PDA

View Full Version : In case some of you wonder how X800XT does in IL-2FB AEP here are some numbers with P4 3.0GHz



RAAF_Edin
08-23-2004, 05:23 AM
System
Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800FSB 512L2 cache
2x512MB PC3200
Intel D875PBZ
Creative Audigy
WindowsXP pro SP2
Catalyst 4.8

IL-2
Perfect (Water=0 Forest=3)
Anisotropic
S3TC

OpenGL
4xFSAA
8xAF (Quality)
HighQuality
HighQuality
Vsync OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768
MIN 07 fps
AVE 46 fps
MAX 98 fps

1280x1024 (Water=0)
MIN 16 fps
AVE 39 fps
MAX 95 fps

1280x1024 (Water=2)
MIN 10 fps
AVE 27 fps
MAX 77 fps

The MIN framerate is really nothing important but the average does the talking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Edit: The water=2 does make a nice frame hit (still don't know why) but to be honest, to it doesn't look much better then water=0 anyway. And yes CPU is the main factor in this track (and sim). Probably little more water/tweking wouldn't hurt either. Also just tonight I flew a bit online with my squad mates and with 2xFSAA 8xAF I get some 63fps average (yeah, water=0) and I corrently use Vsync ON and 70Hz at 1280x1024. That is very nice frame rate is you ask me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

[This message was edited by RAAF_Edin on Mon August 23 2004 at 06:07 AM.]

RAAF_Edin
08-23-2004, 05:23 AM
System
Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800FSB 512L2 cache
2x512MB PC3200
Intel D875PBZ
Creative Audigy
WindowsXP pro SP2
Catalyst 4.8

IL-2
Perfect (Water=0 Forest=3)
Anisotropic
S3TC

OpenGL
4xFSAA
8xAF (Quality)
HighQuality
HighQuality
Vsync OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768
MIN 07 fps
AVE 46 fps
MAX 98 fps

1280x1024 (Water=0)
MIN 16 fps
AVE 39 fps
MAX 95 fps

1280x1024 (Water=2)
MIN 10 fps
AVE 27 fps
MAX 77 fps

The MIN framerate is really nothing important but the average does the talking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Edit: The water=2 does make a nice frame hit (still don't know why) but to be honest, to it doesn't look much better then water=0 anyway. And yes CPU is the main factor in this track (and sim). Probably little more water/tweking wouldn't hurt either. Also just tonight I flew a bit online with my squad mates and with 2xFSAA 8xAF I get some 63fps average (yeah, water=0) and I corrently use Vsync ON and 70Hz at 1280x1024. That is very nice frame rate is you ask me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

[This message was edited by RAAF_Edin on Mon August 23 2004 at 06:07 AM.]

lbhskier37
08-23-2004, 05:26 AM
water should be set at 2 for the comparison, with hardware like that its a crime to turn off eyecandy. I have been pretty disapointed with the numbers I have seen for next gen cards in FB, not a real usable increase in performance over a 9800Pro(although in other games its a huge difference) FB seems to be pretty much CPU limited now.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

Capt.LoneRanger
08-23-2004, 05:51 AM
It's the water that is a real pain for gfx-cards. Turning it to '0' makes these numbers useless. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

greets
Capt.LoneRanger

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/Arcadiac/LRSig.jpg

PF_Coastie
08-23-2004, 08:24 AM
You will also find that reducing the forest value will increase fps. Be warned that it will also make spotting ground targets a little more difficult for some reason. Forest at zero will also not draw the land as far making everything look blurry in the distance.

Its just a matter of finding the sweetspot for your taste.

PF_Coastie

Coasties Place (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/coastie0/)

Coasties FB and ATI settings (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/coastie0/IL2setup.html)

Coasties Tips on Page files, CPU's and RAM (http://www.angelfire.com/ultra/coastie0/CoastiesTweakGuide.html)

http://home.earthlink.net/~bmcoastie/images/FS_SIG.jpg
Click here to find out more about FIGHTER SWEEPS 2 (http://66.237.29.231/IL2FS)


OFFICIAL ATI BETA TESTER

Odranoel1
08-23-2004, 09:29 AM
I think FB is a wonderful-looking game, that should be run at the highest settings. According to my "research" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (see www. firingsquad.com), the newest GPUs (and CPUs) are required to make it playable at 1600 x 1200 with all eye candy on.
This said, just cancelled my order for an X800XT after a 2 month wait http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
The real reason is not the wait: I want my new rig to be "Battle of Britain- ready".
And it seems that nvidia have more of a future proof piece of hardware, even though ATI still leads with the current FB engine. So I will be buying a 6800GT when they are available - no waiting!

Comments welcome!

F16_txmx
08-23-2004, 10:56 AM
RAAF_Edin, I have almost the same system as you but a GeForce 6800 GT so here is a comparison. I run everything at standard speeds, i.e no O/C:

System:
Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800FSB 512L2 cache
2x512MB PC3200
ABIT IC7-G
Creative SB Live! 5.1
WindowsXP Pro SP1
ForceWare 66.00

IL-2
Perfect (Water=0 Forest=3)
Anisotropic
S3TC
-----------------------
OpenGL
AA: x4
AF: x8
Textures: HighQuality
Vsync: OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768x32
AVE: 31 fps
MAX: 61 fps
-----------------------
OpenGL
AA: 2xQ
AF: x8
Textures: HighQuality
Vsync: OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768x32
AVE: 42 fps
MAX: 109 fps
-----------------------
OpenGL
AA: 2xQ
AF: x4
Textures: HighQuality
Vsync: OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768x32
AVE: 46 fps
MAX: 110 fps
-----------------------
OpenGL
AA: 2xQ
AF: x4
Textures: Quality
Vsync: OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768x32
AVE: 47 fps
MAX: 111 fps
-----------------------
OpenGL
AA: Off
AF: Off
Textures: HighPerformance
Vsync: OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768x32
AVE: 51 fps
MAX: 119 fps

Amazed how much fps the AA @ x4 took vs AA @ 2xQ. For those of you who don't know the 2xQ is a setting in the NVIDIA drivers that allows you to run AA with almost the quality of x4 at the speed of x2.

Note: This not intended as a "card-war", just a simple comparison.

"Pay to kill, die to lose..."
http://www.flygflottilj16.se/images/sigs_avatars/txmx_sig.jpg (http://www.flygflottilj16.se)
P4 3GHz | ABIT IC7-G | 1GB DDR PC3200 | NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT | Philips 170S4
Windows XP Professional | DirectX 9.0c | Saitek X45 Hotas | CH Pedals | TrackIR

[This message was edited by F16_txmx on Mon August 23 2004 at 10:33 AM.]

F16_txmx
08-23-2004, 11:32 AM
Here is the same test again but this time i set water=2/forest=3. Please note that these benchmarks (as RAAF_Edin: s) are made without getting the ~1000 fps spikes which would make the average fps value higher than it acctually is.

System:
Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800FSB 512L2 cache
2x512MB PC3200
ABIT IC7-G
Creative SB Live! 5.1
WindowsXP Pro SP1
ForceWare 66.00

IL-2
Perfect (Water=2 Forest=3)
Anisotropic
S3TC

OpenGL
AA: x4
AF: x8
Textures: HighQuality
Vsync: OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768x32
AVE: 28 fps
MAX: 61 fps
-----------------------
OpenGL
AA: 2xQ
AF: x8
Textures: HighQuality
Vsync: OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768x32
AVE: 38 fps
MAX: 93 fps
-----------------------
OpenGL
AA: 2xQ
AF: x4
Textures: HighQuality
Vsync: OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768x32
AVE: 42 fps
MAX: 93 fps
-----------------------
OpenGL
AA: 2xQ
AF: x4
Textures: Quality
Vsync: OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768x32
AVE: 48 fps
MAX: 116 fps
-----------------------
OpenGL
AA: Off
AF: Off
Textures: HighPerformance
Vsync: OFF

TheBlackDeath
1024x768x32
AVE: 50 fps
MAX: 116 fps
-----------------------

Same here as with the former test (water=0), AA x4 takes a high fps-hit on my 6800 GT. Lowering the texture quality from HighQuality to Quality gives a nice boost.

"Pay to kill, die to lose..."
http://www.flygflottilj16.se/images/sigs_avatars/txmx_sig.jpg (http://www.flygflottilj16.se)
P4 3GHz | ABIT IC7-G | 1GB DDR PC3200 | NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT | Philips 170S4
Windows XP Professional | DirectX 9.0c | Saitek X45 Hotas | CH Pedals | TrackIR

Slechtvalk
08-23-2004, 12:50 PM
I also got a 6800GT and I get:

Fps: 31
Average: 32
Max: 73
Min: 7

in the death track with water = 1 and forest = 2 on perfect mode. Resolution at 1280x960 and 4xAA and 4x AF. (don't use AF normally in game)
3000 XP processor.

Better not use 8 x AF or even turn it off but always use 4x AA. I don't notice that much difference in graphics with AF turned on but I do with AA.

nearmiss
08-23-2004, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The MIN framerate is really nothing important but the average does the talking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Partially I agree, but mostly I don't.

The minimum FPS is critical, because when you hit very low FPS the whole air combat situation gets lousy. The whole sim gets to be a joke, as the action stops up. You really want a high minimum FPS - as I see it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

In fact, when I run the black death I do my best to maintain the highest minimum FPS and the rest of the values fall into line.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

http://avsims.com/portal/modules/liens/images/banner.gif (http://avsims.com/portal/)

BaldieJr
08-23-2004, 01:28 PM
My year-old FX5700U outperforms the X800XT in perfect mode... Let it be known that I keep vsync on.

<A HREF="http://officemax.secureportal.com/" TARGET=_blank>
Hey ya'll prepare yourselves
for the rubberband man!</A>
http://www.fighterjerks.com/rbman.png
http://www.fighterjerks.com

F16_txmx
08-23-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
My year-old FX5700U outperforms the X800XT in perfect mode... Let it be known that I keep vsync on.

http://officemax.secureportal.com/
http://www.fighterjerks.com/rbman.png
http://www.fighterjerks.com
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

"Pay to kill, die to lose..."
http://www.flygflottilj16.se/images/sigs_avatars/txmx_sig.jpg (http://www.flygflottilj16.se)
P4 3GHz | ABIT IC7-G | 1GB DDR PC3200 | NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT | Philips 170S4
Windows XP Professional | DirectX 9.0c | Saitek X45 Hotas | CH Pedals | TrackIR

RAAF_Edin
08-23-2004, 02:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
My year-old FX5700U outperforms the X800XT in perfect mode... Let it be known that I keep vsync on.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah right http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

By the way, I say that MIN frame rate is not important because it is not the true measure of this benchmark. They are just glitches in the game engine, and can vary a lot if you do the same test again and again. You can see that it it not "true" as runing at 1280x1024 got me 16fps and 1024x768 got 7fps... which doesn't make sense.

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAAF_Edin:
_System_
Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800FSB 512L2 cache
2x512MB PC3200
Intel D875PBZ
Creative Audigy
WindowsXP pro SP2
Catalyst 4.8

_IL-2_
Perfect (Water=0 Forest=3)
Anisotropic
S3TC

_OpenGL_
4xFSAA
8xAF (Quality)
HighQuality
HighQuality
Vsync OFF

_TheBlackDeath_
1024x768
MIN 07 fps
AVE 46 fps
MAX 98 fps

1280x1024 (Water=0)
MIN 16 fps
AVE 39 fps
MAX 95 fps

1280x1024 (Water=2)
MIN 10 fps
AVE 27 fps
MAX 77 fps

The MIN framerate is really nothing important but the average does the talking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Edit: The water=2 does make a nice frame hit (still don't know why) but to be honest, to it doesn't look much better then water=0 anyway. And yes CPU is the main factor in this track (and sim). Probably little more water/tweking wouldn't hurt either. Also just tonight I flew a bit online with my squad mates and with 2xFSAA 8xAF I get some 63fps average (yeah, water=0) and I corrently use Vsync ON and 70Hz at 1280x1024. That is very nice frame rate is you ask me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

[This message was edited by RAAF_Edin on Mon August 23 2004 at 06:07 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where does one get this BLACK DEATH bench mark? Is it a TRACK file?

And what is the PROCEDURE you follow? I recall someone giving someone **** about not turing off the TRACK file soon enough and thus messing up the FPS average.. So.. Do you have a little step by step procedure you follow? Reason I ask is I just got a 6800GT and Im not that happy with it.. So.. I might make the move to ATI.. But would like to do this test first

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Stanger_361st
08-23-2004, 06:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nearmiss:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The MIN framerate is really nothing important but the average does the talking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Partially I agree, but mostly I don't.

The minimum FPS is critical, because when you hit very low FPS the whole air combat situation gets lousy. The whole sim gets to be a joke, as the action stops up. You really want a high minimum FPS - as I see it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

In fact, when I run the black death I do my best to maintain the highest minimum FPS and the rest of the values fall into line.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif

http://avsims.com/portal/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As anybody notice that min frame rate in black death is caused by some scene changes. Like in the beggining I go from 50fps to 14 everytime and their is no reason for it and it happens when track changes view. If I was flying I would not be changing the views like that. Can this min be a real good indicator. I notice in the scene where the two planes collide is where a true min fps is.I use that scene for min.

Just a Thought.

Stanger

ASH at S-MART
08-23-2004, 07:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASH_SMART:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAAF_Edin:
_System_
Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800FSB 512L2 cache
2x512MB PC3200
Intel D875PBZ
Creative Audigy
WindowsXP pro SP2
Catalyst 4.8

_IL-2_
Perfect (Water=0 Forest=3)
Anisotropic
S3TC

_OpenGL_
4xFSAA
8xAF (Quality)
HighQuality
HighQuality
Vsync OFF

_TheBlackDeath_
1024x768
MIN 07 fps
AVE 46 fps
MAX 98 fps

1280x1024 (Water=0)
MIN 16 fps
AVE 39 fps
MAX 95 fps

1280x1024 (Water=2)
MIN 10 fps
AVE 27 fps
MAX 77 fps

The MIN framerate is really nothing important but the average does the talking http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Edit: The water=2 does make a nice frame hit (still don't know why) but to be honest, to it doesn't look much better then water=0 anyway. And yes CPU is the main factor in this track (and sim). Probably little more water/tweking wouldn't hurt either. Also just tonight I flew a bit online with my squad mates and with 2xFSAA 8xAF I get some 63fps average (yeah, water=0) and I corrently use Vsync ON and 70Hz at 1280x1024. That is very nice frame rate is you ask me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

[This message was edited by RAAF_Edin on Mon August 23 2004 at 06:07 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where does one get this BLACK DEATH bench mark? Is it a TRACK file?

And what is the PROCEDURE you follow? I recall someone giving someone **** about not turing off the TRACK file soon enough and thus messing up the FPS average.. So.. Do you have a little step by step procedure you follow? Reason I ask is I just got a 6800GT and Im not that happy with it.. So.. I might make the move to ATI.. But would like to do this test first

_ASH HOUSEWARES_ http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav__
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. good ol mud movers is back
http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_configform.htm

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Xiolablu3
08-23-2004, 07:11 PM
I'm sorry, baldie, but your 5700U doesn't out perform the X800 at ANY resolution, trust me.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lbhskier37
08-23-2004, 07:31 PM
Best bang for your buck hands down is 9800Pro. For less than $200 if you look around enough. With my P4 at 3.1ghz and only 512mb of ram I average 27fps in black death with 4xAA 4xAniso water=2 and forest=3 at 1024x768. The boost you get with the new cards are IMHO not worth it in FB, and once BoB comes out I'm sure they will be brought to their knees. Buying hardware before a game comes out to be ready for it never turns out to be a good idea. If you bought early for IL2 when it came out what would you have had a GF2Ultra, (can't remember what was out exactly)

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

tsisqua
08-23-2004, 08:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Best bang for your buck hands down is 9800Pro. . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm glad you said it, And I didn't have to.

Tsisqua

http://server6.uploadit.org/files/tsisqua-bird1.JPG

TacticalYak3
08-23-2004, 09:03 PM
I am an ATI card user myself, and with interest have been reading a bit about their new cards. Impressive specs for sure.

However, if we are strictly talking about IL-2, your performance really isn't that much better than my old ATI 9700 TX card in my Dell machine (no offense mate!).

Given the money, I am thinking about getting the 9800 Pro (256MB) card in the coming months. Seems the most sensible way to go from where I am presently. If I were buying a complete new system would no doubt get the latest card.

___________________________________________

"My Luftwaffe is invincible . . . And so now we turn to England. How long will this one last - two, three weeks?" (Hermann Goring, June 1940)

:FI:TacticalS!

RAAF_Edin
08-23-2004, 10:07 PM
When I do these frame rate tests I start the fps START SHOW command 2sec after the track started and record the values just before the track stops (I use Cougar pre loaded command for this where I just need to press a button and the Cougar does everyhting on it's own http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif )

I agree that this X800XT is very expensive but IL-2 is still very CPU limited in most occasions (such as TheBlackDeath track).

I got a P4 3.4GHz this morning and now can hardly wait to get home and "plug it in" and see what increase it'll give... but that might take a day since I'll most likely reinstall windows. Once I do the tests i will edit the first post with new figures.

PS: I am also very eager to see if someone has a 6800Ultra and similar system to mine then compare the two. Also I am sure BoB will run just fine with this current setup, and also by the time it's out I'll probably do an upgrade again... such are things with high demanding sims and computers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

--------------------------------------
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif
Edin "Kuky" Kulelija
No76 Squadron RAAF

HH Quazi
08-24-2004, 01:03 AM
Well m8's, I have been using a 256MB 9800XT for the last 2 months. Before that, I used a 128MB 9800XT flashed from a 128MB 9800Pro. I recently, within the last two weeks, have been using an ATI X800Pro non-VIVO. With the 12 pipes and stock clock speeds of 475/450, it rips the 256MB 9800XT during the course of a full coop mission. You can quote Black Death averages but these really do not give any insight to how a card really performs in the course of a full coop mission. My 256MB 9800XT gave an average of 36fps in the Black Death track. This X800Pro gives an average of 39fps on my mediocre computer. A difference of 3fps isn't nothing to brag about, really. And by quoting those numbers for a conclusion between the two, a person would say that the new generation cards aren't worth it. But, play one, then the other, during a complete mission or through several missions, and you will not come to the same conclusion. Are the X800 series of cards necessary to get the most out of this game? Imo, nope. Is the X800 series of cards necessary for the upcoming release of Pacific Fighters? Imo, nope. Anything thing over 24fps is seamless and undetectable by the human eye. Motion pictures run at 24fps. So, really frame rates shouldn't be an issue. But the eye candy can be an issue. The clock speeds of the 256MB 9800XT doesn't really handle the eye candy well when it is maxed out. You will notice a big hit in fr's. But the clock speeds of the X800Pro is capable of delivering excellent fr's with the eye candy cranked up all the way. And if you ever experience this with excellent fr's, you probably wouldn't want to run the game any other way. I just finished a 6 hour sit down with my squad mates tonight. With the eye candy cranked to the max, I was able to fly, in **** pit with fr's never going below 50fps. I even saw a 100fps a time or two. Again, fr's isn't an issue. I am just giving an example of the performance results of this X800Pro. The 256MB 9800XT couldn't give me results like that, but it could have given me seamless fr's with the eye candy maxed out.

Now, when it comes to Nvidia, they are great cards. But turn the eye candy up and they break down fast. I'm not knocking Nvidia. They can handle FB using application preference. But they can't hang with the X800 series of cards when you crank the eye candy up. I've seen this in many reviews and benchmark tests. Over and over. Same thing. Except when it came to Doom 3. The 6800 rolled all over the X800. But, Doom 3 was created with Nvidia cards in mind.

Now these are just my opinions. I am not saying they are gospel. People will believe and feel the way they want to. I am not trying to change anyones mind or way of thinking. The talk about the Ati cards above is from personal experience. The comments made about Nvidia and eye candy are from allot of reading and research. And whoever said that the best bang for the buck is the 128MB 9800Pro is right on the money. But, we need to make room for the 256MB 9800Pro to be added to that list. And the fact that those cards can be flashed into full blown 256MB 9800XT's might make it another best bang for the buck card.

BTW, after I tweaked this X800 with a volt mod, it oc's to 549/561. And with the Zalman ZM80C-HP w/Zalman ramsinks and optional fan, load temps never get above 50C in game. The majority of the VIVO cards come with all 16 pipes enabled. If not, they can be flashed to XT PE's easily. My X800Pro non-VIVO is not capable of flashing to anything other than a X800Pro with only the 12 pipes. I think ATI has tried to shut the door on all of this flashing and has even started releasing the VIVO cards with mixed 1.6ns and 2.0ns memory chips in order to stop the ability to flash the card(s) to XT PE's.

Anyway, I just wanted to share my experiences with you all. I consider this community and all involved here to be my m8's (friends), even though we may have never talked one on one. Kudos to you all! This is one helluva bunch!

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/nightschpanker/QuasiPOWsmall.jpg
Undercover as a Sgt.

pcisbest
08-24-2004, 01:16 AM
I have a similar setup to the original poster, but lower grade of RAM:

P4 3Ghz (800mhz)
D875PBZ
1024MB Corsair PC2700
Audigy

---------------
*BlackDeath*
---------------

Everthing maxed, Perfect with Water=2, S3TC compression, 1280x960 4xAA 4xAF, Nvidia "Quality" settings, Vsync off, 61.77 driver.

I start the benchmark 10 seconds in, and end at 2:30, so it is 2:20 long.

MIN: 11
MAX: 65
AVG: 31

The next test was the same for everything except resolution was turned to 1024x768:

MIN: 12
MAX: 67
AVG: 37

---------------------

As you can see, FB is very CPU limited. My lower speed RAM is also probably bringing things down a frame or two, but those are still very good numbers. The min fps is not very high, but that is at the infamous Lag-smashing-into-fockewulf-over-water-with-things-blowing-up-in-background-part :lol:, and it only lasts for a little over one second. Most of the track played out running 23-25 fps as the lowest, hence the average of 37.

When I have time, I will try this with Water=1 or =0, and try cranking the AA and AF down a tad. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Alexi_Alx_Anova
08-24-2004, 01:36 AM
P4 2.4 O/C 2.7, 533 FSB
Gigabyte 8INXP mobo (i.e., E7205 chipset)
1Gb DDR-SDRAM PC2700
80Gb WD Caviar SE HDD
Audigy 2
BFG 6800GT O/C to 400/1000 using RivaTuner
66.00 Drivers
AGP apeture 256Mb
Fast Writes on

[Edit]
Windows XP Pro SP1
DX9.0c
[End edit]

4X AA
2X AF
Quality
No other optimizations

BlackDeath track recorded using latest FRAPS (recorded from elevators lined up with road to final flak burst)

IL2FBSetup.exe settings
1280 X 960 X 32
OpenGL
Geforce3/4/FX plus;
TexCompress=2
Forest=3
Water=2
PolygonOffsetFactor=-0.15
PolygonOffsetUnits=-3.0
Sound at 44KHz (Sound acceleration set to "Standard" in DXdiag)

Perfect mode
====================================
Avg: 36.619 - Min: 12 - Max: 79
====================================

Through tests I've found that for my hardware setup I get an extra 1 FPS average if I, i) set sound to Standard in DXdiag, ii) O/C my CPU by 100MHz, O/C my card from 370/1000 to 400/1000, iii) use the 66.00 or 65.62 drivers. I expect I would get much better average FPS if my CPU, FSB and RAM were faster. I get no difference in FPS if I use Custom settings in IL2FBSetup.exe and in fact I suspect using the Geforce3/4/FX settings gives a crisper image.

Note: The 66.00beta drivers are slightly unstable since sometimes I get half the FPS and need to restart FB. The 65.52beta drivers give 1 FPS less performance but are stable. I'm sure when the official 67 drivers are released all will be well.

-----------------------------
Drug of choice....coffee

http://web.onetel.net.uk/~alx_747/coffee.jpg
-----------------------------