Wonder how well you PC will run Crysis

[CaptNKILL]

Actually this just seems like the same flame war thats been going on for a couple weeks now in various other threads.

Why are people still trying to convince icecold of anything related to PC performance and graphics? If he hasn't agreed in the 5 other threads where the same screenshots were posted, he isn't going to agree this time.

I'm not trying to play forum police, but come on guys... it seems like every interesting thread in this section ends up getting dragged into this ongoing crap.

[icecold1983]

Icecold, you are forgetting- I'm using a socket 754 3400- yes a faster CPU would boost my framerates, substantially. If I were running an E6600 at about 3.5Ghz I'm betting I'd be getting no less than 30fps. That is only a 6fps increase, and it is along the lines of what everybody else gets with an E6600 @ 3.5Ghz and a single GTS.

Icecold, I'll throw this at you another way:

If today's games are capable of bringing the 8800's to thier knees, then how will it be possible for them to play any DX10 game? Okay, even allowing for a 20% gain (the most you'll see from DX10) if you add 20% to let's say 20 you only get an fps of 24. Going by what you are saying (following your logic), the 8800 series will completely crawl and flop when playing any next-gen game.

I mean, if FEAR can bring the 8800GTX to the teens in some spots- CrySis should crawl. Lower the settings? You then run into your CPU bottleneck.

Alan Wake will probably do okay, the graphics aren't nearly as extreme as those of Crysis. But how about Interstellar Marines? Another game that will crawl- according to your logic.

Icecold, what has been pointed out to you before, but you completely blow off, is that the 8800 series is not perfect, i.e. there are still flaws with it. Such flaws as offering poor performance where they shouldn't.

A few posts ago I mentioned that in FEAR I'd walk into a completely empty room with nothing extremely graphically intensive happening- yet my FPS would drop quite a bit, and my character would barely move forward, as in it was like he ran into an invisible wall.

Are you to tell my that his is merely a scene to complexe for the 8800? Okay, then explain to my why my 7600GTs in SLi could burn through the same scene at more than double the fps. This is where either FEAR needs a patch or the drivers for the 8800 need some more work. Or it could be both. This happens when you are an early adopter- you run into the early problems of the new hardware. Do you also realise that BFME (the first one) runs about about 15fps average on my SLi'd 8800GTSs (1920x1440, 16xAA, 16xAF, max in-game options) and sometimes dips to single digits, yet with my SLi's 7600GTs it would remain at 30fps constantly (literally never dipping). No, BFME is not taxing my GTSs, it is a software glitch where BFME either needs a patch or something in the 8800 drivers needs fixing (or both).

There is no possible way that two 7600GTs can match or exceed the performance of two 8800GTSs. Yet at some times they do (the odd occurance in FEAR and BFME I mentioned). This is just cause of a software bug, and has NOTHING to do with the hardware.

Now, you mentioned that there are places in FEAR where absolutely NOTHING is going on, but your FPS tanks- I'd chalk that up to a software bug. Why, cause I'd bet you are experiecing the same thing I am. And again, I never experienced it with my SLi'd 7600GTs. No, the SLi'd 7600GTs aren't faster than my two GTSs or your single GTX. It is a software problem, not a hardware problem.

Now, I have provided multiple bechmarks (a couple posts back) that even go into the CPU scaling of the 8800s. They compare stock CPU speeds to oc'd speeds and show the results. Grated, never is there a gain of 20fps or greater, but in many cases there is 10fps (and occassionally more). Xion even posted the differeces between his CPU at stock and then oc'd while running only one GTX to show you the difference. There IS a difference. Not one of 20+fps, but still a difference none the less.

With my CPU (a socket 754 3400), I'd probably experience an average gain of about 10-15fps in my games if I went with an E6600 and ran it at 3.5GHz. Benchmarks get about that much over what I'm getting with my two GTSs. So that is why I know that for my setup there is a huge CPU bottleneck. And even common sense will tell you that a socket 754 3400 is not enough CPU for dual 8800s.

Icecold, I'm not trying to say that the 8800's are invincible. But I am saying they perform better than you seem to believe they do. You refuse to OC your processor to check for any possible improvement. Yet we have shown you that there is improvemet (in some cases near 10fps). So, I assume that you do not know how to overclock your processor, and are afraid to learn. This is understandable- with how much $$$ your setup must have cost I'd hate to fry anything due to an OC gone wrong.

You refuse to try vsync with triple buffering to see if that helps your FPS any, as it is known that in certain games it will aid fps.

Icecold, you have, for the most part, convinced me that you want the 8800s to perform as you believe that they do. No ammount of evidence to the contrary will make you think otherwise. Even though going by your logic last generation products (even the mainstream and not high end) can match and outperform the 8800s- that just isn't even logical but you seem to like that idea a lot (even though you have never come straight out to claim that, your arguments imply that).

Icecold, this is a debate that would never end. I could come to you in person, and show you that your rig is capable of better fps than you claim- you could see it with your own eyes, yet I doubt you'd believe it. And that, my friend, is sad.

You keep claiming that you don't want a console, yet you are practically having wet-dreams over the 360 and spit upon the 8800s. You go against everythig every other member and 90% or all reviews say. Yet you still feel you are right.

This post should be a huge indicator of how blind you are:





Bokishi even stated he has the same hardware you have, but isn't experiencing any of the slowdowns that you are. I guess he is lying right? Cuase it is obviously impossible for you to be wrong.

You say that the slo-mo in FEAR would cause mouse lag if it dropped your fps? I'm starting to think that you have never played FEAR. You mouse does lag when using slo mo. It does not lag substantial, but definitely by a little bit- it does lag.

I hope not to offend you, but I'm now convinced that you really don't know anything about computer gaming and the hardware for computer gaming.

http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/CPU_Scaling_With_The_GeForce_8800_GTX/FEAR.png

they scale from a core 2 duo@3333 to a 3800. there is no cpu limitation at high res with aa/af in 95% of games.

yes todays games can bring an 8800 to its knees at high res with aa/af. crysis would crawl at those settings(how well do u expect crysis to run on an 8800 at 1920 x 1200 with 4x aa 16x af?), but it will surely run smooth at lower resolutions with some aa/af which is what ive always said.

fear issues could be a game or driver issue, but u cant claim every single game on the market that brings an 8800 to its knees is a driver or game issue. what about oblivion? what about trackmania? what about dark messiah?

btw im not experiencing the same fear issue as you, i never cant move fowards, for me its just the fps tanking. and the mouse lag isnt normal as if i activate slowmo in an empty room where i get high fps my mouse feels great, its only when the framerate tanks that mouse lag becomes an issue. that goes for every game btw.

no i want th e8800s to perform as good as possible, if i could magically snap my fingers and have them double in speed i would, but overclocking my cpu wont help me in any games except supcom.

i havent played any of the bfme games but im aware 8800 has many sli issues atm.

those 2 posters opinions dont prove anything as u have no idea what resolutions or settings they are playing at and what they define as 'great', and the review sites benches actually back eveyrthing im saying. ive already proven with math that cod 2 drops to around 30 with 16x aa 16x af at 1920 x 1200, we know fear bombs, we know trackmania drops to below 30 if u play online, oblivion drops to the teens even without any visual mods, dakr messiah drops to the 20s. this is all fact. my system is fine, i know how to maintain it as i can run any game bench and its never lower than the reviews u find, unfortunately the actual game is usually slower, and therefor matters a lot more than a bench.

[icecold1983]

just another graph of another title showing cpu scaling

http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/CPU_Scaling_With_The_GeForce_8800_GTX/Prey.png

again almost no difference from a 3800 all the way up to a core 2 duo at 3333, and this isnt even at 1920 x 1200 where i play, so i have even less of a cpu limitation

[Redeemed]

http://www.legionhardware.com/Bench/CPU_Scaling_With_The_GeForce_8800_GTX/FEAR.png

they scale from a core 2 duo@3333 to a 3800. there is no cpu limitation at high res with aa/af in 95% of games.

yes todays games can bring an 8800 to its knees at high res with aa/af. crysis would crawl at those settings(how well do u expect crysis to run on an 8800 at 1920 x 1200 with 4x aa 16x af?), but it will surely run smooth at lower resolutions with some aa/af which is what ive always said.

fear issues could be a game or driver issue, but u cant claim every single game on the market that brings an 8800 to its knees is a driver or game issue. what about oblivion? what about trackmania? what about dark messiah?

btw im not experiencing the same fear issue as you, i never cant move fowards, for me its just the fps tanking. and the mouse lag isnt normal as if i activate slowmo in an empty room where i get high fps my mouse feels great, its only when the framerate tanks that mouse lag becomes an issue. that goes for every game btw.

no i want th e8800s to perform as good as possible, if i could magically snap my fingers and have them double in speed i would, but overclocking my cpu wont help me in any games except supcom.

i havent played any of the bfme games but im aware 8800 has many sli issues atm.

those 2 posters opinions dont prove anything as u have no idea what resolutions or settings they are playing at and what they define as 'great', and the review sites benches actually back eveyrthing im saying. ive already proven with math that cod 2 drops to around 30 with 16x aa 16x af at 1920 x 1200, we know fear bombs, we know trackmania drops to below 30 if u play online, oblivion drops to the teens even without any visual mods, dakr messiah drops to the 20s. this is all fact. my system is fine, i know how to maintain it as i can run any game bench and its never lower than the reviews u find, unfortunately the actual game is usually slower, and therefor matters a lot more than a bench.

Icecold, for everygame where the fps tanks for you- other members here owning a setup equivalent to yours says the opposite (multiple members). And the reviews do not back up what you claim. I posted a review where they tested the CPU scaling of the 8800's, and the results were very differet than what you have just posted- have a link to your source?

Actually this just seems like the same flame war thats been going on for a couple weeks now in various other threads.

Why are people still trying to convince icecold of anything related to PC performance and graphics? If he hasn't agreed in the 5 other threads where the same screenshots were posted, he isn't going to agree this time.

I'm not trying to play forum police, but come on guys... it seems like every interesting thread in this section ends up getting dragged into this ongoing crap.

You are correct CaptNKILL. This is much like beating a dead horse. It would be wise of me to discontinue this debate. This will make the third time where I've said I would step out of this debate- let's see if I can actually do it this time. :p

[Arioch]

This game was the deciding factor in me getting a new system with a quad core CPU and SLI video cards. While I wait for it to be released I will replay Oblivion with mods this time (beat it on the 360), Dark Messiah, Gothic 3, and FEAR:EP.

[icecold1983]

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=603

was the site with those graphs

the review su linked to were the following

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/415/3/
http://www.overclockers.com/articles1390/
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=grfx&id=474&pagenumber=5
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2870&p=22

one of the links u gave doesnt work

the first link isnt rly useful as it doesnt show anything in regards to cpu scaling on a single card.

the 2nd link u showed benches at 1024 x 768 which is absolutely pointless, at the end of the article how ever they say what ive been saying

"When high res gaming, it is quite obvious here that the GPU's performance does not scale AT ALL at any CPU clockspeed"

3rd link is just a regular review, no info in regards to cpu scaling, but it shows somewhat higher cod 2 numbers, could be a less strenuous benchmark than other sites run, as its unlikely that they are just better at setting up a system than all the other review sites.

4th link is pretty irrelevant to this discussion, but with an avg fps of 32 u can bet the minimum fps is extremely low, were talking single digit lows.

again anyone who owns tm united and an 8800, simply max out the graphics, set ur res to 1920 x 1200 and go play some stadium online. i suggest u turn motion blur off tho or else it wont even be playable.

ill go take some screens and post them

btw captnkill im being perfectly mature, im not flaming or insulting anyone.

[icecold1983]

alo another game that brings an 8800 to its knees, r6 vegas. call of juarez too.

[|MaguS|]

alo another game that brings an 8800 to its knees, r6 vegas. call of juarez too.

R6 Vegas brings it to its knees because the game is coded like ass... There is no reason why while im playing my framerates would be higher during high points of action then while walking down an empty hallway.

[Xion X2]

[
fear issues could be a game or driver issue, but u cant claim every single game on the market that brings an 8800 to its knees is a driver or game issue. what about oblivion? what about trackmania? what about dark messiah?

Where does this idea of yours come from that a single graphics card should be able to run every title at 1920x1200 resolution at 40fps or more while 16xAA is activated?

Can you tell us, please? Because this has never, ever been the case as far as I can remember. If you're so pissed at the way that your setup is running, then there's an easy solution for it. Go SLI.

no i want th e8800s to perform as good as possible, if i could magically snap my fingers and have them double in speed i would, but overclocking my cpu wont help me in any games except supcom.

i havent played any of the bfme games but im aware 8800 has many sli issues atm.

SLI works perfect on Oblivion, Dark Messiah, Call of Duty 2, Prey, and Tomb Raider Legend for me. The only title giving me trouble so far is Rainbow Six Vegas. So, again.. you exaggerate things.

What you should've done if you wanted better performance at higher resolutions is to go SLI. That is really the only thing that can handle 1920x1200/16xAA with really good framerates 100% of the time. All of those titles I listed above, including Dark Messiah--which you say brings the 8800GTX to its knees--run no less than 60fps on my system at any time.

So how about just quit bitching about this on every thread like you've been doing and either go buy a second card or wait for some drivers to come out that are more optimized.

It just seems absurd to me that you, one, expect a single card to play every game without slowing down at your crazy resolution that you're playing at, and two, that you expect a brand new architecture to have no problems balancing both DX9 and DX10 perfectly right off the bat. The drivers for this card are still early and Nvidia is having to program for two different operating systems--XP and Vista.

[icecold1983]

R6 Vegas brings it to its knees because the game is coded like ass... There is no reason why while im playing my framerates would be higher during high points of action then while walking down an empty hallway.

agreed, but it still brings the 8800 to its knees as an available and popular game

[icecold1983]

Where does this idea of yours come from that a single graphics card should be able to run every title at 1920x1200 resolution at 40fps or more while 16xAA is activated?

Can you tell us, please? Because this has never, ever been the case as far as I can remember. If you're so pissed at the way that your setup is running, then there's an easy solution for it. Go SLI.



SLI works perfect on Oblivion, Dark Messiah, Call of Duty 2, Prey, and Tomb Raider Legend for me. The only title giving me trouble so far is Rainbow Six Vegas. So, again.. you exaggerate things.

What you should've done if you wanted better performance at higher resolutions is to go SLI. That is really the only thing that can handle 1920x1200/16xAA with really good framerates 100% of the time. All of those titles I listed above, including Dark Messiah--which you say brings the 8800GTX to its knees--run no less than 60fps on my system at any time.

So how about just quit bitching about this on every thread like you've been doing and either go buy a second card or wait for some drivers to come out that are more optimized.

It just seems absurd to me that you, one, expect a single card to play every game without slowing down at your crazy resolution that you're playing at, and two, that you expect a brand new architecture to have no problems balancing both DX9 and DX10 perfectly right off the bat. The drivers for this card are still early and Nvidia is having to program for two different operating systems--XP and Vista.

i never said i expect the 8800 to play every game at 1920 x 1200 with 16x aa, that was you or someone else who said NO CURRENT GAME CAN TEST THE 8800. i simply argued that fact.

btw in the games i listed i use 4x aa and still hit performance walls. the only reason im hesitant to go sli is some games just dont see an increase, teackmania being one. i also want to see the r600 b4 i make the decision to go sli.

1920 x 1200 isnt a crazy res, even the ps3 supports it in some games, likely to be many games in the future, with no framerate problems.

[|MaguS|]

agreed, but it still brings the 8800 to its knees as an available and popular game

If thats your logic, I can write a DOS game that can bring down a QuadCore to its knees... guess they suck as CPUs aswell...

God your more retarded then Nv40.

[nutcrackr]

God your more retarded then Nv40.
woah nelly, don't you think that's going a little too far... :p

[sillyeagle]

Where does this idea of yours come from that a single graphics card should be able to run every title at 1920x1200 resolution at 40fps or more while 16xAA is activated?

Can you tell us, please? Because this has never, ever been the case as far as I can remember. If you're so pissed at the way that your setup is running, then there's an easy solution for it. Go SLI.



Yeah I don't understand this guy. All he does is bitch and moan about every little thing in his perception that is not "right", and in nearly every case he is bitching about nothing, because it is the way it is. Nothing is god enough for him. I don't think I have seen a single post by him where he was not complaining about one thing or another. For somebody who knows as much as him, I can't see why he would be like that. I wonder if he works for ATI.

He came on here asking all these questions like a noob, "why does the 8800 AF look terrible", "why does fear perf. suck on the 8800". I helped him out at first until I realized what he was up to.

[icecold1983]

If thats your logic, I can write a DOS game that can bring down a QuadCore to its knees... guess they suck as CPUs aswell...

God your more retarded then Nv40.

when did i ever say the 8800 sucks? reading is fundamental

[Roadhog]

when did i ever say the 8800 sucks? reading is fundamental

shooo, no one wants you.

[icecold1983]

Yeah I don't understand this guy. All he does is bitch and moan about every little thing in his perception that is not "right", and in nearly every case he is bitching about nothing, because it is the way it is. Nothing is god enough for him. I don't think I have seen a single post by him where he was not complaining about one thing or another. For somebody who knows as much as him, I can't see why he would be like that. I wonder if he works for ATI.

He came on here asking all these questions like a noob, "why does the 8800 AF look terrible", "why does fear perf. suck on the 8800". I helped him out at first until I realized what he was up to.

correction, i was trying to find out why the 8800 was doing angle dependent af, no one here had an answer.

i also asked if fear always tanks in certain areas, as i had never played the game till i got my 8800.

[Xion X2]

agreed, but it still brings the 8800 to its knees as an available and popular game

It brings EVERY graphics card to its knees because, like Magus said, it's coded like ass. How you can somehow lay the blame at the hardware with this is beyond me. What's the point of complaining about it? It's not just an issue with the 8800 cards. In the places where the 8800GTX is getting 25-30 fps at your resolution, the 1900XT is getting half that.

Do those cards suck as well? Complain to the programmers if you want to bitch about something.. they're the ones that did a rush job porting it over.

[Xion X2]

i never said i expect the 8800 to play every game at 1920 x 1200 with 16x aa, that was you or someone else who said NO CURRENT GAME CAN TEST THE 8800. i simply argued that fact.

Give me a break here icecold, eh? You've been hopping on every other thread discussing the 8800GTX or PC gaming in particular in this forum for the past few weeks bitching about how slow your computer runs some of these games.

btw in the games i listed i use 4x aa and still hit performance walls.

Outside of Rainbow Six and Oblivion, I just don't see how that's possible. On a single GTX, playing at 1680x1050 and with 16xAA, I got anywhere from 55-60fps on FEAR most of the time. And it was the same for most other games, too. I already showed you what Call of Duty 2 played like at my resolution and 16xAA. But when I did that, you wanted to ramble on and on about what it played like on your system w/ 16xAA enabled. You never even mentioned what it ran like with only 4xAA enabled, so whatever, kid. Don't go sidestepping now acting like 4xAA is now good enough for you.

teackmania being one. i also want to see the r600 b4 i make the decision to go sli.

Why didn't you just go with a much cheaper single-card motherboard like the Asus P5B Deluxe if that was the case? Why'd you spend the extra 100$ on an SLI motherboard?

1920 x 1200 isnt a crazy res, even the ps3 supports it in some games, likely to be many games in the future, with no framerate problems.

Yeah, and in order to do that you'll get sh!tty texture resolution and filtering like is plaguing so many of the console titles right now.

Resistance: Fall of Man
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23392&stc=1&d=1168283185

Tiger Woods PGA 07
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23393&stc=1&d=1168328008

[icecold1983]

It brings EVERY graphics card to its knees because, like Magus said, it's coded like ass. How you can somehow lay the blame at the hardware with this is beyond me. What's the point of complaining about it? It's not just an issue with the 8800 cards. In the places where the 8800GTX is getting 25-30 fps at your resolution, the 1900XT is getting half that.

Do those cards suck as well? Complain to the programmers if you want to bitch about something.. they're the ones that did a rush job porting it over.

im not laying the blame anywhere, im simply looking at it from game x performs at y speed on the given hardware.

again i never said the 8800 sucked. i just argue against people who go in threads and make ridiculous comments like "it never drop below 60 fps in any game at xhd resolutions"

[icecold1983]

Give me a break here icecold, eh? You've been hopping on every other thread discussing the 8800GTX or PC gaming in particular in this forum for the past few weeks bitching about how slow your computer runs some of these games.



Outside of Rainbow Six and Oblivion, I just don't see how that's possible. On a single GTX, playing at 1680x1050 and with 16xAA, I got anywhere from 55-60fps on FEAR most of the time. And it was the same for most other games, too. I already showed you what Call of Duty 2 played like at my resolution and 16xAA. But when I did that, you wanted to ramble on and on about what it played like on your system w/ 16xAA enabled. You never even mentioned what it ran like with only 4xAA enabled, so whatever, kid. Don't go sidestepping now acting like 4xAA is now good enough for you.



Why didn't you just go with a much cheaper single-card motherboard like the Asus P5B Deluxe if that was the case? Why'd you spend the extra 100$ on an SLI motherboard?



Yeah, and in order to do that you'll get sh!tty texture resolution and filtering like is plaguing so many of the console titles right now.

Resistance: Fall of Man
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23392&stc=1&d=1168283185

Tiger Woods PGA 07
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23393&stc=1&d=1168328008

well first of all its a 30% performance drop just to go to my resolution, then u have the extra around 7%~ cost of aa at the higher res over ur res. so right there thats a sizable drop in performance.

i d/led the cod 2 demo again and gave it a run thru at 1920 x 1200 4x/16x. avg fps was around 44 with drops to the 30s during certain scenes. i never mentioned what it played like on my system with 16x aa, i was just stating how it would likely perform based on how it performs with 4x aa. and i never mentioned or implied that i run my games with 16x aa. please quote the posts where i imply or state such.

and that brings me to my original point, when the 8800 already hits walls on current titles at 1920 x 1200, how do u people expect it to run crysis smoothly at an even higher res?

yes consoles have worse texture filtering and resolution than pcs, but they make up for it with much better lighting, much higher poly counts, better animation, and far more detail in general. crysis will be the first game to surpass the consoles graphically.

[sillyeagle]

correction, i was trying to find out why the 8800 was doing angle dependent af, no one here had an answer.

i also asked if fear always tanks in certain areas, as i had never played the game till i got my 8800.

My bad.

[Xion X2]

well first of all its a 30% performance drop just to go to my resolution, then u have the extra around 7%~ cost of aa at the higher res over ur res. so right there thats a sizable drop in performance.

Your logic is flawed here. The resolutions just do not scale in the way that you're saying they do.

For instance, look here at the comparison of COD2 ran at the same settings but at different resolutions that are in question here (1920x1200 vs 1600x1200)

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/images/cod21600.gif
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/images/cod22048.gif

62fps for the lower res vs 55 for the higher res. 7/62 = 11% difference in performance, not "30%" as you keep claiming. And that's taking your "AA is tougher at higher res" theory into account, as well. There's just not that big of a difference in performance.

You just don't know what in the hell you're talking about. If your computer is playing Call of Duty 2 at an average of 44 fps then, as I've said all along, you need to learn how to optimize it for better performance.

i d/led the cod 2 demo again and gave it a run thru at 1920 x 1200 4x/16x. avg fps was around 44 with drops to the 30s during certain scenes.

Then your computer's fubar, because firingsquad got 55fps on average on COD2 w/ an FX-62 paired with an 8800GTX:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/page13.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/images/cod22048.gif

And as for your comments about FEAR running like crap on a single 8800GTX?

At 1920x1200 res and 4xAA anandtech got an average of 59fps on a single stock-clocked 8800GTX:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/8800%20roundup%20nov06_111206101147/13562.png
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2873&p=6

Actually, now that I look at it, they were pushing even more pixels than you are (1920x1440) so it even heightens the blow here.


i never mentioned what it played like on my system with 16x aa, i was just stating how it would likely perform based on how it performs with 4x aa. and i never mentioned or implied that i run my games with 16x aa. please quote the posts where i imply or state such.

Oh, okay. Right here:

"i know cod2 doesnt run at 60 fps at 1920 x 1200 with 16x aa 16x af. and it drops to around 30 regularly."
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84146&page=2

You were saying?

and that brings me to my original point, when the 8800 already hits walls on current titles at 1920 x 1200, how do u people expect it to run crysis smoothly at an even higher res?

Do you consider an average of "59fps" like the 8800GTX plays FEAR at your res "hitting a wall?" That's my original point; you're overexaggerating. Either your computer is seriously screwed up or you just enjoy lying out of both sides of your mouth for attention.

yes consoles have worse texture filtering and resolution than pcs, but they make up for it with much better lighting, much higher poly counts, better animation, and far more detail in general. crysis will be the first game to surpass the consoles graphically.

Ridiculous. Dark Messiah and Oblivion on the 8800GTX look better than any game I've seen on the consoles. I even played Lost Planet on the 360 the same day I installed Dark Messiah for the first time and couldn't believe how low-res and jaggied the textures on the 360 looked by comparison.

Dark Messiah:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23580&stc=1&d=1169019723

Oblivion:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23581&stc=1&d=1169021056

Lost Planet:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/004/931114_20070106_screen003.jpg

You're nuts.

[icecold1983]

Your logic is flawed here. The resolutions just do not scale in the way that you're saying they do.

For instance, look here at the comparison of COD2 ran at the same settings but at different resolutions that are in question here (1920x1200 vs 1600x1200)

62fps for the lower res vs 55 for the higher res. 7/62 = 11% difference in performance, not "30%" as you keep claiming. And that's taking your "AA is tougher at higher res" theory into account, as well. There's just not that big of a difference in performance.

You just don't know what in the hell you're talking about. If your computer is playing Call of Duty 2 at an average of 44 fps then, as I've said all along, you need to learn how to optimize it for better performance.



Then your computer's f*cked, because firingsquad got 55fps on average on COD2 w/ an FX-62 paired with an 8800GTX:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gtx_gts_amd_cpu_scaling/page13.asp

And as for your comments about FEAR running like crap on a single 8800GTX?

At 1920x1200 res and 4xAA anandtech got an average of 59fps on a single stock-clocked 8800GTX:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2873&p=6


Oh, okay. Right here:

"i know cod2 doesnt run at 60 fps at 1920 x 1200 with 16x aa 16x af. and it drops to around 30 regularly."
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84146&page=2

You were saying?



Do you consider an average of "59fps" like the 8800GTX plays FEAR at your res "hitting a wall?" That's my original point; you're overexaggerating. Either your computer is seriously screwed up or you just enjoy lying out of both sides of your mouth for attention.



Ridiculous. Dark Messiah on the 8800GTX looks better than any game I've seen on the consoles. I even played Lost Planet on the 360 the same day I installed Dark Messiah for the first time and couldn't believe how low-res and jaggied the textures on the 360 looked by comparison.

Dark Messiah:

Lost Planet:


You're nuts.

u dont know what stage firingsquads demo is, until u do u cant draw any conclusions that my comp is screwed. what u can conclude is that no way in hell does the game run at 60 fps with 16x aa at 1920 x 1200.

yeah my AVG fps on fear is high too, its the extreme lows i have an issue with, and apparently so does hardocp as they have replicated it over multiple reviews/systems.

ur right, cod 2 doesnt run at 60 fps with 16x aa 16x af at 1920 x 1200, thats what i was saying and i stand by it. it does drop to 30 regularly, it drops to the 30s even with 4x aa.

u picked a terrible screen to show off console graphics tho.

heres some screens with fps counters on, 1920 x 1200 with 4/16.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9366/148rw9.th.jpg (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=148rw9.jpg)
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/7508/2cl0.th.jpg (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2cl0.jpg)
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/5711/3ks4.th.jpg (http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3ks4.jpg)
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/8122/4vo5.th.jpg (http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?image=4vo5.jpg)
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7042/5el7.th.jpg (http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5el7.jpg)

[icecold1983]

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=83459

jakup benched tm united with the included bench. my score is within 1 or 2 fps of his on a much slower cpu(cuz the game is gpu limited), and yet when u actually play the game the fps is nowhere near 60 at these settings in stadium mode. unless ur playing an extremely baasic track