• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

PCGH FARCRY 2 Benchmarks

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Phew

Current computer hardware can't produce playable framerates at native LCD resolutions with 4xFSAA in Crysis.
Click to expand...
A GTX280 should be able to do 1680x1050 with 4xAA, though obviously not with everything on very high.
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
Originally posted by: Phew

Current computer hardware can't produce playable framerates at native LCD resolutions with 4xFSAA in Crysis.
Click to expand...
A GTX280 should be able to do 1680x1050 with 4xAA, though obviously not with everything on very high.
Click to expand...

That statement is pretty damn close to the truth. Just for fun, I bought a 4870 1GB to CF with a 4870 X2 in a well equipped rig. For kicks I wanted to see how low I had to go to break 60fps in Crysis.

BFG, here's a 4870 X3 rig at that res:
1680x1050 4xAA High dx9 Cat 8.10 = 51 avg fps

and here's where I was able to break 60 fps:
1024x768 noAA High dx9 Cat 8.10 = 61 avg fps

Granted there are many variables, most importantly scaling, but Crytek should be taken out back and beaten. Looking forward to FC2's engine...
 
CF ATI cards must blow horribly at low res in that game then, I just ran it at those settings, 58fps overclocking my single g92 8800gts. What would you get on just a single 4870 run? Maybe higher than x3?

That was at 1024x768. You know, what cpu and clock were you running? Would appear to be a cpu bottleneck now that I think about it.
 
Originally posted by: RockinZ28
CF ATI cards must blow horribly at low res in that game then, I just ran it at those settings, 58fps overclocking my single g92 8800gts. What would you get on just a single 4870 run? Maybe higher than x3?

That was at 1024x768. You know, what cpu and clock were you running? Would appear to be a cpu bottleneck now that I think about it.
Click to expand...

Yea it's safe to say that scaling sucks at this point. Biggest gains were at high res with details maxed. Vantage at extreme level saw best gains as well. I've yet to try other games, but it's likely ATI needs to step up more with Crossfire X.

I'm running a Q9450 @ 3.2. I have an E8500 I could run @ 4.0 but like the quad for everyday use.

 
Yea it's definitely the cpu. I just put my E6600 up another 200mhz, went up to 64.5fps. 58fps was at 3.15ghz, so you getting 61 at 3.2 with the Yorkfield sounds spot on, this game gains nothing with quad. Bet you'd get huge numbers with the E8500.
 
Originally posted by: SteelSix
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Here's my single 4870 1GB push 61FPS at 1280x1024
http://img372.imageshack.us/im...2958/crysishighbd3.jpg
Click to expand...

Running 1.2 patch? Any config edits or tweaks? I'll be trying an E8500 E0 @ 4.2 later today. Fresh install on everything. I'll try 1280x1024.. seems like it should smoke it. We'll see..
Click to expand...
That's was 1.2 patch - with no tweaks or configs. Edit I did install 8.11 beta drivers though.

Here's with my autoconfig, which uses alot of very high settings.
http://img509.imageshack.us/im...sveryhightweakstg4.jpg

Here's my autoconfig if you want to test it out. Also I'm curious how X3 would run it if you don't mind.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/77wgip

for the hell of it, here's my config running my native 1080p resolution.
http://img148.imageshack.us/im...430/1080pcrysisvi4.jpg
 
Will do. Am going to run 1280x1024 thru 1920x1080 with and without aa before and after 4870 1GB is installed. Very little out there on how the config scales so it may be useful. Look for seperate post tomorrow.
 
Well if that is "ultra"...if Crysis was Photoshop, that looks like MS Paint. Well, here's hoping the gameplay is good.
 
Originally posted by: Modular
I'll have to wait and see what further benchmarks have to say about CPU performance. I've got an A64 3400+ paired with an HD4850 and according to this bench it's unplayable. I have a hard time believing this as I can play Crysis on my CPU with playable FPS, and I can't see FC2 stretching my system more than Crysis...
Click to expand...

keep in mind that those benches are for very high quality DX10, I believe.

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: Matrices
Well if that is "ultra"...if Crysis was Photoshop, that looks like MS Paint. Well, here's hoping the gameplay is good.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Here's a better screenshot.
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/8963/fc2kl9.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow, that looks nice. I am a bit skeptical of screenshots though, because the pre-launch Crysis screenshots turned out to be incredible once we saw the actual game.
 
Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Originally posted by: Matrices
Well if that is "ultra"...if Crysis was Photoshop, that looks like MS Paint. Well, here's hoping the gameplay is good.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Here's a better screenshot.
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/8963/fc2kl9.jpg
Click to expand...

I dunno, that image looks like the ones that Crysis was showing at first, but looked nothing like that in the end. My screen is with the in game editor set at ultra settings, hopefully it will look much better in game with DX10 with AA. I don't think the texture quality is going to improve any, and it's quite terrible.

Edit: Did a little comparison among Crysis, Clear Sky and FC2 trying to show the texture detail. Tried to make it as even as possible with the limited options of the FC2 editor. All taken at 16x12 no AA/AF in DX9. Crysis all high no tweaks, Clear Sky max ingame settings, FC2 ultra.

Crysis: http://img93.imageshack.us/img.../screenshot0001ay4.jpg
Clear Sky: http://img100.imageshack.us/im...2008083148mpmilub2.jpg
FC2: http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3326/fc2bty4.jpg

 
Link

This shows nVIDIA's dev relations paying off. If what the lead programmer saying is true, Farcry 2 isnt a DX10.1 title.

Its a DX10 title that uses some of the features found in the DX10.1. Something sounds familiar? well G8x/G9x/G200 cards support some DX10.1 features according to nVIDIA but they haven't gone specific in detail in which features it is. Probably too scared as the competition might use this as their ammunition.

Quite the turn of events..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top