Arx performance on your machine

twisty on 20/5/2002 at 02:18

I thought that it might be interesting to see how this game performs on different systems. I'm presuming that fogging is left on its default value.

PIII 1 Ghz
384 MB SD-RAM
GeForce 3 Ti200 Deluxe
Barracuda HDD 7200 RPM
Asus CUSL2-C m/b

I play at 1024*768. It plays fairly well, though it becomes quite jerky during combat.

Tels on 20/5/2002 at 08:44

1 Ghz Athlon Thunderbird
384 MB SDRAM
Geforce 2 MX 440

1024x768 - it's hard to tell how fast it really is without an FPS counter, but it felt quite slugish at the waterfall and in combat.

Le Magot d'Oz on 21/5/2002 at 12:10

:tsktsk: I do not think a poll of that sort might be interesting about the actual demo as they are supposed to have perform a lot of optimisation...

anyway it's very smooth on my computer :
XP1800+
512 Mo (it seems Arx needs Ram a lot !)
GF 256 DDR

xman on 21/5/2002 at 17:20

I voted "quite well" but on second thought, I was maybe a bit too optimistic...
But "very poorly" is too much... I'd just say "poorly".
Anyway it's perfectly playable. It's not a problem to explore the game with something like 10 fps (just an estimation as there is no way to display the frame rate... I should try "Fraps" if I find where I stored it). But, during fights (especially against the gob lord) it's a bit tough!

My poor outdated config is : PIII650@728 MHz, GeForce 256 DDR, 512MB.

Anyway, I don't blame Arx for being slow. I think that most of the highly-detailed recent games will run more and more slowly on my PC... Maybe the time has come to change my video card (Mmmh! GeForce4 Ti... Or Parhelia-512???) and maybe also my processor (which implies changing my motherboard and my RAM... D'oh!!!)

Mr. K. on 4/6/2002 at 22:55

I get like 30 FPS with all options on @800x600, but these 30 fps look quite choppy to me, but it's playable.

:thumb: Athlon XP 1800
:thumb: Win XP
:thumb: Soundblaster Audigy
:mad: Geforce2MX with 28.30 detonator drivers (the card is killing the performance, i'll get a :D GF4 Ti4200 soon, though. Wanna play Morrowind, UT2003 and NWN smoothly)
:thumb: 256 MB DDR ram

xman on 5/6/2002 at 15:41

As I said in an above post, I was planning to buy a new video card.
It's done! I've bought a GeForce4 Ti 4400 (and installed the latest WHQL detonators).
So one of the 1st games I tried was of course Arx.
And my conclusion is: a pentiumIII @ 728 MHz is NOT ENOUGH! :(
I've got 512MB RAM so the problem is really my processor now...

The change from my old GeForce 256 DDR to my new GeForce4 Ti 4400 is almost imperceptible in Arx while the improvements are obvious in other games (note: my 3Dmark2001se score jumped from 2500 to 6000)

Zerker on 5/6/2002 at 17:14

Xman, not enough if you like your games at 60 fps... my 700 mhz Athlon with ATI Radeon seems to run it great, aside from around the fort where it slows considerably... *shrugs*

Oh yeah, complete stats:
700 Mhz "Old-Style" Athlon
512 megs of Ram (PC 133)
ATI Radeon 64 Meg DDR VIVO, un-numbered
Win 98SE
Soundblaster Live Value (old one)

And it runs great everywhere but the fort, no noticable slowdown in combat

xman on 5/6/2002 at 18:47

Yes you are right. I was mainly speaking about the fort.
But that was where it slowed down with my GF 256 DDR too.
Anyway, I guess there are many parts in the game that are like the fort (probably every cities). And you'll probably spend quite a long time in cities.
Nevertheless, be assured that nothing will prevent me from buying and enjoying the game. :)

Tels on 5/6/2002 at 20:52

Quote:

As I said in an above post, I was planning to buy a new video card.
It's done! I've bought a GeForce4 Ti 4400 (and installed the latest WHQL detonators).
So one of the 1st games I tried was of course Arx.
And my conclusion is: a pentiumIII @ 728 MHz is NOT ENOUGH!
I've got 512MB RAM so the problem is really my processor now...

The change from my old GeForce 256 DDR to my new GeForce4 Ti 4400 is almost imperceptible in Arx while the improvements are obvious in other games (note: my 3Dmark2001se score jumped from 2500 to 6000)

Yes, you need at least 1Ghz to drive that card properly (your CPU is now the bottle-neck).

The change in the 3dMark is good, but it would be higher if you had more Mhz at the CPU.

Oh, and the card you bought is overprized and not worth it, a TI4200 or even a GF3 TI 200/ or GF3 TI500 would have been much better suited to your system, and much cheaper. For the money safed, you could have bought an AMD 1.4Ghz plus board, probably ;)

See:
(http://www.tomshardware.http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/02q2/020418/vgacharts-05.html)

Maybe you can still give the card back!

HTH,

Tels

xman on 6/6/2002 at 23:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Tels
Oh, and the card you bought is overprized and not worth it, a TI4200 or even a GF3 TI 200/ or GF3 TI500 would have been much better suited to your system, and much cheaper.

I paid 325 Euros for it (shipping included and thanks to a reduction coupon), which is quite low considering that it's more than 350 Euros everywhere else.
And of course, it's the box version of the Leadtek A250TD, which is the most overclockable.
For the moment it runs perfectly at 300MHz (core) and 600 MHz (RAM) and I have not tried higher frequencies yet but it's supposed to be able to get close to a Ti4600.