Printable View
Microstuttering doesn't occur in cpu limited scenarios, only deeply GPU limited scenarios(thus why crysis showed it so harshly with the 3870x2's). As such, that's why it didn't show up until 2560x1600, as with the cpu he's using he didn't hit that spot until ultra high resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
In other words, we have not yet seen the end of the Micro-Stutter curse. :(
It's a GRID issue. Only happens in the Menu. But people like Lestat genuinely show that they don't care as long as it gives an opportunity for them to flame.
:down:
Well, It wasn't entirely clear as to what kind of stutter they are referring to. There are also reports of stuttering menus and whatnot. I will agree that we can't consider the case closed based only on Sampsa's tests, more testing needs to be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
Do people know the difference between stuttering and micro-stuttering? Because now with the boom of MC they seem to mix the two, and they're very different problems.
ive noticed that playing grid at 8x csaa at 16x12 my vram is almost always at 512MB with rivatuner monitor
cpu never maxes that i have seen. only very occasional stick/lag/...stutter. no not micro stutter obviously.
if 4870X2 gpu temps are now above 90c, what will happen with 2*4870X2?...smoke? :P ...and powersupply requirements for that too?
t800, critical temp in 150 C, don't worry
i doubt that, more like 105-110°C for highend silicon chips, its not some basic transistor we are talking about here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
IIRC the x1950 starts throttling at 115c
Sampsa (@ Muropaketti) has some experience with overheating videocards. :)
IIRC he sometimes forgot to plug the fan after photoshooting for one of his article. I can't find that article anymore but I think the card was 2900XT and temps were way over 100celcius (104C??) when measured afterwards, when the card was already cooled down a bit. Some plastics were melted but card was still fine!
110C yesterday tested with 1.45v...idle 92c
can't control the fan speed.... it was about 14% or whatever default. then i remove the heatsink cover. using 120mm, lower to 39~45 idle and 55 load
I found the article at muropaketti. :)
Quick translation:
http://plaza.fi/s/f/editor/images/0806r600.jpgQuote:
Literally we were horrified in muropaketti test lab, when we "bolted" standard cooler back to HD 2900 XT after LN2 tests. Our misfortune, we connected the fan to the wrong socket of two fan sockets in our engineering sample and booted to windows. Fan wasn't working at all and suddenly we heard big BANG from the red, plastic cover.
In consequence of this we saw smoke arising from the videocard. We quickly shutted down the computer and removed the pci-express sockets from the card. At the same time, when undersigned burned his fingers, we connected a temperature meter between DVI brackets where the card exhausts it's warm air. We measured "unbelievable" 105 degress of celsius from the back of that copper heatsink. When we get our camera ready temperature was dropped whole one degree. We can only guess how high tempereatures went inside the GPU core. All in all, we were lucky and the card is still working fine and this time fan is plugged to the RIGHT socket.
Sampsa Kurri
http://plaza.fi/muropaketti/toimituk...as-koetuksella
Even the best people make mistakes.
I want to see 2x4870x2 temps :)Quote:
Originally Posted by t800
The GTX 280 cards are getting damn hot in Tri-SLI.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vQdrJCPsWF0
112degrees and one card goes dead.
and thats why god invented water cooling
Well im planning to go 2*4870X2, but based on these temps (even with retail-versions will work cooler) watercooling is solution that i wont need afraid cards will get burned down :PQuote:
Originally Posted by ownage
when are the reviews due?
Mid AugustQuote:
Originally Posted by disruptfam
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,65...k-Test/&page=1
another one.
MS not fixed and still occures when the fps drop in the 4x region. But its a lot harder to pull that off since RV770 is far more powerfull than RV670.
USELESS preview, they used Catalyst 8.5 !!???Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Much better performance with Cat 8.7. Plus Crysis DX10 1600x1200 full Very High on HD 4870 is much better (avg 24 fps, smoothly playable) than the 1680x1050 (18,7 fps?!) in their chart
Quote:
Diamond 4870x2 Futuremark Testing
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/3...b59e72dmb0.jpg
Results >>>> http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=3804
...
regards
if you would have looked at the preview you would have noticed that the use 8.52 (which is beta 8.7, which is more advance then retail 8.7 and every preview that was done till now is with 8.52) and not 8.5. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
@ Crysis, theres no test in 1600x1200 only 1650x1050, but they test DX10 vs DX9 and X2 fails at the DX10 crysis test, they even stated that in the conclusion, the current beta driver seems to have no DX10 CF profile. :yepp:
Dude you really should chaeck if you need some specs. ;)
Dude they state on their charts they used 8.5.
Indeed i later saw in their system setup they also used Cat 8.7 beta. I already posted that final Cat 8.7 on HD 4870 gives an improvement of 7.5 fps measured in the Crysis Bench Tool (GPU test), over that beta. So, their chartresult of HD4870 is old and horribly outdated. Also, the actual gameplay is accurately reflected in the benchtool Assault_Harbor test, is measured 24 FPS avg in DX10 full Very High 1600x1200 no AA and is absolutely playable.
Their 4870X2 result however can be correct, because the X2 isn't even supported in the final Cat 8.7 yet, so they MUST use that older beta driver. And, so, i expect that a next driver for X2 will give it much better result than what they posted.
So with this new card, it still relies on the driver with a game profile in order for both cores to work?
Yes :(
When there is new game, we have to wait for drivers to get full perfomance.
So I think single gpu is better if you dont like waiting.
It's that way for even single gpu cards. Something must properly distribute the load across the gpu, and with so many shaders...and when the competition are so different in how they render...Quote:
Originally Posted by situman
This is not really a dual-gpu problem, it's an industry problem.:yepp: DX10 was supposed to help with this with no "cap bits", but nV are bastards that do things thier own way, APIs be damned.:fact: It's them that ruin it for us all.:fact: TWIWMTP is killing pc gaming, 100%.
But from a business perspective, nV is awesome. ;)
Is that a yes or no lol:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by cadaveca
It's a very loud yes, becuase it's only going to get worse. If you want a homogenous computing environment, you need to buy a console. It's just a fact of life, when using a pc, and it's why Apple has such a commited following, because they ensure things like this aren't an issue in thier OS. You work how Apple says, or you don't.
But just be sure to lay blame in the proper places...TWIMTBP program, and nV.
Here's something interesting:
Hardspell's review claims R700 scores X8037 in Vantage. That score is truly amazing. They're using a very fast 4.5GHz Quad-Core though, but shouldn't Extreme in Vantage be completely GPU-limited?
http://www.hardspell.com/pic/pic.asp...1733d27d7f.jpg
lol wut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
they tested the 4870 with cat 8.6, and since final 8.7 give about 1fps more then 8.6 in crysis, the 4870 results are fine...
i dont know why are you trying to make that review look bad. :ROTF:
Look at GPU-Z: R700@850/1000MHz...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Aren't these the vanilla frequencies?Quote:
Originally Posted by AnarchX
Oh, a review here:
http://www.pcghx.com/aid,653537/Revi...viewed/&page=1
Useless Power lock @ that Video Crysis in DX10.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,65...on_HD_4870_X2/
no surprise there, its still AFR so its imminent that ms will happen. Thought it will be harder to reach the region where ms happen and are noticeable (30-40fps region) on a X2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorguls
Purleeeeeze. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
They used Fakefactory AND 24x AA, it's obvious that if they used normal 8x or normal textures (not a combo of 2) instead it would be alright. Even Age of Conan 24X does not have that problem because it doesn't tax the GPUs that crazy.
Why don't they try Fakefactory + 8x on a GTX280 at 1920? I'm sure I'd be smelling... burning smells.
I love monkeys trying to push their review samples above limits to prove an idiotic point. AMD should stop sending those tards cards until they actually know what MS is, and what it isn't.
I dont have to, they're doing that themselves. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Put on your glasses: at top right corner and read Cat. 8.5
Now see this (my own tests):Quote:
The PC:
processor: Core2Duo E6750 @ 3.6 Ghz + ZALMAN CPNS9700LED cooler
motherboard: ASUS Maximus Formula (bios 907), FSB 450
memory: 8 GB Corsair Dominator PC2-8500 C5DF
videocard: Sapphire Radeon HD4870 (790/1090) ATI Reference version
soundcard: CREATIVE X-Fi Platinum Fatal1ty Champion
harddiskdrives: WD 5000AAKS + WD 5000AAKS
power supply unit: COOLERMASTER Realpower M850
dvd drive: Optiarc (NEC) DVD_RW AD-5200A
case: COOLERMASTER Stacker
CRT monitor: EIZO T965 @ 1600x1200/85 Hz (max 2048 x 1536 / 85 Hz)
This Eizo T965 supports up to 2048 x 1536 / 85 Hz. The game and the bench run at 60 Hz. So i can bench true 1900 x 1200 / 60 Hz, it doesn't fill my screen.
speakers: LOGITECH Z-5500 * Sennheiser HD595
mouse: LOGITECH G9
keyboard: Logitech Internet keyboard (corded)
What did i do to the card (overclock)? Nothing, except Catalyst Overdrive, let it auto-tune. It decided that 790 / 1090 was best.
Vista Ultimate 64-bit SP1
Catalyst 8.7
DirectX10
Fraps 2.9.4
Crysis Benchmark Tool 1.0.0.5
[size=41680 x 1050 is very playable at 0xAA![/size]
Assault_Harbor:
DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 25.22
http://www.blindnero.com/pictures/as...80-1050_32.jpg
Quote:
7/25/2008 9:51:31 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-harbor, Demo-Assault_Harbor
DX10 1680x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=4, Time Of Day= 5
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 4100, Recorded Time: 132.23s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 169.46s, Average FPS: 24.19
Min FPS: 18.48 at frame 157, Max FPS: 32.76 at frame 1718
Average Tri/Sec: -6911142, Tri/Frame: -285650
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.05
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 165.13s, Average FPS: 24.83
Min FPS: 18.29 at frame 63, Max FPS: 32.76 at frame 1718
Average Tri/Sec: -7808141, Tri/Frame: -314480
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.04
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 161.69s, Average FPS: 25.36
Min FPS: 18.23 at frame 2904, Max FPS: 33.01 at frame 3244
Average Tri/Sec: -8090622, Tri/Frame: -319068
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.04
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 160.97s, Average FPS: 25.47
Min FPS: 18.23 at frame 2904, Max FPS: 33.01 at frame 3244
Average Tri/Sec: -8167904, Tri/Frame: -320683
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.04
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
7/25/2008 9:51:31 PM - Vista 64
Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 25.22
This time also did the Ice level, to compare with the PCHardware.de result who used that bench and reached a measly 18.7 avg
Ice:
DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 23.80
http://www.blindnero.com/pictures/ic...80-1050_32.jpg
4XAA:[/size]At 19 ~ 20 fps, the eye is missing 10 frames per second (compared to avg30 fps as norm) and if you look very closely it is noticeable. However, the motion blur seems to have a side-effect of covering, or smoothening the tiniest gaps with success. Still, while playing you notice it is missing a few frames too much to completely convince the eye (Like @ 1600x1200 AA=2x AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 21.11 <<<the feel of absolutely smooth playing is broken). It doesn't affect gameplay at all though, it is still absolutely playable.Quote:
7/25/2008 8:51:48 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-ice, Demo-autotest
DX10 1680x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=4, Time Of Day= 5
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 92.94s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 87.19s, Average FPS: 22.94
Min FPS: 13.55 at frame 499, Max FPS: 27.03 at frame 1937
Average Tri/Sec: 5225346, Tri/Frame: 227793
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.44
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 84.14s, Average FPS: 23.77
Min FPS: 13.55 at frame 499, Max FPS: 27.48 at frame 1859
Average Tri/Sec: 5286795, Tri/Frame: 222418
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.46
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 83.92s, Average FPS: 23.83
Min FPS: 13.55 at frame 499, Max FPS: 27.63 at frame 1639
Average Tri/Sec: 5318547, Tri/Frame: 223174
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.45
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 83.99s, Average FPS: 23.81
Min FPS: 13.55 at frame 499, Max FPS: 27.63 at frame 1639
Average Tri/Sec: 5294982, Tri/Frame: 222351
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.46
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
7/25/2008 8:51:48 PM - Vista 64
Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 23.803333333333333333333333333
Assault_Harbor:
DX10 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 20.36
http://www.blindnero.com/pictures/as...80-1050_32.jpg
Ice:Quote:
7/25/2008 9:30:30 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-harbor, Demo-Assault_Harbor
DX10 1680x1050, AA=4x, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=4, Time Of Day= 5
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 4100, Recorded Time: 132.23s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 211.14s, Average FPS: 19.42
Min FPS: 13.44 at frame 89, Max FPS: 27.43 at frame 979
Average Tri/Sec: -5321063, Tri/Frame: -274021
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.05
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 210.57s, Average FPS: 19.47
Min FPS: 13.44 at frame 89, Max FPS: 27.43 at frame 979
Average Tri/Sec: -6017255, Tri/Frame: -309034
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.04
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 197.75s, Average FPS: 20.73
Min FPS: 13.44 at frame 89, Max FPS: 28.27 at frame 959
Average Tri/Sec: -6490249, Tri/Frame: -313030
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.04
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 196.37s, Average FPS: 20.88
Min FPS: 13.44 at frame 89, Max FPS: 28.27 at frame 959
Average Tri/Sec: -6520345, Tri/Frame: -312291
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.04
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
7/25/2008 9:30:30 PM - Vista 64
Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 20.36
DX10 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 19.30
http://www.blindnero.com/pictures/ic...80-1050_32.jpg
Quote:
7/25/2008 9:06:39 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-ice, Demo-autotest
DX10 1680x1050, AA=4x, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=4, Time Of Day= 5
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 92.94s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 107.99s, Average FPS: 18.52
Min FPS: 11.95 at frame 485, Max FPS: 23.32 at frame 1941
Average Tri/Sec: 4200658, Tri/Frame: 226808
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.45
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 104.06s, Average FPS: 19.22
Min FPS: 11.95 at frame 485, Max FPS: 23.32 at frame 1941
Average Tri/Sec: 4265775, Tri/Frame: 221938
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.46
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 103.53s, Average FPS: 19.32
Min FPS: 11.95 at frame 485, Max FPS: 23.39 at frame 1944
Average Tri/Sec: 4300326, Tri/Frame: 222610
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.45
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 103.26s, Average FPS: 19.37
Min FPS: 11.95 at frame 485, Max FPS: 23.39 at frame 1944
Average Tri/Sec: 4312269, Tri/Frame: 222648
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.45
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============
Completed All Tests
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
7/25/2008 9:06:39 PM - Vista 64
Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 19.303333333333333333333333333
The Video shows Crysis DX10 1680*1050 No AA/AF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Keyword is DX10. For some reason Crossfire does not scale in Crysis DX10 for now with the 4800s (3800s scale).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorguls
DX9 is still the better version as you can use transparency AA and tent modes.
I thought it was obvious from this graph:
http://www.pcghx.com/screenshots/med...10_noAA_17.png
They stated exactly what they have used in the test setup.... cat 8.5 for old radeons, cat 8.6 for 4xxx and cat 8.52 for X2...Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
I dont get your point. You trying to prove something that isn't there.
But think what you want, i dont stop you to refuse the facts and to live in your wown world where everything was tested with cat 8.5. :rolleyes:
@ Macadamia
why do you think they used that? You have 3 tries. But first i suggest you to reread the article (especial the conclusion). :up:
But yes the test conditions where suboptimal, but that does not nullify the outcome, which states that MS is still present for ALL multigpu solutions (NV and ATI).
What I don't get is why they used 177.34 for the GTX 280?!? 177.41 has been out for a while as well as 177.39
John
Your replies are too childish, otherwise i would suspect you being the tester in that review?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I already said i read in their setup list they used 8.6. I already previously posted that FINAL Catalyst 8.7 brings great improvement over the 8.7 beta (and of course over previous, outdated Cat 8.6). I also gave you glasses to see on their charts they used Cat 8.5. If they used another driver they should update that chart, or lose credibility.
You keep defending that review site for no clear reason, and against logic. :clap:
[EDIT: oh you don't get my point, you said. My point is: avg 5 FPS improvement. :)
point 2: their test chart outdated/inaccurate.
point 3: so people could start wondering if their 4870X2 test is accurate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
i post childish cause you make absolute no sense, Cat 8.7 has nearly no improvement over 8.6, hell most people even use the hotfix 8.7 cause they are faster (not my words, taken from various forums).
If you dont belive me check all the reviews from cat 8.7 there are plenty out there. Theres no magical improvment from 8.6 to 8.7.
Tweaktown, 0.6 more fps in Crysis @ 1600x1200
PCG Hardware, 0.6 more fps in Crysis @ 1650*1050@4aa
Computer base, 0.3 more fps @ 1600x1200
i nowhere see your avarage increase of 5fps from 8.6 to 8.7.
Im done with this conversation, cause it seems you just have a hate against this review and base your solely criticism on a little fault in a graph... if thats all you got, i feel sorry for you.
The R700 has scaling issues in Crysis. How seriously can we start discussing R700 Crysis results if a single 4870 is faster most of the time :stick:
Perkam
Crysis is increasingly irrelevant imo. The fact that the devs have abandoned hte game tells me that no matter how intense the game is, they're never going to bother optimizing it now and we'll just have to wait for Warhead to see whether Crysis really was an unoptimized POS.
Hornet seems a 15 year old to me.:shrug: who else can use the word "hate" in reference of a little critic from another poster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Whether they used old driver 8.5, 8.6 or 8.7 beta: i did the same test as them, but with driver 8.7 final and ended up 5 FPS avg more.
Why is that important? Because it changes old driver result (their result which i trust) from unplayable (18.7 avg is unplayable) to 23.8 avg which is playable (on my CRT that is).
I have this HD 4870 since 1½ weeks, i immediately installed Guru3D's Cat 8.7 beta as its driver. Very happy with the card, but still had to take the time to examine its performance. "Hey why not the Crysis bench". I only thought of running the GPU test, and only at the resolution i would play the game myself (1600x1200), then posted the results on my own forum. A day later, final Cat 8.7 was released. So i had to redo the test, only did GPU. Result: 7.5 FPS improvement! I briefly tried the real gameplay and wow, just about playable at very high!!!! oh luck finally i'm able to play the game on my Eizo T965 CRT @ 1600x1200 in its full visual glory.
Then i realised that to reflect the FPS of actual gameplay (to measure and post the results) i should use
1. Fraps, or
2. the level benches in the tool, like Assault_Harbor, or other levels the tool lets you select.
Then someone linked to that review site, i saw their meager 4870 result and just had to do my own test at the same resolution as them. I posted my result here as well.
I also found out that at [DX10 1400x1050 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 26.90] (but the game doesn't have that res, so i play @ 1440x900 8xAA) the game is more playable than 1600x1200 with NO AA. :cool: (sadly with no buffer room, so in extreme moments dips to 14 FPS may occur :( )! :up: Only a few other games i tested (Dark Messiah Might & Magic, Assassins Creed, both to extreme satisfaction) i wouldn't need crossfire or R700 for.
This brings me back to Topic: this lack of buffer in Crysis, i'm curious if the 4870X2 with its 1GB per gpu, and final drivers, will solve this dipping... avg 40, with dips never below 30 ~ 25 is my humble modest wish for now... so i'm still not certain wether i'll end buying a second 4870 or the 4870X2.
so then it was your own fault for using cat 8.5 (no support for 4xxx), cat 8.6 (i hope you used the hotfix) and cat 8.7 beta (which where intened to be used only for X2 review sample) and the go to retail 8.7 and shout "woho big increase?"
that sound to me like one time result that only happened on your rig.
every review i have found shows that 8.6 (hotfix for 4xxx) has good results and 4.7 retail only has performance increase of 0,5% (max 2%).
So nope, your increase is out of the norm and has absolutly nothing to do with cat 8.6 vs cat 8.7, which, to get back to the topic, makes your argument against the pcg review invalid.
As for the X2, time will tell how the real performance is, since the X2 is sheduled for august theres still a whole month for the driver team to do some optimisations and to include more cf profiles.
I. did. not. use. 8.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
The. review. site. says. on. its. chart. they used. it.
Even. though. it. did. not. even. support. 48xx. cards.
I did my best to explain. But you haven't understood my post even though i write clear english. Stop talking to me since you promised you would stop in the first place. :p:
On topic:
the english version of the pcg (p)review was posted:
http://www.pcghx.com/aid,653537/Revi...0_X2_reviewed/
so maybe somone can replace the preview on the first page.
@Unbornchild
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
this implies you did the same test as they did (aka tested all three cats + latest)Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
as said before, if you base all your criticism on that little fault in the chart, im sorry for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
you wirte clear english but you still fail to deliver your point. Its fine that you get a performance increase out of 8.7 but thats a single case and no other review shows that much of an increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
And thats what im gona do, but still, your stubbornness to prove that cat 8.7 increases performance by 10-20% (which isn't there) amaze me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
I never thought I'd see the day when a man from the Netherlands would berate a man from Austria for his ENGLISH abilities and wording :ROTF:
Man, even being a non-native speaker isn't an excuse these days? That's brutal, as a native speaker I must be held to some insane standards!
Anyways... On topic a bit....
I think most of us knew that R700 wouldn't end up the magical "shared memory 100% scaling" beast some rumored, but it's still looking pretty good.
Keep in mind, this card isn't even OUT yet. There's time for the drivers to improve, and with ATI's focus on multi-GPU as of late, I think it's safe to say the driver team will be working hard to get Crossfire up to the task. :up:
Drivers = problems. The more info I read about this card the more I think it's just a 3870X2 v2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
No-one with a working brain, having read my posts on these pages so far thinks that implies that; i explained clearly what i did since i have the card. Once again, and for the last time:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
>>> Whether they used old driver 8.5, 8.6 or 8.7 beta: i did the same test as them, but with driver 8.7 final and ended up 5 FPS avg more. <<<
"the same test" being the Ice level @ DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh.
/DONE!
It's architecturally full of major improvements and most previews show its performance is far better than 3870X2 in most games, did you miss that? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
And allegedly without microstuttering. Besides, Crysis isn't everything, you know.
From Guru3D:
Quote:
The Verdict
Alright then, time to wrap up this preview. As stated, there where some limitations enforced on this preview, mainly related to the number of benchmarks we can present. In our full review we'll obviously include the entire test-suite. But let me start by saying, all other benchmarks we took, were showing very similar performance. So for me it's simple, if this product launches at a 449-499 USD price level, AMD will have a unadulterated hit in the high-end segment.
Well, this was an interesting test for sure. The one thing each time I stumble into when I do something Crossfire/SLI/X2 related is ask myself the question: should you really be comparing a single GPU based product against a dual GPU based product? Is that even a fair thing to do ? The answer I'm afraid is two-fold. I strongly feel that I have more confidence in a single-GPU based graphics card mainly due to the fact you'll have much less worries to think about. See with Dual-GPU gaming you'll always run into slight irritations; the fact that sometimes a game is not yet supported or working at all in Crossfire. Also there's other stuff to consider, power consumption is doubled up but also .. your graphics solution will all of the sudden will create 2x more heat.
So that's a bit of a culprit there. Looking at it from the other side, if we take a GeForce GTX 280 (as presented in the preview) and compare that directly to bang for buck gaming performance, then the single-GPU solution is being annihilated. So this is a bit like comparing oranges and apples, both nice fruits .. yet very different. See, I tend to believe in the single-GPU based products, but just can't ignore what we tested today, the R700, is an extremely powerful graphics solution that will offer much better gaming performance.
Once the R700 arrived I spent a complete day with it just to test and see how many problems we'd run into. Fact is, I had close to none. A lot of games that where not shown in this preview due to an enforced limitation, ran all really well. I mean, two weeks ago we published a Crossfire review and stumbled into some issues with for example Frontlines: Fuel of War, with the X2 it worked flawlessly. So yeah, the overall experience was just splendid, with one exception, Crysis. But after checking with some colleagues .. I noticed that pretty much everyone is having the same difficulties with that title, Crossfire is a very hard thing to achieve on Crysis. And that has to be my word of advice to you guys .. for Crossfire to be able to kick in, AMD must update it's driver, and you'll need to install them on a very regular basis. I've had a lot of critique in the past on Crossfire, valid criticism as only the popular games editors mostly used had good Crossfire support. With the new 48x0 X2 cards we think the tide definitely has turned. But this will only work if AMD will keep it's attention and dedication to it's drivers, for current, past and future games. We'll be monitoring that very closely and keep you guys updated on it.
So with that being said, I'm ending this preview for now ... My experiences with the card have been really good, the performance is flabbergasting. If priced right, this is the new king in the high-end arena of graphics cards. I'm impressed, really impressed. And that's a hard thing for a company to achieve.
We look very forward testing the final retail products with final drivers.
Thanks go out to Antal and Jon from AMD for submitting this sample to undergo a preview.
I dont think single vs dual should matter, it should be price segment because that is the only thing that makes sense.
Crysis will define it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
If it cant max it out, people will just keep looking for the one that can.
Its become a hobby in its self :up:
As much as I hate to admit that, it is a valid point.Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kbos
Nope.
Crysis is a stupid game that had a good "one-time" value. I refuse to accept benchmarks run on it. What's the point? A game released a year ago, that needs hardware a year from now to play it? And even if you max out Crysis, so what? Support for it has been discontinued, as the developers now work on Crysis Warhead, which promises to 'fix many problems in Crysis.' It was a fun game, but benchmarking on it is stupid.
Crysis will never run well because it is poorly coded. End of story.
Why is that a game like Source can look so good even on a 9800 Pro? Oh wait, I know. Developers, nvidia, ATI, and your money.
But go ahead. Pay for the CEO's caviar lunch. He'll be eating it by the buckets.
Crysis was designed to sell cards, thus ous buying cards.
Not to look good on a 6600gt.
Crysis is the first of many games for this new market
The fact that they've admitted they're dropping support for Crysis and is working on fixes for Warhead leads me to believe all that talk of the game having optimization issues was true and they're moving on to salvage the next project imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kbos
And the fact that you admit it was made to sell cards makes it even MORE irrelevant because of how much Nvidia had staked on Crysis. Hmm, no big surprise then that Nvidia cards always seem to do better at Crysis despite the fact that other games don't show that same gap (besides Lost Planet, which was Nvidia's version of Call of Juarez).
That line of argument only makes benching it more suspect.
Common misconception, HD3870 didnt take on 8800gtx/gts, but what did people expect?Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Its a crap card.
HD4870 is having no problems outpacing gtx 260 and keeping with gtx 280 in that game, yet its cheaper than both ( for now anyway )
funny that the exact same card was played when farcry was released... everyone and there dog complained that the game was badly coded, but suddenly as cards where able to run in in decent framerates, it was ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Plus comparing source to crysis engien is a joke, right? :p:
Im with y2kbos, crysis currently defines the absolute highend in renderengiens and what is possible on the pc. Time will pass and people will find a new game to complain about how bad it is coded. :yepp:
^ I agree. Same thing was with Oblivion when it was first released. Then 8800GTX and C2D came, and suddenly the "badly coded" Oblivion was OK.
Crysis is unmatched in terms of what it offers visually. It's both the best looking game ever, and the game that needs to draw the most amount of things ever. You're constantly in a dense forest covered with gorgeous looking, dense foliage and trees and such; and wherever you turn you can see at least 40-50km openly. That stuff needs to be drawn, they're just not photographs.
Since when did CoD4 or Source need to draw such an open area? Put Crysis maps in the Source or CoD4 engine. I wonder what FPS and visual quality you would get.
But, have you look at that game? I surely doesn't look as good when you see how badly it plays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Technically? No anti-aliasing, very awkward animation, one of the most stupid A.I I've ever seen, no real time HDR etc.
I think hype was too much for some and they actually doesn't see forest for the trees.
If you want to see what todays technology is capable, just take a game from early 2006 and take a look, Oblivion. Download few texturepacks for it and it beats crysis hands down in almost every aspect. At least it doesn't have all those problems I mentioned and it looks great.
Or if you want to look only but graphics technology, then GRID beats Crysis but runs 120fps.
To me, it's sad to see RPG (which are almost as playable without any graphic content) is so much more playable and technologically advancement compared to a game realeased two years after that and that game has nothing but graphics (but without AA or proper real time HDR). I think Crysis at the first place should have been a real time CGI animation/benchmark as I think many feels it wasn't that great game after playing it for few hours.
Reading why crysis (or game A) is so much better or more advanced than game B because it runs so crappy, makes me sad. What if I took that famous coffee pan in 3dsMax and put trillion polygons into it. Sure it looks still that same ugly coffee pan, but it's as heavy for hardware as crysis. Remember when people saw Cod4 in E3 07' they couln't believe their eyes. But when the game was released and they've been told it uses (6years old) quake 3 engine, the game didn't look as pretty anymore. :)
Optimization is the most advancement technology in game design and hardest to achieve.
crysis was introduced as additional con material to justify expensive gcards, and that's pretty much all this banter is promoting.
crysis just didnt wow me that much; yet another shooter 'farcryish' with more foliage.
i like eye candy , but cmon, games are still cartoonlike graphically, when compared to real hd photos and video.
Comparing GRID to Crysis is the hugest ignorance level you can achieve while discussing such matters.
Then how about Crysis vs. 3DMark?
3dMark is ignorance itself, dude. Especially those people who still use 3d06.
Crysis is a TWIMTBP game...
NV fanboys must love it when NV cards do better in TWIMTBP games. :rolleyes:
Please excuse my ignorance but what is the most valid benchmark to use then ? Crysis ? If Crysis was made to sell video cards then 3D06 was made to sell quad cores .
:up:
TWIMTBP : does that mean we buy our video cards based on this ?
.
If someone bought a video card because of TWIMTBP games, they are eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
1. Fanboys
2. Ignorant
The most valid benchmark to use is whichever game you like to play most, obviously.
Other than that, Crysis isn't that much of a valid benchmark since no other games render that much open space, and seeing that consoles' RAM limit, no other games will for a solid period of time.
There won't be a PC-exclusive Crysis 2 or something like that. I doubt there will be a lot of PC-exclusive superb games in the near future, as well. All games are console ports, and all run just fine even with a single 8800GT equivalent provided your resoılution <=1680. The only case you need a 4870 equivalent (=GTX 280) is if you run at 2560. If not, it's just overkill.
yeah that's wot i do; just a marketing victim myself:yawn: a marketing victim with fickle allegiances i might add :hehe:Quote:
TWIMTBP : does that mean we buy our video cards based on this ?
4850 and 4870 are very appealing price/performance products for now. if i was buying now, which im not, i would not be going to the expense of a gtx 280 :D 6-9 months is a short time-period for me, when it comes to the waiting game
I only play UT3 but people dont often compare Ut3 benchmark results so I run 3D06 and vantage. I buy high end vid cards for benching , I dont even play Ut3 on that pc , I play on a single 3870 (rig2 in sig).Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
:up:
It's stunningly beautifull at maxed out, in fact it's like a new game to me; what started as a brief test of my 4870 has grown into replaying the game. :D Interesting, this piece confirms my extraordinarily smooth experience with my 8GB RAM, probably why it is that some people here have a hard time to imagine (most have only 2 or 4 GB at best):
Again, i'm playing Crysis at: DX10 1440x900 AA=8x, 32 bit Crysis 1.2, Quality: full VeryHigh, Vista Ult 64, single HD4870/Cat 8.7 finalQuote:
Game Performance
A simple, clear cut test we can all relate to: does more memory give us more frames per second? We all know that a faster PC will always generate better performance to varying degrees but how much does more memory give the games more breathing room?
We used FRAPS to record the frame rate of some manual play tests of real single player or skirmish gameplay, then took the average performance in varying memory footprint situations.
http://www.blindnero.com/pictures/bi...-8-4-2-ram.jpg
While the overall average performance doesn't increase, except only slightly for 8GB of memory, the gaming experience on 4GB or 8GB of memory is far, far smoother as you can see from the linear increase in minimum frame per second. In fact, if all were equal we'd have to recommend gaming on Crysis with 8GB of memory as it's 50 percent smoother over just 4GB. Having said that, we know from previous experience that faster memory also benefits Crysis too - so if you're really into maximising the experience from this game, you actually might want to consider a serious investment of 4GB (or more) of DDR3.
Source: Bit-Tech - Is More Memory Better?Quote:
Asus P5Q Deluxe
Intel Core 2 Extreme Edition QX9650
Nvidia GeForce 9800 GTX
Seagate 7200.10 250GB Hard Drive
PC Power and Cooling Silencer 750W PSU
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Nvidia Forceware 175.19
Being architecturally diffferent means nothing, NOTHING. Its Crossfire support is still based on the SAME AFR CF profiles than 3870X2 has. I'll say it doesn't have microstuttering when I play with it, not before. Crysis can burn in hell for what I care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
Seriously if everybody trust the reviews, everybody will be freaking happy with their Crossfire or X2 cards. Problem is, when you have them, you realize how most reviews only focus on perfomance, and doesn't discuss anything else. Try playing some old games with these cards. Try playing something that is not in the reviewers' list of games. If you play Crysis, COD4, World in Conflict, Supreme Commander, etc. maybe you'll end with acceptable error free CF perfomance. As I say try some older games. After that you'll trash your flamant X2 card.
Stop basing your opinions on reviews, try it yourself, then we would be able to speak to each other both having the neccesary knowledge.
Ummm... have you missed my own tests on these pages? :confused:Quote:
Stop basing your opinions on reviews, try it yourself,
As for the R700, i won't buy it only to test. First have to see the (p)reviews, no way in hell i'd buy a dual-card that performs Crysis less than my single 4870. Then, i would buy a second 4870 and in 'crossfire-unfriendly' games i'd just run single.
Have you missed I'm taking about R700 and not about a single 4870? Have you missed you're in a thread titled 'ATI R700 Preview'? I also remind you I have one, so I'm perfectly aware of what it can and what it can't do. I don't need your tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
It seems people will never learn to listen to other's advice. Re-read my post. It doesn't matter if it's a 4870 CF or 4870X2, but well, you'll have to see it by yourself. Go ahead and buy your second 4870/4870X2. Good luck with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
:rolleyes: What an attitude. :shakes: Learn to take part IN a discussion rather than telling people. :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I do my own tests, put them next to other's tests, in this R700 preview speculation discussion thread, R700 is based on the same gpu, its performance against crossfire and single card is VERY relevant, as is also the OS, the amount of RAM, etc.
I never played Farcry. So there goes your first point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Source (TF2, DOD:S, CS:S, mods, HL2:EP2) has produced far more enjoyment than Crysis for me. If you like to judge games by their photorealism, you should just go and play Gears of War.
I think Crysis was neat, but it's not worth a second play and there were parts of the game which really sucked. For example, the alien spaceship. The AI. Oh, and not to mention the fact that because of the game engine combined with the massive landscape, I would see rocks and trees pop into existence as I got closer. Oh, and let's not forget the midnight helicopter chase where you spent about an hour crawling through underbush, sweating and conserving stealth, and not having a rocket launcher to take it out. And it magically saw you somehow, even when you were hiding in a bush. Sweet. There goes your second point.
Following up on that, what you're saying is that I should spend $1000 or more on a machine to play Crysis on high settings once (maybe twice, MAYBE MAYBE thrice), and after that, nothing? When I can spend way less and have more fun playing a game that actually has multiplayer so I don't trash it after a few runthroughs of single player? Why shouldn't reviewers be benching games that people actually play?
Crysis is stupid because it requires hardware that doesn't exist to play it at its very highest settings. Why can't you see that there is something WRONG with that? Why can't you see that benchmarking a game like that is stupid? Why do reviewers even benchmark Farcry anymore? Do you still play it with your super-hardware now that can run it at highest settings just to go 'oh wow, that's some pretty graphics'?
If you're planing om buying one of this cards (HD 4850/4870) stay away from AMD/ATi Forums, cause if you go there you might change you mind. :)
Link please?Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
it more sound like its stupid, because you dont have to money to afford a rig to pay it at the highes setting possible, but dont be afraid neither do i. But i dont call a game stupid, just because it runs not at very high with my current hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Btw, why you dont blame oblivion of the same? In 2006 it was "unplayable" at the highest settings on available hardware, or whats with quake 3 back in 1999? geforce 256 barley could handle 1024x768. There where always games that pushed hardware to its limit, are all those games stupid? I dont think so.
and yes i still have farcry installed. :yepp:
I can't believe you ask me that, you must have some problems with google or something. Anyway here you go:Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kbos
http://forums.amd.com/game/categorie...260&entercat=y (ATI Radeon Graphics )
http://forums.amd.com/game/categorie...227&entercat=y (First-Person Shooters (FPS) )
Yet the problem's well known: heat/drivers related. :(
I think that the complaints against Crysis are unwarranted.
I don't have the retail game, but I have the demo installed and I was easily able to play at high settings at 1920x1200 with an overclocked 9800 GTX and a Q9450 @ 3.6ghz.
After I applied the very high settings mod for XP, it was STILL playable; although not as smooth as on high settings.
I reckon that if I had a 4870 or a GTX 260/280, the game would run very smooth using very high quality @ 1920x1200.
You're in the wrong forum if you're trying to convince people that spending money on the newest hardware is the wrong thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Playing Crysis with as high details as possible as soon as possible is what people do and what keeps the industry going. It's the same thing with people wanting to watch the newest Batman movie or the newest Star Wars movie on the premier. The movie isn't any better then than it is later, it's just popular right then.
And what is up with peoples' attitudes in this thread. *sigh*
Software industry drives the hardware industry to develope faster hardware to run the software. So now you have faster hardware which drives the software industry to create better software that was not possable on previous hardware and so the cycle begins again.........This is whats driving our technology, We need games like Crysis.
If software devs. never pushed the hardware limits than what reason would hardware Devs. have to create faster hardware when they could then just keep selling the current tech and make more money by avoiding R&D. Im sure you get my point.
I've told you why you should be far away of CF solutions. You have decided to ignore it, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I feel I should warn others not to do the same error I did in the past. I can't do anything else. There is no discussion. I'm explaining my points and the problems you'll face FOR SURE if you buy one of these cards. The facts can't be discussed or rebated. You can ignore them and burn 200€, I'm telling you not to do so. More RAM, faster or slower processor, another OS... it doesn't matter. Drivers are your worst enemies here, and they're BAD. But again you won't believe this FACT until you see it by yourself. I was optimistic like you before I tried those. Now I'm not. If you want to stay in the perfect world you're now it's fine, sooner or latter you'll notice the real thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
It's a bad attitude to be realistic? :rolleyes:
Yeah, yeah, that's about the 100th time you ventilate your anti-Crossfire mission. It's OK your opinion is based on HD 38xx experience.
But i'd rather see for myself.
I won't risk ditching money because in fact two of my PC's are identical except for the videocard and the OS (Vista32 vs 64) so it's perfectly safe for me to buy a second 4870, try CF myself and incase it fails for me the other PC will get the second HD4870. Thanks for your concern. ;)
Check Nvidia forums and you will what? Come on stop telling fud like this ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
Be sure to have the balls to come here after trying them and tell me I was right all the 100 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
Seriously the way you ignore facts needs some attention. Maybe someone would call it fanboyism. I don't like fanboys ;)
Why don't you just post links to reports about 4870CF being a failure, if you have them, instead of resorting to the f-word :rolleyes: in this ATI R700 thread. :yepp: don't make it a bashing thread with your ego. :clap: For the sake of all readers.
Maybe you two should just stop arguing with each other?
That or get a room.
which rates all gcards highly on the 'failometer' :ROTF:Quote:
We need games like Crysis
& provides the perfect excuse to wait for more powerful cards.
wot a shame the objective is to actually sell product :lol:
...but if no-one raises the bar there is no progress...so demanding games like crysis are needed, although im thoroughly bored and it's time for another monster game; where's farcry 2?
yes i remember thatQuote:
I would see rocks and trees pop into existence as I got closer
damn those stealth detecting bastards! :lol: maybe they had predator style thermal vision equip.:p:Quote:
And it magically saw you somehow, even when you were hiding in a bush. Sweet
if you arent expecting too much then your disappointment will be less.Quote:
Drivers are your worst enemies here, and they're BAD. But again you won't believe this FACT until you see it by yourself.
multigpu great when it works, disappointing if it doesnt i guess.
i tend to focus more on the negatives than the positives, but that's just my misfortune :{ my glass is 3/4 empty :(
I just picked up 2 4850s and I'm not impressed at all. Driver issuses ( sorry to say Forcewares are better and I'm basing this off of a year and a half + experiance with 7900GT and 8800GTX SLI/ 8800GTS SLI ) and heat levels aren't acceptable and using 100% fan speed isn't a valid solution nor is after market cooling ( I don't intend on keeping these long to be fair ) The way I see it, if a card requires modding and driver editing to function properly, its not a solid design.
Regardless this has turned me off of the 4870X2. They will obviously need to run at high RPM to stay cool and given that the previews seem to hint at the fact the fan was near maxed at load, that isn't helping dispell this possibility. The only way I'd be happy with one would be a with a full coverage block and even then the near 300watts of heat plus that of my CPU may be more than my fans will allow ( and thus my desired noise level ) At this point I'm more inclinded to wait for Nvidias solution or even get a GTX 260 to tide me over.
The obvious truth with the R700 is that it will have high power requirements and high operational temperatures which will require more airflow ( thus noise ) and more power usage so if you are one who has issue with either of these facts then it won't be the card for you ( the 4850x2 with GDDR3 might be better for some ). But, if you are someone who wants the fastest performance regardless then of course it will be the card to have.
I expect the same level of funcionality given by single cards. In other words, almost 100%. Is that too much to ask? Absolutely not. And this will become more and more important as graphic cards market is moving towards multi-GPU in the high end.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
It's normal to focus more on the negatives, but there are negatives that are acceptable, others not.
Cut the crap, go ahead and prove me wrong, period. Don't try to play the ball is in your side game with me. The only one bashing here without info to support one's claims is you. You were the one posting images of RV770 Crysis perfomance (¿?) in the R700 thread. The only one here without CF experience is you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
i don't get it why people complain about the heat, i have a 4850 in my second rig and it runs @ 90°C without any problems, and these cards are designed to run at these temps
fan isn't loud either and it only drops as much heat as any other card with the same wattage, case was just as hot with a 8800 gt however the nv card was cooler :shrug:
i don't see any design flaw in a card running at 90° as long as it doesn't die within a few mnths (x1900 in my sister's rig has been running at these temps for 3 years now....)
sure it does hold back overclocking, but once you overclock you can remove your cooler too (actually when you slap it back on you can easily rma any card as long as your removal didn't damage the card....)
Power consumption and heat dump issues are fair complaints against multi-GPU solutions. But they are highly subjective - some of us aren't going to care one bit about those issues. I'm going to be watercooling my card anyway, and I have a massive PSU.
Driver issues can be a pain and an understandable frustration. I am hopeful though that if this trend of multiple gpus at the highend is going to become the norm then both companies are going to be paying more attention to multi-GPU driver issues as well.
when are the reviews due out???
the card comes in out in 2-3 weeks
Quote:
Originally Posted by inCore
Also, it wasn't a very good game at all. I think I enjoyed HL2 better. And yeah, subjectivity NEED apply here.Quote:
Crysis is stupid because it requires hardware that doesn't exist to play it at its very highest settings.
Why do you want to play Crysis at it's very highest settings as soon as possible? What does it prove when hardware can run a tech demo at it's very highest settings? Does this translate into similar performance across other games that are more played by a couple of factors of ten? No, not really.
any idea how much the 4870X2 would price? would getting 4870CF be cheaper?
i thought 4870X2 was coming out with 2GB which may affect the price a bit.
otherwise i had heard 500usd approx.
http://www.itsdirect.com.au/com_prod..._Graphics_Card
$308aud 4870 512MB
$616cf plus an x38/P45 boardy
vs 2x1GB 4870X2 on any pci-e board for around 500usd?? :lol:
im expecting 5-600 (aud), or more, particularly at launch.
the lower ati's price, the lower nvidias offerings will need to fall to compete
the 9800gx2 is around $500 aud. at the moment.