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

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

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

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page