F.E.A.R Performance ?

I don't think so. Performance actually might drop a bit. Leave the GTS alone for now and upgrade ur processor later when u can.

Got my performance specs with my 7950 like you said JimShady.

Minimum: 32
Average: 60
Maximum: 133

0% below 25FPS
21% between 25-40FPS
79% above 40FPS

Thats all max settings 4xAA 8xAF at 1280x960.

Cool

Not bad not bad.

Id like to think that if I dropped your 7950 in my my computer, having double the RAM, RAID 0 (not sure if you do) and a few more mhz on the CPU (my dual core dont matter cause fear only uses one core) I may be a able to pull 5-10 more FPS out of her ?

Bringing your 7950 to 65-70 average FPS.

Thats still leaving my 8800 with a 19-24 FPS lead over the 7950.

But I do have mine set to a higher res and 16x AA

Well I really dont know if this prooves anything but it does show that the 8800GTX can be used with positive results on a non E6600 system. Will it get as high of a FPS, hell no, but it still aint to shabby.

I think in my case a pair of 7950's in SLI would have been a better choice and cheaper then the 8800GTX but like I said I did have the money and I do plan on upgrading to atleast a E6600 by spring. And DX10 compatable helped in my choice also.

BUT PLEASE KEEP THE TEST RESULTS FLOWING IN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for posting yours metalX

Np man, I just wanna show off my new system performance cuz I've never had anything this good before.

LoL

Thought you just has a Core 2 Duo System that you sold ?

Anyways.....


You might get a few FPS better yourself if you got rid of the ancient 40 gb IDE

a friend of mine with two 7900GTX's ran F.E.A.R. at it's maximum graphics settings, 1600X1200 resolution. he got an average of 78fps. beats the hell out my 6600GT, but he spent about 6 times as much on his system as i did mine.

Here's mine.

1600x1200x32
All settings set to MAXIMUM

Asus 7950GT 512Mb (single)
E6600
2x1Gb XMS2
Nothing overclocked (yet)

Ran it again at 1224x768x32 just to see...

My Core 2 system had a worse videocard, and actually was worse for gaming than this one
Jim, do you want me to redo the test, I overclocked my CPU to 2.4GHz stable and I upped to 2GB Dual Channel... it was 1GB Single Channel before...

EDIT: I posted the re-run of the test anyway, and for some reason I got almost the same as you did at 1224x768 (or is it 1024x768) DonNagual, even though your system owns mine and I ran it as 1280x960... BTW this is with an Athlon 64 3200+ @2.4GHz, 2GB Dual Channel DDR400, 7950GT, and with MAXIMUM for all settings.



But why the hell can my system beat a Core 2?

Oh, I just realized that my above test was run at 1024x768 not 1280x960. It was all Maximum, @ 1024x768 4xTRSSAA 16xAF... but thats still alarmingly close to the DonNagual's system...

I'm not too surprised. We have the same graphics card, the same amount of ram, but I have a better CPU. My scores will be a little better than yours, but not a HUGE amount. GPU is the same. My load times between maps would be faster is all.

Yes, but it's not like you have a better CPU, your CPU kicks mine in the *** and then kicks it again in the face. And somehow I got the same average as you... when a 3200+ gets 132 FPS with a given hardware setup in Doom 3, and a Core 2 gets 190 in that same hardware setup... I just thought that was wierd that we got the same average. I thought I'd get at least 10 less than you.

Well, Doom is a much more CPU dependant game compared to F.E.A.R., so I'd expect to get much better results in that game compared to your system.

You probably did, as you ran the test at 1024x768 and I ran it at 1224x768 Another possibility is that test was run with F.E.A.R. version 1.2 (I am downloading 1.7 patch now to see if there is any difference).

Alright

i need to adjust my system according to your resolutions and quality then.

I had my card set to play at 1680x1250 with 16xAA and 16xAF (note: you can not set the AA past 4x in the game, however you can set it to this in your nVIDIA control panal. If you set it to 16xAA in the control panal and tell it to not be application controlled, it will run your card at 16xAA.

But for fun I will run it at exactly what all you guys have done, 4xAA at 1024x768 and 1240x768

I will edit the results to this post.


Update,


Took the 16xAA down to 4x and the FPS didnt go up as much as I thought.

92 average FPS at 1220x768

95 average FPS at 1024x768

The higher you take the resolution, the more dependent it is on GPU ,, not cpu,,

If you run very low resolutions, then thats where a faster cpu ,, might get a bit higher numbers ,

He didn't say anything about the CPU, and maybe you didn't realize he has an 8800GTX... so it owns all of our videocards.

And tweakboy, your signature violates TS forum rules... free music downloads are not endorsed by TS.

F.E.A.R Performance

Here is my F.E.A.R Stats

Everything is at maximum, Resolution 1680x1050

Minimum: 98
Average: 147
Maximum: 231


My rig

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2750mhz
Corsair Dominator EPP 2x1024 CL3 @ 920mhz
WD Raptor X 10000RPM 16Mb Cache
XFX GeForce 8800GTX XXX (Overclocked by XFX and only card that is certified by Nvidia to do so )
Asus Striker Extreme
Thermal Take Toughpower 750W PSU
X-Fi Xtreme Music
Logitech G-15
MS/Razer Habu
Mirai 22" LCD
ThermalTake Kandalf LCS (its not in stock anywhere but its coming, im using Chieftec BD now)
Stock aircooling on CPU, RAM and GPU
Going to OC more when my LCS comes and the waterblock for GPU has arriwed =)

Total cost for the rig is about 6500 USD (im from sweden and 1 USD = 6.5 SEK)

higrip, that is INSANE! Very nice system you have there! Nice to see that even at high resolutions the 8800 card does that well.