So I got second GTX280

[hell_of_doom227]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

It doesn't matter. He mentioned "very high", and that was enough.

Even a CrossfireX system with 2 4870X2's can't run that game on very high at a smooth framerate. Neither can 2 280's.

1680*1050, AA2x, AF8x, VSync OFF, No hacking, DX10.0, Everything to Very High, and OS is Vista 64. Both cards are really sweating, 81C - 80C which means SLI scales to the max.

Seriously if HD4870X2 can't handle Crysis as supposed to that's your problem, as i stated before HD4800 series sucks in DX10.0. I can't wait for major epic fail in Age of Conan when they add DX10.0 path. As far as my experience is...game is totally playable and it runs smooth. I was bitching about Crysis for a year, cause it wasn't acceptable for me under 2x8800GTX even on high settings. When i played Crysis first time with GTX280, i was like whoa. Played whole game with everything very high, except for objects (high), AA2x, AF8x and it was running great, playable and smooth. I was suspicious that card will run Crysis that well just in first mission or so, but hell no...The whole game performed as supposed to. Only, the very last mission on big ship slowed down though, but not a big deal.

I added this second card....it's ****ing unbeliavable. I'm not sure what those review sites do with their setup but i noticed that whatever they test has no ****ing connection with real world.

[XMAN52373]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

Even with no AA Crysis plays at less than 30fps average on SLI'd 280's and drops to 13 fps in some places on "very high."

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

Unless he's playing at 1280x res, I don't buy it. Some guys have a different definition of "smooth", but they should be careful not to mislead people. Less than 30fps average is not "smooth" for most, I don't think.

Xion, come on man, you are using a graph with 1920x1200 as the res and trying to use that as the basis for how the game plays for him at say 1680x1050 and then trying to also make it as thou that 13 min frames at 1920x1200 is going to happen at 1680x1050.

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by XMAN52373

Xion, come on man, you are using a graph with 1920x1200 as the res and trying to use that as the basis for how the game plays for him at say 1680x1050 and then trying to also make it as thou that 13 min frames at 1920x1200 is going to happen at 1680x1050.

There won't be a huge difference there. These current cards run about as well at 1920x as they do at 1680x. Plus, he was using AA at his 1680x res whereas the review wasn't running any.

Anyway, it's not worth arguing about.

[hell_of_doom227]

Going from 1280*1024 to 1680*1050 makes huge difference, even more by going from 1680*1050 to something higher. AA2x doesn't make such a difference as higher resolution for Crysis.

[SH64]

Originally Posted by slaWter

Guys, Very High and AF is a no go in Crysis...

Yep .. tis a shame people still dont know about that

[hell_of_doom227]

Originally Posted by slaWter

Guys, Very High and AF is a no go in Crysis...

You mean AF is broken or what? It works fine here...

[hell_of_doom227]

Originally Posted by slaWter

It's not possible to use POM and AF at the same time. With Very High settings POM is automatically enabled, so AF doesn't work.

It works here, i will post some images later.

[Blkout]

Originally Posted by Lfctony

It does? Really?

A single GTX280 CANT run V.High Crysis... Heck, 2 GTX280s can barely run it, and that's without any AA/AF... I imagine if they hadn't optimized the cards, as you claim...

We don't live in a world where any single video card has the capability to run Crysis at 1920x1200 at very high detail, 16AF and 8AA. What I meant and I hoped everyone would have understood is that Nvidia optimized their current hardware design around Crysis, where ATI didn't. There is no denying that Nvidia outperforms ATI in Crysis by a considerable margin, and as a 4870 owner, I have no problem with that since Crysis isn't a game a get worked up over. ATI has nothing to be ashamed of, they won this round in my eyes. Nvidia simply has bragging rights on Crysis, so be it.

[Blkout]

Originally Posted by SH64

I suppose he meant optimizing it to run as fast as possible & faster than its rival (i.e. the 4870).
whatever way you look at it , the GTX280 is the single GPU card that can run Crysis at best performance possible today.

Correct.

[Ninja Prime]

Originally Posted by hell_of_doom227

It works here, i will post some images later.

No, it doesn't. POM + AF = artifacts and errors, therefore with POM on, which is what very high does, the engine automatically turns AF off reguardless of what you have selected in the menu.

[Lfctony]

Originally Posted by Blkout

We don't live in a world where any single video card has the capability to run Crysis at 1920x1200 at very high detail, 16AF and 8AA. What I meant and I hoped everyone would have understood is that Nvidia optimized their current hardware design around Crysis, where ATI didn't. There is no denying that Nvidia outperforms ATI in Crysis by a considerable margin, and as a 4870 owner, I have no problem with that since Crysis isn't a game a get worked up over. ATI has nothing to be ashamed of, they won this round in my eyes. Nvidia simply has bragging rights on Crysis, so be it.

My point is that the GTX280 performs like crap in Crysis, so it was not really optimized for it. The proof for this? 1680x1050 V.High 8800GTX 17fps - GTX280 25fps... 47% increase...

Other games, supposedly not optimised gain more than that... What would true optimization be? Every game gains 50% over the last generation, but Crysis gains 100%... Instead, its the other way around. Most games gain 60-70%, while Crysis gains much less, hence not optimized...

Similar to Doom 3 and the 6800... All games had the X800XT-PE and the 6800U very close, except Doom 3 where the 6800U buried the X800... That was actual optimization because the specific game did not represent the card's overall performance...

[Blkout]

Originally Posted by Lfctony

My point is that the GTX280 performs like crap in Crysis, so it was not really optimized for it. The proof for this? 1680x1050 V.High 8800GTX 17fps - GTX280 25fps... 47% increase...

Other games, supposedly not optimised gain more than that... What would true optimization be? Every game gains 50% over the last generation, but Crysis gains 100%... Instead, its the other way around. Most games gain 60-70%, while Crysis gains much less, hence not optimized...

Similar to Doom 3 and the 6800... All games had the X800XT-PE and the 6800U very close, except Doom 3 where the 6800U buried the X800... That was actual optimization because the specific game did not represent the card's overall performance...

Has it ever occured to you that not every game scales the same? No card is going to do any better right now because the game itself is coded so poorly. Nvidia did the best they could with the game code they had to work with. The proof is in the framerate results compared to the Radeon 4870 which tanks in Crysis yet runs 90% of the speed of the 280 in almost every other game. Two different architectures, Nvidia chose the one that was more Crysis friendly. Hopefully that explains it better for you.