F.E.A.R. GPU Performance Tests: Setting a New Standard
by Josh Venning on October 20, 2005 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
4xAA/8xAF Performance Tests
This is a good option for gamers with a high end card. Generally, the best way to get a better experience from a game is going to be increasing resolution. This is especially true of FEAR because the performance hit of enabling 4xAA is incredibly large. Much of FEAR is designed well to avoid noticeable aliasing (low contrast edges), and the most noticeable edges in the game are high contrast shadows.
This is a good option for gamers with a high end card. Generally, the best way to get a better experience from a game is going to be increasing resolution. This is especially true of FEAR because the performance hit of enabling 4xAA is incredibly large. Much of FEAR is designed well to avoid noticeable aliasing (low contrast edges), and the most noticeable edges in the game are high contrast shadows.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
117 Comments
View All Comments
Le Québécois - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
I usually don't trust gamespot for their Hardware testing but until Anandtech comes up with a more complete test you can find more information here http://hardware.gamespot.com/Story-ST-x-2661-x-x-x">GamespotThey are testing differente CPU speed, graphic settings and RAM sizes.
smaky - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
You are correct. There is no excuse for not including the x850 pe. Judgin from Gamespot's review, the x850 did well. Come on guys, lets see numbers for the x850! I have one and am a ATI fanboi for the moment. LOLphotoguy99 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
>lets see numbers for the x850!I would complain to ATI they are the ones pushing the heck out of new products they don't even have for sale. It's only natural this makes people more interested in X1000 line.
peldor - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
OK so the highest graphics settings on FEAR are completely unplayable at any decent resolution for most of us, much like the 'Ultra' quality settings in Doom3 when it came out.What about all the other settings? I suspect the 'highest' settings make little difference to the visuals, but seriously cut the framerate versus the 'high' setting.
At least a couple of benchmarks and screenshots to compare the medium/high/highest settings would be nice.
poohbear - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
why are u guys using nvidia beta drivers? should'nt u test w/ only official drivers?DerekWilson - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
I would think the complaint should be against the beta ATI drivers which are a press sample that is completely unavailable to the public in any form. At least people can download and install the 81.85 drivers from NVIDIA.In all honesty, we used unavailable FEAR enhanced drivers for ATI because NVIDIA simply performed better and we didn't want to see complaints about the 81.85 driver... But I guess you can't always get what you want. :-)
Le Québécois - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Anychance you could e-mail me those press sample driver for ATI? :PLe Québécois - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
Oups...you read my mind Derek.DerekWilson - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
I've an update -- the driver we used is available here:http://support.ati.com/ics/support/DLRedirect.asp?...">http://support.ati.com/ics/support/DLRe...b1854&am...
and was listed as a fix for serious sam II. It's the 5.10a driver and was posted yesterday for public consumption.
Bingo13 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link
The 81.85 drivers will be WHQL approved and on Nvidia's website later today.