Will a single 260GTX run Crysis @ 1280x1024 dx10 max?

[Lfctony]

That's why I consider it unplayable, 17-27fps... The best way to play Crysis on slower hardware is with hacked DX9. There are several tweaked configs that allow the game to be played at 90% of V.High quality without coming even close to the slow downs associated with it.

[DarkOneX]

9/26/2008 7:39:21 AM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=1, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 66.71s, Average FPS: 29.98
Min FPS: 20.70 at frame 1953, Max FPS: 39.10 at frame 987
Average Tri/Sec: -21300482, Tri/Frame: -710495
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.29
TimeDemo Play Ended, (1 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

9/26/2008 7:39:21 AM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Last Average FPS: 29.98

[Blacklash]

I played the game @ all high 1920x DX9 myself. Those results are below-

Min FPS = 26.51 Avg FPS = 39.64 Max FPS = 54.76

http://img440.imageshack.us/my.php?image=assaultharborhighoi2.jpg

[Xion X2]

GTX 260 is as fast as 4870X2.

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=4134

:lol:

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2121/pcghfc7.png

[Sazar]

:lol:

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2121/pcghfc7.png

:rofl

[Lfctony]

:lol:

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2121/pcghfc7.png

But, but, but... It's as fast as a 4870x2... Isn't it? :headexplode:

[Dreamingawake]

lol

[DarkOneX]

pwnt

[npras42]

Just looking at an individual article is not enough e.g. http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=4

This shows very well that at 1280x VHQ 0xAA the GTX260 can perform just as well as a 4870X2. It just depends on how high you go with the settings - the higher you go the more the X2 will show off its performance.

[Lfctony]

Just looking at an individual article is not enough e.g. http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415&p=4

This shows very well that at 1280x VHQ 0xAA the GTX260 can perform just as well as a 4870X2. It just depends on how high you go with the settings - the higher you go the more the X2 will show off its performance.

That's actually High with V.High Shaders only...

[AthlonXP1800]

But, but, but... It's as fast as a 4870x2... Isn't it? :headexplode:

I guess you guys never looked at the link I provided, it not Crysis but Crysis Warhead that is where GTX 260 is as fast as 4870X2.

[Blacklash]

If the GTX 260 is as fast as X2 in a given title I am of the opinion said title does not have a proper working Crossfire profile yet in the driver. Ie the card may perform roughly like a single HD 4870 or worse in some cases. The X2 is only 2FPS faster than the HD 4870 in Warhead. That should speak for itself.

[SeriTonin]

I would have never guessed it ran so poorly on a 260GTX.

To those that suggested it, yes, I would have looked at review sites, but they tend to be biased to a certain product or game, etc. So I like to get the users exp.

Thanks for the input, I do have a few mods installed that help my current rig with frames, so I would imagine it should help, just surprised @ the minimum frames this game still has, mid teens on a $500 buck 280 seems silly to me. :(

[MikeC]

This would be with 4gb of ram and a e8500, I currently have a 9800gt and am thinking about moving to a 260gtx, not looking for aa/af

Right now I can get 1024x768 on my rig in dx, vista kills performance with this game, in XP I was able to do 1280. I figure with gta4, legend, mirrors edge, etc, it's time for a modest upgrade anyway, just wanted to know if this would be enough for crysis and warhead?

Thanks. :)Have been testing Crysis with EVGA's GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked with the same CPU/4GB memory and received 35/27 fps at 1280x800 in the first level (based on gameplay). Very High (all settings) under DX10/Vista. Have saved games from all levels available to test. Playable for me, but may not be for others...

[MikeC]

This is proof:
2x280s, Q6600@3.2Ghz - 1600x1200 - Very High
Run #1- DX10 1600x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Last Average FPS: 35.38
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 115.89s, Average FPS: 35.38
Min FPS: 18.84 at frame 3902, Max FPS: 60.33 at frame 2077

Waiting on your magic GTX260 benchmarks that can run this game maxed out...Would be interested to see a frame rate by second graph for these results. I would like to know how often (percentage-wise, based on all frames rendered) that the frame rate approached the 18.84 minimim.

[Lfctony]

Would be interested to see a frame rate by second graph for these results. I would like to know how often (percentage-wise, based on all frames rendered) that the frame rate approached the 18.84 minimim.

Can I do that with Fraps Mike? I will give it go. Cheers...

[Lfctony]

The best I can do Mike. As you can see it doesn't record exactly how much my FPS are at those low points, you can pretty much tell from the graph.

Tony.

[aceflier]

just turn the shadows down a tick or 2 and you will be fine. Very high Shadows kill the framerate most and do little for the overall look of the game. IMHO :D

[Lfctony]

Well, I noticed that taking down the water and shadows to medium takes my minimum in those 2 points to 22fps. The two given points include a vast water view which could be what's causing the dips. Shadows, I never cared much for them. As long as they're not blobs, they look fine to me.

[Lfctony]

I used a Cvar file I found, one of the early ones that just replace High with Very High. I then dropped shadows and water to medium and ran the game in DX9. It plays better than DX10 V.High while it looks almost as good. Another option is running the tweaked configs found around, HP 1.3.1 or CCC 2.1. Those tend to change various settings though.

[Vasot02]

:lol:

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2121/pcghfc7.png

------------------------------

Make a guess again pal... :lol:
The 4870 X2 is only better in maximum resolutions according to Techspot.
And by the way according to their tests a single 260GTX runs better from a single 4870...

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/118/bench/Enthusiast_02.png

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/118/bench/Enthusiast_02.png

http://www.techspot.com/articles-info/118/bench/Enthusiast_03.png
------------------------------------


AND THIS WHICH SHOWS THAT A SINGLE GTX260 IS BEING CLEARLY FASTER FROM A 4870 WITH HIGHER AA AND AF (Just for the hype of the 4870 which some love to spread around...)

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2008/09/008_GTX260_plus_crysis_1680_aa.png

[MikeC]

The best I can do Mike. As you can see it doesn't record exactly how much my FPS are at those low points, you can pretty much tell from the graph.

Tony.Thanks for the report! The frame rate per second graph adds so much more value to this type of analysis. From what I can see there were a few rough spots in that level, but for the most part gameplay performance seems to be pretty solid.

[john19055]

I playing on a BFG GTX 280 OCX and it was smooth playing with fraps it stays at 35fps most of the time with some action I seen it go to 26 ,but if I did'nt have a Frame rate showing me what is was I would have thought is was higher because it was smooth playing at 1600x1200 0 AA ,it was nothing like the slide show I got with my two 8800GTS 640mb in SLI.