Has Anyone Believe me? Crysis rocks 2900XT [Archive]

HiddenStupid

10-27-2007, 07:10 AM

Has Anyone Believe me? Crysis rocks 2900xt

I made a thread long time ago about my prediction, belief and opinion that Crysis will perform better on ATI cards than Nvidia Cards.... I was gonna continue to that thread but I search and search no find the thread so decided to make new.

my prediction, belief and opinion that Crysis will perform better on ATI cards than Nvidia Cards due to the huge amount of Shader Power on the ATI cards..... Crysis is a graphic like most PS3 titles (CG-like gameplay) which determine by shader power and eats lots of shader power. ATI cards happend to have superior Shader Power than Nvidia. Sure Nvidia cards such as the 8800 ultra can beat the 2900xt in non CG-like gameplay such as Battlefield 2142 but in CG-like gameplay graphic like Crysis.... the table turns..... 2900xt is superior due to the huge amount of shader power.

prediction, belief and opinion:
- 2900XT beats 8800 Ultra in Crysis
- 2900XT beats 8800 GTX in Crysis
- 2900XT beats 8800 GTS in Crysis
- dual 2900XT beats dual 8800 ultra in Crysis
- 2600XT beats 8600 GT in Crysis
- X1950XTX beats 7900 GTX in Crysis
- X1900XTX beats 7900 GTX in Crysis

Heard Crysis demo is out..... so who has 2900xt and 8800 ultra? did you test it? did the 2900xt got better performance than the 8800 ultra in maximum settings? see? told cha!

edit: also dont forget about the system ram! many people these days always says 2gig is enough for every game these days.... it may be true.... but Crysis is a whole different story! Crysis is a real future game! super realistic! and super CG-like gameplay graphic! it needs lots of ram and not just 2gig! 2gig of ram is just a mosquito to the mighty Crysis! I would say 3.5gig to play with average performance and 6gig is high performance and 8gig is True Performance... Guarenteed no sudden hiccup laggness. steady and smooth... super stabilized. remember everything I say is base on super maximum settings.

sneekypeet

10-27-2007, 07:18 AM

First off where are your facts on this matter???

And secondly ....are you just trying to start a flaim war here on GPU branding???? Its been done B4 , and it doesn't usually end up well!

OrbitzXT

10-27-2007, 07:18 AM

Shouldn't you wait until this is tested to start rubbing it in? I'd hate to see an ATI fanboy's dreams get crushed.....yet again. Also predictions, beliefs and opinions are all the same thing in your case. You're just hoping its better based on a guess because of shaders. I honestly don't care which is superior, its not my kind of game, and my 8800GTX outperforms the 2900 in every game that I do play.

HiddenStupid

10-27-2007, 07:28 AM

Wile E

10-27-2007, 07:34 AM

I have no idea how true your claims are, Hidden, but I'm curious to find out.

Behemoko

10-27-2007, 07:42 AM

This game hits me as "optimised for Nvidia" so we'll see what happens. ;)

sneekypeet

10-27-2007, 07:46 AM

This game hits me as "optimised for Nvidia" so we'll see what happens. ;)

would that be because of the huge NVIDIA logo that pops up on the startup, or because of the driver release with optimizations for this exact game?....lol (bit of sarcasm)

Kursah

10-27-2007, 07:50 AM

We'll have to see what happens, I don't care who they trend towards as long as I can enjoy the game on my setup. IMO it's not really that big of deal if it only consist's of a few FPS anyways, sure if it was like a 15-30fps difference, that's one thing, and again oh well if it plays good on both NV and AMD/ATI cards, which it will. At least upper-mid-range to high-end stuff.

:toast:

But I will have to see some results...does the demo have any sort of bench built in by chance?

ex_reven

10-27-2007, 08:25 AM

Who cares what card plays the game better. Just take solace in the fact that you can actually PLAY the game.

OrbitzXT

10-27-2007, 08:40 AM

Who cares what card plays the game better. Just take solace in the fact that you can actually PLAY the game.

Who cares who has more/bigger/better NOUN? Just enjoy the fact that you can VERB.

When do people ever abide by that argument, even though its true? :p

newconroer

10-27-2007, 08:40 AM

The difference will be slight. Realtime soft shadows with full DX10 overlay rendering are a drain for any card(s). But, while you may find slight performance gain with the shadow filtering, you will most likely not find it with the processing and particle placement.

That's all fine and dandy that you can move around the jungle but then you hit combat and what crash to desktop ? lol

So far the only graphically impressive thing about Crysis has been the shading levels, other than that it doesn't make my jaw drop.

ex_reven

10-27-2007, 08:47 AM

Who cares who has more/bigger/better NOUN? Just enjoy the fact that you can VERB.

When do people ever abide by that argument, even though its true? :p

Apply it to lungs, and breathing.
I think you will find everyone will abide by it.

Wile E

10-27-2007, 08:50 AM

Apply it to lungs, and breathing.
I think you will find everyone will abide by it.Not smokers.

Unfortunately, speaking from experience.

ex_reven

10-27-2007, 08:53 AM

Not smokers.

Unfortunately, speaking from experience.

You just haaad to ruin the moment, didnt you Wile E :laugh:

Wile E

10-27-2007, 08:53 AM

You just haaad to ruin the moment, didnt you Wile E :laugh:

:D It's what I'm good at. :p

ex_reven

10-27-2007, 08:55 AM

:D It's what I'm good at. :p

At least your giving your CPU/Tec/IHS a break :roll:

Morgoth

10-27-2007, 08:56 AM

the game ran fine on X1950pro with no fps lag :D on medium settings

Wile E

10-27-2007, 08:56 AM

At least your giving your CPU/Tec/IHS a break :roll:

Like I said, that's only because there's nothing left for me to attempt to destroy. :roll:

JC316

10-27-2007, 09:28 AM

With my 2900 Pro flashed to XT, I got the following framerates.

1680x1050
Max settings, no AA

Min 21, Average 26, Max 31

Those numbers seem very low, but the gameplay was never once choppy, a huge credit to Crytek.

ATI does good, but I would need to see how the 8800's do. All tests were done with FRAPS.

newconroer

10-27-2007, 09:30 AM

Eh, but what were you doing in the game, standing in the forest or in the middle of a firefight?

I'd have a hard time believing you get a solid 20+ fps with all 'very high' while in the midst of action. With "High" shaders yes, but Very High...at 1600+ resolution on an 4300 chip?

If that's the case, you're putting people with 4ghz chips and GTXs to shame :)

JC316

10-27-2007, 06:41 PM

Rob!

10-27-2007, 07:03 PM

Behemoko

10-27-2007, 07:57 PM

I'm hoping I can play on medium settings. I'll probably end up playing at 1400x900 though.

I've yet to see anyone with a simliar setup to mine run it though. I wont have a chance to play through til later next week or next weekend. :(

My setup is actually weaker and runs it if it makes you feel any better. :) High everything except low objects because it makes me, and no AA/AF because when I turn it on, the game turns it off, and this is just scenery, I am CPU bottlenecked in firefights, so it freezes up for a couple seconds.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w129/Behemoko/Crysis-BeautifulScene.jpg

Ravenas

10-27-2007, 08:03 PM

I have no idea how true your claims are, Hidden, but I'm curious to find out.

:laugh::roll::laugh:

HookeyStreet

10-27-2007, 08:04 PM

Has Anyone Believe me?

Hidden, where are you from? "Has anyone believe me?" WTF!!!, dont you mean "does anyone believe me?" or "did anyone believe me?" :confused:

Rob!

10-27-2007, 08:16 PM

My setup is actually weaker and runs it if it makes you feel any better. :) High everything except low objects because it makes me, and no AA/AF because when I turn it on, the game turns it off, and this is just scenery, I am CPU bottlenecked in firefights, so it freezes up for a couple seconds.

That looks pretty good to me! I'm not used to having super high settings as it is, but I just dumped $400 to build this new rig so I don't want to already have to play on strictly low!

Ketxxx

10-27-2007, 08:49 PM

IMO it will play best on ATi cards, and this is based on whacking everything to high, running 1280*1024 res and getting an average of 15FPS on a 1950Pro, thats pretty damn good.

OrbitzXT

10-27-2007, 08:57 PM

Hidden, where are you from? "Has anyone believe me?" WTF!!!, dont you mean "does anyone believe me?" or "did anyone believe me?" :confused:

The guy is annoying and we can make fun of the topic of the post, but give him a break..english might not be his first language. He's an ATI Fanboy, do we really need to put him down even more?

ex_reven

10-28-2007, 12:34 AM

Also, heres a review on crysis performance. The OP is very wrong except that the 2600xt does beat an 8600gt. Your RAM requirements are laughable as well. The only game ive come across where 2GB isnt enough is Hellgate London.

Agreed.
A game world wont use up all of your ram at any one time (unless you are using less than 2 gigs).
The main killers of a rendered environment are CPU and GPU. Ram is important too, but the speed of the ram is more important in determining game performance (provided that you have enough to run the game smoothly, which should be around the 1-2gb mark).

The idea that hiddenstupid thinks a gaming company is creating a game the vast majority of people wont be able to play on their prebuilt or lower tier machines is laughable.

HookeyStreet

10-28-2007, 12:39 AM

OnBoard

10-28-2007, 12:51 AM

Fire Fights and explosions. Yeah, I am getting solid 20+ FPS at all times in game.

I was set as high as the demo would let me go, with no AA.

You need Vista to go "very high" settings and that solid 20fps+ is gone at the same time ;) XP is DX9 high settings only.

mandelore

10-28-2007, 01:00 AM

The guy is annoying and we can make fun of the topic of the post, but give him a break..english might not be his first language. He's an ATI Fanboy, do we really need to put him down even more?

Please refrain from using ATI fanboy in such a derogatory manor, those that support ATI good for them, me included. He was simply refering to prior predictions, so plz get off the anti-ATI bandwagon b4 some1 knocks you off? ;)

tigger

10-28-2007, 01:02 AM

Has anyone tried the crysis in built timedemo's?

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=43089

Mediocre

10-28-2007, 01:29 AM

1024x768 GPU Everything Very High - 14.7-15.0 Ave FPS :( - Me
Asus 8800GTX - 1024x768 GPU Everything Very High -32 Ave FPS - Buddy
Guess the OP is wrong and that sux :(

But I paid half....

FYI - Vista 32 bit, friend running home premium, i'm on ultimate, and I had explorer and teamspeak in the background, but I can't see making up 15fps by closing a few programs, maybe 7-10 max IMO

JacKz5o

10-28-2007, 01:38 AM

Actually, all of NVIDIA's cards after the 8800GT beats all of ATI's 2900 cards...

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/6240/crysisspdg01ma9.gif
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6707/crysisspdg02fm4.gif

Source: TweakTown (http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1211/crysis_demo_performance_analysis/index.html)

tigger

10-28-2007, 01:41 AM

Lol Jackz5o,i was just reading that myself :)

JacKz5o

10-28-2007, 01:43 AM

Lol Jackz5o,i was just reading that myself :)

Lol same, then I remembered this thread and decided to post the bench pics :p

mandelore

10-28-2007, 01:53 AM

the last banchmark results...

"Since only the NVIDIA cards offer 1920 x 1200 that’s all that’s been tested here"

wtf.. lol... im running 1920x1200 and using a 2900xt, AND getting decent frame rates with a crappy cpu and old ram.....

Edit: check this out then.... done at 1920x1200, the resolution the website says only NV were contenders for. I got 44FPS, and my high settings are up with the ultra

http://images.tweaktown.com/imagebank/%20crysisspd_g_03.gif

http://img.techpowerup.org/071027/fps med.jpg

HiddenStupid

10-28-2007, 02:33 AM

I will happily admit my wrongful judgement if there is a guaranteed result, tight result ect.... wait longer and see multple bench and actual performance with real super MAXIMUM settings.

All I see and hear now is with people saying they have no AA, no AF ect.. and some is on dx9.

I am Itching to see the real result and to see if I'm really right or wrong myself.... I am gambling with myself.

Again, I will diffitely admit my wrongful judgement if/when the time comes.

newconroer

10-28-2007, 02:33 AM

You must forgive me JC I thought you were running DX10. So then by now you know "high" settings are all you can muster in DX9, or so I've been told and someone here also said that.

DX10 lets you go 'very high,' and the difference between 'high' and 'very high' on the shader setting alone can be between ten and fifteen fps for some people.

If someone can muster a solid 20+ fps in all areas of the demo on all very high, then that's impressive.

Yet if you drop the shaders to 'high' it doesn't look too bad and it runs with no problems.

DX10 "high" - notice the quality of the the ground texture, like the small rocks as well as the crispness of the trees (too crispy)
http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/d325931389.jpg

DX10 "very high" shaders - notice the higher quality of the ground texture(s), smoother rocks, and the trees are more soft.
http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/38dacd1d16.jpg

@Hidden

I don't understand what it is you're looking for exactly. If you're seeking performance with 2560 res. OR (not AND) 16x AA, all you will get is results in the 0-5fps category. Unless you're willing to wait till next year and see it on the new cards, but then it'll be alllll Nvidia again so..? And there is no AF feature in the game, nor can you force it from your GPU without getting texture anomalies.

JrRacinFan

10-28-2007, 03:08 AM

ex_reven

10-28-2007, 03:16 AM

Well, if you must know HiddenStupid, I ran the game and I get avg 35-40 fps everything medium @ 800x600 . But, I have not messed with any settings, so I can't tell if my card will do 1024x768 the same as that or not.

800x600 puts load on the CPU rather than the GPU. Thats why your frame rates are so high.
(I think).

JrRacinFan

10-28-2007, 03:21 AM

OK I will try it out and post back.

JrRacinFan

10-28-2007, 03:33 AM

Ok here is what was taken straight from a FRAPS benchmark.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
5492, 153132, 1, 59, 35.864

That was run @ 1024x768 on everything low.

EDIT: Oh, that also includes a a couple small firefights.

Behemoko

10-28-2007, 04:47 AM

That pic is not on a high setting.

Also, heres a review on crysis performance. The OP is very wrong except that the 2600xt does beat an 8600gt. Your RAM requirements are laughable as well. The only game ive come across where 2GB isnt enough is Hellgate London.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1211/crysis_demo_performance_analysis/index.html

Yes it is, actually. You apparently missed a couple things though.

1: objects are forced @ low, which I can not change.

2: I am using an x800 Pro VIVO, image quality could be part of the problem due to the card being old. ;)

3: My card has SM2.0, which also negatively affects the shadows, and therefor the overall pizazz.

HiddenStupid

10-28-2007, 04:59 AM

Additional Prediction, Belief and and Opionion:
As heard, as rumored and as most agreed on .... ATi generally have superior Image Quality over nvidia and my belief is due to the higher Shader Power in ATi cards. I believe the more the Shader Power has.... the more will produce better Image Quality. So my Prediction, Belief and opinion is that.... 2900XT on Super MAXIMUM Settings on Crysis will have Superior Image Quality than 8800 Ultra on Super MAXIMUM settings. When I mean Super MAXIMUM settings.... I mean The highest setting Crysis offer.... and someone said Crysis has no AF? well then just highest of Crysis Offer.... everything on super max..... everything offered is eneable on atleast 1280x1024 resolution.

My original Prediction, Belief and Opinion remains the same... generally ATi cards will be better in Crysis....

If I have the money I would buy a whole new rig with top components and have a pair of 2900XT and a pair of 8800 Ultra in Sli and Crossfire.... play Crysis and set to Super MAXIMUM Settings and experience it myself. Even if the frame rate is 4 and the other is 7.... the 7 still concider the winner but I'm thinking on Super MAXIMUM Settings on Nvidia current top card and ATi current top card... the frame rate would be like 12-42 and dual cards would be like 20-55.

I got the demo.... 800x600 resolution, everything on Super lowest of the Lowest settings and on dx9. Lowest frame rate are 28 and highest frame rate I see is 55 but most the time stays at 30 frame rates.

- AMD Athlon 3200+ winchester
- 1.5gig ram
- X850XT
- windows XP home

ex_reven

10-28-2007, 05:20 AM

If you had cards both on "Super Maximum settings" which is somehow higher than maximum (:rolleyes:), you wouldnt get superior image quality in either of them.

FramesPerSecond aside, the graphics card will only display what is there to be displayed. Image quality has everything to do with the software of the cards. While there are differences between cards in what is displayed, that is by no fault of the hardware itself.

joker3004

10-28-2007, 08:47 AM

Athlon64 3500+, 1gb ddr400, x800gt
http://keep4u.ru/imgs/s/071028/93df4fe3eef416960c.jpg (http://keep4u.ru/full/071028/93df4fe3eef416960c/jpg)
http://keep4u.ru/imgs/s/071028/1b7f9e352eac364e02.jpg (http://keep4u.ru/full/071028/1b7f9e352eac364e02/jpg)
http://keep4u.ru/imgs/s/071028/38e3bfaf1dd3219966.jpg (http://keep4u.ru/full/071028/38e3bfaf1dd3219966/jpg)
Didn't expect such a high framerate... love it :roll:

newconroer

10-28-2007, 09:25 AM

Is it really worth picking his post apart? I'm not sure if I could contain myself once I started.
It just seems too easy.

Reven, why did you bother?

OrbitzXT

10-28-2007, 09:56 AM

Please refrain from using ATI fanboy in such a derogatory manor, those that support ATI good for them, me included. He was simply refering to prior predictions, so plz get off the anti-ATI bandwagon b4 some1 knocks you off? ;)

Sorry I didn't mean to. Its not actually ATI Fanboys I have anything against, its fanboys of any kind. They stick with a name brand even when there are better ones out there. The 8800GTX was actually my first nVidia card, having used ATI almost all my life, and Voodoo before them. If and when ATI comes out with a better card, I'll gladly support it and use it.

My belief system carries over to politics as well, I don't get why people pick a party and support it for life. A lot of the times the party doesn't do your beliefs justice and there are better alternatives out there.

niko084

10-28-2007, 10:02 AM

ex_reven

10-28-2007, 10:08 AM

Is it really worth picking his post apart? I'm not sure if I could contain myself once I started.
It just seems too easy.

Reven, why did you bother?

Nothing better to do :p?

-1nf1n1ty-

10-28-2007, 10:13 AM

ex_reven

10-28-2007, 10:16 AM

wasn't this just an opinion NOT starting a flame war why are people quick to argue about shit thats right in front of them -----------------prediction, belief and opinion: -----------------
good job people good job

And then on the other hand he said that the game required 6-8 gigs to maximise its potential...

mandelore

10-28-2007, 06:52 PM

Sorry I didn't mean to. Its not actually ATI Fanboys I have anything against, its fanboys of any kind. They stick with a name brand even when there are better ones out there. The 8800GTX was actually my first nVidia card, having used ATI almost all my life, and Voodoo before them. If and when ATI comes out with a better card, I'll gladly support it and use it.

My belief system carries over to politics as well, I don't get why people pick a party and support it for life. A lot of the times the party doesn't do your beliefs justice and there are better alternatives out there.

thats cool, no probs. But sometimes its because peeps want to support a particular company by buying their products. For example I will never buy intel, even tho they rock the shit outa AMD for overclocking, simply because AMd needs their customers and ill gladly support them :)

and intel are getting too big imo, monopolies are not good for customers :toast:

mandelore

10-28-2007, 06:55 PM

Sorry but I'm going to have to go and say thats a bunch of BS benchmarks...

There is NO way a gddr3 512 2900xt OUT PERFORMS a gddr4 1024 2900xt...
So now thats been solved, how about some "REAL" benchmarks.

Not trying to say the 2900xt out performs a 8800GT-GTX-Ultra in Crysis, but the benchmarks are not done properly.

im sort of agreeing with ya, check out my fps count on prior page, its nestled amongst the gtx for performance at 1920x1200, which aint half bad :)

Solaris17

10-28-2007, 07:13 PM

um dud e4gigs max preformance id like to see any game even crysis need 8 for true preformance if any of my games had a memory leak that bad or caused that much over head id take it back and go punch a coder in the face....

look at 1600x1200 medium setting water detail and texture detail on high.

http://img.techpowerup.org/071028/no 4gb.jpg

DanTheBanjoman

10-28-2007, 07:22 PM

Why do you guys use fraps? Type "r_DisplayInfo = 1" in the console.

cdawall

10-28-2007, 07:23 PM

My setup is actually weaker and runs it if it makes you feel any better. :) High everything except low objects because it makes me, and no AA/AF because when I turn it on, the game turns it off, and this is just scenery, I am CPU bottlenecked in firefights, so it freezes up for a couple seconds.

that would be a ram bottleneck not cpu 512mb of 2700 is killing your system...another stick of 512mb can be found online for $20 or so after rebate...

-1nf1n1ty-

10-28-2007, 10:10 PM

And then on the other hand he said that the game required 6-8 gigs to maximise its potential...

yeah but thats just his opinion.... if you dont believe it then dont it doesnt matter in the end its just about seeing for yourself...sweet jesus people these days

niko084

10-28-2007, 10:55 PM

im sort of agreeing with ya, check out my fps count on prior page, its nestled amongst the gtx for performance at 1920x1200, which aint half bad :)

Indeed, nice fps, thats pretty good comparing to most just shot up benchmark graphs I have seen from misc people.

HiddenStupid

10-31-2007, 11:49 PM

question:
Opteron 8222, 24gig ram, dual 2900XT, Pysx Card..... will Crysis demo allow to change the "object texture" setting?

ps. believe dual 2900XT on Crysis maximum settings including dx10, maximum texture object, maximum strenght ect... will have better image-quality and performs better than dual 8800 ultra. dual 8800 ultra may have upper hand on low-med settings but max settings... crown goes to 2900XT. When I mean MAXIMUM settings I mean the graphic is like the trailer shown... example like this http://www.gametrailers.com/player/19965.html super realistic... super maximum.... super true graphic of Crysis. Again everything I say in this thread is base on the super MAXIMUM settings..... meaning super true graphic of Crysis like this http://www.gametrailers.com/player/19965.html

Richieb0y

11-01-2007, 09:57 AM

none of those cards owed crysis

Crysis owend all card on this planet

niko084

11-01-2007, 10:53 AM

question:
Opteron 8222, 24gig ram, dual 2900XT, Pysx Card..... will Crysis demo allow to change the "object texture" setting?

Honestly if you can afford a computer like that, why don't you just build a system with dual Xeon's or better yet Itaniums and go with like 60+gb of ram and quad 2900's.... Pay someone to write the software to control the cards for quad xfire being they already said its possible...

Anyways back to reality...

What do you mean edit the object texture setting? What exactly are you looking to edit?