Far Cry and Nvidia
- Thread starter Amsterdam
- Start date
dan666
New member
This is a rather nice quote from hardocp I found
In FarCry there is no room for doubt here, the ABIT 9800XT performs and looks far better. The ABIT 9800XT is clearly using Pixel Shader 2.0 by default and the GeForceFX 5950Ultra is clearly not. This difference alone makes the image quality different between both cards. Plain and simple the ABIT 9800XT is producing better image quality with higher performance in this demo.
Now tell me your going to sell your Radeon.
In FarCry there is no room for doubt here, the ABIT 9800XT performs and looks far better. The ABIT 9800XT is clearly using Pixel Shader 2.0 by default and the GeForceFX 5950Ultra is clearly not. This difference alone makes the image quality different between both cards. Plain and simple the ABIT 9800XT is producing better image quality with higher performance in this demo.
Now tell me your going to sell your Radeon.
treefingers1
New member
Re: Far Cry and Nvidia
This is the problem with the whole TWIMTBP promotion - it is blatant lying. Go to any website that has tested the Far Cry Demo and they have come to the same conclusion: The Radeon graphics cards are the ONLY cards to use when a game has Pixel Shader 2.0 in it. My 9700np does a better job with Far Cry than a Geforce 5950, and my card is a year old and $200 cheaper!
Amsterdam said:
This is the problem with the whole TWIMTBP promotion - it is blatant lying. Go to any website that has tested the Far Cry Demo and they have come to the same conclusion: The Radeon graphics cards are the ONLY cards to use when a game has Pixel Shader 2.0 in it. My 9700np does a better job with Far Cry than a Geforce 5950, and my card is a year old and $200 cheaper!
treefingers1
New member
Gamefreak said:
If you were talking to me, I am afraid that I have been completely misunderstood. I'm not saying there are no problems with ATI cards, I am saying that if you want to see the game the way the designers intended (i.e. The Way It's Meant To Be Played), then you need a card that doesn't suck bucketloads of crap when it comes to PS 2.0 performance. Therefore, you will need a Radeon9500 and up. The problem with NVidia cards is that they do not allow you to see the game with all of the graphical features because it would run slow as ****. In order to avoid having the game slow to a complete crawl fps-wise, they default to PS 1.1. Check the comparison screenshots, it will blow your mind.
treefingers1 said:
Let's hope that when the retail game is out.
"Everything works fine with ATI card and drivers"
http://www.ati.com/support/infobase/4465.html
Now, ATI may look better on few and far between instances/places with P.S. 2.0. But, if there are consistent problems elsewhere, it is definitely the best gaming experience or the way it's meant to be played ^^
treefingers1
New member
Dyearout said:
PS 2.0 has a hell of a lot more to do with Far Cry than Water Reflections. Use the Flashlight on the pipes in tunnels or look at the boat to see how the sunlight reflects off of it to have a good indication of what PS 2.0 is all about. There is no way in hell that you turned on PS 2.0 with your Geforce and the image quality and performance were equal to a 9800. If that was the case, why would the game go through the whole charade of replacing the PS2.0 shaders to PS1.1 the second it detects an NVidia card?
ArChAnGeLV7
New member
I agree, I have a 9800 Pro and a 5900 nu, not only does the 5900 resort to using 1.1/1.4ps, it runs it VERY SLOWLY. Which I cant understand....the 9800 Pro is running ps2.0, which is far more demanding, and even with the flashlight on at all times and 6 guys in front of me, I never drop below 30 fps (thanks to the new 4.3 cats) Whereas with the 5900, Im barely at 30 fps at all times...sometimes as low as 19 fps....and like I said, their using much LESS demanding ps1.1/1.4, and they cant even pull that off...pathetic....this is the way it's meant to be played, if you like your games to run like slideshows, and eye candy turned all the way down, I guess. 
Athena
New member
Runs great and looks good on my 5900. Maybe your CPU is too slow on your Nvidia based box vs that 64bit monster. No dought ir would run better on my PC w/ a 9800 but I do not have one. But that does not change the fact is looks and plays good on my setup now. So I will just play the game and have fun. Maybe when I save enough to get a 9800XT, shortly after the 420's ship) I will realise what I was missing. 
Dyearout
New member
treefingers1 said:
Ok no one said "equal to" sorry if I made it sound like that. Once I got in with the flash light and played around well you are right, it did slow down but not to a crawl. I think your gona see a hugh improvment with the final. I was not trying to say NV is = to ATI it's not at all.
I was just saying I did think my NV would slow to a crawl when I hacked farcry and turned on Reflections for everthing but it did not.
Janes Addiction
New member
Our TI 4600 runs it ok, nothing spectacular tho.
I think what people are trying to say is that the 9600XT will be about as fast if not faster than the 5900 or 5950 in pixel shader 2.0 games. This is shown in Half Life 2 and Far Cry. Oh and don't bring up Doom 3 because nVidia payed off Id software early on in development to make the game in Cg.
