Jump to content


Anyone try & get F.E.A.R. up & running ( I heard this game was a resource hog!)


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Deathlok2001

Deathlok2001

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 265 posts

Posted 08 April 2006 - 09:46 AM

This game looks really good.
All your Peecees are belong to trash

#2 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 08 April 2006 - 09:48 AM

View PostDeathlok2001, on April 8th 2006, 08:46 AM, said:

This game looks really good.

i downloaded the demo, unzipped, installed. but when i tried to launch it it just wouldn't.

#3 masterpace

masterpace

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 09 April 2006 - 07:00 PM

Well, I've installed the retail version of F.E.A.R. on a 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro with 2 GB RAM.  Graphics chip is overclocked to about 445 MHz on both core and memory.  I'm running the game in 1024x768 with all details and effects to maximum very smoothly.  However, FSAA is disabled.  Running the 3D demo, which is quite graphics intense, I'm getting about 36 FPS, which is good.  So, overall, the game is running fine.

I've tested Quake 4 as well.  I can put all effects and details to max and run it at 1152x854 very smoothly, although I could not confirm the FPS.

#4 IPY da Pinhead

IPY da Pinhead

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia

Posted 09 April 2006 - 08:08 PM

Borrowed the retail version off a mate, on the default settings chosen by the game itself it runs just fine, (below 25fps only 5% of the time using the built in timedemo) One thing that does become apparent with running games in windows is that the fill rate of the x1600 is very limited when running at native res on my iMac 20" (256 VRAM and 2gig RAM). Dropping the res for most games back down to 1024x768 makes them a little uglier, but this is then compensated with some AA and they look just fine.

I've also tested GTA:San Andreas, again it will run fine at native res on medium to low settings but the game will still be jerky. Dropping this to 1024x768, detail on high, view distance on medium, 2x AA and the game is nice and smooth.

I've not noticed the same fill rate issue on MacOS with the video card, so I can only assume this is a limitation of the drivers in Windows XP.

#5 ozzy

ozzy

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Steam Name:ozzy
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 09 April 2006 - 08:20 PM

View PostIPY da Pinhead, on April 9th 2006, 10:08 PM, said:

I've not noticed the same fill rate issue on MacOS with the video card, so I can only assume this is a limitation of the drivers in Windows XP.

I believe it's actually the opposite.  The Max OS X drivers aren't nearly as good as the Windows drivers, and therefore you don't see the game ever running at full speed (what it could be), so the performance delta as you scale up resolutions isn't as bad.  Also, you might not be running as demanding games on the Mac.  For instance, I guarentee Quake 4 would exhibit the same performacne delta between 1024x768 and 1680x1050 on OS X.  

The windows drivers are so good that your card is being 100% utilized.  This was always a good way to tell whether the bottleneck in your system was processor or video card.  If your framerates didn't change much as you dropped resolution, this meant that it was your processor (or drivers) that was the bottleneck, because the video card will always scale based upon resolution, and it can push pixels faster if it has less pixels to push.  However, if your framerate was the same at 800x600 as it is at 1024 or 1280, then this means that your video card is being underutilized and the processor can't keep up with the video card.

#6 masterpace

masterpace

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 10 April 2006 - 06:36 AM

I'm not quite sure about that, dude.  Indeed, I've benchmarked my MacBook Pro with an overclocked ATI.  When overclocked to about 447 MHz/435 MHz, I'm scoring 3995 3DMarks 2005.  I've heard that an Acer TravelMate, with an ATI clocked at 475 MHz/475 MHz scores about 4000 3DMarks 2005.  So, based on those numbers, I have the feeling the MacBook Pro hardware is used to its full potential.