing in 1024. I played it that way, sure the framerate was crazy but man you gotta go 1600, pure sugar man.

[bblqj78]

klipschman...what hardware u got dude???

Most of us are playing this game with pretty top of the line systems at 1024x768 (most setting on very high and possibly some AA and AF) and just making it. You must be running some super system there!

[PacNW CE]

I totally support the auto configure utility. Farcry runs on my 9500 pro smoothly, granted with medium detail on most everything. I think what I am looking forward to most is replaying this game once I do a video upgrade. Unfortunately, that won't happen until x800's drop to $250 range in about a year.

[klipschman]

Originally posted by bblqj78
klipschman...what hardware u got dude???

Most of us are playing this game with pretty top of the line systems at 1024x768 (most setting on very high and possibly some AA and AF) and just making it. You must be running some super system there!

Ehh sorry, AA was at low, not medium. I ran fraps and with aa at low I was in the high teens~low 20's at worst points. I changed aa settings and noticed dramatic framerate changes the higher I went, but with no visible effect, not a jagged edge in sight no matter the aa. I set my res to 1024, then I could notice a diff. @1024 fraps showed me 100+ at the easiest draws while 40's at the hardest draws(lots of flying blood, light sources, etc you know the drill). I changed back to 1600 turned off aa altogether and fraps told me 80's at best and low 30's~mid 20's at worst. I also compared fps with different refresh rates, I saw no rise @60 nor a dip @85 so stay @85, I think it makes it look a lot better, well at least my 37 year old eyes think so.
As for the hardware:
P4 3.0 prescott @3.3 zalmann cooled, 1024 Kingston khx4000, Radeon 9800pro @425/378 factory cooled all on AI7 mobo. Thats not all that fast, at least from what I have seen on overclockers.com

[Someone Stupid]

It is fast. Quite a few systems on here are comprable and on OC.com. While they are faster in some cases, they still aren't all that much faster statistically.

Your biggest hits other than AA and AF will come from Shadows at high or very high, and lighting at the same just incase you want to play around with it a bit more.

[klipschman]

I have been playing that game alot. "You know this man". Thanks for the tips.

Klipschman

[auraka]

system specs:

P4 3.0 GHz HT
1GB DDR
GeForce 5600 256Mb
160GB HD

I'm having some serious framerate issues in Farcry. When im outdoors in the game i get a framerate of about 75-80. when i go indoors, esp in large rooms the framerate drops to 5-20 and becomes unplayable.

ingame autodetect sets everything to medium with trilinear filtering and antialiasing is off. why in the world is the game performance so poor? do i need a 512 video card? any ideas?

thank s-

[ReefDogg]

Anyone playing Farcry on a notebook? I've been playing it on Inspiron 9100 and it's been fine ( a few glitches, choppy, etc). Had to make some changes, but pretty impressed it's running decent on a notebook. Though not as good if I was at home on my crt!

I had some passerby's tell me they were pretty impressed with the game quality, color, detail, etc on a notebook.

[Magua]

Right now I have it running on an old 1.7GHz, 640mb ram, Geforce2 machine. Runs with everything high and AA at 2 at around 30-40fps, but I normally keep it with everything mostly low and runs very smooth at 60-80fps.

Ususally the larger outdoor zones are where it dips more, indoor zones run noticeably faster.



I have a question of my own though. For some reason with texture details on low most of the steep hills (ones you cant pass through) are very well detailed. At medium up through very high they get very blurry. However most of the foliage and other textures (buildings, etc) look noticeably better as I increase the detail. Why is this happening?

[Rabbitrunner51]

Some of these framerate problems occur with alot of people..and there are times ..only in certain level(S) that i might get a slower framerate...but with my card(FX5900) ..it seems to run much better the more it gets warmed up...basicly, the majoruty of the game plays exceptionally well....( running at 2X by 2X )

I notice the blurriness on the hilly areas also and don't think its the card or system..just the game itself...wouldn't worry about it...

Inside i never get nothing but high definition and perfect framerates ..no slowdowns at all..runs very smooth...outdoors there are times I might get a temporary slowdown...

My overall guess is that there just might be problems with specific video cards..and how they handle AA and AF or other specs.

One thing I notice is on just a few of the folliage areas, which I believe are meant to be shadows....the leafs are white or opaque..but not very many at all

My friend...like i said has my old Ge Force 4 MX 420..and the game runs smooth and fine on his...at 64MB....

The extra ram I just put in ..doesn't really seem to help much with overall framerates..althjough I think it doesn't hurt overall to have 1GB of ram..helps with heavy gameplay and transistions of screens.

In restrospect, any issues with framerates and game graphics are up i the air ..as who knows..many variable issues for some.

[auraka]

based on advice i found in several forums, i uninstalled and reinstalled the 1.1 patch. the slow performance issues are now resolved, for whatever reason. even the indoor scenes on the carrier go at about 50 fps. go figure.

[Hagen17t]

I ran farcry on this system

AMD ATLHON XP 1800+
256 DDR (266)
SEAGATE 80 GB(7400)
ATI RADEON 9200SE

with all the options set to minimun got 20 to 25 fps overall
with half the options set to medium got 8 to 15 fps overall

is this normal fps for this system

do you think the framerate will increse if I try it on an 2600+ with same 256 ddr only now (400) an the same video card.

[Magua]

Far Cry will probably continue to struggle with only 256mb ram, reguardless of its speed. I would look into getting 512mb, then maybe replace the video card/CPU later.

[Hagen17t]

And do you think that from 512 ddr to 1 GB DDR I would notice a difference in fps.

because I was going to buy the 512 ddr. but if I can experience a better perfomance with 1gb ddr in far cry I can buy it.

[Rabbitrunner51]

Hagen17t...As a matter of some need over performance...more ram is quite honestly a matter of choice..as to finances and a real difference maker..

Overall the extra ram does indeed provide better system operation in many areas...some speed increases...overall smoother play in alot of games..but not all..load times for OS and applications...and if you are a user who uses or is ito video editing or production..then it is a real plus and helps here also...

No page file usage..is a plus as this helps in loading and in running processes..cuts time and I am just guessing that in alot of gaming...it probably makes everything run just a bit better.and doesn't hurt the performance of your video card either...

For the above reasons alone.i think it is well worth getting another 512MB of memory....I did not more than a few weeks ago and do not regret it....youwill always be wondering about it when doing things...so invest and be happy...another hurdle overcome.

Like I said there were a couple of spots in the game FarCry that even the extra ram could not overcome..and still think this is a video card issue and or driver issue...more so...
The game is just an incredible mix of graphics...and in this one scene area in the level just before the volcano...where you jump into the jeep and have to dodge .evade the mercs..and the flowing lava cravasses..it is some piece of footage..amazing stuff!

[Magua]

You will definately see an improvement from 256mb up to 512mb ram, however, I don't think you will see too much more from going to 1gb unless you upgrade your video card and CPU. Right now RAM is your major bottleneck, but past 512mb its going to be your GPU and CPU. You're going to need to replace those to continue to increase your performance.

[Rabbitrunner51]

Magua...I agree... well said:t

[Hagen17t]

If everything goes as plan in 1 month I´m going to have a

AMD 64 3000+
nForce 3
HIS 9800 PRO(128)
512DDR(3200)

Do you think that with this system I could be able to play farcry with all the options maxed out(1024x856)

[Magua]

Yep

[Rabbitrunner51]

Yes!.. to an unknown degree...At maxed settings it might not run quite as smooth ...but thats enough of an improvement to run just about any game with real good framerates and playability...

Just make sure you get the ATI latest drivers for that card as some people reported some issues..but not any of real concern.

Good system! I think you'll be hapy with it. Make sure you run this on a 7800 good Hard drive ..as that helps a great deal also

[auraka]

well, im running 1GB of RAM with a 256MB GeForce 5600 and 3GB processor and i had major problems running farcry even on medium settings. uninstalling and reinstalling the 1.1 patch completely resolved the issues. now i have most settings on high, except for shadows and lighting, and things run perfectly. i think something is buggy with the patch.

[Magua]

You should be able to run everything maxed at 1024x768. I seem to get pretty good performance on my machine here, which is a 7 year old dell with a few improvements over the years (p4 1.7Ghz, Geforce2 Ultra, 640mb RAM). I can get everything on high and still get a playable, but not great, FPS. I prefer to play on 1280x1024 with everythign low though.

Personally I tend to bump the screen resoluion to atleast 1280x1024 before I push the AA/AF, etc.

[Rabbitrunner51]

honestly ..I am sure the game ran just as good for me without the patch... This may be a needed elelment for some people with certain video cards..and I think those are the issues the patch is intended for

[Hagen17t]

To your opinion in wich system would run better(EVERYTHIN MAXED OUT IN THE OPTIONS WITHOUT AA/AF AT 1024X856)

AMD 64 3000+
512 DDR(400)
ATI RADEON 9800 PRO(128)

AMD 64 3000+
512 DDR(400)
GeForce fx 5900XT(128)

I really have to know because Im about to upgrade my computer and I really want to build it to play games like FARCRY to the highest detail of the game an at least at 30 fps to 50 fps.

I want to do that because there will be a lot of good games that will use the crytek engine.

At the end of the year I plan to buy the (ati r500 video card with the PS 3.0).

[Bigjakkstaffa]

The 9800 Pro based system, as its markedly faster than the 5900XT (which if memory serves is a sawn off version of the proper 5900, which itself is slower than the 9800)

Plus with the R9800 you'll get to see the game in all its pixel shader 2.0 goodness and glory

--Jakk:t

[Magua]

Definately go with the 9800pro system.

[Hagen17t]

Yesterday I download the farcy engine video(170mb 4 minutes of video) this game really looks X-treme and I would really like to play to the maximun capacity so Im asking you if Im going to be able to play with the radeon 9800 pro(128) and with only 512 ddr(400) and also with the amd 64 3000+.

For the one that asked for my hard drive is a
80GB(7200rpm) Maxtor 8mb cache edition.

[Hagen17t]

I would like to know the specs of someone that play´s FARCRY with the highest settings without AA/AF an at a framerate within 30 fps to 60 fps and beyond.

It dosnt matter the resolution!

[Magua]

highest settings without AA/AF

Well those wouldn't really be the highest settings...especially when you say you don't care about resolution. Hell, I can run Farcry with maximum non-AA/AF settings at 800x600 or 1024x768 and get above 30FPS...on my cruddy home Geforce2 PC!! Generally I run at 1024x768 with low-medium settings, still looks fantastic.

Unfortunately I can't give it a shot on my computer at school (2800+, 9800pro, 1gb PC3200) but im sure you can get pretty much everything maxed at 1280x1024 with a great framerate.

[klipschman]

Originally posted by Hagen17t
I would like to know the specs of someone that play´s FARCRY with the highest settings without AA/AF an at a framerate within 30 fps to 60 fps and beyond.

It dosnt matter the resolution!

Eh, getting worst case high twenties @1600x1200 all on very high aa off and af 1X(wont go lower). Looks beautiful. @ 1024x786 fps are way higher, say 60's worst case usu 90~100 with same settings, all very high.

P4e 3.0 @3.5, a gig of hyper x 4000 @5:4, 9800 pro @438/375 Ibm 60gig hd 7800rpm 8.4seek all plugged into an ai7. Powered by antec. And the P95f+ Shows all of this in beautiful color!

Some here say thats high. I am scoring 6400's with futurmark's 2003. I have seen folks score above 9000 so they must get screaming framerates. They all seem to have 64 bit cpu's and somehow the radeon x800? is that the new one that is not out yet? Anyway that what you wanted to know?

Klipschman

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Ive seen the X800XT PE doing 15,000+ in 3dMark 03, scary numbers :x


--Jakk:t

[MJCfromCT]

- just curious

has anyone noticed a difference between playing far cry with the regular catalyst drivers compared to the omega drivers? I was going to give the omega drivers a shot and was just wondering if anyone had noticed a significant performance increase/decrease using them? Thanks :)

[SquattingDog]

I am using the Catalysts, and my friend, with a near identical setup (AthlonXP1800+ @ 2.1ghz, 512mb DDR400/PC3200, Radeon9500Pro), is running the omegas, with no performance difference...the only reason you mite want to run them (cos the optimisations dont do bugger all) is to use the softmod overclocking feature, so that you dont have to flash the bios on your card...

As for those running 5900's on high-end systems (2.8ghz+) i cant see what your problem is in running farcry, as i can run it at 40-50fps on my system at 1024x768 at very high detail for all settings, 4x AF, and ultra high water detail, with v-sync on.

Perhaps you need to update your drivers, as if you are using the ones that came on a cd with your card, its no wonder its not running well, as those drivers are (in most cases) really unreliable...i am still unsure why they choose to include beta drivers with graphics cards, but the latest ones should fix the problem.

Also note that you will need at least 512mb of ram, because farcry uses 256mb when its running, not to mention the ~100mb used by windows system processes....

if you are still having troubles, you should try overclocking, as it can make a huge difference, although lately, it tends to only make about 5% difference to performance...

at any rate, if you are achieving 15000+ 3dmark2k1 marks, and 4400+ 3dmark2k3 marks, you should be able to run it at the afforementioned detail levels. If you are not, you may wish to upgrade/overclock etc.

Also note that ram bandwidth is a big issue, so if you have 333mhz ram (PC2700), or better, it should be fine (from experience).

ALSO: just on a ranting note, GeForceFX5600 sucks ****, and Magua, that sounds like a load of **** about your gf2 getting 30fps+ on max detail, stop telling lies....also, it will look like a pos, cos that is a dx7 card....

[klipschman]

Squattingdog,

Are you saying that you are getting 4400's on 3d2003? With that sys? Hmmm, sounds pretty good. Could you see through the artifacts? Ha ha. Seriously though I have seen some people get some way high scores with seemingly slowish systems. I wonder how. One guy got like a 9000+ with just about the same exact system that I have, matching cards, cpu's, drivers, clocks and all. On most tests he, of course, got better scores, but then on the nature, fourth 3d test, he went through the roof like 100+. Anyway got any ideas why? Please edify me.

Thanks,
Klipschman

[Bigjakkstaffa]

Squatting Dog, that sort of language will not be tolerated at this site, nor will direct insults and slurs towards other members, particualrly well established ones, you've been told once, you wont be told again.

--Jakk:t

[MadPistol]

Originally posted by SquattingDog
ALSO: just on a ranting note, GeForceFX5600 sucks ****, and Magua, that sounds like a load of **** about your gf2 getting 30fps+ on max detail, stop telling lies....also, it will look like a pos, cos that is a dx7 card....

Have you ever played Far Cry on a Geforce 2 card? probably not. It looks horrific compared to the DX8.1 and DX9 cards. However, since detail is significantly reduced, I can imagine that kind of card getting 30fps+ on all details up. I have played a game like Halo on a Geforce 4mx 440 (a little better than a geforce 2, but you still get the same kind of detail level out of it.) Halo will play very well on a geforce 4 MX card simply because it doesn't have per-pixel lighting, no bumpmapping support, no complex mutitexturing support, and it causes all "shinny" textures to lose their shine and become dull like everything else. The point is that I get decent peformance out of a Geforce 4 mx card, but it looks like **** compared to a DX8.1 or DX9 card.

Magua's story does seem a little far fetched by our terms of "graphics power" but since his card is old and has not even 1/2 the features that the DX9 cards have, it is possible. :t

[Magua]

and Magua, that sounds like a load of **** about your gf2 getting 30fps+ on max detail, stop telling lies....also, it will look like a pos, cos that is a dx7 card

Tell me when your in my area, ill be glad to show you.

Thats not 1600x1200, but 800x600 like I said. Does it look as great as a DX9 card...no. Does it still look good? Yep. The game has great graphics, and even on a cruddy card still looks better than older games.

:rolleyes: