F.E.A.R-GO7800 VS 7900GS in E-1705's

All Stock Drivers and no O.C. with Junk Software deleted out of System, no format.


System #1: 1705, 1 Gig, 7800 and T2400 and the Samsung (yuk!) WXGA+

DEFAULT Auto Performance benchmark test; 1024X768 (Max Allowed)

Min-28 FPS
Average -46 FPS
Max – 85 FPS

System #2: 1705, 1 Gig, 7900GS, T2400 and the LG (way less light bleed!)TrueLife WUXGA.

DEFAULT Auto Performance benchmark test; 1024X768

Min-35 FPS
Average -83 FPS
Max – 196 FPS

Auto Performance benchmark test; 1600X1200 (Max Allowed)

Min-30 FPS
Average -46 FPS
Max – 89 FPS

Note that BIOS lets the 7900 heat up to around 72C then kicks the fan on low. Default NVIDIA Control Panel claims the 7900 will “slow protect” at 102C.

Anyone want to back up these figures?

 

FEAR on any single-GPU system is going to experience slowdowns at 1600x1200, that is extremely demanding. FEAR is very shadow intensive.

The Go7900GS is more or less inbetween the desktop 7800GT and GTX in terms of performance, so check out benchmarks for those cards and see what they get. From what I see, the numbers are quite high; if they are normal for a Go7900GS, not sure, haven't see many numbers for that card.

 

uh dell underclocked go 7800 badly, i mailed with guy from nvidia, and default core clock should be 350 mhz(they wanted originally 400 mhz - i saw on other forum 490mhz core speed OC), not 250 mhz which is set by dell, change to 350 mhz and test then

edit: then difference should be near 12-15%
go 7900 gs core speed is 375 mhz

 

I agree 100%! No complaint here I just posted the numbers before I try other drivers and any O. C. so others could look at the default stock results.

The game runs like extremely well at the lower rez and very well at 1600x1200 with the 9700GS.

It would be nice to get other actual game frame rates from other gamers BEFORE moving from stock configs.

 

I just downloaded the FEAR demo, and ran it @ 800x600 with ALL settings except AA on highest. i got around 30~35 FPS which is not bad, then i changed the resolution to 1280x800 with ALL settings on HIGH and i got 40+ fps. so the game is flexiable but the resolution kills the performance.

 

i wish i had e1705 with go 7900 gs from i heard less heater more power

 

Did the demo have the built in performance test? This will give you the low to high frame rates, but will auto adjust the settings low to max depending on what it thinks will work best. Good point. My settings were as yours.

Yes, the game seems to scale well in screen resolution and is not a console port

 

You moved up the resolution and got higher framerates? 1280x800 is a very demanding resolution for 90% of the midrange video cards . . you'd have to turn down the settings quite a bit to keep it playable at 1280x800.

FEAR is a great game, I'm also pleased it is not a console port like an increasing amount of other games on the market.

 

well i did turn settings down as i turned resolutions up. because all settings maxed and resolution maxed (for my screen) was killing performance. so i chose to turn some eye candy down for resolution. and i say im quite pleased with the performance/resualt!!!!! though i CAN live with 27 FPS with EVERYTHING on high. but i choose better performance and resolution

 

That is very good performance, I agree. Always nice to run at native resolution - much sharper and looks more impressive. Some of the settings in FEAR can be sacrificed without taking a big hit to visual quality.

 

you're rigth about the 1280x800 being to demanding for a mid range card, my x1400 can handle it very well on fear, but it play fairly well in 800x600 with med setting, around 27-35 fps

 

i agree with you chazman...fear looks better with Higher Resolution/Mid settings than Low Resolution/High settings