HD 4890 can beat GTX 285 and GTX 275 on CRYSIS WARHEAD benchmarking,by me and Friends

Printable View

08-13-2009, 04:41 AM
Gaul

HD 4890 can beat GTX 285 and GTX 275 on CRYSIS WARHEAD benchmarking,by me and Friends

SPECIAL THANX 4 : my friends ( bxxxo and Oxxn )

First i really don't know where i have to post this thread ? if someone know the right place, please move it, THANX ALOT !!! :p:

BENCHMARKING with :

CRYSIS WARHEAD BENCHMARKING SOFTWARE
Res : 1440 x 900
MODE : Enthusiast
API : DX 10
FSAA : 4xAA
MAP : FROST
LOOPS : 3 Times
Time of DAY : 0

" you can try this setting anyone , than COMPARE !!! with us " :up:

DONE with 3 SYSTEM !!!!

okay " ( remember crysis setting is the same ONE ) "

First System + GTX 285

CPU : Q 9400 @ 3.8 GH
VGA : GTX 285 ( 720/1563/1300 ) GPU/MEM/SHADER

FPS
Min = 24.6
Max = 43.01
AVG = 33.64

http://i32.tinypic.com/euq8mr.jpg

SECOND SYSTEM + GTX 275

CPU : Q 9550 @ 3.6 GH
VGA : GTX 275 ( 700/1.200/1553 ) GPU/MEM/SHADER

FPS
Min = 17.57
Max = 30.48
AVG = 25.53

http://i32.tinypic.com/2rft1qv.jpg

LAST SYSTEM ( mine ! :D ) + HD 4890

CPU : Q 6600 @ 3.8 GH
VGA : 4890 @ 950/1150 ( GPU/MEM )

FPS
Min = 25.64
Max = 43.39
AVG = 34.72 :up:

http://i27.tinypic.com/wi1xj6.jpg

WELL I THINK THATS FAIR ????? anyone have commentS ???
08-13-2009, 04:47 AM
Hornet331

how about Xtreme Benchmark.... just one click below the forum you clicked

:shakes:
08-13-2009, 04:48 AM
Xoulz

Is the SP's man.. Grab two 5870's with the new HYDRA chip.. unbelievable gaming experience...!
08-13-2009, 05:27 AM
blaxtr3m3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

Is the SP's man.. Grab two 5870's with the new HYDRA chip.. unbelievable gaming experience...!

Link to that m8 ?
08-13-2009, 05:29 AM
perkam

A 1Ghz or 950Mhz 4890 can beat the 285, a stock 4890 can only beat the 275.

We've known about this for a while m8.

Perkam
08-13-2009, 05:32 AM
Jamesrt2004

should have just used one system to do the testing on btw.. alowise its hard to say its concrete proof :/
08-13-2009, 05:33 AM
iboomalot

when testing try and use the same equipement and swap the video card.

9400 , 9550 , 6600 iam sure there is more differences than the CPU.
08-13-2009, 05:37 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by iboomalot

when testing try and use the same equipement and swap the video card.

9400 , 9550 , 6600 iam sure there is more differences than the CPU.

but, we are on different Place !!! just by on-line :ROTF:
08-13-2009, 05:39 AM
trans am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004

should have just used one system to do the testing on btw.. alowise its hard to say its concrete proof :/

Exactly, when doing a test like this its pretty mandatory to use the same computer. Its like a crime scene investigation. You don't go to a crime scene before gathering evidence and start moving furniture around. :slap:
08-13-2009, 05:44 AM
Gaul

@ ALL = i guess Q66 @ 3.8 GH,Q94 @ 3.8 GH, Q955 @ 3.6 GH HAS A smiliar Perform !!!
08-13-2009, 05:47 AM
zalbard

That is way too inaccurate.
Besides this post should have been moved already...
You need to use the same hardware but graphics cards.
Make sure to include CPU-Z screenshots the next time as well.
You even have different amounts of RAM and different OS used...
08-13-2009, 05:50 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

That is way too inaccurate.
Besides this post should have been moved already...
You need to use the same hardware but graphics cards.
Make sure to include CPU-Z screenshots the next time as well.
You even have different amounts of RAM and different OS used...

Why because the CPU ???
08-13-2009, 05:59 AM
Calmatory

Let alone horrible language. I don't mind though.

As it has been already pointed out, comparisons like this are useless. This is because the fact that there is no way to know which card is fastest because the speed difference is caused by the CPU, RAM and OS used, maybe even more than by the actual GPU.
08-13-2009, 06:08 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by zalbard

Make sure to include CPU-Z screenshots the next time as well.

3 of my picture has GPUZ :confused:

IF ANYONE COMPLAIN about CPU, MUST SEE THIS !!!

http://i27.tinypic.com/29g3m8.png

CRYSIS WARHEAD ONLY NEED 2 CORE OF CPU ! see 2 core Q 66@2.6 GH has equal 2 core Q 66 @ 3.5 GH, even 4 core Q 66 @ 3.5 GH, very little different of FPS
08-13-2009, 06:19 AM
gOJDO

Radeon 1950XTX can wipe the floor with a 2xGTX 295 SLI system.

System 1:
nForce 4 mobo with SLI support
Athlon64 3000+
512MB DDR-266 CL3
2xGTX 295

System 2:
X58 motherboard
i7-975 @4.5GHz
12GB DDR3-2000 CL7
1xRadeon 1950 voltmoded 30% OC

:D

Unbelievable, right?
08-13-2009, 06:21 AM
xman01

Quote:

Originally Posted by gOJDO

Radeon 1950XTX can wipe the floor with a 2xGTX 295 SLI system.

System 1:
nForce 4 mobo with SLI support
Athlon64 3000+
512MB DDR-266 CL3
2xGTX 295

System 2:
X58 motherboard
i7-975 @4.5GHz
12GB DDR3-2000 CL7
1xRadeon 1950 voltmoded 30% OC

:D

Unbelievable, right?

rofl
08-13-2009, 06:28 AM
Eastcoasthandle

Don't worry about it. The Q6600 won't beat a q9400 let alone a Q9550! Besides they were all OC to 3.8Ghz. Because this is just a user review comparison and not an amature in house review the results are fine!

You simply ruffled feathers regarding the truth of the matter when such a comparison is done :yepp:. Their only defensive is trying to accuse you of not doing something you had no intention of doing (in house benchmarking). Which never was the goal of this experiment to begin with. It was just you and a few friends providing benchmark data that resulted in information that some of us already knew. Which is what we consider user reviews and they are just as valid :D.

:welcome:
08-13-2009, 06:33 AM
Gaul

NOW, Please ANSWER me !........who in this XS FORUM, Can give me a proof/link/individual testing/ANYTHING about Q66@ 3.8 GH and Q 94 @ 3.8 GH and Q 9550 @ 3.6 GH, HAS A BIG DIFFERENT FPS in CRYSIS WARHEAD GAMING/BENCHMARKING ! ANYONE ?

@ eastcoasthandle = thanx !
08-13-2009, 06:54 AM
cegras

Uh, that's total bull how all the butthurt people are attributing the difference to factors other than the video card.

First of all, the video card will overrule any error that the system will induce into the benchmark. It has been conclusively proven that memory tweaking does not significantly affect results, and even with the latest Anand benches for CPUs, all of these are quad cores that are basically the same architecture.

Second of all, the nvidia cards are using 'superior' CPUs. If anything, this makes an even bigger case for the 4890.

Third, the 'win' between the GTX285 and the 4890 is extremely close. I don't see why people can't stomach the fact that an OC'd 4890 competes extremely close to a GTX285, which has already been shown in the benchmarks.
08-13-2009, 07:03 AM
Gaul

@ cegras = not an answer to my question !!!

@ all = i wish all of u, which have GTX 285/275/4890 with any CPU, even i7 @ 4- 4.5 GH !!
try my crysis warhead setting ??

Res : 1440 x 900
MODE : Enthusiast
API : DX 10
FSAA : 4xAA
MAP : FROST
LOOPS : 3 Times
Time of DAY : 0

whay not ?? is that HARD ?? :p:
08-13-2009, 07:20 AM
Ket

Stop whining ppl I don't see any big discrepencies between the systems, the results are accurate enough for a user review.
08-13-2009, 07:31 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Let alone horrible language. I don't mind though.

As it has been already pointed out, comparisons like this are useless. This is because the fact that there is no way to know which card is fastest because the speed difference is caused by the CPU, RAM and OS used, maybe even more than by the actual GPU.

well, which vga card u have ? GTX 275/285/4890

TRY my CRYSIS SETTING !!!! :D

do you know ? CPU @ 3.2 GH - 4 GH, does not impact much to CRYSIS FPS ?? but will IMPACT for BANDWITH BENCHMARKING !! not real GAMING
do you know ? RAM PC 800 cl 5/5/5/12 - PC 1200 cl 4/4/4/10, does not much impact to CRYSIS FPS ?? but will IMPACT for BANDWITH BENCHMARKING !! not real GAMING
08-13-2009, 07:47 AM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by cegras

Uh, that's total bull how all the butthurt people are attributing the difference to factors other than the video card.

First of all, the video card will overrule any error that the system will induce into the benchmark. It has been conclusively proven that memory tweaking does not significantly affect results, and even with the latest Anand benches for CPUs, all of these are quad cores that are basically the same architecture.

Second of all, the nvidia cards are using 'superior' CPUs. If anything, this makes an even bigger case for the 4890.

Third, the 'win' between the GTX285 and the 4890 is extremely close. I don't see why people can't stomach the fact that an OC'd 4890 competes extremely close to a GTX285, which has already been shown in the benchmarks.

To be fair the 285 and 275 are also overclocked as well. But I agree, the 4890 wins marginally over an overclocked 285. But, it costs significantly less then a 285. This to me debunks the notion from some that say, "yeah a overclocked 4890 can beat a stock 285 but you can overclock the 285 as well" (in this game).
08-13-2009, 07:56 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

To be fair the 285 and 275 are also overclocked as well. But I agree, the 4890 wins marginally over an overclocked 285. But, it costs significantly less then a 285. This to me debunks the notion from some that say, "yeah a overclocked 4890 can beat a stock 285 but you can overclock the 285 as well" (in this game).

well another nice statement ! :up:
the trully is 4890 very easy to touch 950/1150 even for daily !!! let me show u the max temp for 1000/1150 !! i think still comfort for my ear and belonging of the GPU !!

http://i28.tinypic.com/jg3a7b.jpg
08-13-2009, 08:01 AM
cegras

Gaul: I was agreeing with you : P
08-13-2009, 08:07 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by cegras

Gaul: I was agreeing with you : P

Never mind :p: .....we all here to sharing...THAT's ALL !!
08-13-2009, 08:52 AM
RPGWiZaRD

First of all, I'd like to mention the 190.38 has horrible performance for some setups in Crysis, it has to be a bug because I've seen reports up to 50% FPS drop. The NVIDIA drivers have been very bad lately, the last good driver IMO was 182.50 WHQL, I personally prefer 182.47 but they are quite similiar.

That being said here's my result but at 1680x1050 res because I'm using a CRT and the 1440x900 res isn't selectable and the display driver I'm using doesn't allow me to add custom resolutions.

C2D E8400 @ 500x8, 4.0GHz
GTX 260 SP216 55nm @ 734/1512/1188 MHz (core/shader/mem)
Xtreme-G 182.47 driver
2x1GB DDR2-1000 4-4-4-8
Windows 7 64bit RC1

1680x1050, AA4x, DX10, Enthusiast setting, map: frost, 3 loops

Min: 27.07
Max: 51.85
Avg: 40.22

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6...oard04f.th.jpg

So either your systems aren't configured properly or you're suffering a lot of performance due to a bugged nvidia driver. I beat all those results and at a higher res, I know my CPU is clocked at 4.0GHz and also a dual core but you already said CPU performance won't matter much for this game anyway. ;)
08-13-2009, 09:04 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

182.47 but they are quite similiar.

performance due to a bugged nvidia driver. I beat all those results and at a higher res, I know my CPU is clocked at 4.0GHz and also a dual core but you already said CPU performance won't matter much for this game anyway. ;)

so let me say thanx to u from 3 person, me ( gaul ), bxxco, Oxxn

THANX ALOT !!!!

LETS US TRY 182.47 !!
08-13-2009, 09:04 AM
Splave

how much ram in each system?
08-13-2009, 09:45 AM
RAID

I posted a GTX 295 SLI vs HD 4870X2 Quadfire comparison on here and got criticized for several reasons. I'll never waste my time w/ a forum review again.
08-13-2009, 10:08 AM
blaxtr3m3

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAID

I posted a GTX 295 SLI vs HD 4870X2 Quadfire comparison on here and got criticized for several reasons. I'll never waste my time w/ a forum review again.

Don't get beat down by a couple of people who criticize you !!

Remember always how many you helped and made them take a good choice by posting good reviews and personal experience :yepp:

Keep positive ;)
08-13-2009, 10:21 AM
railmeat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaul

@ ALL = i guess Q66 @ 3.8 GH,Q94 @ 3.8 GH, Q955 @ 3.6 GH HAS A smiliar Perform !!!

"Q66 @ 3.8 GH,Q94 @ 3.8 GH,HAS A smiliar Perform !!"

clock for clock the q94 is way faster i would imagine.....anyone wanna chime in here?:rolleyes:
08-13-2009, 12:10 PM
fatguy1992

Quote:

Originally Posted by railmeat

"Q66 @ 3.8 GH,Q94 @ 3.8 GH,HAS A smiliar Perform !!"

clock for clock the q94 is way faster i would imagine.....anyone wanna chime in here?:rolleyes:

I don't see how it would be, sure its the newer 45nm etc, however hasn't it got smaller cache (6MB vs 8MB)?
08-13-2009, 12:40 PM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by railmeat

"Q66 @ 3.8 GH,Q94 @ 3.8 GH,HAS A smiliar Perform !!"

clock for clock the q94 is way faster i would imagine.....anyone wanna chime in here?:rolleyes:

One again ! , hope the last, SIMILIAR PERFORM ON CRYSIS BENCHMARKING FPS !!! not super pi/CPU score VANTAGE/CPU score 3D mark 2006 !

IF on super pi/CPU score VANTAGE/CPU score 3D mark 2006 --------> YES it is BIG different, BUT not FPS on CRYSIS WARHEAD BENCHMARKING/GAMES
08-13-2009, 02:59 PM
blaxtr3m3

Crysis is one of the most cpu demanding games IMHO. The better the CPU the brtter the gameplay !
08-13-2009, 03:20 PM
Demo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaul

well another nice statement ! :up:
the trully is 4890 very easy to touch 950/1150 even for daily !!! let me show u the max temp for 1000/1150 !! i think still comfort for my ear and belonging of the GPU !!

http://i28.tinypic.com/jg3a7b.jpg

21mins of running Furmark is no where near the indication on how high the temps go, 3hrs atleast is the way to go :p:
08-13-2009, 03:55 PM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demo

21mins of running Furmark is no where near the indication on how high the temps go, 3hrs atleast is the way to go :p:

i think 1 hours preety cool !

http://i26.tinypic.com/9ruewy.jpg

@ braxtreme = must see this again !

i agree 4 u'r statement if " c2q @ 3.8 GH better than c2d @ 3 GH " not in my case which q66 @ 3.8 GH with q9550 @ 3.6 GH, i ment q66 @ 3.8 gh not bottleneck to 4890 .

http://i27.tinypic.com/29g3m8.png
08-13-2009, 04:11 PM
blaxtr3m3

That's 1024X768 m8 !!! with an x38 chipset and really old drivers !!!
also the faster the CPU the better the scaling for Multiple videocard SLi systems.
and you should not base all your conclusions on a single review !!
08-13-2009, 05:20 PM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaxtr3m3

and you should not base all your conclusions on a single review !!

ok i'll compare by my self later, now plz show me link which another review ...i would thanx for that !! :)
08-13-2009, 06:16 PM
mk-ultra

1fps average more, big freaking deal, well within your margin of error due to different systems used
08-13-2009, 08:11 PM
Gaul

am I have to bench again with q66@ 4.05 GH + 4890 @ 1010/1150 ? :)

http://i31.tinypic.com/28itbi0.jpg
08-13-2009, 10:32 PM
SamHughe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004

should have just used one system to do the testing on btw.. alowise its hard to say its concrete proof :/

Quote:

Originally Posted by iboomalot

when testing try and use the same equipement and swap the video card.

9400 , 9550 , 6600 iam sure there is more differences than the CPU.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trans am

Exactly, when doing a test like this its pretty mandatory to use the same computer. Its like a crime scene investigation. You don't go to a crime scene before gathering evidence and start moving furniture around. :slap:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Let alone horrible language. I don't mind though.

As it has been already pointed out, comparisons like this are useless. This is because the fact that there is no way to know which card is fastest because the speed difference is caused by the CPU, RAM and OS used, maybe even more than by the actual GPU.

I did a comparison on a same system a while ago HERE

Here's my results based on Crysis Demo (1920x1200 all maxed):

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3096/crysiso.jpg

And here's what I got from the Warhead Benchmark:

Single:

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/9414/singlej.jpg

Crossfire:
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/5858/crossfirei.jpg
08-14-2009, 02:21 AM
mk-ultra

unless you use the same mobo/ram/hdd/fresh win install/ i don't see 1fps saying anything
08-14-2009, 02:56 AM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by mk-ultra

unless you use the same mobo/ram/hdd/fresh win install/ i don't see 1fps saying anything

So where are your benchmarks that relate to the discussion of the OP?
08-14-2009, 03:06 AM
Gaul

@ ALL = SAMHUGHE SPEC really Killer REALLY HUGE SYSTEM ! THANX FOR YOUR COMPARE !!!

CPU = W 3520 @ 2.6 GH
MEM = 12 GB :clap:
4890 @ 900/100 :up: I'll COmpare !!!!!!

REMEMBER SAMHUGHE CRYSIS SETTING !!, sam i'll FIGHT u WITH only Q 6600 @ 3.4 GH !!!!
THIS WHAT HIS GOT !!!

http://i28.tinypic.com/30cbqmf.jpg

MIN : 21.71
MAX : 39.09
AVG : 31.48

" AND MY OLD SYSTEM WILL TRY TO PROVE, WHAT I SAY ! "

CPU = Q 66 @ 3.4 GH :rofl:
RAM = 4 GB FSB 472, cl 5/5/5/15 :down:
4890 @ 900/1000 ---. same with SAMHUGE

LET's SEE THE FINAL RESULT ! expecially for who said more faster CPU, will perform more !!! :rofl:

http://i25.tinypic.com/11h8214.jpg

MIN : 22.95
MAX : 40.18
AVG : 31.52

WELL, I HAVE SIMILIAR FPS, even little more than SAMHUGHE !
REMEMBER " SAME VGA 4890 @ 900/1000, SAME CATALIYST 9.7, and "little" different of CPU w3520 vs q6600, amd another "little" different RAM 12 GB vs 4 GB

@ blaxtr3m3,railmeat = i'll told u BEFORE !!
08-14-2009, 04:04 AM
RPGWiZaRD

That's cool, I get about same performance as HD4890 crossfire with a single GTX 260 SP216. :rofl:

EDIT: Ooops, he used "ambush" demo, not frost.
08-14-2009, 06:12 AM
blaxtr3m3

I'm not here to flame your thread m8 :shakes:

I'm just stating what I know based on personal experience and reviews I read long ago (I will look them up for you).

To test my theory on your system, Just run the benchmark @ stock clock then overclocked, Then compare it to a core i7 system.

You should know that its not a linear change, Rather exponential.

that's y u had only 1Fps between the 2 clocks you used.

Also as the number of video cards increases the better the cards scale.
08-14-2009, 06:48 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaxtr3m3

I'm not here to flame your thread m8 :shakes

sory who is m8 ??? me ?
08-14-2009, 07:43 AM
kuchaiii

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaul

sory who is m8 ??? me ?

m8 = mate

Yeah it's you... In your local forum used to say 'bro' :D
08-14-2009, 07:44 AM
blaxtr3m3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaul

sory who is m8 ??? me ?

yes :)
08-14-2009, 08:14 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuchaiii

m8 = mate

Yeah it's you... In your local forum used to say 'bro' :D

oh...my old friend nice 2 see u here !

@ blaxtr3m3 = no problem at all,thats ok !! and nothing have to test or anything !.....FOR me, I ain't got anything :shrug:....from ati or nvidia, so JUST SHARING !! :welcome: THAT's ALL

anyway, i made this threat 4 all XS user....special from me

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=232103
08-14-2009, 10:13 AM
mk-ultra

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

So where are your benchmarks that relate to the discussion of the OP?

i'm just saying you can't draw conclusions with so many variables
08-14-2009, 10:53 AM
Leeghoofd

Also never compare different OS (Gaul and SamHuge bench) , might be tricky to balance results as always due to different drivers and variables... like said before compare out of the box cards on the same rig and if you push compare all cards then at their max stable setting... Last but not least some games prefer ATI, some Nvidia, some S3...

That's a nice Q6600 there Gaul, cherish it
08-14-2009, 03:26 PM
blaxtr3m3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

That's a nice Q6600 there Gaul, cherish it

+1 :up:
08-14-2009, 04:44 PM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

Also never compare different OS (Gaul and SamHuge bench) , might be tricky to balance results as always due to different drivers and variables... like said before compare out of the box cards on the same rig and if you push compare all cards then at their max stable setting... Last but not least some games prefer ATI, some Nvidia, some S3...

That's a nice Q6600 there Gaul, cherish it

ok.....that why i make another threat with same rig....
thanx 4 watching q66, anyway it's on TRUX / on air

@ blaxtr3m3 = thanx alot, i love my true-x and q66
08-14-2009, 05:55 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by mk-ultra

i'm just saying you can't draw conclusions with so many variables

Yes, you can because this is a user review. Something I (as well as others) know how to interpret.
08-17-2009, 06:32 AM
randa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ket

Stop whining ppl I don't see any big discrepencies between the systems, the results are accurate enough for a user review.

I think so, bro.

Speaking in general truth, the 3 review should not be compared, yet specifically the third CPU testbed is the lowest one in grade. Here, I guess, TS just wanna share what he's been collecting of those benchies. And now it depends much on every single of us in interpreting what the benchmarker has proved it.
08-17-2009, 06:53 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by randa

I think so, bro.

Speaking in general truth, the 3 review should not be compared, yet specifically the third CPU testbed is the lowest one in grade. Here, I guess, TS just wanna share what he's been collecting of those benchies. And now it depends much on every single of us in interpreting what the benchmarker has proved it.

THANX !! :welcome:

anyway , more ...NOT FROM me !!! :D

http://i31.tinypic.com/148lv8x.jpg
08-17-2009, 06:55 AM
BenchZowner

Holy molly thread resurrection! :D
08-17-2009, 05:17 PM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Holy molly thread resurrection! :D

:p: maybe yes, maybe not....depent on personalty :shrug:
08-17-2009, 08:43 PM
BulldogPO

Gaul:
Stop whining and do those test again, with exactly same computer.
Otherwise this is just plain stupid to argue about speed differences.

Situation also changes when you turn AA and AF to max.
08-18-2009, 12:56 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by BulldogPO

Gaul:
Stop whining and do those test again, with exactly same computer.
Otherwise this is just plain stupid to argue about speed differences.

Situation also changes when you turn AA and AF to max.

sorry nothing have to prove again ! it's all done and all my friend don't care if someone/many cannot take the result....ALL WE DO just SHARING what we got !!...anyway we're on different country/place ! how can I use gtx 285 and gtx 275 ? all i have only hd 4890, i'll have to buy two of them :rofl: ? just for little testing :shrug: ohhhh man comon !!! :rolleyes:

or i have to borrow :ROTF:

anyway thanx 4 u'r comment :welcome:
08-18-2009, 04:02 AM
BulldogPO

Yes, result is taken but you cand draw any conclusions from those.
Go and borrow those cards :)

I did small review of those cards when they were hot and new -> there
And badly traslated version by Google translator

All games tested with highest possible IQ settings.
08-18-2009, 04:31 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by BulldogPO

Yes, result is taken but you cand draw any conclusions from those.
Go and borrow those cards :)

I did small review of those cards when they were hot and new -> there
And badly traslated version by Google translator

All games tested with highest possible IQ settings.

that very nice review :up::up::up:
08-20-2009, 12:19 PM
rjkoneill

if this was @ 1900X1200 it might have been interesting
08-20-2009, 06:34 PM
Kondik

Quote:

Originally Posted by BulldogPO

Yes, result is taken but you cand draw any conclusions from those.
Go and borrow those cards :)

I did small review of those cards when they were hot and new -> there
And badly traslated version by Google translator

All games tested with highest possible IQ settings.

:clap: Very nice thanks, I'm quite sad the google translation is not worth much but I Really like it.
08-20-2009, 09:49 PM
BulldogPO

Google translator really sucks with Finnish language. Basic word go well but that´s it.
08-21-2009, 08:41 AM
ReverendMaynard

I'm going to grab a 4890 and do some proper testing....on the same rig.
08-21-2009, 07:30 PM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReverendMaynard

I'm going to grab a 4890 and do some proper testing....on the same rig.

lets try some compares !
09-19-2009, 02:11 AM
rodrigox

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

First of all, I'd like to mention the 190.38 has horrible performance for some setups in Crysis, it has to be a bug because I've seen reports up to 50% FPS drop. The NVIDIA drivers have been very bad lately, the last good driver IMO was 182.50 WHQL, I personally prefer 182.47 but they are quite similiar.

That being said here's my result but at 1680x1050 res because I'm using a CRT and the 1440x900 res isn't selectable and the display driver I'm using doesn't allow me to add custom resolutions.

C2D E8400 @ 500x8, 4.0GHz
GTX 260 SP216 55nm @ 734/1512/1188 MHz (core/shader/mem)
Xtreme-G 182.47 driver
2x1GB DDR2-1000 4-4-4-8
Windows 7 64bit RC1

1680x1050, AA4x, DX10, Enthusiast setting, map: frost, 3 loops

Min: 27.07
Max: 51.85
Avg: 40.22

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6...oard04f.th.jpg

So either your systems aren't configured properly or you're suffering a lot of performance due to a bugged nvidia driver. I beat all those results and at a higher res, I know my CPU is clocked at 4.0GHz and also a dual core but you already said CPU performance won't matter much for this game anyway. ;)

This results is impossible...
09-20-2009, 01:42 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodrigox

This results is impossible...

why ? did u meant Cheat ? :confused: any prove ?
09-20-2009, 11:59 AM
rodrigox

Because a single GTX 260 doesn't have this results...

the GTX 260 in this case is with better results than GTX 285 and HD4890...So that's impossible...
09-20-2009, 12:00 PM
rodrigox

Because a single GTX 260 doesn't have this results...

the GTX 260 in this case is with better results than GTX 285 and HD4890...So that's impossible...
09-21-2009, 02:53 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodrigox

Because a single GTX 260 doesn't have this results...

the GTX 260 in this case is with better results than GTX 285 and HD4890...So that's impossible...

well it's say only about DRIVER.....:shrug:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

I've seen reports up to 50% FPS drop. The NVIDIA drivers have been very bad lately, the last good driver IMO was 182.50 WHQL, I personally prefer 182.47 but they are quite similiar.
09-21-2009, 04:15 AM
DilTech

I've heard similar about a driver bug lately in crysis from the guy who bought my 8800gtx with performance dropping with newer drivers. Can't say I've seen it first hand since I switched to my 4850, but this isn't the first time I've heard about it.

Wouldn't surprise me if it does span across all G80 based cards(yes, remember, even the G200 is still based upon the G80), might be worth a bit more testing. In the mean time, I'll tell him to try the drivers you mentioned RPG.
09-21-2009, 04:23 AM
Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodrigox

that's impossible...

maybe ..............:p:

http://forum.i3d.net/game-blog-news-...-more-fps.html

http://www.tweakguides.com/CrysisWar_3.html

http://forums.hexus.net/gaming-news/...s-60-70-a.html
09-28-2009, 02:42 PM
purecain

i find user reviews/testing quite intresting... especially as it shows that 'certain scenarios do exist' where a £150 card beats or matches the performance of a £400 card....

it also shows the relevance of our forum... as it proves that tweaking the rig behind the gpu can make a tremendous impact on performance...

this is of course totally imo.... :)

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:41 PM.

XtremeSystems