Its ATI / your graphics card? Nope.

(Smoochy) #21

haha! screw you ATI!

just ordered an nvidia 580! :slight_smile:

(Je T´aime) #22

Well i posted this on other post but anyway.

Yes if you Overclock your processor you have some fps gain i went from dual core 3.0 to 3.7 and had some fps increase for sure. Same logic if you go for a i5 i7 etc ofc it will make brink run with + fps.

Now the thing is that if you use the same processor / ram / motherboard all the same. And run the game with a 8800 nvidia or a ati 5770 the worst 8800 nvidia will run the game a lot better then the superior ati 5770.

So yes its also a ati issue.

(Fatfool) #23

Goodness. Damn it, now it’s actually a processor issue.

And I can’t overclock mine :eek: (I’m sticking with my Radeon 5870 thank you. Using an Opteron 4180)

Only Bulldozer can save me now :mad:

(neg) #24

[QUOTE=Je T´aime;347321]Well i posted this on other post but anyway.

Yes if you Overclock your processor you have some fps gain i went from dual core 3.0 to 3.7 and had some fps increase for sure. Same logic if you go for a i5 i7 etc ofc it will make brink run with + fps.

Now the thing is that if you use the same processor / ram / motherboard all the same. And run the game with a 8800 nvidia or a ati 5770 the worst 8800 nvidia will run the game a lot better then the superior ati 5770.

So yes its also a ati issue.[/QUOTE]

problem is alot of people having the performance issues with ATI are not on dual core processors… it barely uses 40% of my quad cores usage @ 3ghz

(Smoochy) #25

oddly, i get lower fps with the nvidia (it is a less powerful card in benchmarks) but i get nowhere near the drop in fps. the nvidia just sticks between 50 and 100fps

with everything high and 8x supersampling, highest quality settings in nvidia panel i never get below 50fps now, where with the 6970 i got down to 17fps in shipyard and often got poor fps at round starts.

so happy with the nvidia :slight_smile:

(Alextended) #26

Can you stop advertising Nvidia in a forum meant for tech help? Nobody forces you to help, but if you don’t want to do that, there are plenty other forums to post your crap on. If people wanted Nvidia fanboy rants they would look for those elsewhere. You have a ton of posts, in sequence or not, offering no help whatsoever and just repeatedly writing a step by step process of what GPU you returned and what you intended to buy, with random crap like “screw ATI” that add oh so much to the discussion on top. What the frak? Nobody cares. It’s not what the thread is about. I have an Nvidia card that’s way better than the one you supposedly tried previously (a GTX285) and have issues comparable to what the ATI posters have been mentioning, most likely due to my underpowered dual core CPU. Yes, my PC is already outdated, but Brink doesn’t do anything particularly noteworthy to require that much better. No expansive use of physics, no gigantic maps or vehicles that even Quake Wars had, and very few players per match which means there’s little action on screen at any given time. It’s just about Team Fortress 2 (which would perform flawlessly on my toaster) level technically, save for the use of megatextures and some post processing effects, and is clearly a bad, unoptimised console port with precious few options to choose from. The fact is, Brink, as it looks and for what it offers, shouldn’t run similarly to the Crysis games on any system. I doubt they’ll fix it, as I said this type of PC is already outdated and people don’t expect new games to run well on such, whether said new games look like they should require a better system or not, but ignoring the real issues people are posting and flooding the forum with Nvidia butt kissing and ATI bashing based on precious few facts beyond your questionable personal experiences isn’t helping anyone and just makes you look like a complete douche. I didn’t even come here to post about this, I was googling for a solution to these weird white lines that show up on various surfaces, but this thread showed up and you act like such an obnoxious little kid that I had to post here before looking for a solution. And yes, the developers most likely could optimise it better on ATI cards if they cared to. Different architecture needs different development so one they focus on less suffers regardless of the brand. It goes both ways. Don’t destroy this forum with your childish fanboy ranting, please.

(Smoochy) #27

learn to use paragraphs like someone over the age of 10. are you still at school?

my above post was responding to the numerous people who have been asking ATI/NVIDIA performance questions as im one of the few that was able to swap between 6970 and comparibe nvidia card. i saw a massive difference in performance with brink and bc2.

if you read what i wrote i said its odd that with the ATI i get much higher fps in some areas - 1600fps in menus etc, compared to 300 on nvidia and >200fps in some maps where the nvidia rarely gets over 120fps. the difference being the troughs with ATI are much more severe (17 fps on shipyard). the fact an 8800gtx can outperform a new decent ATI card is a joke

if you dont think people care about the ATI issue why have they been the most popular threads since release day? remember this is a quiet forum compared to most games (hell, the bf3 forum is more active and that game isnt out for 6 months!)

yes, maybe SD could be more optimised, as you say the graphics arent super high tech, no vehicles, low player counts and no destruction and basic physics but the concrete fact is that ATI dropped a ball with their drivers and are refusing to fix it.

by trade im a developer/it manager so im well aware of problem solving and fixing PC issues so i was just trying to help clarify for the people that are suffering with ATI. yes, i made a thread saying ‘screw you ATI’, woop-de-do. i wasted a whole line on your screen, do you want compensation for your distress?

btw - i searched on your name. wow, you are a helpful and insightful community member with 100% of your posts bitching about me. time to grow up son.

(bluefoot) #28

[QUOTE=Smoochy;351613]learn to use paragraphs like someone over the age of 10. are you still at school?

my above post was responding to the numerous people who have been asking ATI/NVIDIA performance questions as im one of the few that was able to swap between 6970 and comparibe nvidia card. i saw a massive difference in performance with brink and bc2. .[/QUOTE]

Except they’re not comparable cards at all … the cheapest 580 you can get is ~£320, the cheapest 6970 is £250.

All you’ve shown is that buying a much more expensive card improved your FPS and if you had Ambient Occlusion turned on (which does practically nothing), NVIDIA handles it a bit better than AMD. Your FPS also indicates that you’re still severely CPU limited, btw.

My underclocked 6950 (1GB edition) gets better average FPS than you do on maximum settings at 1920x1080 (minus Ambient Occlusion).

Edit: I lie. Just measured FPS and like others, since the Brink mini-patch, average figures are considerably lower :-/ Hope they fix it.

(Smoochy) #29

[QUOTE=bluefoot;353483]Except they’re not comparable cards at all … the cheapest 580 you can get is ~£320, the cheapest 6970 is £250.

All you’ve shown is that buying a much more expensive card improved your FPS and if you had Ambient Occlusion turned on (which does practically nothing), NVIDIA handles it a bit better than AMD. Your FPS also indicates that you’re still severely CPU limited, btw.

My underclocked 6950 (1GB edition) gets better average FPS than you do on maximum settings at 1920x1080 (minus Ambient Occlusion).

Edit: I lie. Just measured FPS and like others, since the Brink mini-patch, average figures are considerably lower :-/ Hope they fix it.[/QUOTE]

agreed the nvidia is more expensive (almost double the price) i did have a 560ti here, maybe i should have tried that, its gone to the person i built the pc for now. some people even bought the 6950s that you could flash to 6970 (unlocks all the extra shaders and with an OC its the same card). mine only cost £200.

when you say average it doesnt really give the full story. with the ATI card i got much higher FPS in places but also really low in places too. the nvidia card plays with a much more rounded average. i never get slow downs anywhere near as bad as with the ati. with the ATI i was getting stuff like 1600fps in menus and between games and upto 200fps in some areas on brink.

anyway, i threw more cash at the nvidia so i could future proof myself a bit more, the ATI card was good when it worked well but the drops to below 20fps was unacceptable. i was annoyed really as for £200 the ATI was really good value for money, just the poor drivers let it down. if i hadnt been able to get a refund for it i would have just bought an i7 setup but im trying to hold on to cash as much as possible as my son is due september and we are moving soon too!

out of curiosity what are the min/max fps you are achieving?

btw - AO when on knocks my fps down by about 10 but i really like the added realism it gives and with nvidia i can have AO set to quality in the nvidia panel and IMO it looks better than the ATI offering. ATI always used to have better image quality (not matrox standard) but nvidia seems to take overtaken them

(surxenberg) #30

I have indeed seen a substantial performance increase after upgrading my cpu.

The funny thing is, I’ve upraded from a AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.2 GHz to an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.7 GHz.

I don’t know if you guys use r_userenderthread 1 (or whatever it is called), but i get up to 90% cpu load on my X6!

It’s evenly distributed among the 6 cores as well.

Pic related: it’s the CPU graph in windows task manager while playing brink (captured on 2nd monitor)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/200/brinkcpu.jpg/

My exact specs are:

-AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.7GHz
-6GB Kingston Hyper X DDR2 800 CL5
-ASUS M4A79 Deluxe (790 FX)
-2x Radeon 6870 @ stock
-Catalyst 11.6 with newest CAP

The game runs on full everything, FSAA, High shadows, textures, motion blur, however, no Ambient Occlusion (the effect isn’t that great anyway).

It also seems that, in cases in which the FPS drops to unpleasant values, such as 45 ish and below, it doesn’t help to lower graphics settings, such as disabling AA. Only disabling shadows helps to a small extent.

However, since the CPU upgrade, FPS below 45 have become extremely rare.

Conclusion: The game is now playable, thx to my AMD Phenom II X6 CPU. The game looks to be CPU bound, which is still weird though, as the game really doesn’t look that great. Very enjoyable now nonetheless.

(Smoochy) #31

[QUOTE=surxenberg;361452]I have indeed seen a substantial performance increase after upgrading my cpu.

The funny thing is, I’ve upraded from a AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.2 GHz to an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.7 GHz.

I don’t know if you guys use r_userenderthread 1 (or whatever it is called), but i get up to 90% cpu load on my X6!

It’s evenly distributed among the 6 cores as well.

Pic related: it’s the CPU graph in windows task manager while playing brink (captured on 2nd monitor)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/200/brinkcpu.jpg/

My exact specs are:

-AMD Phenom II X6 1090T @ 3.7GHz
-6GB Kingston Hyper X DDR2 800 CL5
-ASUS M4A79 Deluxe (790 FX)
-2x Radeon 6870 @ stock
-Catalyst 11.6 with newest CAP

The game runs on full everything, FSAA, High shadows, textures, motion blur, however, no Ambient Occlusion (the effect isn’t that great anyway).

It also seems that, in cases in which the FPS drops to unpleasant values, such as 45 ish and below, it doesn’t help to lower graphics settings, such as disabling AA. Only disabling shadows helps to a small extent.

However, since the CPU upgrade, FPS below 45 have become extremely rare.

Conclusion: The game is now playable, thx to my AMD Phenom II X6 CPU. The game looks to be CPU bound, which is still weird though, as the game really doesn’t look that great. Very enjoyable now nonetheless.[/QUOTE]

i found AO actually does quite a bit. it makes things look more realistic and 3d IMO. anyway, glad you are happy! :slight_smile: