63 réponses à ce sujet

[Baaleos]

Graphics Card Manufacturer: nVidia
Mode: Geforce gtx 460se
Memory: 1GB
OS: Windows 7 x64
OS Ram: 8GB
Processor Spec: AMD Phenom X4 64 Black Edition Quad Core @ 3.2ghz


Observations: While the graphic quality is very crisp etc, there are still slow downs and stutteryness - particularly when a group of creatures with cloth/clothing are running across the screen. Sometimes this results in Spagettification of Isaacs Greater Missile Storm, which ends up looking like big blue/white stretched lines across the screen for a second or two.

Unsure if this is because the graphics card is 'too' new or 'too' good for nwn, which is over a Decade old now.

On other games - The Old Republic, Skyrim, Garrys Mod, Dark Messiah, Half Life 2, and other visually intensive games, I can run them at high-Ultra settings and get at least 60-80 fps.

On NWN, I get 100 while idle, and not moving, and then it drops to around 27 or so in combat, and then to 15 or 10 in bad combat situations.


I am now upgrading to a Geforce gtx 580 - 3gb Video Ram(£500)
I wonder what the performance will be like on nwn, or will it stay the same?

[Daralen]

Alienware (Dell) M18x notebook
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit (fully updated at the time of this posting)
Intel Core i7-2920XM @ 2.5Ghz
32GB DDR3 @ 1333Mhz
2 x nVidia GeForce GTX 460M @ 675Mhz with 1.5GB GDDR5 each, in SLI mode (latest firmware and (DELL) drivers as of this posting)
Seagate ST9750420AS 750GB HDD @ 7200RPM with 173GB free

According to FRAPS, I'm averaging around 15 FPS while wandering around Beggar's Nest. I haven't even tested it with combat yet, but I'm sure it'll be even worse than that. I've also noticed the FPS jump around a lot as well. Sometimes it spikes up to 100~ for a few seconds.

The driver for my GPU is nearly a year old. I believe it's some kind of repackaged Dell driver because when I first got this rig and tried running nVidia's updater, it told me I should get my drivers from my manufacturer. Recently I checked again and there was a driver version I could get from nVidia, but that it may not work properly. I gave it a try and noticed some oddities with other games (artifacts with Civ 5, etc.) so I reverted to the old ones. Since I've been trying to get NWN up and running decently on this box in the past couple of weeks, I'll likely give the new driver a try again and see how it does.

I also haven't experimented much with the in-game video settings. I did try setting up a profile for NWN in the nVidia control panel, but I'm not sure that it had the slightest affect on the game (I may need to setup the profile for NWNMAIN).

[Empyre65]

Maybe the multiple CPU cores is causing the problem. I remember years ago when I upgraded from an Athlon XP 3200+ to a dual-core Athlon 64 X2 6000+, NWN went from frames per second to literally minutes per frame. I could actually watch it slowly draw a frame. I don't remember the exact fix, but it involved making NWN use only one core. Look around the forums, and you'll find the fix I'm talking about.

[L_and_P21]

if i remember correctly you have to go into nwconfig.ini file and change the number of cpus. for some reason i can recall someone saying that setting it to -1 helped. i am going to play around with this for a bit today

edit: the other thing i remember when i was asking a question about performance on the old forums was that someone mentioned having hardware sound enabled. i have an eclaro and for some reason i cannot enable hardware sound. so you might want to double check that for the performance

Modifié par L_and_P21, 21 janvier 2012 - 06:49 .

[Daralen]

What I've tried so far:

1. Turned off (or down as low as they go) all graphics options
2. 800x600 resolution (normally I run 1920x1080)
3. Turned off hardware sound
4. Client CPU Affinity=-1 and -2
5. nwnmain.exe in compatibility mode for WinXP SP3

None of these has had any affect on my FPS that I can see. FRAPS still reports an abysmally low 15 FPS when wandering around Beggar's Nest. I'm about to give the new drivers I mentioned above, a try finally. I'll post the results soon.

[Daralen]

The new driver seems to have made a huge difference. My FPS generally stays over 100, can dip to around 60 in combat and occassionally drops down to about 30 for brief periods. Here's what I had and what I'm using now:

Old: 267.64 (4/19/2011)
New: 285.62 (10/24/2011)

The nVidia website no longer mentions that I may have problems with this latest driver either. I'm still seeing some tearing, but overall things seem to be running much smoother.

[Artas1984]

Phenom II X6 processor
8 Gb DDR3 in quad DIMM dual channel
Gigabyte 890GX motherboard
integrated AMD HD4290 with 128 Mb DDR3 side port memory (not shared)
1600x1200 resolution monitor
Windows 7 64 bit

Observations:

1) 1.68 would not even start
2) 1.69 freezes from time to time
3) sometimes game saves are deleted after crash
4) game is laggy on higher settings..

Modifié par Artas1984, 03 février 2012 - 04:30 .

[TimG]

I have several PC's with NWN loaded. The best performers I have are 9800GT Zotacs (in two units, one Win7 Systemax w I7 processor and one HP with XP Pro). On stats the HP ought to be a dog and it is blazing fast. The two Dells are both better processors and more RAM but are much lower FPS. They have PNY Quadro cards 512mb each. I just orded a Zotac GT520 and a PNY GT430 to try. One Dell has a 1gb ATI 5450 (I think)? and it runs good FPS but can't handle shiny water.

[Gorath Alpha]

Quadros aren't for games, but neither is a GT 520. I don't think the 520 is nearly as powerful as an HD 5450, and the 5450 is pretty weak sauce. The 430 should be better than either the HD 5450 or the 520 (here is a comparison in which the 430 appears to be TWICE as good as the 520).

www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php.

Modifié par Gorath Alpha, 03 mars 2012 - 11:56 .

[TimG]

Truth is I don't know enough about the cards to even understand the comparison chart. As soon as I get to try the GT430 and the 520 I'll post some results. Anything these days is light years ahead of what was available when NWN was hot so it confuses me that FPS can be a struggle. I follow the threads on video card selection but as the phrase goes: "your mileage may vary". The Quadro card on one of the work PC's has been a really good card. When I had the chance to get one for home I thought it'd be okay. The images are great but the FPS is low. If I lower the resolution it gets better quick though.

[Gorath Alpha]

The Quadro is for CREATING new graphics elements, and is optimized for that usage, not for displaying high speed animated video. The public continues to want cheap junk video cards like the GT 520, so the producers keep on churning them out. Newness is meaningless when low price and low quality is the desired pair of determinants.

The GT 430 was specifically designed for use in home entertainment PCs, for dealing with digitally stored movies and other video material. It was about the same as the GT 240 card, an older model gaming card, and held its own for awhile with budget level cards such as the HD 5570 and HD 6570 Radeons. Both the 240 and the 430 have been surpassed by Radeon graphics functions built into the Trinity family of AMD CPUs (referred to as "APUs" to reflect the addition of medium quality gaming level graphics at no extra cost).

[TimG]

You are certainly correct about the GT520, it is weaker than the EAH5450 by a good bit. FPS during combat dropped into the teens with the 520 and stayed above 30 with the ATI card. The GT520 is a Zotac 2gb, the Ati IS A 1g ASUS. This is a clean Dell Optiplex 745 w/ XP Pro. No other changes than the card. I can't try the PNY GT430 yet as it was missing the low profile brackets. I wonder if I should update the ATI drivers?

[TimG]

Just for kicks I updated the ATI drivers and seem to have lost some FPS. From high thirties to high twenties in combat. I may try rolling them back and retesting but no today as it is supper time.

[Gorath Alpha]

Artas1984 wrote...

Phenom II X6 processor
8 Gb DDR3 in quad DIMM dual channel
Gigabyte 890GX motherboard
integrated AMD HD4290 with 128 Mb DDR3 side port memory (not shared)
1600x1200 resolution monitor
Windows 7 64 bit

Observations:

1) 1.68 would not even start
2) 1.69 freezes from time to time
3) sometimes game saves are deleted after crash
4) game is laggy on higher settings..

The 4290 is exremely weak sauce, even among chipset video chips.  You really need the add-on graphics card, something like an HD 7770.  That display is just MILES beyond what any onboard chip  is able to cope with.  Remember, when NWN was new, the high end displays were today's mediums. 

[Gorath Alpha]

TimG wrote...

You are certainly correct about the GT520, it is weaker than the EAH5450 by a good bit. FPS during combat dropped into the teens with the 520 and stayed above 30 with the ATI card. The GT520 is a Zotac 2gb, the Ati IS A 1g ASUS. This is a clean Dell Optiplex 745 w/ XP Pro. No other changes than the card. I can't try the PNY GT430 yet as it was missing the low profile brackets. I wonder if I should update the ATI drivers?

Both the HD 5450 and the GT 520 are "64 bit" cards.  They have very narrow memory systems, so that piling on loads of VRAM is totally meaningless in a gaming context.  Neither one will regularly use more than only 128 MBs of VRAM in a game, because the memory bandwidth is so narrow.  I don't think they ever have enough speed to occasionally use 256 MBs of RAM in certain circumstances the way many 128 bit Medium level cards can use 512 MBs occasionally, above their usual 256 MBs. 

Incidentally, I really do recommend tossing out that terrible skinny PC case you have, in favor of a normal one, with normal internal airflow for cooling.  

Gorath

[TimG]

A couple of points:
Can you make a recommendation of a hotter card? This GT520 isn't worth sending back and I may not be able to get something else right away but it seems that you've got a good understanding of card tech.
This computer I am playing with is a "guest computer" for when friends come over to play on the LAN. It won't see any more than occasional use so I can't really spend a lot of money on it.
Does it matter much that XP Pro is the operating system? I find it works best with NWN compared to Win7.
I may play with the Catalyst control some to try to get the FPS back up to where it was before I updated the ATI drivers.
Lastly, does monitor screen size have a substantial effect on FPS? The Dell with the PNY Quadro has a 24" monitor with a resolution of 1920 by something (1024 or 1400 or so?). Even with the low framerate it still looks pretty good. (these frame rates are all from new mods with lots of custom content, load up vanilla NWN and the frame rates are very high)

[Gorath Alpha]

Think about the difference in workload. A low end graphics card with low core speed, low RAM speed, and narrow memory bandwidth can handle the old 1024 by 768 resolution with reasonably good results (Low Resolution), but even bumping to only 1280 by 1024 kills their frame rates because the pixel count is so much higher. You are now asking about HIGH resolution with millions of pixels, so of course even a Medium graphics card will be challenged.

You do not want to match the skinny enclosure, with its terrible airflow, to a graphics card that can drive a High Resolution display to its best effect -- it will die of a heat stroke. Replacement cases are cheap compared to cards, and the real truth is that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to swap the guts out of one case and into another.

When DA: O was brand new, there were thousands of new members asking questions about graphics cards. That forum is about as dead as this one is now. But here are some useful URLs of articles I wrote then:

PC Hardware* (4 pgs) Basics for Gaming (and inventory of Components):
http://social.biowar...58/index/509580

Getting the most value out of the Graphics Budget dollar (DAO)
http://social.biowar...8/index/7196223

Video Card Shader Performance Rankings* 10 pgs (DA: O):
http://social.biowar...58/index/128343

Generation Ladders* 2 pgs(and NTK-based shaders ranking list-"old" class markers)
http://social.biowar...58/index/575571

Very basic discussion* (2 pgs) of video cards, video chips, PhysX, and even of laptops' limits:
http://social.biowar...58/index/519461

[TimG]

Thanks for the extra information. There's a lot there to take in. I shall begin study once I get home from work.

[Knight_Shield]

My graphics card      social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/187/index/8438805

Modifié par Knight_Shield, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:48 .

[JironGhrad]

Something else I didn't see mentioned is that ATI has pretty much always had problems with shiny water on NWN. Not sure exactly what it is about that feature, but it's never worked well on any of the various ATI's I've used over the years (ranging from a 9250 to my current 4890). The effects on gameplay may vary from crashing in certain areas to minor artifacting.

[JironGhrad]

Gorath Alpha wrote...

Artas1984 wrote...

Phenom II X6 processor
8 Gb DDR3 in quad DIMM dual channel
Gigabyte 890GX motherboard
integrated AMD HD4290 with 128 Mb DDR3 side port memory (not shared)
1600x1200 resolution monitor
Windows 7 64 bit

Observations:

1) 1.68 would not even start
2) 1.69 freezes from time to time
3) sometimes game saves are deleted after crash
4) game is laggy on higher settings..

The 4290 is exremely weak sauce, even among chipset video chips.  You really need the add-on graphics card, something like an HD 7770.  That display is just MILES beyond what any onboard chip  is able to cope with.  Remember, when NWN was new, the high end displays were today's mediums. 

I'd also like to point out that when NWN was new, it ran adequately on 16mb gpu's. High-end back then was more like today's bargain on-board GPUs, but the driver support isn't there for them. I occassionally ran it on a 16mb Diamond Viper V550 (admittedly a gaming card of the late 90s) until mid-2004, when Hordes of the Underdark came out and required a newer shader model. 1.68 did raise the system requirements again with the content added from the Wyvern Crown of Cormyr premium module.

[Gorath Alpha]

I ran the game on a TNT2 card with 32 MBs of SDRAM at first, then I paid what was a fortune to me at the time to get a GF3, Ti-200, with 64 MBs of DDR RAM, after SoU came on the scene. But I was running at 1152 by 964 resolution, which is today's Medium pixel count, at the old 4:3 screen shape.

[TimG]

I didn't want you to think I'd abandoned this thread but we've had massive computer issues at work and it is taking all my time. I will get back to this as soon as I can.

[JironGhrad]

Yeah, my V550 was a TNT (v1). I ran it mainly on a GeForce 2 Ultra 64mb until around 2007 when the shader requirements went up again. I see what you mean by medium pixel count, I typically ran it at 1280x960 myself until I stepped up to a widescreen LCD.

[DeathWarding]

---1) ASUS DRW-24B1ST/BLK/B/AS Black SATA 24X DVD Burner - Bulk - OEM

---2) Corsair Carbide Series 400R Graphite grey and black Steel / Plastic ATX Mid Tower Gaming Case

---3) Seagate ST310005N1A1AS-RK 1TB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive

---4)GIGABYTE GV-R787OC-2GD Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

---5) CORSAIR Professional Series HX750 (CMPSU-750HX) 750W ATX12V 2.3 / EPS12V 2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS SILVER Certified ...

---6) Kingston HyperX 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 HyperX Plug n Play Desktop Memory Model KHX1600C9D3P1K2/8G

---7) ASUS P8Z68-V/GEN3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard with UEFI BIOS

---8)Intel Core i5-2500K Sandy Bridge 3.3GHz (3.7GHz Turbo Boost) LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor Intel HD Graphics 3000





Wish it wouldnt be so choppy. The lag spikes make it not worth it for me. Wish i could resolve this.. . its like when im in game theres a program trying to open in the backround and its like flashin in a little...