1. crysis and crysis warhead are the same, its like calling hl2 ep1 and ep2 diferent games :POriginally Posted by jmke
only 2, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, with high IQ
2. what settings? at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 4aa 16af a 5850 has about the same min fps as a gtx285 and 4890, only higher av fps... but even on the 5850 its unplayable imo... and even at 1280x1024 where the 5850 pulls ahead i wouldnt really call 28min and 40av fps playable... both anandtech and xbitlabs get about the same numbers there...
what you really want for crysis is a 5870 or gtx295... ideally gtx285SLI or 5870CF i guess... but its not worth it, its the only game that needs this and its not like its such a great game giving you weeks of funtime...
no, the games were out before the launch... check it out, i was surprised myself... there are def 2 cases or so where a game was really slow and then 8.8 gave a big boost and probably fixed something and then there were barely improvements, but q couple of games saw 10% boosts from 8.7 to i think up to 8.12 is what they tested?While I haven't read it, I am sure the games showing the most improvement are the ones that were either new releases or not even released when the HD 4870 was brought to market.
yeh ok... those days are def over...Back then there were no x2 solutions cause x2 is just a cheatUnless they drastically reduce power consumption.
With cpu cores they did that. More cores but +/- same power. But with GPUs they can't (yet). You get the pointOK, going a bit offtopic here
flippin_waffles, tpu tested with i7 at 3.8, at with 920@3.33 and xbit with 965@3.2, and hwcanucks tested with 920@4g iirc... so anandtech and xbitlabs should be fine for you... there was a link to some dutch site that tested on an amd phenom2 as well, and there was almost no diference between 285, 4890, 295 and 5870 in many games, cause they were cpu bottlenecked... not sure what clocks you need with an i7 to see diferences between the cards, but from AT and Xbit we can see that at 3.2 theres already a notable diference...
yes, theres def something wrong... everything above 5870 seems too close to each other and doesnt really scale up... the only way to get this is if the cpu is limiting... at tested with their cpu at 3.33 and they see a bigger scaling above 5870... so idk what cpus other reviews tested with to draw the overall scores down...
hmmm that heatsink looks nice design wise, but cooling perf?
probably better than the restricted airflow stock design, but doesnt look great... especially the blue green pcb is... yuck...
whos seriously into games and runs a c2d or c2q below 3ghz... pff come onmeh you know what he means.. compare the percentage of people with normal C2D and C2Q's etc at normal 2.4~3.2 ghz compared to people with i7 @ like 4.2 lol
I like him and im sure a lot of other people would like to see results on say a Q6600 @ 3.2 or 3.6 or something a little more.. realistic for a lot of usand i7 isnt really faster in games compared to c2d/c2q clock for clock...
i know its a lot of work... but could you maybe do at least one or a few tests with lower cpu clocks? i think that would actually be a really nice thing to see and very helpful... cause people think card a and b are notably diferent but they might not be if they have a stock cpu at 2.5ghz (check the steam hw survey)
just a suggestion... would def be interesting to see if some cards scale more with faster cpus than others as well for example... so maybe some cards dont need a fast cpu and are a better upgrade for an old system than others... get what i mean?
That might be my next card 
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks