daztrek Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 This isnt another rant I realy want to beable to play this game but for some reason its just so far from playable with half exceptable visuals. Being iv got 2 gig of ocz gold ram , 2.8gig san diego cpu and a X800XT gfx card this game should run and look exceptional. On average iv getting 33fps the mouse is so laged id find a games controler faster which I personly hate for fps games. Im in hope that theres just one setting on my pc that iv missed or somthink but every other game runs very fast in my pc. To mention a few: BF1942 full max setting 1600 x 1280 extreemly smooth. BF2, again runs great on full settings at 1280 x 1024. Farcry at 1280 x 1024 full settings runs fantastic. COD2 1280 x 1024 full settings runs smooth. Doom 3 Fear UT2004 They all run and look very nice visualy. Ok back to this game. Bad mouse lag, AA just blurs the whole screen not the edges, If I run this game at 800 x 600 4x af no aa med settings then it runs but looks like a 10 year old game thats run on a £15 gfx card. I love this game def one of the best for game play but just cant play it like this. If anyone has any idear why its runing so bad please let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 The problem will be one of many. Drivers Settings on your PC background programmes Bad instal poor config. Manipulated files. We have people playing this game on half the spec you have IE Team Mebers with few or no problems. Take it from me its not the game. This section will help you sort out most if not all problems. Read all pinned topics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daztrek Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 The problem will be one of many. Drivers Settings on your PC background programmes Bad instal poor config. Manipulated files. We have people playing this game on half the spec you have IE Team Mebers with few or no problems. Take it from me its not the game. This section will help you sort out most if not all problems. Read all pinned topics Thanks Colin. will check that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daztrek Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 The problem will be one of many. Drivers Settings on your PC background programmes Bad instal poor config. Manipulated files. We have people playing this game on half the spec you have IE Team Mebers with few or no problems. Take it from me its not the game. This section will help you sort out most if not all problems. Read all pinned topics Thanks Colin. will check that out. Ok, so ive defraged which it did need doing, reinstalled drivers, created more space on HD all the basic things to make the pc run as it should. As expected its made no difference at all. Now to add to that iv got a nice black screen with only sky visable. cant beleave how long iv had this game and still cant play it. Being the fact that all other games run flawlesslysimply means its not my pc its this dam game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Send me your system information file please. Ill have a look. Pm your email ad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikSnoopy Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 (edited) What? You're kidding me? I know people with lesser systems running the game better than you are. Edit: And no, this is not "I know them from talking to them on the internet". This is a "I build the system myself and saw it running the game" experience. Edited June 24, 2006 by MikSnoopy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCO*AFZ* Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 (edited) Now to add to that iv got a nice black screen with only sky visable. cant beleave how long iv had this game and still cant play it Your video card is not a 6000 or 7000 series... it's probably an FX5XXX series which as stated many times has this issue. Edited June 25, 2006 by ROCOAFZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Smith Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Your video card is not a 6000 or 7000 series... it's probably an FX5XXX series which as stated many times has this issue. Did you read the original post? and a X800XT gfx card Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pz3 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 the game is laggy... not sure why... i find myself running lowest resolution possible just to get the more fps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CR6 Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Being iv got 2 gig of ocz gold ram , 2.8gig san diego cpu and a X800XT gfx card this game should run and look exceptional. On average iv getting 33fps the mouse is so laged id find a games controler faster which I personly hate for fps games. I have a similar system (Intel P4 3.4/2GB RAM/X800XT PE) and 33fps is about as good as you're gonna get with GRAW. There is unlikely anything wrong with your system if the other games run fine. GRAW is a huge system hog (why do you think hardware sites are incorporating it into their benchmarks), and your and my system are about 1 generation behind now (i.e. not dual-core X2 and not an X1900XTX). You'll either have to upgrade (CPU would be a good place to start), or play around with lower graphics settings. Also, turn off AA (it doesn't work with this game if you haven't heard yet) and AF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCO*AFZ* Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Did you read the original post? I did but i must have skipped it... comes from posting too late at night.' Make sure you have the latest catalyst and shut dymanic shadows off for another 15 fps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaven Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Disabling EAX helped for me. Dunno why, but give it a try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Smith Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Make sure you have the latest catalyst and shut dymanic shadows off for another 15 fps ######? You serious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROCO*AFZ* Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Make sure you have the latest catalyst and shut dymanic shadows off for another 15 fps ######? You serious? Serious... Dynamic shadows is worth 15 fps from low to off.. if you have them higher it's worth more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viiiper Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 If anyone has any idear why its running so bad please let me know. I hope Colin gives you a direction, but my 2 cents. The X800xt should perform with 2Gb sys ram and your setup. you may have done these but they are a few I thought of. Check ATi Drivers background processes for occupancy of CPU time. Check for viruses with a scan, sometimes drain your CPU time. Check your Bios version for mobo for latest. Check your bios settings for AGP X2 X4 X8 is right. Check bios AGP Aperture is 256mb. Check system resources are ok. Check mouse pointer in control panel/mouse/ hardware/properties/adv settings is up to min 200 dpi. all the best..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daztrek Posted June 26, 2006 Author Share Posted June 26, 2006 (edited) Right guys for the reason of elimination iv gone the full way wiht this game. Fresh Install of windows xp pro. Latest drivers and updates on everythink. I made the point of installing nothink els other than whats needed. heres is my final view on this. The game visualy looks simply awfull in order to get the 50fps range in which to alow drop on fps. As said its a harsh game on recorces but without good reason IMHO. Countless times iv had comments from friends playing older games where they say to me what the hell happend to GRAW. It seems if you play it long enougth you start forgiving the poor visuals untill you see other games again. What it should be like is, My system spec should be playing the game looking better than BF2, Far cry, Fear but with loss of slight performance and the higher new gen PCs should be astounded in what they see, hear and play. Im sorry guys but 33fps which is average on what im getting is very poor for game play/visual/performance ratio based on older games. X2 cpu had only just came out when I upgraded upto a AMD san diego 3700+ which is the same core as the AMD FX cpu. My pc is water cooled and running as I speak above the FX57 which is 2.8gig. My gfx Card was a wise upgrade from my 9800XT as it over doubled its performance and plays every other game currently avalible with ease. My sytem is behind the next gen but not to the point of a worthless computer. Im sure like others that have simula spec as me feel the same. Money is money I paid ###### loads on my pc and shouldnt have to upgrade yet. Im playing this game and then thinking! hang on the visuals are effecting my gameplay, at times distant enimies cant be seen. I have a 19" pure flat CRT its ultra crisp and if a game has bad visuals it shows them. AA Full screen yes but not full Image. I wanted edge AA not a motion blur filter over my whole screen. Ok il stop here its becoming a rant, please excuse my fusteration. Edited June 26, 2006 by daztrek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viiiper Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Im sorry guys but 33fps which is average on what im getting is very poor for game OK take alook at this thread for FPS ans specs, I get on average 20-40 FPS ONLINE @ 1600x1900 windowed on 7900GTX SLI sys [fx60] it sounds like you are getting about right. FPS & RESOLUTION. http://www.ghostrecon.net/forums/index.php...4974&hl=fps GRAW Tweak Guides http://www.tweakguides.com/GRAW_8.html sorry to hear your having a bad FPS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CR6 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 What it should be like is, My system spec should be playing the game looking better than BF2, Far cry, Fear but with loss of slight performance and the higher new gen PCs should be astounded in what they see, hear and play. Like I said before, GRAW is a resource hog. I am playing it on a rig with a fresh install of WinXP too, and it is sometimes painful. That's why I'm still logging more time on BF2 ... The prob is not your machine, but GRAW's engine. The poor performance is a mixture of issues with the maturity of the engine, and certain decisions GRIN has made regarding what graphics features to implement that don't make the game as scalable as say, HL2 or BF2. Chances are your next rig in 1-2 years will run GRAW at frame rates you are expecting now. One funny thing I've noticed is that when I have FRAPS on, the FPS counter starts to "speed up" over the first 30 seconds. My framerate after the loading screen is like ~15, but after about half a minute, it goes up to 30-40 fps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonelo Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathDealer71 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 U think you got it bad, my little mid/low end system does barely just enough but yet I am happy and the game does fine for me. I am running: _______________________________ AMD Athlon XP 2800 (2.0ghz)(333fsb) OCZ Plat. Ram Low Timings (2gig's) Sapphire 9800 Pro 128ram Audigy 2 zs _______________________________ I was playing around with the video settings trying to get at least 30-40 fps for smooth play. Everytime I dropped, like textures from medium to low I noticed about 5 fps difference. Thats running at 1024x768(I will not go lower, ugly). The game runs great and looks good(yes it could be better). even with most stuff on low and couple things in medium I am happy. I know alot of people hate this game, but it's value is going up in my book, especially with the patches. __________________________________ Now coming in the mail less than 2 weeks: AMD Athlon XP 3200 Barton (2.2ghz)(400fsb) (Sapphire X800pro 256ram) ___________________________________ Hopefully when I get this I can bump some things up to mostly medium and still get 30-40 fps. Well i'm done... DD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathDealer71 Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Disabling EAX helped for me. Dunno why, but give it a try. I tested that very thing on my system last night and noticed a 1-2 fps difference. I would rather have the better sound. Now if you turn down your sound acceleration then maybe u can gain more frames. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daztrek Posted June 28, 2006 Author Share Posted June 28, 2006 (edited) DeathDealer71 thats great that you think the games is great more so on your system. My brother spec is like yours. Hes computer has done a very good job at most games and did not regret his upgrade from his 5950 to the 9800 pro. Hes playing a older game at the moment The Chronicles of Riddick the graphics look exelent, the game runs so smooth on his pc. The Chronicles of Riddick on my pc runs at 1600 x 1280 full AF full settings and runs better than GRAW even at 800 x 600. When your use to playing games with good visuals then put GRAW in that runs like a dog, he would rather not play it at all. Again everybody seems to have a different view on whats exceptable and what runs smooth. Put GR1 in and I feel like the sharp shooter I once was. The mouse is ultra fast responce. Look at UT2004 a 2 year old game, looks stunning runs like a dream. Im gona pass on this game athough iv perchased it, I dont think its worthy of a £300 pc upgrade when no other game needs this pc power to get exceptable visuals and performance. If all current games run crap on my pc then yes a upgrade is needed but that simply is not the case. jonelo some nice bench marks other than 3dmark tools what other ones are used? Edited June 28, 2006 by daztrek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CR6 Posted June 29, 2006 Share Posted June 29, 2006 My brother spec is like yours. Hes computer has done a very good job at most games and did not regret his upgrade from his 5950 to the 9800 pro. Hmm ... not sure if you should let your bro know that it wasn't really much of an "upgrade" since both those cards were pretty much equivalent same-gen refreshes (5950 a refresh of the 5900, 9800 Pro a refresh of the 9700 Pro). Benchmarks for both cards would likely be close. But in the end, as long as it runs the games you want to play at fps acceptable to you, it's all good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daztrek Posted June 30, 2006 Author Share Posted June 30, 2006 My brother spec is like yours. Hes computer has done a very good job at most games and did not regret his upgrade from his 5950 to the 9800 pro. Hmm ... not sure if you should let your bro know that it wasn't really much of an "upgrade" since both those cards were pretty much equivalent same-gen refreshes (5950 a refresh of the 5900, 9800 Pro a refresh of the 9700 Pro). Benchmarks for both cards would likely be close. But in the end, as long as it runs the games you want to play at fps acceptable to you, it's all good Me and my brother where shocked how much faster and visualy better my ATI 9800xt ran. Hes upgrade from 5900 to 9800 pro was a streight swap card for card. He payed £277 for that Nvidia 5900 and at the time he did that swap the 9800 pro was only £115. There is a real good difference between these cards in game play. That gen of nvidia cards was when nvidia cheated the 3dmark from which my bro made hes perchase on. He had nothink but graphical clitches on nearly every game. DX9 games ran crap as nvidia didnt make their drivers to use it correclty. It was my friend that has his 5900 he wanted the tv in and out and other features. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CR6 Posted July 1, 2006 Share Posted July 1, 2006 Hes upgrade from 5900 to 9800 pro was a streight swap card for card. He payed £277 for that Nvidia 5900 and at the time he did that swap the 9800 pro was only £115. I see. Yeah, there's a big difference between the vanilla 5900, 5900 SE/XT, or 5900 Ultra. Since you said 5950 (which only comes in Ultra version IIRC), I thought that would have actually spanked the 9800 Pro. I still have a 9800 Pro myself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.