Print Article: 3D Performance with Far Cry - Part 2 NVIDIA



		3D Performance with Far Cry - Part 2 NVIDIA April 27, 2004 Brandon Sandman Bell

Summary: Since publishing our last 3D Performance with Far Cry article we've discovered that Far Cry uses 2.0 shaders in considerably fewer instances than we thought. In fact, most of the game can be rendered without reduced image quality on a GeForce4! In our second article we've explored the differences between the various shaders in greater detail with screenshots, we've also combined GeForce cards ranging from the GeForce4 Ti 4200 all the way up to the GeForce 6800 Ultra, 12 cards total. Even if you read the first article this is one story you may want to check out!

Introduction Page:: ( 1 / 10 )

Lets clear up a few things…

After further analysis with Far Cry, it turns out the game isn’t quite the technological tour de force we suggested in part 1 of our 3D Performance with Far Cry article. In that article, we highlighted the game’s use of 2.0 shaders, and while these shaders are used in the game, it turns out that they’re not used as extensively as we suggested. In fact, from what we can tell, Far Cry mainly uses 1.1 shaders to achieve the jaw-dropping visuals we discussed in the intro.

In laymen’s terms, this means that NVIDIA’s three-year old GeForce3 GPU is capable of reproducing most of Far Cry’s brilliant eye candy, although at a significantly reduced frame rate.

Don’t believe us? Let’s take a look at one of Far Cry’s best features, its water:

[image]

<% print_image("01"); %>

<% print_image("02"); %>

<% print_image("03"); %>

<% print_image("04"); %>

<% print_image("05"); %>

<% print_image("06"); %>

All three cards were running in very high quality water mode. It turns out that Far Cry uses 1.1 shaders for rendering water, even in ultra high quality mode, which renders even more reflections on the water than the other modes:

[image]

<% print_image("07"); %>

<% print_image("08"); %>

<% print_image("09"); %>

<% print_image("10"); %>

<% print_image("11"); %>

<% print_image("12"); %>

We confirmed the use of 1.1 shaders for water on both ATI and NVIDIA hardware, regardless of the generation of the graphics card. We also noted a bug on NVIDIA cards in ultra high quality mode involving the reflection of objects on the water:

[image]

<% print_image("13"); %>

<% print_image("14"); %>

<% print_image("15"); %>

This bug was present on GeForce4 and GeForce FX with ForceWare 56.72, as well as NVIDIA’s upcoming GeForce 6800 Ultra with ForceWare 60.72.

Recently there’s been some controversy surrounding a set of screenshots NVIDIA sent to the press involving shader model 3.0 and Far Cry. In the screenshots, NVIDIA provides a comparison of 1.1 shaders to 3.0 shaders. According to NVIDIA: “The following before-and-after images are from the CryEngine. Developer Crytek uses Shader Model 3.0 techniques (vs. 1.x shaders) to add more depth and realism to the scenes. Notice the more realistic look and feel when SM 3.0 is applied to the bricks and stones that make up the staircase. In the scene featuring the Buddha, the full image comes to life with the use of SM 3.0, with the technique applied to multiple objects.” (Editor’s Note: The preceding quote came directly from NVIDIA’s email to members of the press which accompanied the screenshots) :

[image]

<% print_image("16"); %>

<% print_image("17"); %>

<% print_image("18"); %>

<% print_image("19"); %>

Clearly you can see that the water in NVIDIA’s screenshots doesn’t match the output we’ve just shown you using 1.1 shaders and NVIDIA’s GeForce4 GPU. In fact, they resemble Far Cry’s low quality water mode more than anything else (which also happens to use 1.1 shaders). As we discussed at length in our GeForce 6800 Ultra article, the main additions of shader model 3.0 are more instructions and dynamic looping/branching, which is designed to make life easier for content developers and can handle certain operations more efficiently than shader model 2.0 (we mentioned some examples in the preview article). In some cases this looping/branching can also bring improved performance, but can also hinder performance if coded improperly.

The other main highlights of shader model 3.0 have been present in ATI’s DX9 hardware for some time now, with the exception of FP32 support.

So what does Far Cry use 2.0 shaders for? Apparently just lighting, everything else is handled by 1.1 shaders.

With this in mind, we’ve rounded up one dozen GeForce cards, ranging from the GeForce4 Ti 4200 to the GeForce 6800 Ultra. We’ve also run numbers comparing the performance of Far Cry 1.0 with Far Cry 1.1, which contains performance optimizations for GeForce FX cards.

[image]

<% print_image("20"); %>

<% print_image("21"); %>

<% print_image("22"); %>

SIDEBAR: Far Cry Official Website

Test conditions Page:: ( 2 / 10 )

System Setup

Notes

Without the presence of AF, the GeForce4 cards come roaring back against the mainstream and value GeForce FX offerings, competing closely with GeForce FX 5700 Ultra (although keep in mind that the GeForce FX cards are using 2.0 shaders while the GeForce4 isn’t). The battles between the high-end cards are less dramatic, with the 5950 Ultra maintaining a slim 3-5% lead over GeForce FX 5900 Ultra depending on the resolution with a similar margin separating the GeForce FX 5900 128MB from the GeForce FX 5900 XT. Of course, the GeForce 6800 Ultra continues to dominate all of them, nearly achieving a 2X performance improvement at 1280x1024 and 1600x1200.

SIDEBAR: You can commandeer vehicles in Far Cry.

Far Cry 4xAA 8xAF Page:: ( 9 / 10 )

Far Cry – Direct3D

SIDEBAR: You can download the Fort single-player demo (503MB) here.

Conclusion Page:: ( 10 / 10 )

Since Far Cry uses 1.1 shaders for a lot of its eye candy, those of you with GeForce4 Ti cards are probably holding on pretty tight to your video cards right now. They’ve served you well for the past two years, and even in “DX9” titles like Far Cry can deliver good visuals with acceptable performance, provided the fighting doesn’t get too intense and you leave the AA at a conservative level (read: 2xAA). Enabling 8xAF will probably put too much of a strain on the memory subsystem of these cards (at least with AA), which lack the more advanced compression technologies for dealing with AA and AF that is found in NVIDIA’s Intellisample technology.

Based on our timeline, NVIDIA has adopted its next generation graphics architecture (GeForce 6800 Ultra) more rapidly than its two previous architectures. The gap between GeForce 256 and GeForce3 was just over 1.5 years, while GeForce3 and GeForce FX 5800 Ultra were separated by a little over two years. The 6800 Ultra should hit shelves a little over a year after GeForce FX 5800 Ultra/5200 Ultra and offers nearly a 2X performance improvement over NVIDIA’s GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, their previous high-end DX9 part that was introduced last Fall. Clearly NVIDIA pulled out all the stops for this card, but at $500 and the hefty power requirements it needs, will certainly be a card for the hardcore crowd.

NVIDIA’s GeForce FX 5900 XT clearly offers the best price/performance ratio. These boards can be found for roughly $180 online, while GeForce FX 5900 128MB boards typically start around $200 at online retailers. We predicted this would happen in our first 5900 XT article, the eVGA e-GeForce FX 5900 SE review, as 5900 XT boards are cheaper for board partners like MSI, eVGA, and others to manufacture and offer most of the performance of GeForce FX 5900 128MB.

On the high-end side it’s hard to really make any definitive recommendations right now. The GeForce 6800 Ultra offers a dramatic performance improvement over GeForce FX 5950 Ultra and 5900 Ultra, which suggests that the 12-pipeline GeForce 6800 could be a real contender in the $300 price range it’s designated for. It will also require less power than GeForce 6800 Ultra. Prices on 5950 Ultra and 5900 Ultra will likely fall quickly once this board debuts (not to mention ATI’s R420).

In closing, Far Cry may not be quite as 2.0 shader heavy as initially believed, but it still delivers stunning visuals and solid gameplay. And after all, it’s supposed to be about the gameplay first and foremost right?

SIDEBAR: Wish we had 6800 benchmarks for this article? We do too! What did you think of the GeForce4 and 5900 XT? NVIDIA will have a hard time delivering successors to these boards don’t you think? Speak up in the news comments and make your voice heard!

[ Print Article! | Close Window ]