[Mortiferous]

I output 1600 x 900 to a 57 inch hi-def television when playing VG. Framerates have always been abysmal when I get into groups and/or cities.

Is changing resolution to a 4:3 aspect ratio likely to help me framerate problems? I'd still want to run a higher resolution 1600 x 1200 due to the size of the screen.

Next question - I know VG isn't optimized for SLI rigs but does anyone have experience with SLI increasing FPS in VG at higher resolutions?

I know my PC isn't 'next-gen' but I'm dropping as low as 3 FPS in certain group situations.

my pc:
Windows XP (32-bit home edition)
MSI K8N Neo 4 motherboard (Socket 939)
FX-60 dual-core CPU 2.6Ghz x 2 (stock fan, not overclocked)
eVGA 8800GTS 640mb OC (factory overclocked)
3 GB OCZ Platinum memory (matced, low-latency)
Western Digital Raptor hard drive 10k
Sound Blaster X-fi Extreme sound card

[rabb1t]

It isn't the aspect ratio, nor the size of the screen. I know you probably realize this, but the 57" size has no impact on performance. Similarly, the 16:9 vs. 4:3 aspect has no impact on performance. It is the resolutions that matter. Comparing the 1600x900 resolution to 1600x1200 you would actually have slower performance with the 4:3 1600x1200 image because it is pushing more pixels - 1,440,000 vs. 1,920,000.

Now, outputing to an HDTV could itself be the problem. DVI input would be fine. DVI to HDMI would be fine. But if you are on analog that might be gimping performance.

That all being said... an 8800 GTS w/640 meg shouldn't have any trouble at all displaying a 1600x900 image. (Particularly backed by an extreme core.) What you may want to do is run 3dMark06 and see what kind of rating you get. It could be that something is gimping the system and it isn't running correctly. Checking the 3dMark06 rating might help us to discover if the system is gimped or if it is probably just VG performance.

However, since you say you are playing VG, I'd be much more likely to suspect poor coding in VG, or settings that simply aren't working, than your monitor or your system being somehow gimped (by virus, adware, etc.)

[Kurron Nye]

Originally Posted by rabb1t

It isn't the aspect ratio, nor the size of the screen. I know you probably realize this, but the 57" size has no impact on performance. Similarly, the 16:9 vs. 4:3 aspect has no impact on performance. It is the resolutions that matter. Comparing the 1600x900 resolution to 1600x1200 you would actually have slower performance with the 4:3 1600x1200 image because it is pushing more pixels - 1,440,000 vs. 1,920,000.

Now, outputing to an HDTV could itself be the problem. DVI input would be fine. DVI to HDMI would be fine. But if you are on analog that might be gimping performance.

That all being said... an 8800 GTS w/640 meg shouldn't have any trouble at all displaying a 1600x900 image. (Particularly backed by an extreme core.) What you may want to do is run 3dMark06 and see what kind of rating you get. It could be that something is gimping the system and it isn't running correctly. Checking the 3dMark06 rating might help us to discover if the system is gimped or if it is probably just VG performance.

However, since you say you are playing VG, I'd be much more likely to suspect poor coding in VG, or settings that simply aren't working, than your monitor or your system being somehow gimped (by virus, adware, etc.)

I use a Samsung 206BW Widescreen DVI monitor @ 1680x1050 with VG (driven by a Raedon 1900XTX), and I get 30+FPS out of the cities and 15+ FPS in the cities (Khal for instance).

However I am pretty relgious about not allow bottlenecks to exist in my syste, so I keep my memory matched for the dual-channel benefits, and use memory that can handle high bus speeds (no situations where memory cant keep up, or where my CPU cant make use of a bigger bus).

Post Game Update 2, you should be able to play that resolution w/o a lot of issue on high settings in Vanguard (but I can only speak as a Radeon 1900 owner. I have no idea how NVidia cards of similar caliber would behave).

I have to wonder about driver revisions for the vid card you are using and how good the card's DVI output actually is (also is it a dual DVI output card, and have you tried using the other DVI output?)

As long as you are checking stuff, migt want to see if the vid card is running too hot, and has adequate ventilation, and if it is running overclocked, try bringing it back to factory levels and trying again.

At anyrate, it is getting harder to fault the Vanguard client code alone with each progressive update as the optimizations are implemented. (though it is still very demanding).

[Mortiferous]

Thanks for the responses. Ya I know the size of my screen isn't a performance factor, just mentioned it because peeps often suggest a lower resolution to improve performance.

Anywho, my rig scored 8020 on 3dmark. Not stellar but should be respectable enough to handle current titles.

I ran the nvidia fine tune routine and let it OC my CPU, increase PCI-E bus speed and set the memory latency settings. I use matched low-latency Platinum series OCZ memory and it overclocks well with no trouble.

Also overclocked the 8800GTS using the nvidia routine.

All this did was get my score up from the 7500 range to the 8020 score I last received. I really didn't notice any change in performance playing Vanguard.

Outside cities I get up to 40 fps, inside it drops to 15-20 fps. The big performance hit I see is when I'm grouped with 5 other players, we have 4 mobs on us and a whole bunch of particle effects from bard songs, spells, effects, etc. Some dungeons like Opu (for the Lucent medals) have a bunch of moving blocks (traps) that are also a big factor dropping frame rates.

It sounds like this is more a problem with the game than my rig. The only other game I have trouble running is Colin McCrae's DiRT - and only the events with multiple vehicles which I've heard a number of other people complain about as well. Otherwise I run DiRT at 1920 x 1080 at Ultra high settings with no trouble.

[Slide]

Originally Posted by Mortiferous

It sounds like this is more a problem with the game than my rig.

Yes, your machine isn't a slouch, it should be playing better than that. Check drivers for your 8800 maybe. I havent played VG for over a year so cant tell you what you should be getting, but when I did my x800 was more playable than that.

I'm playing EQ2 these days on a similar performing rig and there's a whole bunch of graphics tweak settings you can make - a lot add marginal improvements and really kill performance, there must be a FAQ around somewhere for tweaking Vanguard.

One thing i'd say is 3GB is a wierd amount of RAM to be installed, you'll drop into single channel mode with it - and maybe even the motherboard will clock it back some (at least thats what happens on my S939 pc)

[Mortiferous]

Originally Posted by Slide

One thing i'd say is 3GB is a wierd amount of RAM to be installed, you'll drop into single channel mode with it - and maybe even the motherboard will clock it back some (at least thats what happens on my S939 pc)

Memory shouldn't be an issue. I have two 1GB's on channel 1 and two 512mb's on channel 2. Both have the same CAS latency and are OCZ Platinum series.

I agree it's not common but really shouldn't be an issue here.

[rabb1t]

You aren't just looking at VG as a measure are you?

Check other games, check 3dMark, see how you run there. Because, yeah, VG can really go from 'fine' to 'terrible' purely based on their code or settings you are using.

[Malosar]

8800's also seem to have a real issue with cities and high model count areas. I've noticed the 8800 gets far more of a hit in these areas than my 2900XT does, though it's about the only time it is worse off. I put it down to the higher vertex power of the 2900 (about the only thing it's good at). But it's definitely noticable between mine and my wife's computer.