Why do the 7800/7900 series get hurt so bad in Crysis?

[dug777]

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/.../Crysis-v1.21,747.html

?

EDIT: Inquiring minds want to know

 

[nosfe]

When they post those comparisons it's usually with about 8 month old drivers, that's probably the reason why

 

[Paratus]

I actaully managed to play Crysis on my P4 X1950 Pro 512 at 10x7 and medium details.

The X19xx series had a lot more Sps than the 78/79 series did.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Paratus
I actaully managed to play Crysis on my P4 X1950 Pro 512 at 10x7 and medium details.

The X19xx series had a lot more Sps than the 78/79 series did.

Yep. If I had to take a guess, the G70 parts are bottlenecking on shader power. Although with those numbers, I pity anyone who actually tried to play Crysis like that, X1900 or 7900.

 

[slick2500]

I played the beta on my 7800GT SLI it wasnt pretty.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Paratus
I actaully managed to play Crysis on my P4 X1950 Pro 512 at 10x7 and medium details.

The X19xx series had a lot more Sps than the 78/79 series did.

Yep. If I had to take a guess, the G70 parts are bottlenecking on shader power. Although with those numbers, I pity anyone who actually tried to play Crysis like that, X1900 or 7900.

Interesting, thanks folks

I tried it on my 6800GS (Native PCI-E core on AGP, overclocked comfortably past an ultra in terms of core and mem bandwidth), that was an 'experience' I won't forget

 

[BFG10K]

Yep, the X19xx series placed a heavy emphasis on shader performance over texturing, so it pulls ahead in modern shader-heavy games.

Having said that, those benchmarks look really wrong, especially at the high-end. Other websites get far higher scores at the settings they used:

http://www.techspot.com/review...n-4850-4870/page4.html

 

[Cookie Monster]

Like what the previous posters have said, the G70/G71 based cards lacks the required shader power for modern games. It was the limitation of NV4x architecture. That is why their equivalent competitors are almost twice to triple the performance in today's titles (Showing that R580 indeed was future proof to some extent).

 

[alcoholbob]

I wonder, does SM 3.0a vs SM 3.0b have anything to do with it? I understand the 7xxx series were pretty bad at Oblivion due to lack of 3.0b support.

 

[Lonyo]

I played at 1680x1050 on my 7800GT and while it wasn't brilliant, I still enjoyed it. Obviously quality settings were quite far down though.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
I wonder, does SM 3.0a vs SM 3.0b have anything to do with it? I understand the 7xxx series were pretty bad at Oblivion due to lack of 3.0b support.

I don't think there is such a thing as SM 3.0a or b. The 7xxx series simply doesn't have enough pixel shaders.

 

[alcoholbob]

No there isn't. It was jargon back in the day on nvidia cards for "partial 3.0 support", lol. ATI cards had full 3.0 support. Reviewers just called it 3.0b for full support.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Astrallite

I wonder, does SM 3.0a vs SM 3.0b have anything to do with it? I understand the 7xxx series were pretty bad at Oblivion due to lack of 3.0b support.

There's no such thing as SM 3.0a or SM 3.0b. You're thinking of SM 2.0a (GF 5xxx series) and SM 2.0b (R4xx series).

 

[Andrew1990]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Astrallite

I wonder, does SM 3.0a vs SM 3.0b have anything to do with it? I understand the 7xxx series were pretty bad at Oblivion due to lack of 3.0b support.

There's no such thing as SM 3.0a or SM 3.0b. You're thinking of SM 2.0a (GF 5xxx series) and SM 2.0b (R4xx series).

Maybe they are talking about that entire HDR + AA thing which ATI cards could do while Nvidia couldnt.