1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

F.E.A.R. on a 512mb card?

Discussion in 'Games' started by AMDCam, Mar 25, 2006.

  1. AMDCam New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,099 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Location:
    Colorado, United States
    Hey, I've been wondering I know that F.E.A.R.'s ultra-quality textures take up over a gigabyte, but I was wondering since a 512mb card makes the system RAM into 1.5gb, is that enough to run F.E.A.R. at the highest texture quality? Thanks
  2. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    i have wondered that.. he he he

    does having more on the card mean u need that bit less in the system.. personally i dont think it would make any difference.. but it might..

    trog

    ps.. not allowing for windows needs fear uses about 900mb max of system memory.. i think the way it works is it all gets loaded into system memory first.. then moves from system memory to the cards memory as its needed.. i dont think it gets divided beween the two..
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2006
  3. AMDCam New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,099 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Location:
    Colorado, United States
    ohhh wow, that makes sense. So shoot, if I could just quit all Windows background processes and everything else then you think I could get away with running FEAR on max? That still lets Windows run 124 megabytes, and supposedly it only needs 64.

    Also, is it possible that after the memory from the system RAM is loaded onto the card, it erases off the system RAM? That would increase efficinecy and might explain why when you go BACK in some levels of games there are load times. You think?
  4. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    dunno i think u are pushing it unless having the extra memory on the card does help..

    when i tried it with 1 gig.. it ran the ingame test settings thing perfectly but as soon as i moved into the game itself it just turned into a swopfiling jerky unplayable failure.. every few second as u moved it was having to pull more textures of the bloody hardrive which just cant supply em fast enough..

    i ran the high textures they only use half the memory.. it helps load times and gives smooth gameplay without much of a eye-candy hit.. i dont think the gain from the maximum texures is worth it..

    still give it a try and see what happens.. that extra card memory might be of some use..

    trog
  5. GSG-9

    GSG-9

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,678 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Mn
    Speed Between the ram/Card and Graphics ram/Card is at different speeds, and the ram is utilised differently, So no, ram needs to be used for more than just tectures, so if you got the utalised windows ram down to 64, then you would most likly use more that the remaining 400 for other stuff (1gig for graphics, 64 for windows, remaining for all other game functions.)
    Its pushing it. With 2 512mb cards, easy. Or with 2 gigs of ram you may be able to do it.
  6. Quake2owns

    Quake2owns New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    361 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    a 256 mb 7800 gtx or 256 mb 7900 gt is sufficient to play f.e.a.r max everything except with soft shadows x16 af no aa up to like 1600x1200 fps is around 25-30.
  7. GSG-9

    GSG-9

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,678 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Mn
    Yes, but 25-30 fps is a performance hit, I personally consider 40fps and up to be exceptable...
  8. Quake2owns

    Quake2owns New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    361 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    depends on the game f.e.a.r is playable at 25 fps so is call of duty 2 they still feel smooth, like 25 fps in quake 4 is too low.,
  9. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    256 on the card is enough to play fear with its maximum textures but 1 gig of system memory isnt.. with just one gig of system memory fear with it maximum textures just turns into a swopfileing slideshow on my system.. with two gigs of system memory it plays smoothly.. assuming the grfx card has the grunt..

    fear with maximum textures takes up about 1.4 gig of vitual system memory along with windows junk.. with just 1 gig of physical memory the system has to resort to the hardrive swopfile for memory.. we were just wondering if the extra memory on the card means u can get away with less system memory..

    hardrive memory is 300 times slower than real memory.. loading textures every few seconds off your hardrive dont kinda work that well.. he he..

    i dont think it would make any difference but not having a 512 card i cant put it to the test..

    adcam hasnt come back on it. he has one and could put it to the test.. he he

    trog
  10. GSG-9

    GSG-9

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,678 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Mn
    I don't think system memory and Graphic memory are swappable. Although it has been proven that 512mb of video ram will help but with that much system memory (1.5Gig) i think it will be fine.
  11. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    he only has 1 gig.. the 1.5 gig is when he added his 512 grfx card memory to his system memory and came up with 1.5 gig..

    which kinda takes us back to square one GSG.. i recon the 512 on the card wont help the lack of system memory but just aint sure.. which leaves the ball back in adcams park.. he he

    the post has been here over a week i recon he has forgotten it..

    trog
  12. AMDCam New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,099 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Location:
    Colorado, United States
    Oh no I haven't forgotten, thank you guys very much for your comments. I read them a few times a day I just don't bother putting my opinion in cause I'm asking you guys the questions.

    But yeah, I was planning on buying the new 7800GS (GT) 512mb AGP at the time I made this thread but decided not to and just upgrade my laptop with 2gb (seeing as how my desktop isn't even running yet, and it hasn't been for about 6 months cause I've had problems every step and just ended up giving up on the piece and upgrading my laptop instead). I haven't 100% given up on the desktop yet, I mean if the 512mb card actually does give me the extra oomph to get FEAR to run on full settings then I'll go ahead and restart my desktop re-build, but that's why I was asking you guys.

    I'm really sorry I didn't reply guys, I just didn't really have any more opinion than I did in the beginning of the thread so I didn't want to keep repeating myself.

    If anyone has a 1gb setup with a 512mb card though, please let me know if it does help FEAR. Thanks guys, very much
  13. GSG-9

    GSG-9

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,678 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Mn
    Sorry I am a little behind, I think a 512mb card is not a good idea right now, all current cards will not support HD under windows vesta. So buying a 512mb card would prove to be a waste.
    I think uping the ram is a good choice.
  14. Thermopylae_480

    Thermopylae_480 New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,685 (1.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    393
    Location:
    Little Rock Arkansas, United States
    512Mb is needed if you want to use large texture files. I think the memory on video card probably works more like the CPU cache on your processor. The video memory is filled with the most commonly used texture/information, it then goes to your sytem memory to pull up less commonly used stuff, then finnally your HDD as a last resort.
  15. GSG-9

    GSG-9

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,678 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Mn
    Yup, But it he has a gig of ram (same as me.) He will need more ram to overcome studdering in game, So I was just saying that him buying ram for his laptop is a good choice. (He said he bought more so 2gigs total.
  16. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    just for the record.. u do not need 512 on the card to use the large texture files.. they work perfectly okay with 256..

    but u do need more than i gig of system memory.. u also dont need 512 to play the quake 4 ultimate textures.. but again u do need more than 1 gig of system memory..

    both games take up about 1.4 of windows virtual memory in total with the large uncompressed textures loaded.. with just one gig of system memory the game literally stops dead every time u move or turn around while more textures get loaded from the hardrive part of windows virtual memory..

    with 2 gigs of physical memory and a 265 card both games play perfectly okay..

    an example of quake 4 memory usage with the ultimate textures loaded.. fear is about a 100 meg less than quake 4..

    [​IMG]

    trog
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2006
  17. Azn Tr14dZ New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,299 (1.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    I'm planning on getting F.E.A.R. or Oblivion with 1027x768 because all I have is an X800XL and I want AA and AF on. Played the demo, ran great on 1024x768 but a little slower on 1280x1024. It runs with one GB fine. (What reso. was that Quake 4 pic taken on?) Specs on bottom, not bad for an X800 XL(can probably get 6000 but too lazy to do voltmods!:rolleyes: )
  18. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    to be honest i didnt play either game useing the uncompressed textures.. the extra eye candy wasnt that noticable but the longer load times certainly were.. the next quality down did for me.. i use 1200 in some games 1024 in fear and quake 4 with some AA.. i favour fast fluid framerates over pretties if i have to turn things down to keep load times down and fps up i do it.. its one advantage of not spending a fortune on the fastest card u can buy.. u dont get pissed off when u cant run silly 1600 plus resolutions with everything maxed out..

    i am about to get oblivion.. i expect it to be buggy and hit the framerates in places.. the last one did.. he he.. quite a few folks with high end cards are complainng about lousy framerates when certain animals appear in outside scenes..

    others with average to low systems are saying.. "it plays alright on my system".. he he.. i think expectations differ somewhat.. he he..

    trog
  19. GSG-9

    GSG-9

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,678 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Mn
    Even with my 7800 i still play all games at the 1024X768 resolution.
  20. Thermopylae_480

    Thermopylae_480 New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,685 (1.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    393
    Location:
    Little Rock Arkansas, United States
    Well they run fine in fear, I know you can put large textures in 256MB of memory, I just meant with really large textures, probably like in Quake 4, you would hit a bottle neck that would reduce frame rates. How much? I don't know. Is an X1800 With 256MB adequate enough to run any existing game with only 256MB? You betcha. Will pretty much any card with 256MB run the high texture? Most likely. Some message won't pop up that says "HEY! Buddy! Whoa there. You don't have 512MB of video memory. You can't run me at these settings :) ." When I said you "need," I meant more of something along the lines of "This is what 512MB is used for and where it comes into play." Kind of a bad choice of words on my part :laugh: .
  21. GSG-9

    GSG-9

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,678 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    144
    Location:
    Minneapolis, Mn
    I talk the same way and ment the same thing. :)
    When I think "need" I think if the game has a lag spike at any point AT ALL... then you "need" more of somthing, but I don't have the money to keep on top so I stay neer the top :cool:

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page