51 réponses à ce sujet

[mjordan79]

Let's face it. The graphic is nice (somewhat), but there's not anything in the world that could justify such heaviness.
It is simply too heavy for what it offers. I mean, I have a PC that can run Crysis at 70+ frames per second at 1920x1200 (Intel Core i7 2600 @4.2Ghz, Geforce GTX 580, 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz), still the game runs sloppy with the highest settings. Ok, there are some problems with current nVidia drivers, but even when the bug will be definitely solved in a stable release, the game will have low framerates for what it really offers, visually speaking.
"The highest settings are demanding", they say. Ok, but think about the fact you have serious performance problems on your engine. I think tessellation is really badly implemented in this game, considering how much differences there are between DirectX9 / 11 versions. Don't tell me I have to use SLI to play at the highest settings with a single headed configuration because it's out of the world. A DirectX 9 game like Crysis 2 teaches how to be very "high end" in terms of graphics, still being "modestly demanding" with hardware prerequisites.

I'm not writing this to bash anyone, be clear. I just want to try to be constructive. For me, Dragon Age 2 has no reason to be heavy like that.
For reference:
http://www.winmatrix...post__p__287555



A modest 39 frames at 1920x1200 with a GTX 580 card! Come on... Let's go back to the world.
Worth to mention that at this resolution, a GTX 580 produces ONLY 10 frames more than a GTX 470 ...
This game has some scalability problems, don't you think?

Modifié par mjordan79, 24 mars 2011 - 03:15 .

[Lacan82]

Bioware's min requirements are nothing compared to FFXIV

Bioware's 7900 GS, FFXIV 9800 GTX

[mjordan79]

Lacan82 wrote...

Bioware's min requirements are nothing compared to FFXIV

Bioware's 7900 GS, FFXIV 9800 GTX

LOL, now that is a game I would definitely consider "poorly designed".

[Notick]

Well, in honesty, most games are designed to play around 30 frames per second. People who truly worry about a high FPS are First Person Shooter's (like Rage's reported 60fps).

Also, DirectX controls a lot of different aspects of how fast a card can process information, as they handle the code processing. DX11 is a demanding code base, as well as high-res textures were presumably used in their 'very high' test. Not many games utilize High Resolution textures. That's why there's almost two times more FPS in the 'High' settings, as it doesn't utilize any High-Res textures.

Look at the file size of a 5 megapixel picture vs an 18 megapixel picture. You'll be pretty surprised. Pushing that much data is tough - hence the high requirements for GPU's these days.

[mjordan79]

Notick wrote...

Well, in honesty, most games are designed to play around 30 frames per second. People who truly worry about a high FPS are First Person Shooter's (like Rage's reported 60fps).

Also, DirectX controls a lot of different aspects of how fast a card can process information, as they handle the code processing. DX11 is a demanding code base, as well as high-res textures were presumably used in their 'very high' test. Not many games utilize High Resolution textures. That's why there's almost two times more FPS in the 'High' settings, as it doesn't utilize any High-Res textures.

Look at the file size of a 5 megapixel picture vs an 18 megapixel picture. You'll be pretty surprised. Pushing that much data is tough - hence the high requirements for GPU's these days.

Sure. But we're speaking about a game. That's the motivation why games don't use 18 megapixel textures or models with a high number of polygons. And that's the motivation why games use normal / bump maps as much as possible to compensate for the lack of geometry.
If you look at the benchmarks I have posted, a GTX 580 produces only 10 frames more than a GTX 470. And, as you know, that card is almost double the performance of a 470. The game could be engineered to be played at 30 fps, still playing it at 60 fps is a better experience. We're on PCs, not consoles. No need to justify the unjustifiable. FPS players generally care more about frames, but it must be admitted that FPS have generally a much better graphic than RPGs. In practice, scale better. Also, let's assume we're satisfied with 30 fps... Which graphic cars is needed to touch that framerate? A Geforce GTX 480 ... <_<

Modifié par mjordan79, 24 mars 2011 - 03:19 .

[Notick]

You're right, meaning the bottle neck is not the hardware... DX11 (software code-base) is what causes such larger requirements. The game just happens to utilize these additional capabilities of the code base. The same issue wasn't as largely noticed in DX10 because they didn't add many capability changes (hence the crack with DX9 being able to run crysis in DX10).

Also, the 470 GTx is not two times faster than the 580. If we're talking clock rates, the base 580 is 20% faster than the base 470GTx. The 580 is outperforming in FPS by over 30%... So it's about right. They're both GDDR5 cards, so they process the same packet sizes, but the 580 has a 16% larger interface width. So, I'd say the 580 is beating the numbers rather well.

Also, we could get into a whole schpeel about how higher FPS wouldn't really be beneficial unless you're utilizing a CRT monitor, but I won't even go there.

Modifié par Notick, 24 mars 2011 - 03:21 .

[Notick]

Just to clarify difference between the 580 and 470 - I made you a simple spreadsheet with percentages.


If you take the 25.64% increase in performance on 'VERY HIGH' vs the Spec performance difference, then it's pretty much worth it.

Modifié par Notick, 24 mars 2011 - 03:39 .

[mjordan79]

Notick wrote...

You're right, meaning the bottle neck is not the hardware... DX11 (software code-base) is what causes such larger requirements

Poorly implemented tessellation is what causes such larger requirements, not DirectX 11 itself.
HAWX 2 is a DirectX 11 game. A GTX 580 can run that game with tessellation ON , 32x AA (32!) with an average of 58 fps (1920x1200). This demonstrates DirectX 11 has nothing to do with bad performances. Tessellation kills performance if badly implemented because it increases poly counts to exponential levels. In Dragon Age 2, tessellation is used for the ground, possibly meaning it is constantly generating polygons, even when it could be avoided. In fact, I think that using tessellation for an element so close to the camera such the ground is really a bad idea. Oh, and it doesn't even produce spectacular differences. Just look at the comparison with tessellation ON / OFF.

Modifié par mjordan79, 24 mars 2011 - 03:41 .

[mjordan79]

Notick wrote...

Just to clarify difference between the 580 and 470 - I made you a simple spreadsheet with percentages.

Well, that confirms even more what I'm saying. The point is the game runs poorly on the 580 as on the 470. In fact, on both cards it plays quite ridicolously for the power they offer.

Modifié par mjordan79, 24 mars 2011 - 03:43 .

[Notick]

Textures that HAWX 2 is no where near the file size of this game, or any others for that matter...

When you tile images together with low-res textures, it's not that difficult on the GPU. When you tile images that are high-red, it is.

[Notick]

I think the problem is, you don't want change. You're used to games performing at a certain optimized frame per second.

The average FPS on the 580 GTx in games like Metro 33 is 36... Crysis: Warhead (a dx10 game) is 25.9... (Numbers from HardOCP testing with various Graphics cards... www.hardforum.com - video cards sections.)

[mjordan79]

Notick wrote...

Textures that HAWX 2 is no where near the file size of this game, or any others for that matter...

When you tile images together with low-res textures, it's not that difficult on the GPU. When you tile images that are high-red, it is.

I have done measurements with and without high res textures installed. On the 580 is quite irrelevant. No, textures are not the problem.

[mjordan79]

Notick wrote...

I think the problem is, you don't want change. You're used to games performing at a certain optimized frame per second.

The average FPS on the 580 GTx in games like Metro 33 is 36... Crysis: Warhead (a dx10 game) is 25.9... (Numbers from HardOCP testing with various Graphics cards... www.hardforum.com - video cards sections.)

Metro 2033 is an exceptionally badly engineered game.
Crysis, unlike Dragon Age, moves tons and tons of physics along one of the best water shaders in the industry, sporting real time caustics under the hood. When I see Crysis, I think that those performance requirements *are* somewhat justified.
Should I add Dragon Age 2 in the Metro 2033 list?

Also, what should I change? I have to accept the fact that I need a GTX 480 to play at 30 frames? That's ridicolous. I don't know what you're trying to justify, for me it's completely non sense.

Modifié par mjordan79, 24 mars 2011 - 04:03 .

[vometia]

Notick wrote...

Well, in honesty, most games are designed to play around 30 frames per second. People who truly worry about a high FPS are First Person Shooter's (like Rage's reported 60fps).

... or people like me who get headaches at "low" fps (low being under 40 or 50). <_<

I must admit I'm rather mystified at DA2's graphics requirements: having played a couple of rather spectacular-looking games lately, its graphics are rather understated in comparison, but it runs slower.

[Notick]

I'm not writing this to bash anyone, be clear. I just want to try to be
constructive. For me, Dragon Age 2 has no reason to be heavy like that.

I think someone was lying.

Again, you're being picky. The average game today doesn't run at the high FPS you're hoping to see. I'm sorry that fact upsets you.

[Notick]

vometia wrote...

Notick wrote...

Well, in honesty, most games are designed to play around 30 frames per second. People who truly worry about a high FPS are First Person Shooter's (like Rage's reported 60fps).

... or people like me who get headaches at "low" fps (low being under 40 or 50). <_<

I must admit I'm rather mystified at DA2's graphics requirements: having played a couple of rather spectacular-looking games lately, its graphics are rather understated in comparison, but it runs slower.

Last thing - do me a favor and lookup your monitor and see what the maximum frequency it can run at. (120Hz does not count - as I'm not asking how many times it can double native frames.) Most are 59MHz... So, anything beyond that in FPS is a bit silly.

Do you get headaches watching movies at the Theater? Did you know movies are shot in 24p (24 frames a second)?

MSG gives headaches! Oh, that was disproven too

[Notick]

God that sounded bitter... Sorry about that.

[vometia]

Notick wrote...

Last thing - do me a favor and lookup your monitor and see what the maximum frequency it can run at. (120Hz does not count - as I'm not asking how many times it can double native frames.) Most are 59MHz... So, anything beyond that in FPS is a bit silly.

Do you get headaches watching movies at the Theater? Did you know movies are shot in 24p (24 frames a second)?

MSG gives headaches! Oh, that was disproven too

Was there really any need for that?

For the record, yes, I am aware of the typical frame rate of cinema film.

[Notick]

Notick wrote...

God that sounded bitter... Sorry about that.

I said sorry

[mjordan79]

Notick wrote...

vometia wrote...

Notick wrote...

Well, in honesty, most games are designed to play around 30 frames per second. People who truly worry about a high FPS are First Person Shooter's (like Rage's reported 60fps).

... or people like me who get headaches at "low" fps (low being under 40 or 50). <_<

I must admit I'm rather mystified at DA2's graphics requirements: having played a couple of rather spectacular-looking games lately, its graphics are rather understated in comparison, but it runs slower.

Last thing - do me a favor and lookup your monitor and see what the maximum frequency it can run at. (120Hz does not count - as I'm not asking how many times it can double native frames.) Most are 59MHz... So, anything beyond that in FPS is a bit silly.

Do you get headaches watching movies at the Theater? Did you know movies are shot in 24p (24 frames a second)?

MSG gives headaches! Oh, that was disproven too

Notick, don't talk to me as if I were a noob. I know what's the relation between refresh rates and the framerate. I own a professional Eizo Flexscan S2433WFS-BK.
I'm asking to play at decent framerates with acceptable graphics cards, I'm not asking the moon.

[Notick]

Typical Response Time 16 ms (rise+fall) (AKA Black-white-black pixel flipping)

average 58 frames a second response.

Modifié par Notick, 24 mars 2011 - 04:11 .

[mjordan79]

Notick wrote...

I'm not writing this to bash anyone, be clear. I just want to try to be
constructive. For me, Dragon Age 2 has no reason to be heavy like that.

I think someone was lying.

Again, you're being picky. The average game today doesn't run at the high FPS you're hoping to see. I'm sorry that fact upsets you.

I have more than 60 games on my shelf. Only 4 or 5 of them runs poorly like Dragon Age. So you are the one who is definitely lying. A game that produces 32 fps using a GTX 480 has performance problems. Period. There is not much to discuss. Also, I'm not the one who is trying to justify in every way WHY the game runs poorly. For me it just runs bad. I'm not interested WHY. That's for developer's interests, not centainly mine.

Modifié par mjordan79, 24 mars 2011 - 04:15 .

[Notick]

Maybe when I have a little more energy, I'll compile a list for you of average FPS for each game in their current technology standing.

I've been programming games sense the early GodWars/Dragon Realm MUDS, along with an avid modder (Q2 Mod's, HL2 Mods, PlanetSide source-code mods, Counter Strike mods...) C, C++, C#, Java, VB, Lisp (Autocad language). I'm not just speaking from my ass either.

Having built over 75 computers for myself, and over 300 for clients... Hundreds if not thousands of hours of research over the years... You'd be surprised.

[Jazharah]

mjordan79 wrote...

Notick wrote...

I'm not writing this to bash anyone, be clear. I just want to try to be
constructive. For me, Dragon Age 2 has no reason to be heavy like that.

I think someone was lying.

Again, you're being picky. The average game today doesn't run at the high FPS you're hoping to see. I'm sorry that fact upsets you.

I have more than 60 games on my shelf. Only 4 or 5 of them runs poorly like Dragon Age. So you are the one who is definitely lying. A game that produces 32 fps using a GTX 480 has performance problems. Period. There is not much to discuss. Also, I'm not the one who is trying to justify in every way WHY the game runs poorly. For me it just runs bad. I'm not interested WHY. That's for developer's interests, not centainly mine.

Funny, I bet it's some kind of setting for you.

I'm running DA2 on a laptop with an ATI Mobility chip with 512 MB gfx RAM.... @ 45 fps.

Maybe looking into 'why' would help more than crying as if your diaper is full and want BW to change it for you.

[mjordan79]

Jazharah wrote...

mjordan79 wrote...

Notick wrote...

I'm not writing this to bash anyone, be clear. I just want to try to be
constructive. For me, Dragon Age 2 has no reason to be heavy like that.

I think someone was lying.

Again, you're being picky. The average game today doesn't run at the high FPS you're hoping to see. I'm sorry that fact upsets you.

I have more than 60 games on my shelf. Only 4 or 5 of them runs poorly like Dragon Age. So you are the one who is definitely lying. A game that produces 32 fps using a GTX 480 has performance problems. Period. There is not much to discuss. Also, I'm not the one who is trying to justify in every way WHY the game runs poorly. For me it just runs bad. I'm not interested WHY. That's for developer's interests, not centainly mine.

Funny, I bet it's some kind of setting for you.

I'm running DA2 on a laptop with an ATI Mobility chip with 512 MB gfx RAM.... @ 45 fps.

Maybe looking into 'why' would help more than crying as if your diaper is full and want BW to change it for you.

You can't compare apples to oranges, so you can't compare notebooks to desktops and you can't compare low resolutions such those used on a laptop with an "high" resolution such 1920x1200. In fact, I'm not even discussing about the performance of the game on low end systems.