NoOne on 5/12/2003 at 08:37
low-end framerates then :P
duron 750
384mb sdram
geforce 3
playing it at 640x480 lighting, shadows and the third thing there are all on high, 1x sampling, no bloom. actually, i can't see enough fps difference (maybe 2-3, not enough for not seeing really cool shadows and stuff like that) at that resolution to pull stuff on low...
runs pretty much 10-15fps, rarely more (in very closed areas) and rarely less (helicopter pad in seattle comes to mind).
-Londiste
...i'll never grow up!
Matthew on 5/12/2003 at 15:36
Quote:
Originally posted by heywood The GeForce 3 and 4 cards are older and slower (generally) than the GeForce FX cards, so I'd be pretty surprised if they beat the FX cards on DX2
True, but the FX has no native support for 24-bit shaders, just 32- and (I think, help me someone) 16-bit. If the game uses 24-bit shaders, the scaling back causes slowdown (hence FXs getting nerfed in the HL2 tests). Might this be a factor?
heywood on 6/12/2003 at 02:18
An update in case anybody still cares:
I enabled fast writes, but I had to go to the registry to do it. The button in the ATI SmartGART tab of the display settings dialog appears to be non-functional for me. Enabling it in the dialog would not change the setting in the registry, and when I opened & closed the dialog, the button would be set back to disabled. But after changing the setting in the registry and rebooting, I did see an small increase in frame rate. Only a few FPS, but just enough to make it possible for me to use 800x600 in some areas of the game.
I checked the AGP aperture size and it was set to 64 MB, which is half of my video card's RAM. I did try increasing it to 128 MB, but that made the game unstable and didn't improve my frame rate at all. YMMV.
But throughout the different cards, tweaks, and settings I've tried, I have consistently seen better frame rates in the demo. So I would still tell potential buyers to plan on playing the game at one resolution setting lower than the demo.
Scots Taffer on 6/12/2003 at 02:24
My friend reports that the framerate is as lousy or more lousy than his demo framerates - this friend however is a geek master and values high FPS more than fibre in his diet, so I'm not sure what "lousy" qualifies as ... besides, I will see it and have a try for myself tomorrow (oh wate fuck I can't I only have a borrowed GF2 atm). :D
TheMuffinMan on 6/12/2003 at 02:32
Quote:
Originally posted by Epos Nix I have to assume the game is optimized for Geforce 3 & 4 type video cards, considering that's essentially what the XBox is using. It seems people with Geforce FX or Radeon cards are the ones having problems, probably due to differences in the way shaders are handled on those cards compared to the Geforce 3 & 4's.
Personally I'm having no problem at all. I can run the game with all options (except bloom, which runs fine but looks like someone took a wet sponge to the screen), on my Radeon 9600 pro @ 1024x768. Incidently, Halo also runs great and I'm thinking the same fix I used to get that game working better -- setting AGP Aperture size to half my vid card's RAM -- might also have done good for Deus Ex 2. I also noticed that my BIOS had Fast Writes off by default, and turning that on helped somewhat.
There might be a way to force it to use a DX8 codepath if that's the case. Personally, I find the performance to be fairly lackluster on my system.
Celeron 1.3/512MB RAM/Radeon 9600 AiW
Had to back it down to 1.3 from 1.5 when I installed the Radeon, likely because of some digital indigestion of the AGP clock's end. We'll see how it all goes with the new HSF if I can get it to 1.7 (full 133 FSB). Considering I bought the card for this damn game, it better perform well. I just hope Thief 3 doesn't have the same troubles.
ESpark on 6/12/2003 at 02:40
Win98
512 meg of ram
Geforce4 ti 4200 128b
1024x768
Full detail
No slowdown. Period.
:)
Liliel on 6/12/2003 at 06:57
AthlonXP 2400+, GeForceFX5900U, 512M RAM, the game runs at about 20fps at 1024*768 with no FSAA or AF.:rolleyes:
