Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1

    Post Crysis benchmarked on 9800GTX
















  2. #2
    Not actual gameplay leh...
    E8400|P5Q Pro|HIS 4850 IceQ4 CF|WD 500GB|HX620W|CM690

  3. #3
    In A ***** of Hypocrites. skulltre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    11,169
    how much will it cost?
    http://forums.vr-zone.com/signaturepics/sigpic44280_3.gif

  4. #4
    still considered unplayable what min 19fps is damn bad

  5. #5
    Frog on Fire FireFrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Where does a frog live?
    Posts
    3,737
    lol... crysis ftw!
    Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz @ 3258MHz | BTF-90 | Gigabyte GA-965P DS-3 | Thermaltake Extreme Spirit II | Leadtek 8800GTS 512MB @ 730/1836/1944 (MSI OC Speeds) | Auzentech X-Meridian 7.1 + 3 x LM4562NA | A-Data DDR2-800 2 x 1.0GB Dual Channel @ 724MHz | Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250GB 16MB x 2 | Sony DRU-820A | Thermaltake Armour (Black) | Verudium Power VortexHE 600W | Viewsonic 22" VX2235WM | Logitech X-540 5.1 | Sennheiser HD555 | Microsoft Wireless Laser Mouse 6000 | Logitech G15 | Razer eXactmat

  6. #6
    At least is playable at 1280x1024 at high settings.

    But it will require SLI for at least 2x AA or higher res...

    Crysis loves to swallow the power from the GFX!

  7. #7
    wallace91
    Guest
    I have a very comparable system with core 2 @ 3.0 Ghz and an 8800gt with a decent overclock and XP sp3

    Crysis high settings @ 1280x1024- 37fps

    Crysis high settings @ 1680x1050- 30fps


    So as one can see unless my system is totally messed up or is an outlier of the range than I believe the performance to be pretty substantial.

    You are looking at almost ~48% better perfermance. Thats a large jump in Crysis, I would be really interested to see the 9800gtx in other games. Even if Crysis is a timedemo that will improve in game performance considerably. Still this will most likely not be enough to play the game in very high.

    On a side note... I still do not understand why people benchmarking Crysis do not use Assult listed in the demos that you can run. That benchmark brings most sytems to their knees because so much is going on in the scenes( huge explosions) I feel it is a good representation of actual in game performance. I feel the frame rate obtained in this benchmark more accuratly express in game performance except a little slow down in the snow levels.

    Crysis High settings @ 1680x1050 Assult- 24.5 fps

  8. #8
    2nd hand warrior Q00's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Tampines, Singapore
    Posts
    3,183
    y benchmark crysis in dx9 and not dx10?

  9. #9
    evillman
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by wallace91 View Post
    I have a very comparable system with core 2 @ 3.0 Ghz and an 8800gt with a decent overclock and XP sp3

    Crysis high settings @ 1280x1024- 37fps

    Crysis high settings @ 1680x1050- 30fps


    So as one can see unless my system is totally messed up or is an outlier of the range than I believe the performance to be pretty substantial.

    You are looking at almost ~48% better perfermance. Thats a large jump in Crysis, I would be really interested to see the 9800gtx in other games. Even if Crysis is a timedemo that will improve in game performance considerably. Still this will most likely not be enough to play the game in very high.

    On a side note... I still do not understand why people benchmarking Crysis do not use Assult listed in the demos that you can run. That benchmark brings most sytems to their knees because so much is going on in the scenes( huge explosions) I feel it is a good representation of actual in game performance. I feel the frame rate obtained in this benchmark more accuratly express in game performance except a little slow down in the snow levels.

    Crysis High settings @ 1680x1050 Assult- 24.5 fps


    Now just say to G92 and wellcome to GT200

  10. #10
    wallace91
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ptr1aa View Post
    Well if 29 fps is the result of that timedemo if we do the math it's really unplayable.

    What is the math on that subjective opinion of what is playable or not? I really need to see you solve it for me?

    29fps < (Commonsense)(My biased Idea')-(Commonsense')(My Biased Idea)/(My Biased Idea)^2

    Where the FPS you feel is good enough to enjoy the game is Commonsense/My Biased Idea

    Crysis runs fine in the 30fps range. DO you believe you need 180 fps to really enjoy a game?

    I am super glad Full HD is the only necessity for you to enjoy a game. I hope all your HD wishes come true.
    Last edited by wallace91; Mar 12th, 08 at 03:42 AM.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Q00 View Post
    y benchmark crysis in dx9 and not dx10?
    Yeah, what's up with that! And while we are on topic, why bench @ high and not @ very high? No one cares abut high! I can run high with my 8800GTX!

  12. #12
    PS3-Forever
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by wallace91 View Post
    I have a very comparable system with core 2 @ 3.0 Ghz and an 8800gt with a decent overclock and XP sp3

    Crysis high settings @ 1280x1024- 37fps

    Crysis high settings @ 1680x1050- 30fps


    So as one can see unless my system is totally messed up or is an outlier of the range than I believe the performance to be pretty substantial.

    You are looking at almost ~48% better perfermance. Thats a large jump in Crysis, I would be really interested to see the 9800gtx in other games. Even if Crysis is a timedemo that will improve in game performance considerably. Still this will most likely not be enough to play the game in very high.

    On a side note... I still do not understand why people benchmarking Crysis do not use Assult listed in the demos that you can run. That benchmark brings most sytems to their knees because so much is going on in the scenes( huge explosions) I feel it is a good representation of actual in game performance. I feel the frame rate obtained in this benchmark more accuratly express in game performance except a little slow down in the snow levels.

    Crysis High settings @ 1680x1050 Assult- 24.5 fps
    Where you get these numbers from?
    Crysis high settings @ 1280x1024- 37fps ??????????
    Crysis high settings @ 1680x1050- 30fps ??????????

    So its when you standing infront a wall without anything happening around you get 70 fps and you stand about 30 seconds
    Then you move to the action zone killing, exploding each other you get 6 fps and its for 5 seconds
    So the average frame rate you get is 37 fps which is almost playable

  13. #13
    PS3-Forever
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by wallace91 View Post
    What is the math on that subjective opinion of what is playable or not? I really need to see you solve it for me?

    29fps < (Commonsense)(My biased Idea')-(Commonsense')(My Biased Idea)/(My Biased Idea)^2

    Where the FPS you feel is good enough to enjoy the game is Commonsense/My Biased Idea

    Crysis runs fine in the 30fps range. DO you believe you need 180 fps to really enjoy a game?

    I am super glad Full HD is the only necessity for you to enjoy a game. I hope all your HD wishes come true.
    I guess you have not played a game at constant 60 fps for a long time so terrible 30 fps looks acceptable for you. Try some old games like Quake2 , i'm sure you will like it more than Crysis.

  14. #14
    wallace91
    Guest
    Man, you really are as smart as you sound. I concede! My comment to you was Crysis runs fine around 30fps, but of course you say 15fps. That is really the new 30fps today. I understand. Numbers change with your opinion all the time. If I said 30fps, I meant 30fps, not some magical exaggeration you call 15fps.

    Even with my 8800gt I played through the entire game without a problem. I commented on how the snow levels run like 2fps lower too. At worst 22fps for about, I don’t know, a minute worth of play time. SO let’s get this straight, the snow scenes in Crysis have a lot going on, displaying all that snow and stuff on screen. "But it’s not the drivers!" No Sh*t Sherlock, the cards are just not powerful enough to render the scene. Not bad optimizations. Wow get me another 5fps from drivers, such a tremendous leap forward; although you can still enjoy the game and not freak the hell out about the fps that much. That was all I was saying. But for someone like me i think an extra 18fps is a nice jump. That would help improve performance a nice amount if the price stays reasonable.

    Also this is just one game, and as a lot of reviews have shown is really tough on graphics cards. But another game like COD4 might run considerably higher with this card. SO maybe we should wait and see how it performs overall versus just saying Crysis is the reason this card sucks.

    BTW that Hard(OCP) article is super sweet. They take themselves a little to seriously with benchmarking. I mean I have run through the same game after game that they are reviewing cards and consistently receive better marks while playing with the same hardware. They must have the best luck with setting up systems(Vista 64) and with test numbers, considering how awseome they are.
    Also how hard would it be to compare more than one resolution with avg. numbers that you can compare versus just the highest the card can go? They make it very hard to see correlations between competing products if they cannot make a simple comparison. Albeit every now and then they do an "apples to apples" comparison that does do a nice job displaying products side by side, all though it’s normally for overclocked items and not competing Architecture lines (Amd vs. Nvidia.) But when they do I just love seeing it! Oh man! All praise our saviors Hard(OCP). Just enjoy the games, god.

  15. #15
    wallace91
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PS3-Forever View Post
    I guess you have not played a game at constant 60 fps for a long time so terrible 30 fps looks acceptable for you. Try some old games like Quake2 , i'm sure you will like it more than Crysis.
    Ok PS3-Forever (The system that struggles to display 60fps all the time.) There are a lot of games that play fine at 30fps. If the frame rate is consistent it can look very nice. You guys are really obsessed with fps.

    But, like I just said I enjoy COD4 and man that game seems to run over 60fps, hmm, what about UT3 or TF2, both of those run over 60fps amazing, good rebuttal.

    I will take your advice and go and play quake 2 again thank you. Because you are correct with your amazing sense of sarcasm that after a couple years all games lose their value. Unless it is the shiniest and prettiest game then it’s not worth playing. It is a good plan, I will take your advice, it sounds reasonable.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast