Ultra Mode Performance on Nvidia 260 GTX
By
Back_Blast,
Posted on: 2010-05-12 18:49 in ALL ACCESS Gameplay Technical Issues Bugs
I have a GTX 285 and I must admit I've been less than impressed with game performance with everything turned up. I have read that FSAA and ambient occlusion don't work well together and I tried running it with anti-aliasing off but the jagged lines were irritating the hell out of me.
I obviously need to spend more time with it to find a balance I am happy with.
Quote:
Yah but for me, when I have Ambient Occlusion set to Super High Quality, going from 0x FSAA to 2x FSAA, or even 4x FSAA makes no difference in my FPS. It's really odd. The only thing that cuts my FPS in half is Ambient Occlusion.
Originally Posted by ricktu
I have a GTX 285 and I must admit I've been less than impressed with game performance with everything turned up. I have read that FSAA and ambient occlusion don't work well together and I tried running it with anti-aliasing off but the jagged lines were irritating the hell out of me.
I obviously need to spend more time with it to find a balance I am happy with.
Quote:
In my opinion, you shouldn't see much difference. The reason is this...|
Originally Posted by Bright Shadow
I recently bought an EVGA Nvidia 260 GTX card, and I have trouble noticing any difference between it and my old 9800 GTX
|
9800GTX:
675Mhz Core Clock
2.2 Ghz Memory Clock
EVGA Nvidia 260 GTX:
626Mhz Core Clock
2.1 Ghz Memory Clock
Of course, there are other specs and factors that will make the card slightly better, but I don't think it'd be very significant... as you have found out.
Personally, I'm still trying to rationalize upgrading from my 9600GT to the 260GTX. Like you said, it still doesn't get you full performance. I'd be paying $200 for what... 10fps? I'd rather keep a couple options turned down for now and wait for the 400 series to come down in price so I can at least get DDR5.
The other option was to get the ATI 5770 or higher.. but I can't rationalize that either. I don't want to pay $200 for a card just to turn features off because they don't work well together. The point in upgrading is to be able to turn everything on! lol
Quote:
These numbers are totally worthless for comparing graphics cards. The important numbers are:|
Originally Posted by Master-Blade
In my opinion, you shouldn't see much difference. The reason is this...
9800GTX: 675Mhz Core Clock 2.2 Ghz Memory Clock EVGA Nvidia 260 GTX: 626Mhz Core Clock 2.1 Ghz Memory Clock |
9800GTX:
Core config: 128:64:16
Fill rate: 10.8 gpix/sec, 43.2 gtex/sec
260 GTX:
Core config: 192:64:28
Fill rate: 16.1 gpix/sec, 36.9 gtex/sec
The 260 GTX has 50% more shader units, exactly as many texture units, and 75% more raster units. It's much better at pushing pixels onto the screen, but with the slightly lower clock speed, it's worse at computing complex textures for those pixels. Much of Ultra Mode is complex textures.
Quote:
Ah! That's useful info I didn't know about! Thanks!
Originally Posted by Katie V
These numbers are totally worthless for comparing graphics cards. The important numbers are:
9800GTX:
Core config: 128:64:16
Fill rate: 10.8 gpix/sec, 43.2 gtex/sec
260 GTX:
Core config: 192:64:28
Fill rate: 16.1 gpix/sec, 36.9 gtex/sec
The 260 GTX has 50% more shader units, exactly as many texture units, and 75% more raster units. It's much better at pushing pixels onto the screen, but with the slightly lower clock speed, it's worse at computing complex textures for those pixels. Much of Ultra Mode is complex textures.
So I'm guessing this is expected of this video card, then? Oh well. I was saving up to switch up to the 4-series when my 9800 GTX broke. So I had to spend my savings on this 260 GTX one instead. 
Quote:
Like I said, there are other specs and factors that will make the card slightly better, but as the OP found out, it's not very significant overall for CoX.|
Originally Posted by Katie V
The 260 GTX has 50% more shader units, exactly as many texture units, and 75% more raster units.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Katie V
It's much better at pushing pixels onto the screen, but with the slightly lower clock speed, it's worse at computing complex textures for those pixels. Much of Ultra Mode is complex textures.
|
As mentioned before, ATI's line blows away NVidia for the same cost range these days, but there are side effects of some options not working well together that some people don't want to have to deal with. To me, that makes upgrading from even the lower 9600gt not worth it at this time either. I'm not saying there wouldn't be any difference at all, but not as much you'd expect for a $200 upgrade from a 2 year old card.
Quote:
Yah. I wouldn't have made an upgrade if my 9800 didn't break. It made me a really sad panda! But I was expecting a little more from 260...
Originally Posted by Master-Blade
Like I said, there are other specs and factors that will make the card slightly better, but as the OP found out, it's not very significant overall for CoX.
Which is pretty much the reason I included the specs that I did. Why are they worthless if you used the same comparison I did for your closing statement? lol
As mentioned before, ATI's line blows away NVidia for the same cost range these days, but there are side effects of some options not working well together that some people don't want to have to deal with. To me, that makes upgrading from even the lower 9600gt not worth it at this time either. I'm not saying there wouldn't be any difference at all, but not as much you'd expect for a $200 upgrade from a 2 year old card.
Quote:
I'm getting the exact same response, hero- or villain-side. It will drop to 30fps and no adjustment of the sliders will improve that except turning off AO, which pops it up to 60fps again.|
Originally Posted by Bright Shadow
I recently bought an EVGA Nvidia 260 GTX card, and I have trouble noticing any difference between it and my old 9800 GTX that broke a while ago.
My computer specs are: Windows 7 64-bit Intel Core 2 Quad @ 2.5 GHz 8.00 GB RAM EVGA Nvidia 260 GTX I can get 60 FPS (I like my Vertical Sync on, so 60 FPS is the ceiling) with all Ultra Mode features turned to max, except Ambient Occlusion. The moment I turn on Ambient Occlusion, my FPS drops to around 30. I can raise the slider for Ambient Occlusion all the way to Super High Quality (Strong, Quality, Trilinear advanced settings respectively), and I'd still stay at around 30 FPS. If I nudge it to Ultra Quality (or just turn on Strong With Color Bleeding under advanced settings), my FPS drops to around 15. |
Running almost same set up:
Windows 7 64-bit
Intel Core i5 750 @ 2.67 GHz
8.00 GB RAM
EVGA E-GEFORCE GTX 260 Core 216 SC 55NM 626MHZ 896MB 2.1GHZ DDR3
I just turn off Ambient Occlusion and run at 60 fps. Hope some future game tweaking will increase the performance of AO someday.
--------------
"Chew Electric Death, Snarling Cur!"
Quote:
You're not following my reasoning. Only if all else is equal is a comparison of clock speeds a useful way to compare cards. In this case, the "else" is the number of texture units, and it is equal.|
Originally Posted by Master-Blade
Like I said, there are other specs and factors that will make the card slightly better, but as the OP found out, it's not very significant overall for CoX.
|
Following your reasoning (clock rate is the main factor, everything else is minor) leads to the conclusion that a GTX 295 (core clock 576MHz, memory clock 1998MHz) is slower than a GTS 240 (core clock 675MHz, memory clock 2200MHz). A comparison of number of functional units or a comparison of fill rates says that the GTX 295 is at about four times faster.
Quote:
Like you said, if the "else" is equal, and I resorted to comparing clock speeds instead, how was it wrong? I don't understand why you keep telling me I'm wrong by saying I'm right. That doesn't really work. lol|
Originally Posted by Katie V
You're not following my reasoning. Only if all else is equal is a comparison of clock speeds a useful way to compare cards. In this case, the "else" is the number of texture units, and it is equal.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Katie V
Following your reasoning (clock rate is the main factor, everything else is minor) leads to the conclusion that a GTX 295 (core clock 576MHz, memory clock 1998MHz) is slower than a GTS 240 (core clock 675MHz, memory clock 2200MHz). A comparison of number of functional units or a comparison of fill rates says that the GTX 295 is at about four times faster.
|
Fact of the matter is there isn't any significant spec increases.. which is why the OP doesn't notice any major performance increases. That's all there is to it.
Is the 260 better overall? Yes. I never said it wasn't. I even admitted from the beginning there were other specs involved that make it the better card... but overall the differences are minor, so don't expect a huge improvement over the 9800. I don't get your argument here. You keep saying the same thing I did to begin with.
Quote:
In your post, you didn't mention that the "else" was equal, you simply compared clock speeds. Most people are unaware that that clock speeds aren't the only thing determining performance, and from the content of your post, it looked like you had made the same mistake.
|
Originally Posted by Master-Blade
Like you said, if the "else" is equal, and I resorted to comparing clock speeds instead, how was it wrong? I don't understand why you keep telling me I'm wrong by saying I'm right. That doesn't really work. lol
|
Odd I have 220 GT and it runs just fine with every slider maxed out... still I saw no real reason to have the shadows that high...
Quote:
I didn't just compare clock speeds. You are right, I didn't say the "else" were equal, but I went on to say the other specs were slightly better but insignificant in this case. |
Originally Posted by Katie V
In your post, you didn't mention that the "else" was equal, you simply compared clock speeds.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Katie V
Most people are unaware that that clock speeds aren't the only thing determining performance, and from the content of your post, it looked like you had made the same mistake.
|
Could I have included an entire spec-by-spec comparison? Sure.
Is it wrong because I didn't? No.
Does it matter? No.
How about we just agree to agree?
Quote:
Define "just fine". I've got a 6600 GT that runs "just fine" with maxed-out settings, if you don't mind running 2.5 fps at 1024x768.
|
Originally Posted by Mattwo7
Odd I have 220 GT and it runs just fine with every slider maxed out... still I saw no real reason to have the shadows that high...
|
and speaking of sad panda's...
I went from a gtx275 to a gtx480: with no real change in FPS.
I use Mercy as my "testing ground", at the edge of the 'base' in front of
the VG portal looking over the street.
I average 16 FPS.
The FPS will rise and fall as I spin my POV through a 360, maxing at close to 60 as I look towards Kalinda (mostly open sky).
Flying to the Clock tower, I get the same up and down FPS, usually settling in at about the mid 20's.
The main offender for me seems to be Shadow Maps.
I also run with AO and DoF off (DoF is a visual preferance, I hate the 'soft focus').
I've poured over the boards, and tried all sorts of settings (in game and in the nVidia Control Panel).
The only thing that gets me to a consistent 60 FPS is running with Shadows Stenciled.
After much tweaking, I've gotten it to settle in at around 30FPS, moving across the majority of the Zones, redside.
Blueside runs a few frames higher in most zones.
Some COHHelper bits:
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.100226-1909)
Central Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 960 @ 3.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 9216MB
Video Device Name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480
Manufacturer / Chip: NVIDIA / GeForce GTX 480
Video Memory: 4063 MB
Driver Version: 8.17.11.9775
Driver Date: 4/28/2010 5:11:09 PM
Just throwing it out there.
I guess I expected to get the big 'oh wow' with the rig and the 480.
But I've pretty much resolved to live with my "near 30" performance... mostly.
-
Fidei Defensor, Servants of the Empress
@Efram Trafford -Triumph @TestPanda - Test
... don't let the reg date fool you. I fought the Soldiers of Rularruu in Atlas Park.
Quote:
Hrm. This is interesting. I'm wondering there is some sort of inefficiency with the way they've implement Ambient Occlusion. Have you tried keep Shadows high and raising up Ambient Occlusion? Does it yield the same results as mine?
Originally Posted by VoxPanda
and speaking of sad panda's...
I went from a gtx275 to a gtx480: with no real change in FPS.
I use Mercy as my "testing ground", at the edge of the 'base' in front of
the VG portal looking over the street.
I average 16 FPS.
The FPS will rise and fall as I spin my POV through a 360, maxing at close to 60 as I look towards Kalinda (mostly open sky).
Flying to the Clock tower, I get the same up and down FPS, usually settling in at about the mid 20's.
The main offender for me seems to be Shadow Maps.
I also run with AO and DoF off (DoF is a visual preferance, I hate the 'soft focus').
I've poured over the boards, and tried all sorts of settings (in game and in the nVidia Control Panel).
The only thing that gets me to a consistent 60 FPS is running with Shadows Stenciled.
After much tweaking, I've gotten it to settle in at around 30FPS, moving across the majority of the Zones, redside.
Blueside runs a few frames higher in most zones.
Some COHHelper bits:
Operating System: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.100226-1909)
Central Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 960 @ 3.20GHz (8 CPUs), ~3.2GHz
Memory: 9216MB
Video Device Name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480
Manufacturer / Chip: NVIDIA / GeForce GTX 480
Video Memory: 4063 MB
Driver Version: 8.17.11.9775
Driver Date: 4/28/2010 5:11:09 PM
Just throwing it out there.
I guess I expected to get the big 'oh wow' with the rig and the 480.
But I've pretty much resolved to live with my "near 30" performance... mostly.
-
Quote:
I was looking at doing exactly the above, and after research decided it wasn't going to be a significant improvement. Consider: |
Originally Posted by VoxPanda
and speaking of sad panda's...
I went from a gtx275 to a gtx480: with no real change in FPS. |
Code:
| 275 | 480 | % change
-----------|------|------|---------
GPixel/sec | 17.7 | 33.6 | +90%
GTexel/sec | 50.6 | 42.0 | -17%
GFLOP/sec | 1011 | 1345 | +33%
Fermi, as we have it now, is a pale reflection of what it was supposed to be; the best available configuration in reality is the crippled-clock, disabled-shaders version that should have been the discount bottom if things had worked as designed. It remains to be seen whether that can eventually be fixed or not.
Note that going ATI isn't an easy fix, either; to get one that is at least equivalent on all the above stats requires going with at least a 5850 (~$300 - $390 just to about stay the same), and it looks like you'd need to go up to a 5870 (~$400 - $520) to see noticeable improvement across the board.
Considering that I paid $220 for my GTX 275, the price/performance of the current crop of cards is terrible.
Miuramir, Windchime, Sariel the Golden, Scarlet Antinomist...
Casino Extortion #4031: Neutral, Council+Custom [SFMA/MLMA/SLMA/FHMA/CFMA]
Bad Candy #87938: Neutral, Custom [SFMA/MLMA/SLMA/FHMA/HFMA]
CoH Helper * HijackThis
Quote:
Considering how well the cards do outside of CoH, I'm gonna have to say that the problem is with CoH's engine. Specifically where it's rendering a ton of non-visible geometry and shadow maps.
|
Originally Posted by Miuramir
Considering that I paid $220 for my GTX 275, the price/performance of the current crop of cards is terrible.
|
Branching Paragon Police Department Epic Archetype, please!
Quote:
Yah. Even my 260 GTX performs incredibly well on almost every other game that I got and was released recently.
Originally Posted by Cynical_Gamer
Considering how well the cards do outside of CoH, I'm gonna have to say that the problem is with CoH's engine. Specifically where it's rendering a ton of non-visible geometry and shadow maps.
I'm thinking maybe they will enhance Ultra Mode algorithms later on. I dunno. I hope they do!
Quote:
Well speaking as the owner of a 5850, I'll say that the game runs beautifully for me. The only hiccup I have is the FSAA/AO conflict and I'm confident that it will be resolved in due time. So I have no hesitancy in recommending a 5850 to anyone in the market for such a card.
|
Originally Posted by Miuramir
I was looking at doing exactly the above, and after research decided it wasn't going to be a significant improvement. Consider:
Code:
| 275 | 480 | % change
-----------|------|------|---------
GPixel/sec | 17.7 | 33.6 | +90%
GTexel/sec | 50.6 | 42.0 | -17%
GFLOP/sec | 1011 | 1345 | +33%
Fermi, as we have it now, is a pale reflection of what it was supposed to be; the best available configuration in reality is the crippled-clock, disabled-shaders version that should have been the discount bottom if things had worked as designed. It remains to be seen whether that can eventually be fixed or not. Note that going ATI isn't an easy fix, either; to get one that is at least equivalent on all the above stats requires going with at least a 5850 (~$300 - $390 just to about stay the same), and it looks like you'd need to go up to a 5870 (~$400 - $520) to see noticeable improvement across the board. Considering that I paid $220 for my GTX 275, the price/performance of the current crop of cards is terrible. |
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
Miuramir: I'm running an HP L224wg (22in lcd) @1680x1050 (full screen).
Bright Shadow: I'll have to go back and revisit those settings. I know I pushed and pulled on a lot of sliders trying to break 30...
I do hope there is something in the games engine that can be 'optimized' with a patch some how, some time.
CoX is the only game I really play, and I've stuck with it through good and bad... and as far as I'm concerned, its still the best thing going.... I just wanna get back up to 60FPS!
Fidei Defensor, Servants of the Empress
@Efram Trafford -Triumph @TestPanda - Test
... don't let the reg date fool you. I fought the Soldiers of Rularruu in Atlas Park.
Quote:
The thing is that we don't know what you mean by beautifully.
|
Originally Posted by Back_Blast
Well speaking as the owner of a 5850, I'll say that the game runs beautifully for me. The only hiccup I have is the FSAA/AO conflict and I'm confident that it will be resolved in due time. So I have no hesitancy in recommending a 5850 to anyone in the market for such a card.
|
Branching Paragon Police Department Epic Archetype, please!
Quote:
Out of curiosity, how many of those games use OpenGL?|
Originally Posted by Bright Shadow
Yah. Even my 260 GTX performs incredibly well on almost every other game that I got and was released recently. |
To carry it even further, although it's mostly a joke, how many of those games use the Cryptic engine?
Heck, that companies two newest releases don't even run on the engine this game uses.
If the game spit out 20 dollar bills people would complain that they weren't sequentially numbered. If they were sequentially numbered people would complain that they weren't random enough.
Black Pebble is my new hero.
That really just highlights how poorly optimized the Cryptic engine is. It seems like the old Redside performance issues that never got fixed (but went away due to people upgrading their hardware) have reared their ugly heads again due to the increased graphical load.
Branching Paragon Police Department Epic Archetype, please!
I recently bought an EVGA Nvidia 260 GTX card, and I have trouble noticing any difference between it and my old 9800 GTX that broke a while ago.
My computer specs are:
Windows 7 64-bit
Intel Core 2 Quad @ 2.5 GHz
8.00 GB RAM
EVGA Nvidia 260 GTX
I can get 60 FPS (I like my Vertical Sync on, so 60 FPS is the ceiling) with all Ultra Mode features turned to max, except Ambient Occlusion. The moment I turn on Ambient Occlusion, my FPS drops to around 30. I can raise the slider for Ambient Occlusion all the way to Super High Quality (Strong, Quality, Trilinear advanced settings respectively), and I'd still stay at around 30 FPS. If I nudge it to Ultra Quality (or just turn on Strong With Color Bleeding under advanced settings), my FPS drops to around 15.
I'm just wondering if others with similar system specs are noticing the same performance? Is this expected behavior, or is something wrong?
Note: I just recently formatted my hard drives and re-installed windows, and still got same results. So I don't think it's a software-related issue. I also have the latest Nvidia drivers.