# Secret "unoptimization" in F.E.A.R. for ATI users?



## Nyte (Nov 10, 2005)

Here's a neat trick that has just sprung up. Users of any R520 based video card can rename their "FEAR.exe" to "anythingelse.exe" will see a marked improvement in the area of 10-15%.

EDIT: I've just confirmed that this will work for R4XX based cards. Tested it on my X700 and X850XT PE and saw improvements in the average of ~10 fps.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Nov 10, 2005)

Why is this occuring?  That sounds extremely fishy to me.  Is it ATI or Monolith that has caused this?


----------



## Tory (Nov 10, 2005)

Great! This is just what I needed. I was seeing as low as 17 fps in some places with my X800XT @ 545/570


----------



## prophylactic (Nov 10, 2005)

I went ahead and did this little trick, not really expecting anything; however, I did honestly get a 10 (or more) FPS boost.  Seems quite unfair to ATI.. looking at all these loaded benchmarks on anandtech and whatnot.


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Nov 10, 2005)

I too got the additional 10fps with a X800.  What the heck:shadedshu  !  Did they honestly expect to keep this a secret forever?  This makes me rather angry.


----------



## boruvka (Nov 10, 2005)

I don't understand your faked surprise. 

I have a nVidia Gayforce card.

nVidia pays *a lot of money* so the game publishers insert the "runs best on nVidia" logo. Obviously, that money does not go into overall better games. Why should a company pay for overall better games if it is mere chance the game is played on their hardware?
The money is paid -if everyone of us is lucky- solely into that silly logo, advertising. Spam, if you want. The game does not get cheaper if there are ads at its start displayed, right? So they force you to see advertising even if you buy a game. Like pay TV *WITH *ads.

That lot of money wasn't put under nVidia's CEO's pillow by the tooth fairy. No.
Ultimately, those people that buy nVidia products help fund that money that doesn't go into better hardware, but into ad-spam.
So we gamers are twice the fools. First, we pay for games but still get ads, second, we pay for the ads to be inserted into the game.
Some nVidia CEO must be laughing his ass off.

But I have to come back to my mentioning "if everyone of us is lucky".
I think we're not.
Why pay for ads, if you can boost your sales by funding a game company, too?
Let's assume company A pays a game publisher XY to make sure the approximately equal hardware of company B does not perform so well when playing XY's games.
Gamer magazines and websites will shout out "Company A products perform better! Buy A products!". And company A does not even have to put more money into research, but only a small amount of cash into the game industry. Those publishers are almost broke for a big part anyway, they do not have much choice.

Ironically, nVidia at the moment has the better, faster PCIe video cards. OK, not anymore in the AGP sector, but the GF7 series is pretty impressive and Ati is struggling to release contenders.
And returning much less profit. And less successful in the motherboard chipset market.
Still someone at nVidia must have deemed it necessary to play foul.
And deserves a kicking.

So, I bought a nVidia GPU, and a game that displays a big "Runs best on nVidia", _*I sure do expect*_ that all the money my money that nVidia pumped into that game publisher pays off by me getting more frames out of it than my peers. They are even running more expensive Ati cards. They even have nicer looking AntiAliasing, so it's only fair if nVidia lashes back at them! It's in my interest, even!

(in case you do not note the irony, this was irony)

I am not proud to own a nVidia GF6800. 

Here I am, running Microsoft WindowsXP, owning a GF6 video card, and my parents even have an Intel Coppermine in their PC.
Who am I to throw the first stone? I am deep within a glass house...


----------



## zAAm (Nov 10, 2005)

Damn, no difference for my card. It's actually 1fps slower when it's renamed to something else lol! in 3 tests both I've confirmed this. 36fps on FEAR.exe and 35fps on PlayNow.exe.  But that's real low nVidia... You could've just made your cards better instead of trying to make your opponent's cards seem slower you bastards :shadedshu .


----------



## prophylactic (Nov 10, 2005)

New drivers had no effect whatsoever on FEAR's performance (5.11 comes out tomorrow officially, but you can get it from http://www.tweaktown.com/).  The rename trick had quite an  astounding effect for me.. the game is significantly more playable.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Nov 10, 2005)

Yet another drama in the world of video cards.

Does this improve performance at all for Nvidia cards? (Im guessing not...)


----------



## 15th Warlock (Nov 10, 2005)

Geez, this is like the time Ati cards had a lower performance when you renamed the quake.exe to quack.exe in the Radeon 8500 days, but at least that was a "driver optimization" Ati used for cheating, seems both Ati and nVidia use dirty tricks to gain performance, makes you wander how many of these cheats go undetected....


----------



## wtf8269 (Nov 11, 2005)

This is a really odd story. From what I'm seeing it really is true. I don't have F.E.A.R. yet but I will try it once I get it (hopefully) for Christmas.


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

How do you this trick?!


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Nov 11, 2005)

Pheonix_789 said:
			
		

> How do you this trick?!


Just rename the FEAR.exe  to (whatever you want).exe.  my friend renamed it scared.exe .


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Nov 11, 2005)

I don't exactly understand how it is NVIDIA's fault.  It seems that it must be an issue with ATI drivers, don't their drivers recognize that it is FEAR and not preform as well?  Or did NVIDIA right code into FEAR to actively screw with ATI's drivers, and then why only when its called fear.exe?  It all seems fishy to me and I just can't seam to figure out who is at fault.  Whoever did it has seriously misplace corporate trust, but then again I guess corporate trust is a contradiction in terms.


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 11, 2005)

personaly i never new games could do this the .exe trick this sucks as someone said before wonder how many of them go undetected.....*sigh* im not blaming nVidia cause ati did it too i just wish they wouldnt stoop soo low make better producs dont pay off game makers.


----------



## Polaris573 (Nov 11, 2005)

wazzledoozle said:
			
		

> Yet another drama in the world of video cards.
> 
> Does this improve performance at all for Nvidia cards? (Im guessing not...)



I tried it on my 6800, performance was roughly the same.


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

Really just name it anything? the desk top Fear.exe right?


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

hey I dont have FEAR.exe what are you talking about???
as I have is a file name FEAR????
where is the file located? I checked in the sierra file and it is not there???
Iam confused.....


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 11, 2005)

if u have F.E.A.R in stalled ull find the .exe in the host folder on your drive i dont own the game but im guessing X:/Program files/Seiarra...and any file folder could have frear.exe in it it could be out in the open too....also i replaced your drive letter w/ X  just substatute it accordingly.


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

I checked there and there is no file called FEAR.exe but I did update the game awhile go.
hmm there is one file with a logo that reads: FEAR but no exe anywhere???

lol iam getting really crappy fps when i play this game i really hope I can do this trick...

card specs: 

HIS X700 i-cooler
256Mb DDR
128 bit
6 vertex shaders
8 pixel pipelines
400mhz core 
250mhz (500mhz) mem 

(crappy  card cant even overclock or else it will overheat extremely!)


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 11, 2005)

^ ahh u may have the file extensions hidden ...when u mouse over it does it say exicutable file?


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

LOL it works! why is that file hidden in the first place??? 

I will see if I notice any performence increase!!!

card specs: 

HIS X700 i-cooler
256Mb DDR
128 bit
6 vertex shaders
8 pixel pipelines
400mhz core 
250mhz (500mhz) mem 

(crappy card cant even overclock or else it will overheat extremely!)


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 11, 2005)

^ the extensions are hidden by default in windows u can disable it by doing the following



My Computer/Tools(Tab)/Folder Options/Veiw(tab).....now look down u will see a folder symbol (their are two but it is the second Folder symbol down under it will be Many options "show hidden files and folders" "dont show hidden files and folders" ETC....the one u are looking for is "Hide extensions for known file types" uncheck this box and now u will see the extensions for your files ...EX: XXXX.exe   XXXXX.jpg etc.


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

it didnt really help.... iam still getting slow fps here are my cards specs.....

HIS X700 i-cooler
256Mb DDR
128 bit
6 vertex shaders
8 pixel pipelines
400mhz core
250mhz (500mhz) mem

My setup:
AMD Sempron 3000 @ 1.8ghz
ASUS K8N4-E
1GB DDR mem Single Channel
200 GB IDE 133
HIS X700 i cooler 256Mb DDR


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

Solaris17 said:
			
		

> ^ the extensions are hidden by default in windows u can disable it by doing the following
> 
> 
> 
> My Computer/Tools(Tab)/Folder Options/Veiw(tab).....now look down u will see a folder symbol (their are two but it is the second Folder symbol down under it will be Many options "show hidden files and folders" "dont show hidden files and folders" ETC....the one u are looking for is "Hide extensions for known file types" uncheck this box and now u will see the extensions for your files ...EX: XXXX.exe   XXXXX.jpg etc.




 I already did the trick nothing has happened.... if you had read i said that i had did the trick

it didnt really help.... iam still getting slow fps here are my cards specs.....

HIS X700 i-cooler
256Mb DDR
128 bit
6 vertex shaders
8 pixel pipelines
400mhz core
250mhz (500mhz) mem

My setup:
AMD Sempron 3000 @ 1.8ghz
ASUS K8N4-E
1GB DDR mem Single Channel
200 GB IDE 133
HIS X700 i cooler 256Mb DDR


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

:shadedshu can you hep me get better fps:

medium quality set by default
medium detail
800X600 no antilizing or anything else everything set at default


----------



## wtf8269 (Nov 11, 2005)

Pheonix_789 said:
			
		

> I already did the trick nothing has happened.... if you had read i said that i had did the trick
> 
> it didnt really help.... iam still getting slow fps here are my cards specs.....
> 
> ...


Are you sure that it's not that your FPS were so low that even with the improvement they're still low? Not trying to dis you or anything, but like are you using a FPS counter or anything in order to tell the difference or are you just kind of eyeballing it to tell the difference?


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

No offense takin! 

but I will tell the maxuim fps That I am  getting  at default settings (everything set to default):

wait 2 mins


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 11, 2005)

i hadnt relized im sorry i thought u had found the .exe and u didnt get a difference i did not know that u did the unhide extensions thing and still could not find it im sorry.


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

no I found the file and I changed it here are my new Fps:

Meduim Quality
computer Meduim Quality

FPS
Minuim 17 FPS
Average 27
Max 52

FPS distribution

42% below
55% between 25 and 40%
3% above 40Fps
Graphics still seem a bit choppy.... anyway of improving the graphics if I overclock the card it heats up to much.... the card has poor cooling( probably why its called i-cooler!)

remind you of card specs:

HIS X700 i-cooler
256Mb DDR
128 bit
6 vertex shaders
8 pixel pipelines
400mhz core
250mhz (500mhz) mem


----------



## Drash (Nov 11, 2005)

Phoenix_789 try changing your settings - I've got the settings on auto-detect, looks ok @ 800x600, no AA
On the test settings run i get:
min:27
ave:46
max:82
0% below 25FPS
39% between 25 and 40 FPS
61% above 40 FPS

Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB stock
Sempron 3100+ @ 1.8GHz (skt 754), 2x512MB DDR400, Audigy 2ZS, ASUS K8VSEDX, 200GB PATA,


----------



## Nyte (Nov 11, 2005)

15th Warlock said:
			
		

> Geez, this is like the time Ati cards had a lower performance when you renamed the quake.exe to quack.exe in the Radeon 8500 days, but at least that was a "driver optimization" Ati used for cheating, seems both Ati and nVidia use dirty tricks to gain performance, makes you wander how many of these cheats go undetected....



I wouldn't call this a cheat, more like a "crippler".


----------



## row1 (Nov 11, 2005)

I tried it and got at max an extra 20 fps
if you really interested i posted more details on
http://row1.info 
perhaps a coincidence?
strange indeed
edit:
permanent link is : http://row1.info/content/view/76/2/


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

:shadedshu yeah I tried and it was working but the game totally freezed up when I made it to the android in the elevator... it started firing rockets at me and the game froze up! 

I miss my Pentuim 4!!!!! I sure wish I could afford a better Cpu and video card!


 
(I could use cheats and hacks to beat the game but its just so awesome not too!)


----------



## 65tweet (Nov 11, 2005)

As always I’m a skeptic and need to see for myself. Here’s the test I ran:
All quality settings on and/or set to max.
Ran settings test movie five times with both name variations and recorded average.

Results,				
	Unchanged name:				
	Min FPS:           16				 
	Average FPS:     27				 
	Max FPS:           66			 

 Changed name:
             Min FPS:            16
             Average FPS:      34 
             Max FPS:           75

FPS Distribution, original/changed name:
	Below 25          53/35%
	Btwn 25 & 40    44/45%
	Above 40          3/20%

The test shows a 7-9 FPS increase in the higher frame rate portion but that is not as impressive as the overall result. The percent above 40 FPS went up 17% adding quite a boost. IMO this will be a good improvement when playing multiplayer and the action gets heavy. As to why this “trick” works I think it was already stated earlier…money. If one company’s card plays games better then they will sell more cards. You can always blame the software distributor but I believe it boils down to the cash. The software manufacturer is out to make money and adding a dirty little trick and getting paid extra to do it is easy enough to do. The game is no worse off and the hardware manufacturer gets a better reputation and sales go up. It’s a very crappy way to do business,  but then what do you do in return? Not buy NVIDIA? I can only hope this backfires on them.


----------



## Dwarden (Nov 11, 2005)

Sorry to burst bubble ... it simple tweak for FEAR demos affecting final version in negative way ... 



> It’s a "bug" in that we simply got an IF statement backwards Thanks for pointing this out to us, you have just helped us get a big performance gain. Of course there is no difference in the rendering, it’s just a CATALYST AI game specific optimization that was good for the demo version, but backfired in the final version. We will get it sorted out in a future Catalyst (not 5.11 which is being posted tomorrow by the way).


----------



## OBR (Nov 11, 2005)

Really it working!
Config: X850XT PE + FX57
Computer: MAX, graphics: MAX, 1024x768 

FEAR.exe 
Min: 22fps 
Ave: 41fps 
Max: 106fps 
7% below 25fps 
49% between 25 and 40fps 
44% up to 40fps. 

FEA.exe 
Min: 30fps 
Ave: 58fps 
Max: 143 
0% below 25fps 
32% between 25 a 40fps 
68% up to 40fps

Its crazy!


----------



## gonrain (Nov 11, 2005)

Wow.. nice find.. really does work..

Min 35    Min 35
Avg 60   Avg 68
Max 149  Max 173

nice increase..  x850pro@16 pipes and 550/610


----------



## Pheonix_789 (Nov 11, 2005)

kool.exe!


----------



## 65tweet (Nov 11, 2005)

Did anybody notice that the movie isn't exactly the same every time like a benchmark? The soldiers don’t seem to shoot the same areas each time.  If you look at the walls and watch for bullet holes sometimes they are quite large. Other times they are small or missing completely! I saw a soldier shoot huge holes in the floor next to his feet once. Usually he just puts holes in the ceiling. Maybe the test is more like watching bots fight than a movie? Or perhaps the game behaves like that to try and keep things seeming random.


----------



## zAAm (Nov 11, 2005)

Yeah, I've seen it too. One time the bot shot the ceiling and hit the tube lights, which went spinning around like crazy and casting nice dynamic shadows on everything. Not quite the same as the previous runs...  And I think they're probably just bots standing there shooting randomly in an utterly uncomfortable position?


----------



## afropuff (Nov 11, 2005)

Odd.

I'll test this out w/my modded C3D X800GTO when I get home and post the results.

-fro


----------



## afropuff (Nov 12, 2005)

*Results*



			
				afropuff said:
			
		

> Odd.
> 
> I'll test this out w/my modded C3D X800GTO when I get home and post the results.
> 
> -fro



*Test Conditions:*
Here are my results. Tests ran at stock high/high with only change to 4 x AA for testing, otherwise all defaults for high/high. Tests ran 3 times for high confidence. All tests ran at 1024x864 resolution.

*Results:*

1024x864 high/high Fear.exe

Min = 37
Avg = 63
Max = 127

1024x864 high/high crazymofo.exe

Min = 33
*Avg = 69* (+6)
Max = 157

1024x864 high/custom 4xAA Fear.exe

Min = 19
Avg = 38
Max = 97

1024x864 high/custom 4xAA crazymofo.exe

Min = 22
*Avg = 50* (+12)
Max = 128

Conclusion: Changing the filename increases FPS around 6-12, depending on what settings you use.


----------



## Pinorkel (Nov 28, 2005)

*Radeon 9550 - Fear*

Hi All,
    I have read through this forum until my eyes hurt, so now need a little assistance on how to make FEAR playable.

My PC 
Intel P4 3.6GHz
1Gb RAM
400Gb ATA HDD
Radeon 9550 256Mb

frame rate is running at 18fps ... I run every other game I have at max.

I changed the naming convention of the .exe file and got fps to 22, but the game runs choppy !!!

I ran the test with default settings, of high/high with highest resolution.


----------



## row1 (Nov 28, 2005)

Pinorkel said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> I have read through this forum until my eyes hurt, so now need a little assistance on how to make FEAR playable.
> 
> My PC
> ...



No offense but your GFX card is probably too old.
From what I understand the Radeon 9550 is only a midrange card and is 2 generations old. Looking at this benchmark  http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/tul9550/6.html 
19 fps seems pretty good for f.e.a.r
My 2 cents.


----------



## 65tweet (Nov 28, 2005)

If you want to play with all settings set to max then you need a new video card and more memory. A four pipe card just won't cut it. I don't know what games you play normally but this game gives my card a hard time. My X850xt running at pe speeds gets in the 70's so you are doing good for what you have.


----------



## Pinorkel (Nov 30, 2005)

Thanks guys, I better go shopping, will look at the benchamrks to see what is the best card.


----------



## bodingtonsboy (Dec 2, 2005)

*fears running slow*

Fear looks like i great game and i would love to be able to play the dame thing, without  it lagging all the time.
 These are my specs 

AMD athlon 64
radeon x800 pro 
1 gb ram

i have tried running fear with a few different types of settings and the best i could get was 

17 fps
32 fps
108 fps

theses were set with my computer spec on low and my graphics on the auto detect settin ,is this normal ? please could someone help 

ps i have renamed the game exe


----------



## HellSpawn (Jul 3, 2007)

*ok i own the game fear*

ok i heard everyone talk about fear and the frame rate..ok can someone tell me how u do this frame rate test...so that it will show me the fps??


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Jul 3, 2007)

I think there is a run benchmark test or something similar in Video Options.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Jul 3, 2007)

HellSpawn said:


> ok i heard everyone talk about fear and the frame rate..ok can someone tell me how u do this frame rate test...so that it will show me the fps??



Yes, click on Options on the main menu, then click on Performance, you'll see a "Test settings" option in that menu, clicking on it will initiate the game's built in benchmark.

This thread is almost two years old btw... should've started a new thread, but anyway, hope this helps


----------



## KennyT772 (Jul 3, 2007)

2 year old thread? thank god someone used the search button for once.

did you try the rename trick by chance?


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Jul 3, 2007)

Wow, this thread had been dead for years. 

/pointless comments


----------

