Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Unofficial F.E.A.R. Performance Test Chart & Discussion Thread


  • Please log in to reply
426 replies to this topic

#25 Thraxz

Thraxz

    Total Nerd

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2682 posts

Posted 12 October 2006 - 11:22 PM

http://www.extremete...,2010879,00.asp

They have a fear run there if you want to include it. Eh... who cares.

#26 CharmedLover84

CharmedLover84

    Certified Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1859 posts

Posted 13 October 2006 - 01:36 AM

Okay, I'm gonna update all of y'alls entries in to the system as soon as I finish reinstalling all my Windows crap from my processor swap out frying both of my windows installs LOL So gimme a day or two and I'll have everything updated along with (hopefully) my Opty's first entry on the chart ;)

#27 CharmedLover84

CharmedLover84

    Certified Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1859 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 06:55 PM

Posted Image

spec on the sig.... :) dunno if vsync on or off, but its max max by default. LCD here.

oh, and its FEAR 1.00 too.. too lazy to update...


That is DEFINITELY with VSync off. No monitor I know of has a refresh rate of 222Hz at 1024x768 LOL

Nice run though, 'specially for a 7900GT, even if it is a KO ;)

Chart has been updated, sorry it took so long guys, just now got this biatch of an Opty stable at a speed I like ;) lol see siggy for details.

#28 Thraxz

Thraxz

    Total Nerd

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2682 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 10:44 PM

Posted Image

Processor at 3033MHz mem at 472MHz BTW.... my last run was done with the mem at 466 not 490. I need to rectify that all in my sig eventually. There you go, Charmed, 30MHz= 1 fps... so the diff between 3.0 and 2.9 is about 3fps at 10x7 in fear.

#29 CharmedLover84

CharmedLover84

    Certified Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1859 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 10:51 PM

lol, yeah, maybe at that resolution.

I'm running SLI remember? Every single MHz boost both CPU and video performance a lot, just the difference between 2.9 and 2.93 with my FX-60 was noticable because it allowed for the video cards to get more from the processor at once.

Matter o' fact I think my AM3 Graphics Score went up by 1K just from 30MHz.

And like I said, while it will be nice if I can continue to increase performance AND speed on the CPU, I just want 3GHz. lol

#30 CharmedLover84

CharmedLover84

    Certified Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1859 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 10:55 PM

Posted Image

Processor at 3033MHz mem at 472MHz BTW.... my last run was done with the mem at 466 not 490. I need to rectify that all in my sig eventually. There you go, Charmed, 30MHz= 1 fps... so the diff between 3.0 and 2.9 is about 3fps at 10x7 in fear.


And I would like to point out that your minimum actually went down.

In my experience with FEAR, if you don't get at least 50 (which yer doing) as a minimum in the test, you'll be in deep crap in the game because the highest the graphics goes to in the test ain't JACK compared to in game... I'll have to find this old screen capture I have from back when I had an Opty at 2.65GHz and 2 7800GTX 512MBs, will give you an idea of just how much tougher the game is than the test, although the test is no easy feat, as some of our comrades are finding out (Poor OCNewbie LOL)

ADDED BY EDIT:

Feast your eyes on what once was considered godly power (Back when I first got my SLI of 7800GTX 512MBs, they were basically the best you could possibly get at the time, although my processor running at 2.56GHz 24/7 wasn't exactly the best) This is at Maximum/Maximum, 1600x1200, in game:

Posted Image

#31 Thraxz

Thraxz

    Total Nerd

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2682 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 11:11 PM

I bet you can run that test 10 times and get 4 different minimums.

#32 CharmedLover84

CharmedLover84

    Certified Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1859 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 11:14 PM

Wouldn't be so sure.

The test (I'm fairly sure) is consistant in it's graphical content... the game isn't. LOL

Either way, just sayin', there's a reason I think this is a great way to give your computer a real world test, cuz it is perdy intense.

Wish Oblivion had an in-game benchmark. Would make it a lot easier for some people to set their stuff I'd bet.

#33 Thraxz

Thraxz

    Total Nerd

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2682 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 11:19 PM

Just ran it six times got 51/54/52 and multiples of those scores. Give enough tries I guarentee to see 50 53 and 55

#34 CharmedLover84

CharmedLover84

    Certified Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1859 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 11:23 PM

::smirks:: one might say that means the hardware varies more so than the test ;) :: ducks:: lol

#35 Thraxz

Thraxz

    Total Nerd

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2682 posts

Posted 15 October 2006 - 11:27 PM

I can imagine my minimum was 50 everytime but because of the sampling rates of the FPS monitor in the test it usuallyonly sees on either side of a super sharp spike down to 50. If it hits the tip... 50 if it hits around the sides 51-55.

#36 n_w95482

n_w95482

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 October 2006 - 11:32 PM

I never thought of that. Either that or some background process doing something minor for a really small amount of time, clock speeds varying, etc.