chimaera

Registered Users
  • Content count

    498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About chimaera

  • Rank
    Official Supporter
  • Birthday 08/03/1972

Profile Information

  • Location
    Stockholm
  • Preferred Side
    Allied
  • Preferred Branch
    Army
  • Preferred Unit
    SMG
  1. Did my testing with 8xAA and 16xAF off, only changed GFX settings inside the game to highest quality(vsync off) and Performance settings in CCC.
  2. Ok I've done the test now following the instructions... (Posting my specs again) Windows7 Enterprise(64bit) i7-920 @2.8GHz (Autotune kicks in) ATI 4870 X2 (Driver 10.2) 6 GB DDR3 RAM 1680x1050x32 (cant go higher, monitor limit) BGE version 1.31.0.26 64fps is what I get before engaging Binos looking down the road. 72fps is what I get when engaging Binos and look at those trees. And I can actually hear my fans(GPU fans) inside the computer turning up the speed when I engage the Binos as if there is a higher load on the system. The same test using O/C @ 3.67GHz ~78fps is what I get before engaging Binos looking down the road. ~74fps is what I get when engaging Binos and look at those trees.
  3. I'll do it as soon as I get home from work.
  4. Benchmarking comparisons between a Nvidia Geforce GTX 260(896 MB) and ATI Radeon HD 4870(1024 MB) shows they are very similar in performance. Thats why I bought my 4870x2 card, it was at the time a less expensive card than the GTX260 while still outperforming it. Tom's Hardware - Benchmark The Last Remnant Why do I link to a benchmark between ATI 4870(1024 MB) vs GTX 260(896 MB)? Well I figured as BGE doesnt utilize both GPU's on my x2 card it should be equal to a ATI 4870(1024 MB). The benchmark shows that in 'mainstream' applications/games the cards are very similar in performance, some are 'won' by ATI and some are 'won' by nVidia. When it comes to testing in BGE we get a picture that shows that nVidia has some kind of advantage, what it is I dont know. If I would be buying a computer today I would not go for a ATI card which is sad as my latest 3 computer builds has been with ATI cards. And yes I saw those recent 'binos' tests where ATI seems to have some kind of advantage, interesting... It could very well be that there actually is no problem, maybe ATI and nVidia is using VERY different ways to handle graphics. But I hope that with the recent input from us and the test results that has been posted during Beta that the Rats might actually be able to find some unknown bug that hasnt been squashed yet. For example, why is the ATI cards idling at 0% load during some tests? As if the CPU is doing all the work...
  5. Copying this from another thread. Doing some other 'tweaking'(disabling some background services, disabling prefetch and making the Page File smaller, disabling minimap and other HUD elements) got me a few more fps. Windows7 Enterprise(64bit) i7-920 (stock, no O/C) ATI 4870 X2 6 GB DDR3 RAM 1680x1050x32 .benchremagen 62fps .benchvehicles 31fps .benchantwerp 29fps I mean it's not bad for a system that hasn't been O/C'ed... it's just frustrating to know that the GFX card doesnt seem to be the biggest factor when it comes to performance. I'm not prepared to O/C my computer to get more fps. But this is what I get when O/C'ing to 3.5GHz.... Looks like there is a bigger gain with a faster CPU than a expensive GFX(ATI) card :-).... (or a combination of a fast CPU and nVidia card seems to be the magic formula). .benchremagen 78fps .benchvehicles 40fps .benchantwerp 37fps
  6. Interesting antwerp and vehicles doesnt show that much difference but your remagen bench gives you 13 fps more. I went and set my resolution to 1280x1024x32 didnt do anything, getting the same benchmarking results as before. I even set it lower 1024x768x32, still the same results, changing resolution doesnt seem to change performance. Strange...
  7. If you are running a similar system as mine but the differing factor is that you have a nVidia GFX card in your system then thats one more indication that something is off with ATI cards. And no I don't have any nVidia card, would have been interesting to test.
  8. Made a new benchmark run with BGE 1.31.26, everything set to low settings like the instructions says. Also set my settings for my ATI card to lowest possible(Optimal performance). Got the following results. .benchremagen 57fps .benchvehicles 29fps .benchantwerp 27fps
  9. I was starting to get nervous that I've done some config to my computer which might have created some bottleneck some where in the system.... So I reinstalled 3DMark Vantage with the latest patch 1.0.2 and ran some benchmarking on my system. I can say that I'm relieved that my computer is working as intended. Getting consistent good scores on CPU/GPU, cant see any bottlenecks. 3DMark Score(Preset:Performance) P16596 GPU Score 16363 CPU Score 17338 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3DMark Score(Preset:High) H11767 GPU Score 11138 CPU Score 17312 So it's back to 'troubleshoot' BGE vs ATI/Windows7(64bit)........ ------------------ System Information ------------------ Operating System: Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_rtm.090713-1255) Language: Swedish (Regional Setting: Swedish) System Manufacturer: Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. System Model: EX58-UD4P BIOS: Award Modular BIOS v6.00PG Processor: Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.8GHz Memory: 6144MB RAM Available OS Memory: 6142MB RAM Page File: 2270MB used, 10269MB available Windows Dir: C:\Windows DirectX Version: DirectX 11 DX Setup Parameters: Not found User DPI Setting: Using System DPI System DPI Setting: 96 DPI (100 percent) DWM DPI Scaling: Disabled DxDiag Version: 6.01.7600.16385 32bit Unicode --------------- Display Devices --------------- Card name: ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc. Chip type: ATI display adapter (0x9441) DAC type: Internal DAC(400MHz) Device Key: Enum\PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_9441&SUBSYS_25421002&REV_00 Display Memory: 3826 MB Dedicated Memory: 1014 MB Shared Memory: 2811 MB Current Mode: 1680 x 1050 (32 bit) (59Hz) Monitor Name: Generic PnP Monitor Monitor Model: PL2201W Monitor Id: IVM5602 Native Mode: 1680 x 1050(p) (59.954Hz) Output Type: DVI Driver Name: atiu9p64 aticfx64 aticfx64 atiu9pag aticfx32 aticfx32 atiumd64 atidxx64 atidxx64 atiumdag atidxx32 atidxx32 atiumdva atiumd6a atitmm64 Driver File Version: () Driver Version: 8.702.0.0 DDI Version: 10.1 Driver Model: WDDM 1.1 Driver Attributes: Final Retail Driver Date/Size: , 0 bytes WHQL Logo'd: n/a WHQL Date Stamp: n/a Device Identifier: {D7B71EE2-D701-11CF-7D64-4305A1C2C535} Vendor ID: 0x1002 Device ID: 0x9441 SubSys ID: 0x25421002 Revision ID: 0x0000 Driver Strong Name: oem1.inf:ATI.Mfg.NTamd64.6.1:ati2mtag_RV7X:8.702.0.0:pci\ven_1002&dev_9441 Rank Of Driver: 00E62001 Video Accel: ModeMPEG2_A ModeMPEG2_C Deinterlace Caps: {6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch {5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(YUY2,YUY2) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY {6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch {5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(UYVY,UYVY) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY {5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(YV12,0x32315659) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps= {3C5323C1-6FB7-44F5-9081-056BF2EE449D}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,2) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {552C0DAD-CCBC-420B-83C8-74943CF9F1A6}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,2) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {6E8329FF-B642-418B-BCF0-BCB6591E255F}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,1) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_PixelAdaptive {335AA36E-7884-43A4-9C91-7F87FAF3E37E}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY DeinterlaceTech_BOBVerticalStretch {5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(NV12,0x3231564e) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps=VideoProcess_YUV2RGB VideoProcess_StretchX VideoProcess_StretchY {5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC1,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps= {5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC2,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps= {5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC3,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps= {5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(IMC4,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps= {5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(S340,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps= {5A54A0C9-C7EC-4BD9-8EDE-F3C75DC4393B}: Format(In/Out)=(S342,UNKNOWN) Frames(Prev/Fwd/Back)=(0,0,0) Caps= D3D9 Overlay: Not Supported DXVA-HD: Not Supported DDraw Status: Enabled D3D Status: Enabled AGP Status: Enabled
  10. Doh! Sorry thats the driver i'm running, installed it just before installing the Beta of BGE... Editing My previous post to reflect That...
  11. My rig... Windows7 Enterprise(64bit) i7-920 (stock, no O/C) ATI 4870 X2 6 GB DDR3 RAM 1680x1050x32 Benchantwerp~22fps ATI drivers 10.2(cleaned out older drivers before installing) My CPU runs at 2.66GHz(2.93GHz with turbo boost). I've set my GFX card to Application controlled, I dont 'force' any settings in the GFX software...
  12. The Air over Zelzate was 'faaaaantastic' yesterday.... It was filled with Warping and Cloaking airplanes(didn't know we had that many klingons in game), it was really spectacular :-), got me to make a switch from the airwar to the groundwar which was a little more stable as long as you didnt have to try to shoot down EA with AAA.
  13. It was bad yesterday(sunday), could be playing for 30-40min and then suddenly lost connection. Happened 3 times.
  14. Target Name: vl3507.na21.b001488-0.phl01.atlas.cogentco.com IP: 66.28.6.226 Date/Time: 2010-01-26 18:56:52 1 0 ms, 0 ms, 0 ms, 0 ms, 0 ms [192.168.1.1] 2 1 ms, 1 ms, 1 ms, 1 ms, 1 ms gw-n1-jak-a12.ias.bredband.telia.com [62.20.137.129] 3 1 ms, 1 ms, 1 ms, 1 ms, 1 ms s-b1-link.telia.net [213.248.77.45] 4 2 ms, N/A , N/A , 1 ms, 1 ms s-bb2-link.telia.net [80.91.253.229]-No packet loss(1) 5 N/A , N/A , N/A , 29 ms, 28 ms ffm-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.251.145]-No packet loss(1) 6 31 ms, 43 ms, 29 ms, 26 ms, 29 ms ffm-b3-link.telia.net [80.91.249.137] 7 246 ms, N/A , N/A , 39 ms, * po1-0.core01.fra03.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.14.57]-33% packet loss(2) 8 * * * * * [-] 100% packet loss(3) 9 * * * * * [-] 100% packet loss(3) 10 49 ms, 41 ms, 41 ms, 42 ms, 39 ms te3-8.ccr02.par04.atlas.cogentco.com [130.117.50.150] 11 * * * * * [-] 100% packet loss(3) 12 128 ms,113 ms,112 ms,125 ms,122 ms te4-1.ccr01.phl01.atlas.cogentco.com [154.54.2.109] 13 * * * * * [-] 100% packet loss(3) 14 * * * * * [-] 100% packet loss(3) Destination not reached in 35 hops (1) No packet loss according to PingPlotter (2) According to PingPlotter (3) Probably a FW denying ping/trace - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Target Name: bcr1-so0-0-0.dallas.savvis.net IP: 204.70.193.9 Date/Time: 2010-01-26 19:05:30 1 0 ms, 0 ms, 0 ms, 0 ms, 0 ms [192.168.1.1] 2 1 ms, 56 ms, 1 ms, 1 ms, 1 ms gw-n1-jak-a12.ias.bredband.telia.com [62.20.137.129] 3 1 ms, 1 ms, 1 ms, 1 ms, 7 ms s-b1-link.telia.net [213.248.77.45] 4 N/A , N/A , N/A , N/A , 1 ms s-bb2-link.telia.net [80.91.254.114]No packet loss(1) 5 9 ms, N/A , N/A , N/A , 31 ms ffm-bb1-link.telia.net [80.91.251.145]No packet loss(1) 6 N/A , N/A , 64 ms, N/A , 28 ms ffm-b2-link.telia.net [80.91.247.167]No packet loss(1) 7 26 ms, N/A , N/A , N/A , 28 ms [208.174.60.33]No packet loss(1) 8 27 ms, 35 ms, 29 ms, 31 ms, 30 ms cr1-ge-0-8-0-2.frankfurtft3.savvis.net [204.70.205.69] 9 159 ms,164 ms,155 ms,163 ms,161 ms cr1-pos-0-3-3-3.dallas.savvis.net [204.70.192.78] 10 159 ms,211 ms,156 ms,238 ms,159 ms bcr1-so0-0-0.dallas.savvis.net [204.70.193.9] Ping statistics for bcr1-so0-0-0.dallas.savvis.net Packets: Sent = 5, Received = 5, Lost = 0 (0,0%) Round Trip Times: Minimum = 156ms, Maximum = 238ms, Average = 184ms (1) No packet loss according to PingPlotter