# Crysis Benchmark Results Thread



## lordikon

Here's my first run. I had to lower my OC due to recent instabilities, but this'll do for now.



3/7/2008 1:15:26 AM - Vista

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 52.98



Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 53.265

Lol, higher framerate in DX10, and I left a bunch of progs open when I ran my DX10 run.


----------



## lordikon

lol, make the thread by request then noone uses it. Don't be afraid guys, Crysis won't bite.....hard.


----------



## Benny99

Wait Crysis is a game ?

is it ? im not sure or is it just a benchmark like 3dmark06 lawlzzzz...

Well here is mine anyway


----------



## lordikon

You should run at the speced settings though (see first post). The point of this thread was to get everyone on the same settings so we have an accurate comparison. Thanks for the only response to the thread so far though


----------



## bleachigo

Never really ran the crysis benchmark.How do u do it anyways?Will post results as soon as i know.Thanks.


----------



## The_Parrot

can it be downloaded or is the game needed ha.


----------



## lordikon

You should be able to run the benchmark even with the Crysis demo version.

You can download the demo from http://www.ea.com/crysis

To download the benchmark tool, google for Crysis 1.05 Benchmark Tool. I wonder if we could get the tool put on overclock.net download section, it is a very small file.


----------



## kkbob33

*DX9*-_38.58fps_


*DX10*_38.89fps_


i get the same score in DX10 as in DX9.







...might be because im on vista.

anyway,im happy with it. _for now_


----------



## lordikon

Updated kkbob33. Thanks.


----------



## kkbob33

wow i cant believe this thread gets no play..........


----------



## bleachigo

Here's mine on my not so great rig







.
DX9 average=37.3fps
DX10 average=30.995fps


----------



## moward

DX9- 58.93 Avg (E8400 at 3.6, GTS 640 clocks at 640,1600,1050)
I ain't got Vista so no DX10


----------



## brettjv

52.925 fps at specified settings

specs in sig, run @ 810/1944/1145

multiplier is on auto so photo is incorrect on clock speed


----------



## ElMikeTheMike

Just a tip: Rather than take a whole screen capture of your entire desktop, just press ctrl+alt+print screen and that will screen cap just the active window  I'll post back with mine eventually.


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bleachigo*


Here's mine on my not so great rig







.
DX9 average=37.3fps
DX10 average=30.995fps


why not use your sig rig?

also did you use the 1.2 patch or older/demo?


----------



## lordikon

Moward, bleachigo, brettjv, updated.


----------



## MNiceGuy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bleachigo* 
Here's mine on my not so great rig







.
DX9 average=37.3fps
DX10 average=30.995fps

Not so great? Really? Did I miss sarcasm? Are these numbers from the rig in your sig?

I don't get the best results with my 8800GTX either and I don't know why. When I'm feeling ambitious, I'll post my numbers.


----------



## lordikon

Here's my update, higher video card OCs:

DX9, 57.445fps:


DX10, 55.95fps:


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kkbob33* 
i get the same score in DX10 as in DX9.







...might be because im on vista.

anyway,im happy with it. _for now_

Its the 1.2 patch. DX9 always beat the DX10 before the patch. so, if you runnin DX10 grab the patch


----------



## Murlocke

I get 2FPS less in DX9 forced to very high rather than DX10 and very high.


----------



## lordikon

My first set of scores had a higher DX10 score on 1.1. My latest numbers have DX9 winning out, still on 1.1 patch. I may have to install 1.2 and re-bench to see any changes.


----------



## Hailscott

First run. XP 32bit, 169.21 Drivers

DX9, 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High

51.305 FPS


----------



## lordikon

Hailscott, updated.


----------



## fpliii

Wait, I'm confused...I have the retail disk. Is this on there, in a place I don't know about? If not, can it be downloaded on its own, or do I need to download the entire demo?


----------



## moward

download the Crysis 1.5 Benchmark Tool (google it) which provides a more friendly interface for the GPU test that is found in the Crysis Bin32 directory.


----------



## Hailscott

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Hailscott, updated.



Mine was XP Pro SP3 and SLI'ed 8800GTS 640's.


----------



## brettjv

and mine was @810 core ... hailscott and I are just referring to minor mistakes on the summary at the top of the thread.

thanks for keeping that updated btw, it's appreciated


----------



## binormalkilla

THis is with the latest 8.3 Cats, Catalyst AI set to advanced, the rest of the CCC settings to default. I love the 8.3 drivers.....
Vista x64, x64 DX10 run. I'm going to run an x86 to compare.......haven't compared since the patch. I'm still wondering if old Cevat is full of crap regarding the x64 quad core %15-30 performance boost....my guess is yes.


----------



## binormalkilla

x86 increased the score. Damn you Cevat Yerli, damn you and your lies










Time to run a DX9 run.


----------



## binormalkilla

x86 dx9.....a little faster


----------



## Hailscott

Good lord Tripple Post!! Just edit you last one...Jeez...And for god's sake, resize thoes images!!


----------



## brettjv

Hey BNK:

Are those benchies in XFire? Your sig says yes but your GPU-z says no ... just curious?


----------



## Dueling Banjo's

this would be an excellent bench for my nvidia vs ati image quality thread...


----------



## bleachigo

Man,last place on both tests for me







.Now i have to test it on my other rigs to get to no.1







.


----------



## jaybeerex

DX9 46.115 : http://www.overclock.net/gallery/data/500/DX9.jpg

DX10 51.12 : http://www.overclock.net/gallery/data/500/DX10.jpg


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:



Originally Posted by *brettjv*


Hey BNK:

Are those benchies in XFire? Your sig says yes but your GPU-z says no ... just curious?


Yea they're in Crossfire......I didn't even notice the GPU-z error









Quote:



Originally Posted by *Hailscott*


Good lord Tripple Post!! Just edit you last one...Jeez...And for god's sake, resize thoes images!!


Images resized.....as for the triple post, I guess you've never heard of a bump, eh?


----------



## Hailscott

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


Images resized.....as for the triple post, I guess you've never heard of a bump, eh?












1 bump every 24hrs.


----------



## lordikon

binormalkilla added. hailscott, brettjv updated.


----------



## bleachigo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kkbob33*


why not use your sig rig?

also did you use the 1.2 patch or older/demo?


Yes.That test was ran with the new 1.2 patch and 174.20forceware.I will try it on my sig rig as soon as i go home and also my other rig with my Q6600 and 8800GT 512.But i think both of them are not patched and have config mod.Will post details later.

Edit:Well i don't feel too bad cause most of the setups are SLI,hehe.


----------



## binormalkilla

How on earth is the top result a pair of GTS 640s?


----------



## ElMikeTheMike

Quote:


Originally Posted by *binormalkilla* 
How on earth is the top result a pair of GTS 640s?









nvidia enabled game?


















Edit ~ SigRig for all info. Running Vista x64.


----------



## bleachigo

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ElMikeTheMike* 
nvidia enabled game?


















Did you test it with your sig rig?And if so,with your setup of a Q6600 and Quadfire,you would think you will have the top spot.But looking at your results it doesn't seem so.Has to do with a bunch of things like OS,drivers and i don't know what else,i guess.

Edit:You did get top spot on DX9 though.


----------



## ElMikeTheMike

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bleachigo* 
Did you test it with your sig rig?And if so,with your setup of a Q6600 and Quadfire,you would think you will have the top spot.But looking at your results it doesn't seem so.Has to do with a bunch of things like OS,drivers and i don't know what else,i guess.

I did. 8.3's arent the greatest drivers.


----------



## lordikon

ElMikeTheMike added


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ElMikeTheMike*


I did. 8.3's arent the greatest drivers.


They are for me








I agree though, something is wrong.....you should certainly beat me, unless Crysis only supports 2GPUs for some reason.....in which case my higher score makes more sense because of my higher OC.

What Catalyst AI setting are you using?

BTW I was wondering how a pair of 640s beat a pair of 512s.....I mean the 640s aren't exactly fast.


----------



## brettjv

I'd say looking at the stats that the overclocked Wolfdale's are coming into play in a fairly significant way vs. the 65nm's. And that quad core provides little advantage vs. the 45's raw clock speed, 6MB cache and improved architecture.

Remember we're at a relatively low res here, the kinda scenario where cpu bottlenecking can easily come into play (and SLI can have diminishing returns).

My bet is going to be that ultimately the winner of this benchmark is going to be the one with the highest clocked e8400 and some well-overclocked pair of 8800's ... whichever 8800 it turns out to be won't really surprise me.

That's just my best guess based on the numbers so far. Also I think we might discover driver versions, and game versions, may come into play here in the end as far explaining the results goes. Plus with results this close, I'm curious what texture quality level people are running this at. High Performance vs. High Quality could be causing some strangeness ...

I have to say I'm pretty happy with holding the #1 spot for a single card DX9 test, considering I spent all of US440$ on my cpu/gpu/memory combo


----------



## binormalkilla

We should add some high res benches too....I can run up to 1920x1080.


----------



## ElMikeTheMike

Quote:


Originally Posted by *binormalkilla* 

What Catalyst AI setting are you using?

I've got it on standard now. There doesnt seem to be much difference with it on advanced.


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ElMikeTheMike*


I've got it on standard now. There doesnt seem to be much difference with it on advanced.


Just wondering. I always turn mine to advanced......this can force AFR mode sometimes if the game only uses supertilling or scissoring mode.


----------



## ElMikeTheMike

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


Just wondering. I always turn mine to advanced......this can force AFR mode sometimes if the game only uses supertilling or scissoring mode.


I always seem to have mixed results. Sometimes its beneficial, other times not so much.

I think we should have a higher-res test in this thread as well. I feel as if it's a waste with some of these cards we all have.


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ElMikeTheMike*


I always seem to have mixed results. Sometimes its beneficial, other times not so much.

I think we should have a higher-res test in this thread as well. I feel as if it's a waste with some of these cards we all have.


Seriously. We might as well be running the CPU bench instead at this res.


----------



## Hailscott

Should we do 1600x1200?


----------



## pioneerisloud

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 11.42

This is with the my sig rig at the speeds that my sig says (you can see proof in Everest Sidebar in the SS).


----------



## fencefeet

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


Seriously. We might as well be running the CPU bench instead at this res.


hey man what you got against 19 inch monitors, i like mine just fine








jk yeah lets see some high res benchmarks with that quad 3870 setup definitely


----------



## Greg121986

*EDIT* I'm not happy with this.







I'm going to try again.

32 Bit test on XP. I just downloaded and played/saw this game for the first time. OMG I MUST BUY!!!!!

Q6600 at 3.6GHz 
EVGA 8800GTS 512MB (G92) at 764/1908/1069

Min FPS : 32.66
Max FPS: 62.27
Average FPS: 51.315


----------



## Hailscott

Here is mine @ 1600x1200. Just for fun. CPU @ 3.0

48.98 FPS


----------



## Greg121986

On the first run of the test for me I struggle to get 35FPS through most of the flyby, and then on the last two tests I remain above 50 FPS for most of the time and it runs much better. Is this normal? Doesn't it run the same test every time?

*EDIT* High-res bench at 1600x1200

Min FPS: 24.54
Max FPS: 46.44
Avg FPS: 39.34


----------



## rancor

I'm not surprised with my cpu
Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 37.115
this is with my sigrig








at 1600X1200 
Run #1- DX9 1600x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 35.815


----------



## jerjon7

okay i must be ******ed, how do i post the image of my screen, i got the print screen file saved, but when i try and upload it says it is too big


----------



## binormalkilla

Here is my 1600x1200 x64 DX10 run


----------



## SpaceLover

Hey lordikon, nice seeing you again! I can't get the Crysis Benchmark v1.05 (can't find v1.5) to work on my Cayote, no matter where I download it from








I keep recieving "The application failed to initialize properly (0xc0000135). Click on OK to terminate the application." Seems I gotta install Microsoft.NET first! :swearing:

Bill...Is it not good enough for you that I'm running your OS?

BTW.. here's the link to the .NET fix in case anyone needs it :
http://www.mynethelp.com/support/ind...&kbarticleid=2

and for 64bit .NET 2.0:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/t...isplayLang=en#


----------



## jerjon7

nobody can help me get my screen shot up?


----------



## jerjon7

[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


They are for me








I agree though, something is wrong.....you should certainly beat me, unless Crysis only supports 2GPUs for some reason.....in which case my higher score makes more sense because of my higher OC.

What Catalyst AI setting are you using?

BTW I was wondering how a pair of 640s beat a pair of 512s.....I mean the 640s aren't exactly fast.


XP vs Vista.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


Seriously. We might as well be running the CPU bench instead at this res.


Unfortunately with this benchmark a high-res can give false results, as stated in the original post. The reason for this benchmark is to exclude CPU. CPU is the reason the 3dMark06 scores are so skewed at this point. Crysis will run marginally better on a quad-core during actual gameplay, but an insanely clocked quad-core extreme will rack up a crazy 3dMark06. This benchmark levels the playing field to only GPUs. However, because of the low resolution of this benchmark, SLIs don't have as much of an advantage as they'd have at high-res.

If we can find a way to do high-res without getting BS results in some cases, I'm all for it. Otherwise it will just end up a mess.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jerjon7*


okay i must be ******ed, how do i post the image of my screen, i got the print screen file saved, but when i try and upload it says it is too big


go to www.imageshack.us, upload your picture, after uploading it'll give you multiple lines you can copy from. Copy the one that says forum, and simply paste that line in your post.


----------



## jerjon7

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


go to www.imageshack.us, upload your picture, after uploading it'll give you multiple lines you can copy from. Copy the one that says forum, and simply paste that line in your post.


thanks, i figured it out, mine is up a couple post up


----------



## lordikon

Feel free to post your 1600x1200s if you'd like, I may post mine soon as well. I don't want to keep track of them until there is a reliable way of proving them. For example on a 1440x900 monitor the 1600x1200 wouldn't run at that resolution, but would give results from a lower res, but state that it had run at 1600x1200, which would be false.


----------



## moward

Quote:


Originally Posted by *binormalkilla* 
BTW I was wondering how a pair of 640s beat a pair of 512s.....I mean the 640s aren't exactly fast.

Quick enough for me


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *moward*


Quick enough for me










Indeed. My clocks are higher on the GTS, but Vista is slowing me down by a new fps. 2 GTX's should be fast enough to run any game for at least the next year, probably two. That is the reason when I recently built this machine, why I didn't wait for the 9 series. I knew the 9 series would cost more, and that two 8 series in SLI would do just fine for the life of this computer.


----------



## brettjv

Yeah, it's very small, but this is a competition, right?

BTW, I've discovered two secrets to getting your very highest score on this test. One I discovered makes a whopping 6 frames difference in my score, and it's easy, but it's not an obvious setting to adjust, that much I can tell you.

But again, since it's a competition, I'm not going to let it on *UNTIL* someone knocks me from the #1 spot on the single card test









810/1944/1145
other specs in sig

53.09 fps

This is with my machine in full 'vacuum cleaner' mode, all fans at 100%.


----------



## binormalkilla

Well I would think that the main point of this thread was for a standard for comparison for people with different graphics cards/CPU setups. Besides, you are supposed to use the in-game settings as noted in the first post.....not sure what you're changing, but you could potentially be causing someone to question why your setup is spanking their identical setup by 6 FPS


----------



## lordikon

It can be considered a competition, just as 3DMark06 is. I think of it as "healthy" competition. A good way to help other decides what a good combination of hardware is so that they may determine if it something that they'd like.


----------



## SpaceLover

OKay.. here you all go!


----------



## brettjv

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


Well I would think that the main point of this thread was for a standard for comparison for people with different graphics cards/CPU setups. Besides, you are supposed to use the in-game settings as noted in the first post.....not sure what you're changing, but you could potentially be causing someone to question why your setup is spanking their identical setup by 6 FPS










I have not violated the specifications set out by the OP.

There are a multitude of conceivable driver settings one could make and still be within 'the rules'.

For example, texture quality settings are not specified - I assume most people know that for a test like this, 'High Performance' is most likely the 'best' ...

I am referring to something on the standard 3d settings in the nvidia control panel, *not* a game setting.


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brettjv* 
I have not violated the specifications set out by the OP.

There are a multitude of conceivable driver settings one could make and still be within 'the rules'.

For example, texture quality settings are not specified - I assume most people know that for a test like this, 'High Performance' is most likely the 'best' ...

I am referring to something on the standard 3d settings in the nvidia control panel, *not* a game setting.

So you're forcing lower graphical settings via driver








That's going to throw off people when they look at your bench.
Well if THAT's the case, then I'll run mine here in a few....
I turned mine back to 'let application decide'....


----------



## brettjv

Knock yourself out, there's nothing in the rules about driver settings.

As mentioned, this is standard nvidia control panel stuff, it's not like I'm editing the registry and doing something totally obscure or extreme.

Not to mention, there are others lapping at my heels on the board with slightly lower overclocks, so I suspect they are running the same driver settings as I am.

BTW: it's none of the settings where you 'let the app decide' that made this difference.

And here's another hint ... the setting that I chose does *not* in any absolute sense cause a *REDUCTION* in IQ vs. the default setting. It changes the nature of it slightly. Put it this way, the setting I chose is the same I set it on for every single game I play, because in the majority of cases it eliminates an unwanted IQ-related anomaly. I would not have inherently expected this setting to improve my score, rather, I'd have been inclined to think it would lower my score. And when I tell you it's *not* vsync (obviously) ... between all the clues I've given here, it doesn't really leave a lot to figure out


----------



## brettjv

Yo, thread-master?

Any chance I could talk you into updating my score/clocks whenever you get a minute?

I'd be much obliged









Thx again ...


----------



## lordikon

Well I was hoping every left their application settings for this at default, so that I didn't have to add rules. The detail settings should be left to Crysis, hence "High Settings". I don't think it is fair to put the benchmark at high settings and then force the detail to a different level elsewhere.

Not sure how I can enforce something like this though







. Bummer.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *brettjv*


Yo, thread-master?

Any chance I could talk you into updating my score/clocks whenever you get a minute?

I'd be much obliged









Thx again ...


I'm at work for 3 more hours, and then off to dinner for the night. If I get time here at work I will. Otherwise, late tonight. MST.


----------



## bleachigo

Just to be sure,can i submit my scores from my other rigs,right?


----------



## binormalkilla

Cheat settings FTW


----------



## lordikon

I guess we'll post both sets of fps. One at default app settings, one at tweaked settings. I can see no other way. I'll get it started later.


----------



## brettjv

Well, how then do we define 'default app settings' with regards to the driver settings?

The simplest way might be to say this is defined as: "Everyone use driver xxx.xx, and all driver settings should be left at their exact install defaults, for example, the driver setting for 'texture quality' should be left on 'Quality', and all other settings must be left alone".

That would give us a 'level playing field' I think.

Then maybe we could have another list for us tweakers


----------



## binormalkilla

I leave my driver settings set to the best quality, then leave AA/AF to app decide. I have to force AA for UT3 based games though......
The setting that I changed was mipmap detail quality.


----------



## brettjv

I suspect that your change is the equivalent one (in the ATI world) to the one that I made. Good thinking


----------



## elementskater706

Here's my entry...

DX10 all high settings, 64-bit, Vista 64, 2900xt 512 @ 875/900, E6550 @ 3.220GHZ, and 4GB @ 920MHZ 5-5-5-15


----------



## Greg121986

I have a new score! 51.55 average







A difference of .235 FPS! Count it!


----------



## niteshade

You can add me to the list.

Core 2 @ 3.2, 2 GB @ 800 MHz 4-4-4-11, 8800 GT 650/1000 On XP SP2


----------



## lordikon

I'll get these updated here soon.

Now that we have the issue of what settings to use, yadda yadda yadda. It comes down to this: Do two runs if you need, default app settings, and the best you can get with whatever settings you want.

Edit: I believe the "optimized" settings for the benchmark will do almost nothing for higher-end SLI setups. Right now there is little bottleneck for SLI systems at these resolutions, so lowering the settings doesn't nothing, not for me at least.


----------



## lordikon

I've added high res benchmarks, please read the rules before posting for them, and these ones are just for fun, nothing verified or serious.

For higher resolutions I've used 16:10 widescreen resolutions because they're quickly becoming the standard.


----------



## lordikon

Edit: I've decided to add 4xAA to the higher res threads. So the image I posted here is trash


----------



## Greg121986

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
Edit: I've decided to add 4xAA to the higher res threads. So the image I posted here is trash









*gulp* Oh boy. I will run it tomorrow. I played at that setting the other day and it was a little sketchy.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greg121986* 
*gulp* Oh boy. I will run it tomorrow. I played at that setting the other day and it was a little sketchy.

Yes, I'm getting strange issues on the benchmark with it. I can run the first minute of the first run at about 27fps, and then at the exact same frame each time (and only on the first run), it glitches for a split second and drops to about 6fps, and then maxes out around 14fps. Then on loops 2 and 3 it never reaches above 20 again, even though it had been at 27fps on those parts before. It almost seems like I go from SLI to single card, but I can't imagine that occuring without crashing the game.

Also when I try and run the benchmark at 1680x1050, 4AA, DX10, the benchmark crashes as soon as the loading screen finishes.

Might have to wait until some other people try these settings to see if it is just me.


----------



## Greg121986

1680x1050 4x AA

3.6GHz Q6600
8800GTS 512MB G92 at 764/1908/1069 stable

26.28 average FPS
DX9 on XP Pro 32


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
Yes, I'm getting strange issues on the benchmark with it. I can run the first minute of the first run at about 27fps, and then at the exact same frame each time (and only on the first run), it glitches for a split second and drops to about 6fps, and then maxes out around 14fps. Then on loops 2 and 3 it never reaches above 20 again, even though it had been at 27fps on those parts before. It almost seems like I go from SLI to single card, but I can't imagine that occuring without crashing the game.

Also when I try and run the benchmark at 1680x1050, 4AA, DX10, the benchmark crashes as soon as the loading screen finishes.

Might have to wait until some other people try these settings to see if it is just me.

THe best result to minimize the effect of that anomaly would be to run the test for something like 10-15 loops. The more loops you run the less it will affect the average FPS.

Here I am at 1680x1050 DX10 x64 with all of the driver control center settings to let app decide:








Same res and settings except 4xAA


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *binormalkilla* 
THe best result to minimize the effect of that anomaly would be to run the test for something like 10-15 loops. The more loops you run the less it will affect the average FPS.

The problem is the score will suck badly, but I know that it can perform better. Imagine if your first run was always 50fps, and then your 2nd and 3rd were 20fps. Sure they'd normalize to around 30fps, but you'd know your cards could do 50fps, you just wouldn't know why they acted up on runs 2 and 3.


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
The problem is the score will suck badly, but I know that it can perform better. Imagine if your first run was always 50fps, and then your 2nd and 3rd were 20fps. Sure they'd normalize to around 30fps, but you'd know your cards could do 50fps, you just wouldn't know why they acted up on runs 2 and 3.

Oh I see, I thought you said your run acted up on the first run only.


----------



## brettjv

Lord:
I'm gonna guess that the problem is one of the following:
1) You need to bump up the fan speed on your video card (and perhaps your intake fan(s)), OR
2) You haven't fully stress tested the cpu at the speed its at, and perhaps it needs a voltage bump to stabilize,
OR
3) The video card is overclocked a hair too far, in particular I would suspect the memory as the culprit (although in my experience, if you're right on the cusp, bumping the fan speed will overcome the problem)


----------



## moward

DX9 1680 x 1050, 4xAA
E8400 @ 3.825
2 x 8800GTS 620/1550/1000
Avg 35.865 fps


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brettjv* 
Lord:
I'm gonna guess that the problem is one of the following:
1) You need to bump up the fan speed on your video card (and perhaps your intake fan(s)), OR
2) You haven't fully stress tested the cpu at the speed its at, and perhaps it needs a voltage bump to stabilize,
OR
3) The video card is overclocked a hair too far, in particular I would suspect the memory as the culprit (although in my experience, if you're right on the cusp, bumping the fan speed will overcome the problem)

I'll give some of those a try. I don't feel like it is temps because it happens on the same frame everytime. CPU seems about 95% stable at its current settings, but I may try lowering is a little bit to see if I glitch on the same frame on the first run.

I'll also try lowering the OC on the card slightly.


----------



## lordikon

Everyone should be updated again.

I'll put my numbers up as soon as my tests are consistant again. I believe the 1.2 patch has screwed with my numbers. My 3dMark06 runs with the same fps and score, but my Crysis numbers are down about 20% across the board, and my 1680x1050 tests are having all kinds of strange issues.


----------



## SpuddGunn

Well I've just run it on mine and to be honest I'm suprised by the results. I know I can't be counted on the 'leaderboard' as I ran it in 1024x768 (Thats as high as my monitor goes)

By suprised I mean I ran it 1024x768, all on HIGH in DX9 and came out with 17.78fps


----------



## Greg121986

I have a 1680x1050 test on page 10.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SpuddGunn* 
Well I've just run it on mine and to be honest I'm suprised by the results. I know I can't be counted on the 'leaderboard' as I ran it in 1024x768 (Thats as high as my monitor goes)

By suprised I mean I ran it 1024x768, all on HIGH in DX9 and came out with 17.78fps









x1950 isn't THAT old. The min-spec for Crysis is a Radeon 9600. At that resolution that sounds about right. Not easily playable at that resolution I can imagine. It would be tough to aim quickly.

Time to get yourself a new rig and monitor so you can get on the thread, thanks for the results though.


----------



## Greg121986

WOO! I'm number one!!!!!!

I think my score is pretty decent for only one card. It was more than I expected. Anyone else care to run the high res test with one card? I'd like to compare.


----------



## lordikon

Once I get my Crysis set back to 1.1 I will







. Not sure if I can simply revert to 1.1, may have to uninstall/reinstall. Then reinstall 1.1 patch. Waste of time I'll never get back :OP


----------



## PizzaMan

I might be wrong, but isn't "very high" setting considered D10. With that being said you can't run Crysis with D10 if your only running at "high" setting.

This can be done in XP by changing the cfg files.

I'm right!

Quote:



The DX9 screens have all video settings set high while DX10 screens are set to very high (very high is only a selectable option when running DX10, otherwise high is the limit).


source


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PizzaMan*


I might be wrong, but isn't "very high" setting considered D10. With that being said you can't run Crysis with D10 if your only running at "high" setting.

This can be done in XP by changing the cfg files.

I'm right!

source


This is true, I'm curious how this pertains to this thread?

This is the reason we use "high" setting instead of very high is so DX9 is easy to set up, and so that the DX9 and DX10 results are comparable.


----------



## SpaceLover

Quote:



Originally Posted by *brettjv*


Knock yourself out, there's nothing in the rules about driver settings.

As mentioned, this is standard nvidia control panel stuff, it's not like I'm editing the registry and doing something totally obscure or extreme.

Not to mention, there are others lapping at my heels on the board with slightly lower overclocks, so I suspect they are running the same driver settings as I am.

BTW: it's none of the settings where you 'let the app decide' that made this difference.

And here's another hint ... the setting that I chose does *not* in any absolute sense cause a *REDUCTION* in IQ vs. the default setting. It changes the nature of it slightly. Put it this way, the setting I chose is the same I set it on for every single game I play, because in the majority of cases it eliminates an unwanted IQ-related anomaly. I would not have inherently expected this setting to improve my score, rather, I'd have been inclined to think it would lower my score. And when I tell you it's *not* vsync (obviously) ... between all the clues I've given here, it doesn't really leave a lot to figure out










Dude, why beat around the bush?









And LORDIKON, can you update me as well? I was using an E8500 processor and XP-64Bits!! Thank you!


----------



## brettjv

Happy to oblige, Mr. Greg ...

810/1944/1145

1680x1050, DX9, All High, 4xAA, Driver on 'High Performance'

27.16 fps

Scores with the 1xGTS512's seem to be tracking very closely to clock speeds on the GPU, on both sets of tests, which suggests that, unlike 3dMark, CPU's aren't coming into play too much at these settings.

I bet if we ran the Harbor Assault benches, though, we'd see a different result, since those have full AI and combat throughout. Just a guess.

Ring 'em baby ...


----------



## PizzaMan

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
This is true, I'm curious how this pertains to this thread?

This is the reason we use "high" setting instead of very high is so DX9 is easy to set up, and so that the DX9 and DX10 results are comparable.

It pertains to this thread because in post one you are asking ppl to run D10 on "high" settings. Which is only D9. You have to run on "very high" not "high" setting to get D10.

Quote:

Setup Type #1: DX9, 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High.
Setup Type #2: DX10, 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PizzaMan*


It pertains to this thread because in post one you are asking ppl to run D10 on "high" settings. Which is only D9. You have to run on "very high" not "high" setting to get D10.


Not true. High settings doesn't mean DX9. High settings are just enforced as a max if you're using DX9. High settings DX9 will give use DX9, and High settings DX10 will use DX10. That is why the results are not the same when I run high settings DX9 and DX10.


----------



## PizzaMan

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
Not true. High settings doesn't mean DX9. High settings are just enforced as a max if you're using DX9. High settings DX9 will give use DX9, and High settings DX10 will use DX10. That is why the results are not the same when I run high settings DX9 and DX10.


Everywhere I read says differant. Here is yet another link that states that high setting is only DX9. http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/34...evels-Compared

The more I google the more ppl are saying this. Please to show me where it says high setting is DX10.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PizzaMan*


Everywhere I read says differant. Here is yet another link that states that high setting is only DX9. http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/34...evels-Compared

The more I google the more ppl are saying this. Please to show me where it says high setting is DX10.


The benchmark problems lets you choose DX9 or DX10 for any setting. I've even seen images of the difference between DX9 and DX10 at the same detail level.


----------



## SpaceLover

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PizzaMan* 
Everywhere I read says differant. Here is yet another link that states that high setting is only DX9. http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/34...evels-Compared

The more I google the more ppl are saying this. Please to show me where it says high setting is DX10.

Wish I could help you on that one.. but maybe this may help, I see it a bit differently..

1. in the first source link you posted weren't they just comparing the best of both DX versions against one another and not comparing "High settings" against "Very high settings" of the game?
2. the second link was displayed in a rather weird way, and I see where your coming from but I believe they used XP for low,medium and high (DX9) and Vista for very high (DX10) only to show the difference between the max of both.

Is there noone here that is willing to make screenies of low, medium and high settings in DX9 + low, medium, high and very high settings in DX10? That'll answer your question I think if you see the images for yourself..


----------



## marsey99

you should add a section for dx10 v-high too so we can see the game bring almost every system to it knees.


----------



## PizzaMan

If this benchmark tool will let you select a higher res than what you are running then how can we really trust it to run a DX setting then may not even be ava at a certain setting? I'm sorry, but I think this is flawed.


----------



## lordikon

Other than BinormalKilla (who uses ATi), can a nVidia user with Vista and 1680x1050 capability, please do me a favor?

Using patch 1.2 for Crysis, and 4x AA, do a DX9 and DX10 test at 1680x1050?

I've been reading and apparently there are issues with the benchmark tool with certain specific settings, and I'm wondering if this is one of those settings, or it is just me. I was able to run at these settings until I got the 1.2 patch. I can still run the game with these settings, just not the benchmark through the benchmark tool.

For now I may have to change the cfg info myself to do a run







.


----------



## lordikon

grrrr I'm pissed. I cannot run a single DX10 benchmark ever since that 1.2 patch. I even reverted back to 1.1 and that did nothing for me. I'm now running a thread that I cannot even post results of my own to anymore.


----------



## xlastshotx

Here are my runs. With current setup... Soon to get much better.


Run #1-DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Vista 32bit ~ Overall Average FPS: 30.68


Run #1-DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Vista 32bit ~ Overall Average FPS: 30.40


----------



## 1 g0t 0wn3d




----------



## xlastshotx

Quote:


Originally Posted by *1 g0t 0wn3d* 
img

Thats bull rite there 90 fps on very high my arse. Take a screenshot of CPU-Z and a GPU-Z along with a current crysis run as well.


----------



## lordikon

Something is wrong with your results '1 got owned'. 7900 couldn't get 90fps on very high settings at even 1024x768.

Your triangle/sec count is way off. Something must've gone wrong with your test. Your triangles per second to get 90fps would need to be around 90,000,000 per second, not 265,000.

Very strange. I'm finding more and more quirks with either crysis or that benchmark lately.

Also, I've added 'xlastshotx' to the list.


----------



## lordikon

You need to leave time of day at the stock setting of 9, and put your settings on high instead of very high, then re-run the test please.


----------



## xlastshotx

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
Also, I've added 'xlastshotx' to the list.

Thanks.

*Edit*
I just ran the test with the same settings as 1 g0t 0wn3d, with my hardware and I only go an average of 35fps... so I dont know what he did


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:


Originally Posted by *1 g0t 0wn3d* 









max 89 and average 90?? lol








though it would have been nice if you could get those numbers in crysis.


----------



## 1 g0t 0wn3d

no it tried to run in dx10 on a dx9 card and got screwed up =) i just wanted to see your reactions =P truth is my system runs the game horrible


----------



## lordikon

I've run in on a 7900. Even at 1024x768 I estimate I got around 20fps. I never benchmarked it though.


----------



## 1 g0t 0wn3d

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
I've run in on a 7900. Even at 1024x768 I estimate I got around 20fps. I never benchmarked it though.

My cpu bottlenecks this so bad that i have to run on med for playablitlity saw a guy with a quad and one with almost all high settings


----------



## lordikon

Good news, got DX10 working again (so far). Turns out 1.2 patch and my hardware configuration are no happy together







. Had to actually uninstall crysis and re-install 1.1 patch.

Anyway, I'll post more benchies soon at higher res.

EDIT:
Although the DX10 bug is fixed, the AA bug remains. I've heard about 8800 SLI issues in Crysis, I'll post some links if I can find them again.

Here's the severity of it:
45.83fps in 1680x1050 with NO AA


And I get around 5fps with even 2x AA turned on. Seriously. I'll see how widespread this problem is. If I find many DX10 SLI users are getting it I may make a category with no AA so that we allow DX10 SLI results at high res.

EDIT:
Been reading up a little more and have found that in 2-way SLI, if you use AA it effectively disables SLI at specific times during the game. And this is exactly what I'm seeing. During test run #1 with 1680x1050 4xAA, at about frame 1000 of 2000 my avg framerate is 24 and then it drops to about 6. This is the point where I believe SLI disables. It doesn't completely disable, what supposedly is happening is that AA rendering is being split over the two cards, and Crysis doesn't run the game well in split rendering. If you want to see this, try 1680x1050 4xAA, and force split rendering in the nVidia Control Panel.

So the problem is that if I leave 4xAA high-res category, many SLI users will no be able to participate, even moreso in Vista.

For now I may just need to create another category, because I don't see Crysis fixing this anytime soon, especially as patch 1.2 didn't do anything for this.

Read more about it if you'd like:
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/08/crysis_3waysli/

http://forums.slizone.com/index.php?...ded&pid=121122

Oh, and here's my DX9 results, much slower than DX10, at this point I'm not sure if it is Crysis, or what....:
32.33 in 1680x1050 with NO AA


----------



## alexgheseger

Here's my trifire contribution: 3870x2 @ 855/946, 3870 @ 860/1291 e6750 @4.0 Ghz Vista x64

DX9 1280x1024 - 59.645 
DX9 1680 x 1050 - 51.4
DX10 1280x1024- 47.71


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *alexgheseger*


Here's my trifire contribution: 3870x2 @ 855/946, 3870 @ 860/1291 e6750 @4.0 Ghz Vista x64

DX9 1280x1024 - 59.645 
DX9 1680 x 1050 - 51.4
DX10 1280x1024- 47.71


Added. Nice numbers BTW.


----------



## 2Luke2

Waiting for hardware before I run these tests, but I was wondering if anyone else had a problem playing Crysis in 64bit edition? I can run the test in 64bit, but when I try to load the game via the Crysis64.exe it just goes to a black screen and I have to end up killing the process to make it go away. I'm only running two of my 3 cards because I'm waiting for hardware as I said. I didn't even think to try to disable SLI and try it with one card. I'll check that out when I get home, but if anyone has any suggestions please let me know.

Thanks
Luke


----------



## lordikon

Crysis has issues with 64-bit with many different setups. You may try running the 32-bit Crysis.exe and see if that helps.


----------



## 2Luke2

Yes I can play in 32 bit mode was just curious why I can run the benchmark took in 64bit, but can't play the game in 64 bit lol..


----------



## PizzaMan

It's because this tool is not an acuarate form of benchmarking.


----------



## 1 g0t 0wn3d

Check out these tweaks before i got 16 fps on med but now it looks like high and plays ~25fps

http://www.techsupportforum.com/gami...ance-look.html


----------



## lordikon

I believe tweaking the settings will alter the benchmark into "custom". But good advice for anyone looking to simply play the game with better fps.


----------



## 1 g0t 0wn3d

yes they will but if you want to play the game =)


----------



## lordikon

Just wanted to let everyone know there has been some serious family matters that have come up and I will be out of town until next Monday (US).

Feel free to continue posting, I will update whatever I get when I get back Monday night. Thanks.


----------



## Ihatethedukes

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 75.01s, Average FPS: 26.66
Min FPS: 0.00 at frame 721, Max FPS: 56.46 at frame 1010
Average Tri/Sec: -24390698, Tri/Frame: -914756
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 48.28s, Average FPS: 41.43
Min FPS: 0.00 at frame 721, Max FPS: 64.17 at frame 101
Average Tri/Sec: -37910712, Tri/Frame: -915154
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 48.18s, Average FPS: 41.52
Min FPS: 0.00 at frame 721, Max FPS: 64.17 at frame 101
Average Tri/Sec: -37947712, Tri/Frame: -914067
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
*!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 47.99s, Average FPS: 41.67
Min FPS: 0.00 at frame 721, Max FPS: 66.65 at frame 69
Average Tri/Sec: -38110636, Tri/Frame: -914500
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)*
================================================== ============
Press any key to continue . . .


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ihatethedukes* 
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 75.01s, Average FPS: 26.66
Min FPS: 0.00 at frame 721, Max FPS: 56.46 at frame 1010
Average Tri/Sec: -24390698, Tri/Frame: -914756
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 48.28s, Average FPS: 41.43
Min FPS: 0.00 at frame 721, Max FPS: 64.17 at frame 101
Average Tri/Sec: -37910712, Tri/Frame: -915154
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 48.18s, Average FPS: 41.52
Min FPS: 0.00 at frame 721, Max FPS: 64.17 at frame 101
Average Tri/Sec: -37947712, Tri/Frame: -914067
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
*!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 47.99s, Average FPS: 41.67
Min FPS: 0.00 at frame 721, Max FPS: 66.65 at frame 69
Average Tri/Sec: -38110636, Tri/Frame: -914500
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)*
================================================== ============
Press any key to continue . . .

I'll need a screenshot for verification. I can't tell any stats or settings from this. I'll also confused why you ran 4 loops. Nothing wrong with that though, it gave you a .1 fps boost







.


----------



## Sharpy

Ok here's mine









1st run 1280x1024









2nd run 1680x1050


----------



## SomeDooD

Bad Results.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SomeDooD* 
Setup Type 1:
Avg. FPS: 37.88 FPS
CPU: Q6600 @ 3.0GHz
GPU: 8800 Ultra @ 638/1125/1620
OS: Vista 64-Bit

Setup Type 2:
Avg. FPS: 35.29 FPS
CPU: Q6600 @ 3.0GHz
GPU: 8800 Ultra @ 638/1125/1620
OS: Vista 64-Bit

Those were my results with that new benchmark someone posted.

Just need some screenshots







. I'll get the list updated on Monday when I get back in front of my own computer.


----------



## dubbedmk3

Setup
Avg FPS: 33.475
CPU: Athlon 64 X2 5000 + BE @ 3.2GHz
RAM: 4GB Crucial Ballistix @ 917MHz
GPU: 8800GTX @ 634/1510/1045
OS: Vista 32 bit

attached is also my overclock benchmark results


----------



## lordikon

Images aren't showing up properly. ^^^^


----------



## SchmoSalt

Benched on Vista 32 Ultimate w/ DX10.

38.56 fps -- SchmoSalt -- Q6600 @ 2.4 -- 8800GT KO stock, Vista 32bit

Proof


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SchmoSalt*


Benched on Vista 32 Ultimate w/ DX10.

38.56 fps -- SchmoSalt -- Q6600 @ 2.4 -- 8800GT KO stock, Vista 32bit

Proof


He will need at least a screenshot friend. The requirements are on the first page.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2Luke2* 
He will need at least a screenshot friend. The requirements are on the first page.

Screenshot is in the link he posted.

Sharpy and SchmoSalt added. Still waiting on screenshots from others.

Sharpy's DX9 result confirms that Crysis is acting strange with my DX9 stuff at higher res. His single card (at lower clocks) results is better than my OC SLI result. You may also notice my DX9 result is about 25-30% slower than my DX10 at the same settings.


----------



## 2Luke2

Sorry I missed the link ;(


----------



## SomeDooD

-delete Post-


----------



## SomeDooD

Actually, scratch those results. I did it with a different app than the rest of you. I'm re-doing it.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SomeDooD*


-delete Post-


When trying to view them it says "Invalid Attachment specified".

You should try imageshack

EDIT: Appears the post was deleted :OP


----------



## SomeDooD

Yup, I deleted them. Here are my new results using the same App as the rest of you:

*Setup Type #1:*
Avg. FPS: 43.84
CPU: Q6600 @ 3.0GHz
GPU: 8800 Ultra 638/1125/1620
OS: Vista 64-Bit

*Setup Type #2:*
Avg. FPS: 41.63
CPU: Q6600 @ 3.0GHz
GPU: 8800 Ultra 638/1125/1620
OS: Vista 64-Bit


----------



## Sharpy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Screenshot is in the link he posted.

Sharpy and SchmoSalt added. Still waiting on screenshots from others.

Sharpy's DX9 result confirms that Crysis is acting strange with my DX9 stuff at higher res. His single card (at lower clocks) results is better than my OC SLI result. You may also notice my DX9 result is about 25-30% slower than my DX10 at the same settings.


Yeah it got me confused also when i compared the results... I clocked my card just now and ran the crysis benchmark again, got only 1fps improvement @ 1280x1024, tho i didnt push the card that much, 680/990/1645 from 650/972/1625
edit: OCed to 710/996/1649 and ran the 1680x1050 test - 34.81fps


----------



## {core2duo}werd

here we go, a DX10 run coming soon







\\
this is a single 9800GX2... and my DX10 runs are even more FPS for some reason


----------



## {core2duo}werd

Sorry for the double post but t wouldn't let me edit my first one for some reason.
again, these are with one card, my system won't even load windows with both cards in the system.

here's the DX10 run









and here's an update for my dx9 run, faster in vista than in XP


----------



## Rolandooo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *{core2duo}werd*


Sorry for the double post but t wouldn't let me edit my first one for some reason.

here's the DX10 run









and here's an update for my dx9 run, faster in vista than in XP










Nice man! I am waiting for my Vista 64bit to come, 32bit only shows 2.75gigs. BTW this is some great ram









I will post my results a little later.


----------



## jaybeerex

Well with a revised bunch of settings an underclock on my 8800's compared to previous and the new patches along wih SP1 for vista i've got a few scores to bump me up a few places and some new results for the high end testing.

Q6600 is still at 3.2 but with revised voltages for cooler running
Cards are now underclocked from previous to 700/1800/2000

*Setup type #1* 51.695 FPS
http://www.overclock.net/gallery/sho...2/ppuser/57412

*Setup type #2* 53.405 FPS
http://www.overclock.net/gallery/sho...2/ppuser/57412

*1680x1050 dx9 no AA* 42.98
http://www.overclock.net/gallery/sho...0/ppuser/57412

*168x1050 dx10 no AA* 45.265
http://www.overclock.net/gallery/sho...0/ppuser/57412

No 4xAA results as it ran like crap, same problem as some others here. Still completely unable to get past 3.2 on my quad even with pencil mod so this is probably the best results im gonna have for now.


----------



## c00lkatz

Ran with the system in my sig:

*Avg. FPS: 21.375*
CPU: Athlon64 X2 4800+ @ 2.81GHz (Brisbane, stock 2.5GHz)
GPU: NVIDIA 8600GT VM'd (1.60V Core / 2.10V Mem) and OC'd (920/940/2024)
OS: Windows XP Pro SP2 32-bit

*Test Results:*
Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 21.375


----------



## alexgheseger

Quote:


Originally Posted by *c00lkatz* 
Ran with the system in my sig:

1.6 Volts!? Man, you've got that thing set to fry... Nice performance for an 8600 though.


----------



## c00lkatz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *alexgheseger*


1.6 Volts!? Man, you've got that thing set to fry... Nice performance for an 8600 though.


Yeah, I thought it was pretty decent performance for an 8600GT; scored a 7909 in 3DMark06. I normally play Crysis on medium settings with just a few high settings, 1280x720 (720p, I use an HDTV), no AA/AF, etc., and it runs very smoothly. It's been running strong and stable for the past 6 months now. I have an aftermarket HSF (Coolermaster Coolviva Pro SE) that keeps it at a cool 40*C at idle and ~55-58*C on average under load. ATITool artifact scanning gets it up to right at 60*C, but no more. I made sure to be really careful when I overclocked it and made sure it passed artifact scanning for a long while, and then I backed it back down 5MHz on both core and memory. Of course, I keep it at stock when watching movies and such and only bump it up when gaming or benchmarking. I wouldn't try that without an aftermarket HSF, though. With the stock HSF it stayed pretty hot at stock voltage and mild OC'ing. Without VM'ing on the stock HSF I was only able to get it up to 700/855.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *c00lkatz*


Ran with the system in my sig:

*Avg. FPS: 21.375*
CPU: Athlon64 X2 4800+ @ 2.81GHz (Brisbane, stock 2.5GHz)
GPU: NVIDIA 8600GT VM'd (1.60V Core / 2.10V Mem) and OC'd (920/940/2024)
OS: Windows XP Pro SP2 32-bit

*Test Results:*
Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 21.375




First things first...

- Why does your benchmark say you're running XP when you're clearly running Vista?

- Why is your DX10 greyed out with an 8-series card in Vista?

- Is it possible OC an 8600GT that far, even after a voltmod and with water cooling? And if so, why go that far with it when a 8800GTS 512 would still do better? Those OCs simply cannot be right. I wouldn't expect those OCs from any nVidia other than a new 9-series G92.


----------



## c00lkatz

- I am running XP. I'm running the Radium Vista Pack which gives me the appearance of Vista but while running XP. I'm not running any form of Vista.

- The DX10 is greyed out, because DX10 is Vista only. It can't be run in XP.

- Yes, as you can see from GPU-Z, I have it overclocked that far, and it's been running stable for 6 months now. I do have aftermarket air cooling (Coolermaster Coolviva Pro SE), but no liquid here. Trust me, everything I've stated is legit. I have the screen-shots to prove it, including a 3DMark06 benchmark of 7909, which isn't great compared to 8800's and up, but isn't too shabby for an 8600GT either.

*EDIT:* Here's another screenshot showing CPU-Z, GPU-Z, ATITool, SpeedFan, and Windows System Control Panel. I don't know what other proof I can give you.


----------



## {core2duo}werd

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Rolandooo*


Nice man! I am waiting for my Vista 64bit to come, 32bit only shows 2.75gigs. BTW this is some great ram









I will post my results a little later.


thanks







do you have yoru 9800GX2 now? or is it in the mail or something?


----------



## Rolandooo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *{core2duo}werd*


thanks







do you have yoru 9800GX2 now? or is it in the mail or something?


I received it Wednesday, I have yet had the time to test this badboy in my games where the 3870X2 was lacking.

Tomorrow I don't work, so I will post my results







cant wait!


----------



## h3xw1z4rd

Dx9 xp pro sp2 - 44.745



Used rig in sig


----------



## lordikon

Added c00lkatz {core2duo}werd and h3xw1z4rd.

Insane numbers from the 9800gx2. The rumors it would suck are completely wrong. Complete ownage in every single way. Great stuff.

I wonder if eVGA will let me step-up my 2 8800GTS 512s for one of those?


----------



## NCspecV81

1 game doesn't constitute it not sucking though lol.


----------



## nuclearjock

2x 8800gtx SLI (despite what gpuz says). Bios is modded to 621/1566/1000

Vista 32


----------



## {core2duo}werd

Quote:



Originally Posted by *nuclearjock*


2x 8800gtx SLI (despite what gpuz says). Bios is modded to 621/1566/1000

Vista 32


nice results


----------



## h3xw1z4rd

ok update on benchmark, updated to patch 1.2



avarage 45.175fps


----------



## h3xw1z4rd

lmao.... think I might have encountered a bug on one of my runs...


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *h3xw1z4rd*


lmao.... think I might have encountered a bug on one of my runs...




I've had that one as well. The tris/sec is the indicator of something wrong. Someday an fps like that will be easily achievable, probably a couple years, maybe less.

Nuclearjock added, h3xw1z4rd updated.


----------



## binormalkilla

I hate EA so much sometimes......I mean their DL manager is a joke. I've always been able to run the autorun.exe, then click play and this will make it run with my games folder icon in VIsta (thus allowing the bench to run), but now I can't run it all of a sudden. The only way for me to launch it is to run it from the autorun.exe, then click play....which won't let me bench.

I think the hotfix broke it.......

A little word of advice: NEVER buy anything from EA online. Their support is incompetent....I mean practically all the questions I had from backing up and burning the data to bonus content was basically like asking for them to do quantum physics calculations......they had no idea.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


I hate EA so much sometimes......I mean their DL manager is a joke. I've always been able to run the autorun.exe, then click play and this will make it run with my games folder icon in VIsta (thus allowing the bench to run), but now I can't run it all of a sudden. The only way for me to launch it is to run it from the autorun.exe, then click play....which won't let me bench.

I think the hotfix broke it.......

A little word of advice: NEVER buy anything from EA online. Their support is incompetent....I mean practically all the questions I had from backing up and burning the data to bonus content was basically like asking for them to do quantum physics calculations......they had no idea.


I avoid EA whenever possible, but mostly because of the way they treat their U.S. employees. Spore is the only other game from them I think I'll absolutely have to play. Crysis was the first one in years just because of its amazing graphics. I must admit Crysis is buggy as hell on many configurations, including mine at certain settings (Any AA setting, or high res DX9, or DX10 with 1.2 patch). Meanwhile games like Oblivion can run at highest settings, 8xAA, and never slow down. Of course Oblivion isn't as taxing as Crysis, but there is no reason Crysis should run at 55fps with no AA, and 5fps with 2xAA.


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


I avoid EA whenever possible, but mostly because of the way they treat their U.S. employees. Spore is the only other game from them I think I'll absolutely have to play. Crysis was the first one in years just because of its amazing graphics. I must admit Crysis is buggy as hell on many configurations, including mine at certain settings (Any AA setting, or high res DX9, or DX10 with 1.2 patch). Meanwhile games like Oblivion can run at highest settings, 8xAA, and never slow down. Of course Oblivion isn't as taxing as Crysis, but there is no reason Crysis should run at 55fps with no AA, and 5fps with 2xAA.


I think that the AA issue has more to do with the NVidia driver using AA than Crysis....I used to get a MAJOR FPS hit in Crysis from AA, but as you can see from the benches it's not as bad (~9 FPS with 4X)
I use 4X AA on most games, but on Crysis it isn't really needed.....however I haven't really played it in a while.......MP was RUINED by hackers/bugs. I just got sick of it and moved on.

It's really sad when I look back, as Crysis has so much potential. Hopefully it gets tapped.......


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *binormalkilla*


I think that the AA issue has more to do with the NVidia driver using AA than Crysis....I used to get a MAJOR FPS hit in Crysis from AA, but as you can see from the benches it's not as bad (~9 FPS with 4X)
I use 4X AA on most games, but on Crysis it isn't really needed.....however I haven't really played it in a while.......MP was RUINED by hackers/bugs. I just got sick of it and moved on.

It's really sad when I look back, as Crysis has so much potential. Hopefully it gets tapped.......


Yes but many NVidia configs are ok with AA and Crysis. It is tough to pin down the exact problem, very annoying. I agree it is probably the driver, I've read lots of issues with AA and Crysis. I just hate being one of the configurations seeing that problem.


----------



## binormalkilla

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Yes but many NVidia configs are ok with AA and Crysis. It is tough to pin down the exact problem, very annoying. I agree it is probably the driver, I've read lots of issues with AA and Crysis. I just hate being one of the configurations seeing that problem.










THat does suck.....


----------



## GTT

my benchmarking
Q6600 @3.2 GHZ
8800 Ultra @ 730Mhz & 1735 shader & 2370

Ave FPS 47.58


----------



## PcG_AmD

HereÂ´s my benchmark on XP 32 bitÂ´s i just ran it,iÂ´ll put one with vista 64 bit later.
CPU:AMD Phenom 9500 overclocked running at 2.6ghz
Video Card:8800 gts 320 g80

[img=http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3595/crysisbenchmarktoolqh5.th.jpg]

My old gts didnÂ´t do a bad job with this benchmark at all,iÂ´m still happy with it


----------



## lordikon

GTT and PcG_AmD added.


----------



## lonnie5000

I ran these tests on my rig with Vista Ultimate 64. Q6600 at 3.2 and 8800GTS 320mb (G80) 649/1502/1902. First two thumbs are dx9 and dx10 32bit. Second two thumbs are dx9 and dx10 64bit. Not alot of difference between 32 and 64 bit.


----------



## sgtdisturbed47

I can't get the Crysis Benchmarking Tool to work since the 1.2 patch, but using Fraps I get average 43 FPS at 1680x1050, all settings on High, and 67 average FPS at Medium, same res. I'm about to run the Fraps test again but at 1280x1024, like you guys are doing with the benchmarking tool.

My test starts on 1st level, where you crouch through the rocks and are on the beach. I then shoot the 3 guys, and make my way to the guy on the cliff, then make my way to Aztec's position. After the cinematic, I end the test.

Ok at 1280x1024, high settings, 45 FPS average, and on medium I get 71 FPS average.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sgtdisturbed47* 
I can't get the Crysis Benchmarking Tool to work since the 1.2 patch, but using Fraps I get average 43 FPS at 1680x1050, all settings on High, and 67 average FPS at Medium, same res. I'm about to run the Fraps test again but at 1280x1024, like you guys are doing with the benchmarking tool.

My test starts on 1st level, where you crouch through the rocks and are on the beach. I then shoot the 3 guys, and make my way to the guy on the cliff, then make my way to Aztec's position. After the cinematic, I end the test.

Ok at 1280x1024, high settings, 45 FPS average, and on medium I get 71 FPS average.

You may try uninstalling Crysis, reinstall Crysis 1.0, install and test the benchmark, then if all is working, try 1.2 patch and benchmark again. I've had lots of issues with this as well.

Lonnie5000 added.


----------



## Badie05

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kkbob33*











*DX9*-_38.58fps_


*DX10*_38.89fps_


i get the same score in DX10 as in DX9.







...might be because im on vista.

anyway,im happy with it. _for now_


How is your DX10 score higher than you DX9 score


----------



## ElMikeTheMike

I'm impressed with the GX2's scores.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Badie05*


How is your DX10 score higher than you DX9 score










This happens with certain setups. My first set of runs (2nd post on the first page), had higher speeds with DX10. Also, my 1680x1050 runs faster on DX10 as well, although my DX9 seems to be acting strange.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ElMikeTheMike*


I'm impressed with the GX2's scores.


Seriously stoked about those scores. I'm considering stepping up from my SLI 8800s to that card now.


----------



## SiPex

Setup Type #1: DX9, 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High.

Cpu stock, gpu stock.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SiPex*


Setup Type #1: DX9, 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High.

Cpu stock, gpu stock.


Not possible on one GPU. Also, notice how your average FPS is greater than your max fps?


----------



## fuzzynutz

Damn I cant get this tool to work. It loads up like it is going to run the demo, then it will have you press a key to continue which basically starts you on the first level where you are parachuting down. Not a benchmark run though, it is intending me to play the game.









EDIT: Needed to run the Benchmark tool as the Administrator. Gotta get used to Vista.


----------



## {core2duo}werd

i ran some quad SLI benches tonight, but they are the same as one card at that resolution. not because it doesn't scale well, but because there's a huge cpu bottle neck at that res. the CPU is pegged at 100% load, and it's just choking the cards, they work great at higher resolutions, and i can finally play crysis the way it was meant to be played, maxed out except for AA and i get FPS in the 50s.
i also got 93000 in 03 (the least CPU bottlenecked benchmark).


----------



## nuclearjock

Quote:



Originally Posted by *{core2duo}werd*


i ran some quad SLI benches tonight, but they are the same as one card at that resolution. not because it doesn't scale well, but because there's a huge cpu bottle neck at that res. the CPU is pegged at 100% load, and it's just choking the cards, they work great at higher resolutions, and i can finally play crysis the way it was meant to be played, maxed out except for AA and i get FPS in the 50s.
i also got 93000 in 03 (the least CPU bottlenecked benchmark).



Are you still using 174.52??

I seemed to do a little better with 174.60


----------



## {core2duo}werd

174.7, they are in the software news section.


----------



## Offspring2099

Setup Type #1 for me


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Offspring2099*


Setup Type #1 for me










Added.

And {Core2Duo}Werd, you should post some benches for the 1680x1050 resolution, that should remove some bottleneck issues if that is indeed the case.


----------



## fuzzynutz

Sig rig, I OC'd Ultra to 702/1728/1188 for this run.

*Dx9 32Bit 1280x1024 High*

47.96

*DX10 64Bit 1280x1024 High (702/1674/1152)*

44.5

I can't honesly believe I got beat by an 8800 GT. I would love to know what tweaks you made. Even with trying High Performance it did not have 
any effect.

EDIT: h3xwizard edited his numbers because the demo was bugged. Thanks, I just noticed.


----------



## sgtdisturbed47

Haha I like those results on page 1. The top slots are taken by single 9800 GX2s, ahead of 2 8800 GTX's in SLI. Very effing nice!!


----------



## fuzzynutz

And not just ahead, but ahead by a crapload.


----------



## kkbob33

ive posted this before but just to make this clear to all:

if someone runs the bench with the 1.2 patch installed it will fair better in DX10 than the demo/1.1 patch/no patch.

i get the same framerates in DX9 and DX10 after the patch.


----------



## {core2duo}werd

ok here's some 1680 * 1050 quad SLI results *Note that this is 4 GPUs with terrible drivers* it stutters because of the terrible drivers, they are wors than beta, they are alpha.
dx9








and dx10









can we start a part for very high results??? it could still be 1680 * 1050.


----------



## lordikon

Added and update a couple, I will get the rest tonight.


----------



## SiPex

lordikon, Just so you know, the e6750 is 2.66Ghz stock. You have 2.0 for me on the original post.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SiPex*


lordikon, Just so you know, the e6750 is 2.66Ghz stock. You have 2.0 for me on the original post.










Just going off your screenshot. I'll get that updated soon.


----------



## lordikon

Updated my DX9 1680x1050, still sucks, but a little better:



Uh, ran DX10, then DX9 again, and more improvements:


I've concluded this benchmark too is not very consistant, especially with SLI


----------



## fuzzynutz

EDIT: Delete this Double please mods.


----------



## fuzzynutz

Here is my 1280 DX9 score with the 9800GX2:


----------



## CapDubOh

If I could figure out how to actually use the tool I would post mine.


----------



## fuzzynutz

What problems are you having?

Also here is a 1900x1200 run DX9 High with the 9800GX2.


----------



## CapDubOh

First of all, every time I start a run, the game opens at my settings (the ones I play at).

Do you have to complete the levels or something?


----------



## fuzzynutz

Oh, I had the same problem, you need to run the benchmark as an adminsitrator.


----------



## grunion

How about the Assault Harbor run, why not add it in.


----------



## Litlratt

71.36 Vista 32


----------



## Litlratt

59.855 Vista 32


----------



## Sharpy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Updated my DX9 1680x1050, still sucks, but a little better
I've concluded this benchmark too is not very consistant, especially with SLI


Thats better than the original benchmarking, any idea what caused that low result in the first run?


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sharpy* 
Thats better than the original benchmarking, any idea what caused that low result in the first run?

I believe I left BOINC ([email protected]) running. It was hogging my RAM. It pauses when you're using both cores, but doesn't release your RAM.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grunion* 
How about the Assault Harbor run, why not add it in.

I don't believe the Crysis team intended it as a (mostly) GPU benchmark. I'm trying to factor CPU out of these results as much as possible, which is difficult at lower res like 1280x1024 already.

I feel 3DMark06 is too biased towards CPUs, so it doesn't reveal as much about which video cards are the best. However, I do like the fact that 3DMark06 tests many things, like shader models.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CapDubOh* 
If I could figure out how to actually use the tool I would post mine.

Someone replied already, you need to run the benchmark in administrator mode in Vista (if you're using Vista).


----------



## fuzzynutz

Adding my DX10 run at 1280x1024 on the 9800GX2. I reverted back to the 174.53 drivers and there was a significant improvement in DX10 at this resolution so far. Bad thing is the screencaps come out with black banding.

9800GX2 (725/1836/1053)










Quote:


Originally Posted by *grunion* 
How about the Assault Harbor run, why not add it in.


Ran it in case you are curious. I had torrents and other stuff running in the background that I usually don't. Stock clocks on card.


----------



## GeNjii-

Here's my results.


I've yet to do any mods to Crysis to make it run better other than patch 1.2.1...


----------



## lordikon

GeNjii added.


----------



## Foobey

Here are my results:
DirectX 9: 47.31 FPS.
DirectX 10: 44.335 FPS.


----------



## 2Luke2

I'm curious to know how the 2nd poster hit a higher score that the first one.... Since he is on a quad at 3.4 and same ram/video... could his overclock just be 10+ fps higher?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GeNjii-*


Here's my results.


I've yet to do any mods to Crysis to make it run better other than patch 1.2.1...



Quote:



Originally Posted by *Foobey*


Here are my results:
DirectX 9: 47.31 FPS.
DirectX 10: 44.335 FPS.


----------



## Emmett

Hmm.. I need to figure out how to increase this performance.


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Emmett*


Hmm.. I need to figure out how to increase this performance.


You can add in your system here: http://www.overclock.net/specs.php

I would start by taking 4 gigs of ram out of your PC.


----------



## Emmett

Tried removing 4 gigs, tightened up timings, and pretty sure it did not seem to make any difference.

Everest is showing 9300 on the bandwidth with 8 gigs in. but like 71 latency.


----------



## GeNjii-

Quote:



Originally Posted by *2Luke2*


I'm curious to know how the 2nd poster hit a higher score that the first one.... Since he is on a quad at 3.4 and same ram/video... could his overclock just be 10+ fps higher?


Look at his card overclock. Smokes mine.. =[ I need to figure out how to get my card to run at those speeds.

He might be running with all those tweaks too, which I have none off.

Still, I must OC my card higher!!!!


----------



## Emmett

Here is a 1680x1050 with 4AA. DX9.


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GeNjii-*


Look at his card overclock. Smokes mine.. =[ I need to figure out how to get my card to run at those speeds.

He might be running with all those tweaks too, which I have none off.

Still, I must OC my card higher!!!!










What tweaks are you referring to?


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GeNjii-*


Look at his card overclock. Smokes mine.. =[ I need to figure out how to get my card to run at those speeds.

He might be running with all those tweaks too, which I have none off.

Still, I must OC my card higher!!!!










If that small of an overclock gets another 10fps... that's amazing...

He is at 725/1100/1900 and you're at 710/1000/1770...

I honestly don't see 10fps there. So I'm guessing it has to be these tweaks you're referring to.


----------



## Emmett

Thought i would throw this one out there.. 1900x1200 4AA .


----------



## fuzzynutz

^^ Smoking!


----------



## lordikon

I'll post updates later when I'm not posting from an ipod touch


----------



## CaBo0sE

Not too bad for an underclocked 8800GT I have to send back to MSI.


----------



## lordikon

Foobey, Emmett, and CaBo0sE added.


----------



## matt_w

Ok, my results


----------



## SomeDooD

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SomeDooD*


Yup, I deleted them. Here are my new results using the same App as the rest of you:

*Setup Type #1:*
Avg. FPS: 43.84
CPU: Q6600 @ 3.0GHz
GPU: 8800 Ultra 638/1125/1620
OS: Vista 64-Bit

*Setup Type #2:*
Avg. FPS: 41.63
CPU: Q6600 @ 3.0GHz
GPU: 8800 Ultra 638/1125/1620
OS: Vista 64-Bit


Never Added Mine... =\\

http://www.overclock.net/3578461-post156.html


----------



## Clox

I'll repost when I get around to re-installing my E8400.



With my E8400 Re-installed. New batch #Q807A190, nice performance gain I would say....


----------



## 2Luke2

58.93 fps -- Emmett -- q6600 @ 4.0 -- 3x 8800 Ultras (3 GPUS -- Vista 64

And Clox hit 61+fps at 3.7 with two GTXs.... How are people getting such mixed results?

With my below setup at 3.25 I hit 41-45fps maybe... So you're telling me that 20+fps is due to 400mhz?


----------



## Emmett

Does 8AA work correctly with crysis? thought I would try it.
1680x1050 8AA..


----------



## DeX




----------



## Deezle98

[email protected] 4.0GHz, SLI BFG 8800GTs 700/2000, XP home/DX9.


----------



## Clox

Quote:



Originally Posted by *2Luke2*


58.93 fps -- Emmett -- q6600 @ 4.0 -- 3x 8800 Ultras (3 GPUS -- Vista 64
And Clox hit 61+fps at 3.7 with two GTXs.... How are people getting such mixed results?
With my below setup at 3.25 I hit 41-45fps maybe... So you're telling me that 20+fps is due to 400mhz?


I would say that Vista is why, tad lower FPS using Vista? I'd love to see what you would get in XP. The 174.74 forceware
seem to be wicked for me.

With my E8400 Re-installed. New batch #Q807A190, nice performance gain I would say.... 
XP32 SP3


Vista64 SP1


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Hi all...i think i received a good score...Can u put me on the chart...i think i'm in top 15 at 1280x1024 no aa...please...


----------



## alexgheseger

Quote:


Originally Posted by *So3oL4Nu* 
Hi all...i think i received a good score...Can u put me on the chart...i think i'm in top 15 at 1280x1024 no aa...please...

Welcome to OCN







.


----------



## lordikon

I'll post an update tonight hopefully


----------



## So3oL4Nu

@lordikon thank's, i look in top 20









@alex ...i'm happy to be here on overclock.net


----------



## {core2duo}werd

Question: are driver tweaks allowed? if so i have some new results, if not oh well.


----------



## 2Luke2

Here's my non-overclock stats.

Attachment 69295


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *{core2duo}werd*


Question: are driver tweaks allowed? if so i have some new results, if not oh well.


There is no real way to stop them, because we're going off a screenshot. I personally don't feel the need to do them myself, but if you're so inclined. I know a couple of scores on the board are from tweaks. I started this thread as a good basis for comparison, and the tweaks throw that off a little, but oh well.

Update should be complete, let me know if I messed any up.


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Thanks for add me ...now i go for dx10 benchmark...see ya...


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


There is no real way to stop them, because we're going off a screenshot. I personally don't feel the need to do them myself, but if you're so inclined. I know a couple of scores on the board are from tweaks. I started this thread as a good basis for comparison, and the tweaks throw that off a little, but oh well.

Update should be complete, let me know if I messed any up.


I was going to ask the same question, because you could make your high and very high details seem like LOW if you really wanted to... So I guess it's all about the honesty lol...


----------



## low strife

I don't have it installed right now (I don't have enough space to), but when I did have it running...

Let's see.

24.9 Average FPS
Min = 12
Max = 31

System:

Pentium 4 640 3.2Ghz (O.C'd to 3.6Ghz)
1GB 266Mhz RAM
ATI x550 (x300, x550, x1050 series)
Gigabyte 8ANXP-D
80GB WD caviar
Win XP

I was surprised my system could even run the damn game.


----------



## DeX

Just looking at the 1st post ranking. 99% of all of them are intel users, my poor lil AMD is lonely...


----------



## Emmett

So, I was having so-so performance, and trying to figure it out, having lock-ups sometimes running the benchmarks. So I tried disabling the SLI memory setting 
in bios, and much better results. 174.74 driver, no tweaks but I did disable sound. (thought I had a X-fi issue, static, and crackling at times.) here are a few results. did more than 3 loops on a few for stability testing.

Edit: wanted to mention that the 1280x1024 run in XP32 and Vista 64 were pretty much dead even at the 70fps mark. and that with only 2 cards in XP, but in XP as the AA was increased the frame rate began to suffer and is much better with 3 cards in vista.


----------



## dharmaBum

61.795fps


----------



## 2Luke2

Here are some overclocked untweaked Crysis benches....

Attachment 69357

Attachment 69358


----------



## By-Tor

Here is my results...


----------



## 2Luke2

Lordikon maybe you can seperate the tweakers like this?

Attachment 69359


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *2Luke2*


Lordikon maybe you can seperate the tweakers like this?

Attachment 69359


Probably could, if all drivers/settings and this benchmark were extremely reliable. On top of that I'd have to take time to fully organize the results to make sure they "seemed" ok. Additionally I'd have to ask all 40 or so people who've posted results to re-post, or I'd have to make a list that is semi-verified, and one that isn't verified at all. There needs to be a way for this benchmark tool to not all non-default settings. I'm sure 3DMark06 does this to keep people from cheating the score.


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Probably could, if all drivers/settings and this benchmark were extremely reliable. On top of that I'd have to take time to fully organize the results to make sure they "seemed" ok. Additionally I'd have to ask all 40 or so people who've posted results to re-post, or I'd have to make a list that is semi-verified, and one that isn't verified at all. There needs to be a way for this benchmark tool to not all non-default settings. I'm sure 3DMark06 does this to keep people from cheating the score.


True, I guess all we can hope for is honesty, but I know some don't even know they are doing wrong because they put some tweaks in to make it run better and then they come here and run this and the results are skewed. I guess we just have to wait for another 3dmark to come out lol... Vantage I think is the next one.


----------



## SQBubble

heres mine... at 1920x1200 I get an average of 7fps, and with 1280x1024 I get an average of 12fps... thats pathetic


----------



## 2Luke2

SQBubble... Do this for me please.

- Close all applications.

- Go to control panel and type in advance in the search, click view advance system settings, click the top settings button. Then click adjust for best performance click ok.

- Next right click on your task bar and click on task manager. Click on the services tab. Now click on the status column to sort it to see all the running services at the top. Now start at the top of the running list and right click on them and click on stop service. If you get an error while trying to stop it go to the next service.

- Once you have stopped all the services you can from running click on the Processes tab.

Here is a short list of processes you can stop:
atitray.exe*32
audiodg.exe
ehmsas.exe
ehtray.exe
iPoDservice.exe
iThunesHelper
nTuneService
nvraidservice
PnkBstrA and B.exe
SearchIndexer.exe
SLsvc.exe
taskeng.exe
wmpnetwk.exe
wmpnscfg.exe

After that go back to the services tab and try to close all the running services again. You should be able to get your processes down to the low 20s. After you do all that re-run your Crysis benchmark tool. After the bench is done and you have your screenshots then you can reboot to make it easier to restart all your normal services. Here is a screen shot of the services you will not be able to close easily.

Attachment 69384


----------



## Dar_T

Here's mine.


----------



## scrugun

3/30/2008 5:25:07 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 52.22s, Average FPS: 38.30
Min FPS: 18.82 at frame 140, Max FPS: 50.55 at frame 979
Average Tri/Sec: 37736104, Tri/Frame: 985239
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 45.86s, Average FPS: 43.61
Min FPS: 18.82 at frame 140, Max FPS: 52.49 at frame 1013
Average Tri/Sec: 43422180, Tri/Frame: 995720
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 45.68s, Average FPS: 43.78
Min FPS: 18.82 at frame 140, Max FPS: 52.49 at frame 1013
Average Tri/Sec: 43612120, Tri/Frame: 996170
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

3/30/2008 5:25:07 PM - XP

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 43.695


----------



## fuzzynutz

Top Spot please.

I overclocked Q6600 to 3.8GHz. Overclocked card to 702/1782/1053. This is with the 9800GX2.

I present...


----------



## ssgwright

here's mine:


----------



## ssgwright

dx10


----------



## lordikon

I'll try and get this updated sometime tonight, been busy at work, and in the Creative thread. For god's sake if you haven't been in that thread, please read.


----------



## Nolander

3/31/2008 5:35:07 PM - XP
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=1, Time Of Day=12
Global Game Quality: High
Custom Quality Values: 
VolumetricEffects=High
Texture=High
ObjectDetail=High
Sound=High
Shadows=High
Water=High
Physics=High
Particles=High
Shading=High
PostProcessing=High
GameEffects=High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 82.21s, Average FPS: 24.33
Min FPS: 12.18 at frame 145, Max FPS: 28.49 at frame 976
Average Tri/Sec: -18581792, Tri/Frame: -763781
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.20
TimeDemo Play Ended, (1 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

3/31/2008 5:35:07 PM - XP

*Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 24.33*

*Video card is the XFX G92 8800 GS 384 MB for $110 after mail-in rebate. With the stock cooler I overclocked an additional 27% by raising the GPU from 580 MHz to 735, shaders 1450 MHz to 1837, and the memory 1400 MHz to 1960MHz, a 40% overclock.*


















*Run #1- DX9 1600x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: Custom ~~ Last Average FPS: 17.76
All High except Postprocessing and Particles Quality on Medium*

With FRAPS in game I get very playable frame rates with avg FPS 25. I'll post screenshots when I get back from class.


----------



## lordikon

Updated all.

Don't forget guys, I need screenshots of the actual benchmark tool, not just CPU-Z & GPU-Z.


----------



## Zeus

Well, I've run on my gaming rig and I'm surprised how well it did...


----------



## brettjv

Oh that is IT!

Knocked from #1 on the main list for a single card after almost whole MONTH?

This aggression ... will not stand!

The fans will be running on max tonight, my friends ...

It is so ON!


----------



## brettjv

818/1998/1152

1280x1024 dx9 all high

cpu stats in sig

53.92 fps


----------



## jbua5150

Here is my best run. My normal o/c of 3Ghz wont run @ that res or with the crysis Benchmark. so here is my highest score so far.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jbua5150*


Here is my best run. My normal o/c of 3Ghz wont run @ that res or with the crysis Benchmark. so here is my highest score so far.


I'm not incredibly lazy, but too lazy to download winrar to open your picture. Try www.imageshack.us, free, and easy.


----------



## brettjv

Thanks 4 the update Lord ... one other thing I should've pointed out this was run on my new e8400 (@clocks in my sig). Not that it matters even one tiny bit on this particular test on my rig ... it's ALL about the GPU clocks.


----------



## fuzzynutz

You can also just upload the pic directly to OCN servers using the manage attachment feature.


----------



## jbua5150

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/2...ess2366el4.png

Here is another, i noticed that everyone was doning 3 passes, and i wanted to be fair. ran it 3 times and fps went up!! 28.465

opty 175 @ 2.75 2X 8800gts 320 700/950/1510 XP

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2...ss28465qa7.png


----------



## SQBubble

Quote:



Originally Posted by *2Luke2*


SQBubble... Do this for me please.

- Close all applications.

- Go to control panel and type in advance in the search, click view advance system settings, click the top settings button. Then click adjust for best performance click ok.

- Next right click on your task bar and click on task manager. Click on the services tab. Now click on the status column to sort it to see all the running services at the top. Now start at the top of the running list and right click on them and click on stop service. If you get an error while trying to stop it go to the next service.

- Once you have stopped all the services you can from running click on the Processes tab.

Here is a short list of processes you can stop:
atitray.exe*32
audiodg.exe
ehmsas.exe
ehtray.exe
iPoDservice.exe
iThunesHelper
nTuneService
nvraidservice
PnkBstrA and B.exe
SearchIndexer.exe
SLsvc.exe
taskeng.exe
wmpnetwk.exe
wmpnscfg.exe

After that go back to the services tab and try to close all the running services again. You should be able to get your processes down to the low 20s. After you do all that re-run your Crysis benchmark tool. After the bench is done and you have your screenshots then you can reboot to make it easier to restart all your normal services. Here is a screen shot of the services you will not be able to close easily.

Attachment 69384


I cant stop any service... but i ended a couple of process, and I got 19.92fpr vs 12fps at 1280x1024 and 15.5fps vs 7fps at 1900x1200. thx for the tip, it helped alot, i can see a decent difference while gaming, thats with the demo btw, if i get the full and install the patch and all, would it help the fps by alot?

thx


----------



## 2Luke2

The patch might help. I think the reason you can't stop any services is because you're not logged on as the administrator.

Hold your windows key and press the 'R' button. Then type secpol.msc in the box that comes up. Enable the Adminstrator account (the first item on the list). On your next boot you can log in as Administrator. Then you will have the privilages to stop services.


----------



## jbua5150

opty 175 @ 2.75 2X 8800gts 320 700/950/1510 XP

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2...ss28465qa7.png


----------



## fuzzynutz

Hey man just wanted to say thanks for maintaining this thread.

+Rep.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fuzzynutz* 
Hey man just wanted to say thanks for maintaining this thread.

+Rep.

No problem at all.

Everyone should be updated now.


----------



## 2Luke2

A new score with my new e8400.

Attachment 69896 D9

Edit: Had to break 70 lol..

Attachment 69897 D9

1680x1050

Attachment 69899 D9


----------



## Hemi

Attachment 69958

Still loving this Ultra


----------



## lordikon

Updated 2Luke2, added Hemi.


----------



## Hemi

lmao, everytime I see your avatar hehe, good one







sorry back to thread


----------



## sublime0

Im in. SLI seems to be disliking me. Ive tryed everything. It looks like its rendering 90% but it doesnt feel like it. I may need a fresh install of windows soon.....

Here you go









4/6/2008 1:41:56 AM - Vista
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=1, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 56.41s, Average FPS: 35.45
Min FPS: 18.26 at frame 137, Max FPS: 53.31 at frame 1616
Average Tri/Sec: -32487832, Tri/Frame: -916367
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
TimeDemo Play Ended, (1 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

4/6/2008 1:41:56 AM - Vista

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 35.45


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sublime0*


Im in. SLI seems to be disliking me. Ive tryed everything. It looks like its rendering 90% but it doesnt feel like it. I may need a fresh install of windows soon.....

Here you go









4/6/2008 1:41:56 AM - Vista
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=1, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 56.41s, Average FPS: 35.45
Min FPS: 18.26 at frame 137, Max FPS: 53.31 at frame 1616
Average Tri/Sec: -32487832, Tri/Frame: -916367
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.00
TimeDemo Play Ended, (1 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

4/6/2008 1:41:56 AM - Vista

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 35.45



Sublime before you try it this time go here: http://www.speedyvista.com/services.html

And download both the minimal and safe or default reg files or bat files. Run the minimal restart and then run the bench I promise a nice healthy increase in FPS once you have disabled a lot of the crap running in vista.


----------



## SergeRY

72.355fps. I need to tweak my cards cooling and memory oc to improve here. Also stock busses









72.355 fps -- Sergery -- e8400 @ 3.6 -- SLI 9800GTX (2 GPUs), 891/2228/1235 -- xp32


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SergeRY*


72.355fps. I need to tweak my cards cooling and memory oc to improve here. Also stock busses









72.355 fps -- Sergery -- e8400 @ 3.6 -- SLI 9800GTX (2 GPUs), 891/2228/1235 -- xp32


Added.

BTW, those are some insane OC speeds on your 9800s! They're like 8800GTS g92's on steroids


----------



## The_Rocker

Heres mine:

*Setup #1*

07/04/2008 18:33:16 - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 38.41s, Average FPS: 52.07
Min FPS: 29.12 at frame 139, Max FPS: 75.85 at frame 1020
Average Tri/Sec: -47476468, Tri/Frame: -911866
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 31.61s, Average FPS: 63.27
Min FPS: 29.12 at frame 139, Max FPS: 82.51 at frame 998
Average Tri/Sec: -57426856, Tri/Frame: -907668
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 31.33s, Average FPS: 63.84
Min FPS: 29.12 at frame 139, Max FPS: 82.57 at frame 89
Average Tri/Sec: -57853732, Tri/Frame: -906284
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

07/04/2008 18:33:16 - Vista 64

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 63.555

*63.555fps -- The_Rocker-- Q6600 @ 3.6 -- SLI 8800GTX (2 GPUs), 626/2000/1450 -- Vista64*


----------



## tat2monsta

my cpu isnt oc'ed coz my striker baffles me. but my gcards are oc2's. is it safe to oc these more? only had these cards a couple weeks and been on ati for last 5 years,so nvidia is kinda new to me.im sure my cpu is bottle necking them

heres my scores. not bad for a first run no overclocks?
i tried on the max settings with aa and i blue screened


----------



## The_Rocker

Hmmmm the striker is rubbish. Why can't you OC. You even ahve a dual core.


----------



## lordikon

The_Rocker and tat2monsta added.


----------



## tat2monsta

didnt get added for the dx9 one







and my cards are oc'ed.. unless the "stock" means cpu


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tat2monsta*









didnt get added for the dx9 one







and my cards are oc'ed.. unless the "stock" means cpu


I'll get your dx9 added. Your GPU-z shows the same for current and stock speeds. Did you do a bios flash or something?


----------



## tat2monsta

thanks
my cards are both OC2's factory overclocked for a few extra Â£. gonna try oc them more when i get the other under water


----------



## SergeRY

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Added.

BTW, those are some insane OC speeds on your 9800s! They're like 8800GTS g92's on steroids











Thanks, rep for maintaining the thread







. heh, yeah, they are bigger and have tons more components, including an extra power phase and 2nd plug.

Now tweaked more properly, Update: 
75.935 fps -- Sergery -- e8400 @ 3.825 -- SLI 9800GTX (2 GPUs), 891/2228/1229 -- xp32

If you were wondering why I didn't see better fps with clocks... so was I. this seems more like it


----------



## Johnny Utah

47.445 fps -- Johnny Utah -- e6750 @ 3.6 -- 8800 GTS 512, 790/1930/1050 -- Vista x64


----------



## remixed1

here is my results


----------



## NCspecV81

no wonder this bench doesn't favor ati well! it's already handicapped from the start! awesome! I think that just invalidates this entire thread. Not only that, but almost proves this bench is nothing more than nvidia propaganda or rubbish!

so which one is right? After careful inspection the scores that are generated go by the green highlighted results. So yeah, reason why I never participate with crap games and benches. This is so much better than synthetics! no wonder Nvidia cards lose there! its EVEN!


----------



## XAslanX

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NCspecV81*


no wonder this bench doesn't favor ati well! it's already handicapped from the start! awesome! I think that just invalidates this entire thread. Not only that, but almost proves this bench is nothing more than nvidia propaganda or rubbish!

so which one is right? After careful inspection the scores that are generated go by the green highlighted results. So yeah, reason why I never participate with crap games and benches. This is so much better than synthetics! no wonder Nvidia cards lose there! its EVEN!











QFT







Nvidia








ATI


----------



## nuclearjock

80.74 fps -- nuclearjock -- QX9650 @ 3.8 -- 2x8800gtx SLI 621/1584/2000-- Vista 64


----------



## secretsexyninja

Heres my results, all high dx10 with 1920x1200.

40.21 is my avg fps with the 9800gx2

64.86 = max
24.72 = lowest

also DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 86.295
does that really mean I have the best FPS yet for the chart in dx9 1280x1024? sweet. proof is coming


----------



## secretsexyninja

heres the proof.

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 85.94

i did better on the other one.. i think cuz i had patch 1.1 on, then i just installed 1.2 and lost .3 frames. lol

MAX was about 114

MIN was about 54

you can see it on the picture


----------



## secretsexyninja

so i just got the top score for the 1680x1050 dx9 and dx10

Run #1- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 72.255

Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 65.47

did i really beat the guy with TWO of these 9800gx2s??


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Quote:



Originally Posted by *secretsexyninja*


so i just got the top score for the 1680x1050 dx9 and dx10

Run #1- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 72.255

Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 65.47

did i really beat the guy with TWO of these 9800gx2s??


OMG 72 FPS DX 9 and 65 FPS DX10 !! ...i can belive that !...i must buy a 9800x2...at this settings u can play crysis like Counter-strike, above 50fps all time....OMG !


----------



## NCspecV81

I have zero faith in this benching tool, unless someone cares to explain the discrepancy?

http://www.overclock.net/gallery/dat...rysucksjpg.jpg


----------



## PizzaMan

I've been trying to tell these guys this bench is not accurate.


----------



## secretsexyninja

Either way higher fps now is better than lower fps when the thread started (when comparing only the crysis benchmark app results). dx9 is definitely runs 10 times better for me than dx10.


----------



## So3oL4Nu

The first benchmark from crysis is not the real life in game...if you really wanna know what fps do you have in game run benchmark ASSAULT_HARBOR...it's 100% real life in game !


----------



## Ihatethedukes

I'm fairly certain the discrepancies are all derived from the speed of refreshing the FPS monitors at. The while letters are CLEARLY updating 10x or more faster than the green, so it's quite natural to expect even WILDLY different FPS between them. If you synced the FRAPS to the white letters bet you'd see similar scores all the time.


----------



## NCspecV81

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ihatethedukes* 
I'm fairly certain the discrepancies are all derived from the speed of refreshing the FPS monitors at. The while letters are CLEARLY updating 10x or more faster than the green, so it's quite natural to expect even WILDLY different FPS between them. If you synced the FRAPS to the white letters bet you'd see similar scores all the time.


They are never identical from what I've saw. in fact I'll see fps that are pretty good in the white letters.. yet when the test finishes my max was no where near what the white suggested It was hitting.


----------



## Ihatethedukes

Because the green letters are only updated once every 500-1000ms, it's never going to see those 80-100fps peaks as it only takes samples 10-1000 times less than the whites. You'll never see them perfectly match, that's because you only see the whites same time FPS for 1ms and stare at the green for another 1s.... meanwhile the white goes through another 1000 refreshes.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NCspecV81*


They are never identical from what I've saw. in fact I'll see fps that are pretty good in the white letters.. yet when the test finishes my max was no where near what the white suggested It was hitting.


The white values are refreshed at a different rate, and are an average of the framerate over a period of time, hence you see the (19....90) near it, which is the range of framerates you've experienced recently. It is very simple, the amount of frames in this demo is constant. So the length of the demo divided by the time the demo took, is your FPS.

By the way, I'll try and get this thing updated soon.


----------



## secretsexyninja

sweet







glad to hear youre getting it updated! hah







can't wait to see if someone had a better score than mine or not


----------



## NCspecV81

I guess I'll just have to do my own logs with fraps. By what you are describing anyways makes this tool inaccurate if it's unable to refresh fast enough to accurately tally all frames. Even if that is true or not, at some point in time during the test I should see identical frames, but I do not.


----------



## gg_Malkavian

I tried it but It won't show any average fps when the test is over... what am I doing wrong? (BTW, b4 starting it it said that I was lacking a .cfg file or something... is it why?)


----------



## lordikon

wow, lotta results coming in, everything should be updated for now.


----------



## Chozart

DX9, 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High









DX9, 2048x1536, No AA, Game Quality: High (just so I have a category all by myself







)


----------



## Ihatethedukes

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NCspecV81* 
I guess I'll just have to do my own logs with fraps. By what you are describing anyways makes this tool inaccurate if it's unable to refresh fast enough to accurately tally all frames. Even if that is true or not, at some point in time during the test I should see identical frames, but I do not.

Just because it doesn't visibly refresh, doesn't mean it's not recording that quickly. And, to be honest, we can't really tell until we get a good objective benchmark with something like FRAPS. I tried, but can't get FRAPS to record the bench in x64 Vista. No, you shouldn't, unless you can pick one frame out in 60-100. Which I don't believe you can. Maybe make a FRAPS recording (which will destroy performance and make this much harder) and update fram e by frame and HOPE that one frame just happens to be the one that both update at the same time. Which is really really hard to do. It's like trying to make three bullets going different speeds hit each other at the same time in space.


----------



## {core2duo}werd

Quote:


Originally Posted by *secretsexyninja* 
so i just got the top score for the 1680x1050 dx9 and dx10

Run #1- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 72.255

Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 65.47

did i really beat the guy with TWO of these 9800gx2s??

mind letting us in on your secret? lol and my 1280 *1024 tests were done with one gx2


----------



## ElMikeTheMike

If there's one thing to take away from this thread, its that Crysis is seriously optimized for nVidia cards.


----------



## Ihatethedukes

Indeed, however I can't duplicate Mikethelmikes' 4xAA 1680x1050 DX10 run.... we all know ATI AA ... well... sucks. That's why I was forced to abandon my beloved 3870s. The only possible explanation is that CPU is slower... which makes NO sense as the set up is GPU heavy.

E8400 @ 3.15GHz 2 x G92 GTS @ 774/1998/2202

EDIT: updated scores.
69.015









29.06 vhigh 1900x1200 DX10








60.775 high DX9 1680x1050


----------



## iggster




----------



## kkbob33

well i got a new benchy for the list.



48.025 fps - DX10

this pair of 9600gt added about 10 frames over a single 8800gt. not too bad for 300 bucks worth of cards and a e6300


----------



## tat2monsta

my cards aint stock


----------



## brettjv

NINJA:

Are you *sure* you achieved that score with your CPU only set at 3.8GHz?

Frankly, according to my research, that doesn't seem possible. Might someone have made a reporting error, either you or Lord? I would think such a score would require having your proc at about 4.25.

If I am incorrect, can you tell me what your FSB*Multi are set at, and your mem timings? Cause dude, you have one screaming fast platform on your hands there somehow...


----------



## secretsexyninja

Yeah man, 3.83ghz. mem is stock. I even played the game a while today and was getting a consistent 50+fps at 1920x1200 in dx9 the whole time. Dropped to like 40 once. And what do you mean by a reporting error? Unless the app is wrong. Go back to page 31 for "proof" in the pictures. lord posted what he saw in the screens

@ {core2duo}werd And i have no idea what i did to get that. Really couldnt believe it myself. Some spots i would see 110+ fps? Maybe that helped? And why dont you redo with while running the dual gx2s??? thatd probably be pretty sick!









im going to play the game at the 1280 res and see what im getting


----------



## Ihatethedukes

I get 110+ in some spots... that doesn't mean anything.


----------



## secretsexyninja

Then i guess that helps me. If you're getting high boosts too, then it didn't warp my avg of 86 on the test. In fact i ran it three different times at those settings. The one I posted was the lowest (by like .3 i forgot to take pics of the others) .

So i just spent some time playing it (actual in game) at 1280x1024 with 2xAA on... never dipped below 65fps for 30+ minutes. Anyone want me to test specific areas?

I bumped it up and am now running it at 1680x1050 2xAA and its steadily running at 65fps. Saw it drop once to 45. btw, crysis scales GREAT, resolution wise. Im not going to be playing at 1920x1200 anymore. Ill be playing at 1680x1050 with 2xaa on. 4xaa did make it dip to low 30s and below.


----------



## Ihatethedukes

I think you've got something seriously wrong in your drivers.... like it's not rendering something. There's no way you can run the same settings as I and get 20FPS more average.


----------



## secretsexyninja

Hmm, well i AM running dx9 mind you. dx10 can really kill performance. you all know this. And when I JUST played the game (info in my previous post) i ran a custom config (this was all after my benches of course). Pretty much puts everything to very high in dx9. I love the way it looks.

http://www.crymod.com/filebase.php?fileid=491

So maybe thats why there was the "impossible 20fps boost" over you dukes. Plus I have twice the memory you have and a better GPU. Also whats your e8400 clocked at?

On one level if I was even remotely concerned with everyone else's opinion I might actually care that people "don't believe" me. buuut, I really don't. haha. It runs amazingly well and like butter (on the res's I just mentioned) after stepping up from the g92 8800gts. On that card I could definitely feel serious jitters, esp in cut scenes. Not so with my new one.

If some of you honestly can't believe it and think something is wrong with my computer, then sure, let me know what to check and ill run the checks. Might as well, I have nothing to lose and I don't want everyone getting worked up over my score. Either way, I've never seen it this smooth while playing. I'm pretty excited.


----------



## Tirabytes

Q6600 B3 @ 3.0ghz
XFX XXX 8800GTX Stock Clocks









*65.97fps MAX*
*43.695fps AVG*


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:


Originally Posted by *secretsexyninja* 
Hmm, well i AM running dx9 mind you. dx10 can really kill performance. you all know this. And when I JUST played the game (info in my previous post) i ran a custom config (this was all after my benches of course). Pretty much puts everything to very high in dx9. I love the way it looks.

http://www.crymod.com/filebase.php?fileid=491

So maybe thats why there was the "impossible 20fps boost" over you dukes. Plus I have twice the memory you have and a better GPU. Also whats your e8400 clocked at?

On one level if I was even remotely concerned with everyone else's opinion I might actually care that people "don't believe" me. buuut, I really don't. haha. It runs amazingly well and like butter (on the res's I just mentioned) after stepping up from the g92 8800gts. On that card I could definitely feel serious jitters, esp in cut scenes. Not so with my new one.

If some of you honestly can't believe it and think something is wrong with my computer, then sure, let me know what to check and ill run the checks. Might as well, I have nothing to lose and I don't want everyone getting worked up over my score. Either way, I've never seen it this smooth while playing. I'm pretty excited.


well i believe ya







with 2 9600gt the game runs really smooth for me so i could see 2 8800gt running even better. i just upgraded from a single 8800gt and these 2 cards are far better regarding smooth fps.


----------



## {core2duo}werd

here's an updated to my 1680*1050 high quality dx9 run, it's a little better, but not all that much.
this was with two 9800GX2's


----------



## secretsexyninja

only 3+ frames? are your cards OCed? Id think youd definitely be able to beat my score with 4 gpus running at once. weird


----------



## Ihatethedukes

Hence why only half the people actually believe your score.


----------



## {core2duo}werd

here's a little better with only one GX2, i don't know why a single card is better than two.


----------



## secretsexyninja

um, i was saying that HIS two scores only showed a +3 fps with 4 gpus versus when he ran it with 2 gpus. I was saying that that was weird. Now he has it running faster on one 9800gx2 than he did when he ran two.

so how does that make my score "less believable" ? lol

btw, i have no idea werd....... maybe newer drivers will help as the current ones are still not optimal for the 9800gx2


----------



## Ihatethedukes

Quote:



Originally Posted by *secretsexyninja*


um, i was saying that HIS two scores only showed a +3 fps with 4 gpus versus when he ran it with 2 gpus. I was saying that that was weird. Now he has it running faster on one 9800gx2 than he did when he ran two.

so how does that make my score "less believable" ? lol

btw, i have no idea werd....... maybe newer drivers will help as the current ones are still not optimal for the 9800gx2


Yes, as I'm running way higher clocks on SLI GTS g92s (same thing as your card) and cannot approach your score. By the SLI bar the CPU bottleneck is very small and only in two patches where there are a lot of AI so that really doesn't provide a good enough explanation fr 20FPS difference. And no one else can reproduce anywhere near your results. The type of argument I just used pulled down Kinq's world record benchmarks a while back (since beaten a few times anyhow) so, until I see some kind of explanation your results are suspect. No, I'm nor accusing you of malicious cheating. I say something is 'off' with your setup whether it be purposeful or no.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ihatethedukes* 
Yes, as I'm running way higher clocks on SLI GTS g92s (same thing as your card) and cannot approach your score. By the SLI bar the CPU bottleneck is very small and only in two patches where there are a lot of AI so that really doesn't provide a good enough explanation fr 20FPS difference. And no one else can reproduce anywhere near your results. The type of argument I just used pulled down Kinq's world record benchmarks a while back (since beaten a few times anyhow) so, until I see some kind of explanation your results are suspect. No, I'm nor accusing you of malicious cheating. I say something is 'off' with your setup whether it be purposeful or no.

It has been proven in other scores that a single 9800GX2 performs much better than 2 8800GTS 512s, in Crysis at least. All 9800GX2 scores, in all resolution/settings have beaten mine as well, even with my high OC.

Everyone should be updated soon. And please, *everyone remember* to include screenshots of GPU-Z and CPU-Z if you want your OCs listed, and to run at the settings listed in the first post. I can't keep a table for every resolution and setting, I do have a life you know.


----------



## Ihatethedukes

Show me? Where has it been proven? And if so, why hasn't any of the other gx2s come close?


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ihatethedukes*


Show me? Where has it been proven? And if so, why hasn't any of the other gx2s come close?


Ok, In the 1280x1040 DX9 results alone:
Ranks #1, #4, #5, and #7 are all higher than any SLI'd 8800GTS 512s.

In the DX10 section:
Ranks #1 and #3 are higher than any SLI'd 8800GTS 512s.

In 1680x1050:
Ranks #1 and #2 are higher than any SLI'd 8800GTS 512s.

The 9800GX2 isn't just 2 8800GTS 512s slapped together. It has a better PCB, and a newer revision of the G92. The card really doesn't show much benefit over the 8800 G92's in SLI in many games, but Crysis is definitely one example of where it can shine.


----------



## Ihatethedukes

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
Ok, In the 1280x1040 DX9 results alone:
Ranks #1, #4, #5, and #7 are all higher than any SLI'd 8800GTS 512s.

In the DX10 section:
Ranks #1 and #3 are higher than any SLI'd 8800GTS 512s.

In 1680x1050:
Ranks #1 and #2 are higher than any SLI'd 8800GTS 512s.

The 9800GX2 isn't just 2 8800GTS 512s slapped together. It has a better PCB, and a newer revision of the G92. The card really doesn't show much benefit over the 8800 G92's in SLI in many games, but Crysis is definitely one example of where it can shine.

Did you notice there are (more than) twice as many gx2s on the list than sli gts, and in some tests were beaten by myself? Did you also happen to note that my DC CPU is only at 3.15GHz versus their 3.8+...(however I can tell it'll only push another 5-6FPS max).

Most importantly, even the OTHER gx2s can't replicate anywhere NEAR this guys performance? Come on...


----------



## {core2duo}werd

hey, i'm not sure but i think you may have missed this run


----------



## sgtdisturbed47

Here's my results: 55.45 average FPS on a 9800 GX2.










It's so annoying having my crappy CPU bottlenecking my 9800 GX2. I see those with E8400's getting much better framerates than I am, and it's no wonder why. Jeez, this E6300 needs to go. I need to get an E8400 like now.


----------



## 2Luke2

Hope no one but who this is intended for takes offense, but most likely you have tweaked your game files trying to get it to play when you had a crappy computer or graphics card. Meaning your 'HIGH' mode is really mostly medium and low settings, but still looks good to you. Now it's turned into a pissing contest on who can tweak(altering game settings) it the furthest and still not be called a liar...

Maybe if I get time i'll show you what I mean and change all my very high settings to very low settings and run 100fps... It's not hard it's on almost every Crysis tweaking guide.


----------



## {core2duo}werd

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2Luke2* 
Hope no one but who this is intended for takes offense, but most likely you have tweaked your game files trying to get it to play when you had a crappy computer or graphics card. Meaning your 'HIGH' mode is really mostly medium and low settings, but still looks good to you. Now it's turned into a pissing contest on who can tweak(altering game settings) it the furthest and still not be called a liar...

Maybe if I get time i'll show you what I mean and change all my very high settings to very low settings and run 100fps... It's not hard it's on almost every Crysis tweaking guide.

agreed, i once saw this glitch that made all the vegetation not be rendered and that made my 9600GT get around 100FPS. are you talking about the tweaks like the one which made some of the very high settings run in dx9, but in reverse? it would make it run at low settings when the game is set at high?


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *{core2duo}werd*


agreed, i once saw this glitch that made all the vegetation not be rendered and that made my 9600GT get around 100FPS. are you talking about the tweaks like the one which made some of the very high settings run in dx9, but in reverse? it would make it run at low settings when the game is set at high?


Meaning that even though my game says it's at Very high settings they are really the low settings. I guess the same thing could be done a lot easier by just photochopping the Crysis benchmark tool.

Honestly though some people might have done tweaks they read on some boards somewhere and don't even know what they actually do. So they aren't aware that they are getting false scores.

Hell I had to crank the crap outa my rig and then end every process including explorer.exe to hit 70... So it's kind of odd to see someone get 15 more with less cpu Mhz and less gpus.


----------



## PizzaMan

This thread just got owned!!!

This benchmark list is crap. This benchmark is only good for those testing to see if there OC is gaining any proformance not for who's setup is the fastest. This benchmarking list has more flaws then any comparison I've seen for comparing comps.

heh, the config files only take about 5 mins to edit all settings.

On a side note I've heard that Crysis is setup to look even better in the future. This makes me wonder if some of the values can acually be set higher and render more. Time is just to limited for me to play around with this. I hope someone does.


----------



## secretsexyninja

Quote:



Hope no one but who this is intended for takes offense, but most likely you have tweaked your game files trying to get it to play when you had a crappy computer or graphics card. Meaning your 'HIGH' mode is really mostly medium and low settings, but still looks good to you. Now it's turned into a pissing contest on who can tweak(altering game settings) it the furthest and still not be called a liar...

Maybe if I get time i'll show you what I mean and change all my very high settings to very low settings and run 100fps... It's not hard it's on almost every Crysis tweaking guide.


Definitely not offended as you totally missed the part where I said that I ran the benchmark tests prior to applying any game tweaks. I do think its funny that you think I SHOULD take offense (if its intended for me). I really don't care what you think. To me, you're just some random unimportant person on the web.

Soooo, I know its a PAAINN in the ass to read the previous 3-4 pages of posts, but you look like a fool when you just jump to conclusions. Don't worry, I've done it before myself. Hey, if you'd read the thread, then you wouldn't have the wasted space... and your / my time.

This is all assuming you are referring to me.


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *secretsexyninja*


Definitely not offended as you totally missed the part where I said that I ran the benchmark tests prior to applying any game tweaks. I do think its funny that you think I SHOULD take offense (if its intended for me). I really don't care what you think. To me, you're just some random unimportant person on the web.

Soooo, I know its a PAAINN in the ass to read the previous 3-4 pages of posts, but you look like a fool when you just jump to conclusions. Don't worry, I've done it before myself. Hey, if you'd read the thread, then you wouldn't have the wasted space... and your / my time.

This is all assuming you are referring to me.










Nope no idea who you are sorry.

Edit: Though now that I do look at your scores I would call the scores falsified, and since you did take the time to type out two paragraphs for me I would think you consider me a bit more important than you imply.


----------



## kkbob33

yeah, when i ran my bench i just turned my config off. my config adds effects though(light rays, god rays) so i would of got a worse score than standard high because of it.

flasifing benching scores to boost da e-peen is silly. i llook at this thread as a way to judge what you should expect if you were running a similar rig to one on the list.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2Luke2* 
Nope no idea who you are sorry.

Edit: Though now that I do look at your scores I would call the scores falsified, and since you did take the time to type out two paragraphs for me I would think you consider me a bit more important than you imply.


LMAO


----------



## pioneerisloud

Alright, I'm temporarily subscribing to this thread. I'll be getting my new card sometime today, and will be reformatting....and I bought Crysis. So I will run these benchmarks once its all up and going







. We'll just see how well a 939 rig can do I suppose! I'll even include GPUz and CPUz screenies as well (on the same screenshot).


----------



## porky

This a good score???

http://img377.imageshack.us/my.php?i...7631580ol9.jpg


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *porky*


This a good score???

http://img377.imageshack.us/my.php?i...7631580ol9.jpg


Not sure porky I don't know if anyone was looking at very high.


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *porky*


This a good score???

http://img377.imageshack.us/my.php?i...7631580ol9.jpg


well, it not really playable at those rates









give it a go at high settings


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ihatethedukes* 
Did you notice there are (more than) twice as many gx2s on the list than sli gts, and in some tests were beaten by myself? Did you also happen to note that my DC CPU is only at 3.15GHz versus their 3.8+...(however I can tell it'll only push another 5-6FPS max).

Most importantly, even the OTHER gx2s can't replicate anywhere NEAR this guys performance? Come on...

Yea, I also noticed your scores, at slower speeds, beat mine by quite a bit as well.

I'm curious where all the 9800GX2s are below you. I see one in the DX9 1280x1024 and one in the DX10 1680x1050. The one in the DX10 thread was recorded on beta drivers, and one in the DX9 thread was put up just minutes ago, and has some issues with it, as you'll see below. The 9800GX2 is really nothing spectacular in comparison to 2 8800GTS 512s, but it is certainly seems to be better in Crysis.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sgtdisturbed47* 
Here's my results: 55.45 average FPS on a 9800 GX2.










It's so annoying having my crappy CPU bottlenecking my 9800 GX2. I see those with E8400's getting much better framerates than I am, and it's no wonder why. Jeez, this E6300 needs to go. I need to get an E8400 like now.

1.9v!!!! On a 6300? What....in....the....hell? I haven't seen 1.9v on a CPU in at least 5-6 years, other than some phase cooled stuff. And only 3.1Ghz? Something is not right about that.

The base benchmark on this thread shouldn't be bottlenecked much by CPU.

---------------------------

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PizzaMan* 
This thread just got owned!!!

This benchmark list is crap. This benchmark is only good for those testing to see if there OC is gaining any proformance not for who's setup is the fastest. This benchmarking list has more flaws then any comparison I've seen for comparing comps.

heh, the config files only take about 5 mins to edit all settings.

On a side note I've heard that Crysis is setup to look even better in the future. This makes me wonder if some of the values can acually be set higher and render more. Time is just to limited for me to play around with this. I hope someone does.

Wow, it's a good thing it is only a list of numbers, on a single thread, on a single forum, on the internet....

I don't give two-****s if people want to tweak their numbers. They know who they are, they know it isn't legit, they know they wouldn't play at those settings, and they know that while they have the high number/rank in a thread on OCN, the rest of us will be playing at normal settings, and getting a good framerate.

The list is meant to be a comparison. Even if 10% of the results are BS, you get the general idea that a faster CPU helps slightly, and the 9800s are in fact better than 8800s at Crysis, and that nVidia's cards are highly favor by Crysis. Take what you want from this thread, it is only a set of information, there is no reward for first place, except maybe some geeky bragging rights to your LAN-party buddies.

Updates will be up soon, and every few days. You guys have fun tweaking your numbers, I'll be busy programming video games.









Oh, and no, I'm not angry.....it's the internet, and this is only a benchmark.


----------



## porky

Heres my new score: DX10

The Bottom one is DX9


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
Yea, I also noticed your scores, at slower speeds, beat mine by quite a bit as well.

I'm curious where all the 9800GX2s are below you. I see one in the DX9 1280x1024 and one in the DX10 1680x1050. The one in the DX10 thread was recorded on beta drivers, and one in the DX9 thread was put up just minutes ago, and has some issues with it, as you'll see below. The 9800GX2 is really nothing spectacular in comparison to 2 8800GTS 512s, but it is certainly seems to be better in Crysis.

1.9v!!!! On a 6300? What....in....the....hell? I haven't seen 1.9v on a CPU in at least 5-6 years, other than some phase cooled stuff. And only 3.1Ghz? Something is not right about that.

The base benchmark on this thread shouldn't be bottlenecked much by CPU.

---------------------------

Wow, it's a good thing it is only a list of numbers, on a single thread, on a single forum, on the internet....

I don't give two-****s if people want to tweak their numbers. They know who they are, they know it isn't legit, they know they wouldn't play at those settings, and they know that while they have the high number/rank in a thread on OCN, the rest of us will be playing at normal settings, and getting a good framerate.

The list is meant to be a comparison. Even if 10% of the results are BS, you get the general idea that a faster CPU helps slightly, and the 9800s are in fact better than 8800s at Crysis, and that nVidia's cards are highly favor by Crysis. Take what you want from this thread, it is only a set of information, there is no reward for first place, except maybe some geeky bragging rights to your LAN-party buddies.

Updates will be up soon, and every few days. You guys have fun tweaking your numbers, I'll be busy programming video games.









Oh, and no, I'm not angry.....it's the internet, and this is only a benchmark.


Hey Lordikon I almost forgot to say that I meant nothing against you, and I also appreciate the time you spend keeping the list updated.

Not sure who said there was a small difference in FPS, but...there was a difference of over 20fps from my q6600(B3) at 3.4 to my e8400 at 4.0.


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *porky*


Heres my new score: DX10

The Bottom one is DX9



wow 9600gt in sli really wooped a single 9800gtx. i didnt think it would be by that much


----------



## porky

heres at a resolution of 1920*1080


----------



## sgtdisturbed47

I'm about to find out just how far the E6300 was holding me back.

I can accept 4th place lol (on XP SP2):


----------



## pioneerisloud

Alright I've got 4 entries. I will be doing more on Friday, but these are good enough for me, so I won't be reposting again.

OFFICIAL DX9 scoring (according to the rules):









OFFICIAL DX10 scoring (according to the rules):









Custom 1400x960 run, all high settings (closest to my native res of 1440x900):









Custom 1920x1080 run, all high settings, windowed (ran for DesertRat here at OCN):


----------



## shawnjo

http://img210.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ingle98ed8.png
Here's mine, hope you can see it..


----------



## archimedes916

I'm getting really low benchmarks with my two 9800GTX SLi'd. I think the reason might be becuase I haven't oc'd anything yet and my E8400 is running at 3.0Ghz. But shouldn't I still be getting way over 12,000 with these things?


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *archimedes916*


I'm getting really low benchmarks with my two 9800GTX SLi'd. I think the reason might be becuase I haven't oc'd anything yet and my E8400 is running at 3.0Ghz. But shouldn't I still be getting way over 12,000 with these things?


are you talking about 3dmar06? if so, this is the crysis bench thread







. 12000 on 2 9800gtx is horrible in 3dmark06. im getting over 16k with 2 9600gt 740/975,Q6600 3.6Ghz(granted, the quad scores better in 3dmark). if you oc the proc and gcards you should be able to get _at least _15k i would think. also, sli is probably not enabled.


----------



## sgtdisturbed47

Quote:



Originally Posted by *archimedes916*


I'm getting really low benchmarks with my two 9800GTX SLi'd. I think the reason might be becuase I haven't oc'd anything yet and my E8400 is running at 3.0Ghz. But shouldn't I still be getting way over 12,000 with these things?


OC the vid cards and push the E8400 to 3.8 GHz.


----------



## deadmeat

here are my results


----------



## porky

Deadmeat!! hya m8.....when we playin bf2 again!!!







..pork-chop here


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *archimedes916*


I'm getting really low benchmarks with my two 9800GTX SLi'd. I think the reason might be becuase I haven't oc'd anything yet and my E8400 is running at 3.0Ghz. But shouldn't I still be getting way over 12,000 with these things?


If you're talking about 3DMark06 score, then yes that score is pretty low.

With my e8400 and 2 8800GTS G92s all at stock I get around 14,300.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sgtdisturbed47*


I'm about to find out just how far the E6300 was holding me back.

I can accept 4th place lol (on XP SP2):


I'm curious why you're using 1.69v on the e8400 to reach a speed that is easily reachable at around 1.32-1.34. You should also be aware that e8400's have been known to fry themselves easily above 1.36v, using 1.69v on that thing is suicide. I'm seriously hoping you have some insane form of phase cooling on it, or it is a voltage reading error. Even with phase cooling, at that voltage you'd better be past 5.0Ghz.

EDIT: Everyone should be updated as well.


----------



## lordikon

I've added 2 final categories for the very high-end users.

1680x1050 at VERY HIGH resolution, and
1900x1200 at VERY HIGH resolution.

These are at NO AA settings because many current high-end cards are having issues with them.

Please PM me with a link to your results if you've already posted them for this category, I'm too lazy/busy to go through 38 pages of posts to find them.


----------



## porky

1920*1080

http://www.overclock.net/attachments...d-untitled.jpg


----------



## Litlratt

86.66 QX9650 @ 4050 OCZDDR3 @1800 GX2s at stock Vista64 dx9 1280 x 1024



Larger pic in gallery.


----------



## Litlratt

84.765 QX9650 @ 4050 OCZ DDR3 @ 1800 GX2s at stock Vista64 dx10 1280 x 1024



Larger pic in gallery.


----------



## Litlratt

76.275 1680 x 1050 dx9 
QX9650 @ 4050 OCZ DDR3 @ 1800 GX2s @ stock Vista64



Larger pic in gallery.


----------



## Litlratt

73.06 DX10 1680 X 1050
QX9650 @ 4050 OCZ DDR3 @ 1800 GX2s @ stock Vista64



Larger pic in gallery.


----------



## Litlratt

55.27 DX10 1680 x 1050 Very High
QX9650 @ 4050 OCZ DDR3 @ 1800 GX2s @ stock Vista64
Mem=2323 at this setting in test



Larger pic in gallery.


----------



## kkbob33

wow it must be nice running VH!!!! im jealous


----------



## Litlratt

45.425 1920 x 1200 DX10 Very High
QX9650 @ 4050 OCZ DDR3 @ 1800 GX2s @ stock Vista64
Mem=2460 at this setting in test.



Larger pic in gallery.


----------



## Litlratt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kkbob33*


wow it must be nice running VH!!!! im jealous










Thx k, the cards are running well since I figured out that I had a bad seat on the bottom one.


----------



## Litlratt

62.24 1680 x 1050 dx9 4xaa
QX9650 @ 4050 OCZ DDR3 @ 1800 GX2s @ stock Vista64
Mem=2900+ at this setting in test



Larger pic in gallery.


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

I am just curious guys. Some of you have similar setup of system and OS however, you guys get different FPS? why? I am also comparing yours to various other benchmarks which were done by so called "authentic" benchmarks. Could some one answer this question please. I am dying to play crysis.


----------



## Litlratt

31.68 dx10 1680 x 1050 4xaa Vista 64
QX9650 @ 4050 OCZ DDR3 @ 1800 GX2s @ stock



Larger pic in gallery.


----------



## Litlratt

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HowHardCanItBe*
I am just curious guys. Some of you have similar setup of system and OS however, you guys get different FPS? why? I am also comparing yours to various other benchmarks which were done by so called "authentic" benchmarks. Could some one answer this question please. I am dying to play crysis.


All systems are different no matter what the specs.


----------



## porky

its like a finger print...you can have two "identical" systems...and they will be different


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HowHardCanItBe*
I am just curious guys. Some of you have similar setup of system and OS however, you guys get different FPS? why? I am also comparing yours to various other benchmarks which were done by so called "authentic" benchmarks. Could some one answer this question please. I am dying to play crysis.


Different drivers, motherboards, ram timings, etc...

Also, some people have been tweaking their performance settings for their video card so that they can force the game to actually run at a lower quality during benchmarks, giving them false high scores. That is the nature of competition however, there will always be those that want to exploit the system. Unfortunately since I didn't create the benchmark, I have no way to validate which ones are doing this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *porky* 
1920*1080


Could you please post in 16:10 format, as that is the standard monitor resolution. Moreso just because there is no 16:9 category.







Thanks.


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
Different drivers, motherboards, ram timings, etc...

Also, some people have been tweaking their performance settings for their video card so that they can force the game to actually run at a lower quality during benchmarks, giving them false high scores. That is the nature of competition however, there will always be those that want to exploit the system. Unfortunately since I didn't create the benchmark, I have no way to validate which ones are doing this.

Quoted for truth ;P ....


----------



## lordikon

Also, Litlratt updated, 1st place on every single category......freak!

Anyway, nice scores, I'm jealous. And also too poor for that system


----------



## Litlratt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Also, Litlratt updated, 1st place on every single category......freak!

Anyway, nice scores, I'm jealous. And also too poor for that system










Thx lord.
For informational purposes only....those scores were with a clean installation of Vista Basic 64. NO Windows updates except for DirectX. Only tweaks were in Nvidia Control Panel.


----------



## porky

i think ur cheating...injecting steriods into the water cooling system and feeding them to your pc!


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Sorry for offtopic, i have a little problem, when i enter crysis i have this error...sent / don't sent....AppName: crysis.exe AppVer: 1.1.1.5879 ModName: msvcr80.dll
ModVer: 8.0.50727.1433 Offset: 000127da

i need this dll or that?







....sorry for my bad english...


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Different drivers, motherboards, ram timings, etc...

Also, some people have been tweaking their performance settings for their video card so that they can force the game to actually run at a lower quality during benchmarks, giving them false high scores. That is the nature of competition however, there will always be those that want to exploit the system. Unfortunately since I didn't create the benchmark, I have no way to validate which ones are doing this.

Could you please post in 16:10 format, as that is the standard monitor resolution. Moreso just because there is no 16:9 category.







Thanks.


okay thanks very much







.
rep+
Should I go 8800gt single or 9600gt SLied?


----------



## HowHardCanItBe

Quote:



Originally Posted by *So3oL4Nu*


Sorry for offtopic, i have a little problem, when i enter crysis i have this error...sent / don't sent....AppName: crysis.exe AppVer: 1.1.1.5879 ModName: msvcr80.dll
ModVer: 8.0.50727.1433 Offset: 000127da

i need this dll or that?







....sorry for my bad english...


drivers/screwed up OS. if you could be more descriptive then we could probably help you.


----------



## RAFFY

I need some help here. i was using crysis benchmark in xp 32bit no problem. now that im using vista 64bit when i go to benchmark crysis it loads up the game no problem but it starts the benchmarking as if im playing the game. like i have to press "any key" to start the first mission and jump out of the plain in to the water. where b4 in xp it would do the auto control and fly around the beach during the day where mine is at night. how is this happening?


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RAFFY* 
I need some help here. i was using crysis benchmark in xp 32bit no problem. now that im using vista 64bit when i go to benchmark crysis it loads up the game no problem but it starts the benchmarking as if im playing the game. like i have to press "any key" to start the first mission and jump out of the plain in to the water. where b4 in xp it would do the auto control and fly around the beach during the day where mine is at night. how is this happening?

I believe you need to run the benchmark in administrator mode. Right click on the icon and you'll see it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aakar* 
okay thanks very much







.
rep+
Should I go 8800gt single or 9600gt SLied?

9600gt SLIed with likely yield higher performace if you can OC them well. However, non SLI means you can do things like dual-monitor, and certain games don't cooperate well with SLI. Even though I have an SLI setup that I like, occasionally I wish I had just a single powerful card.


----------



## RAFFY

*1280x1024 DX10 64Bit High Settings*
4/22/2008 10:01:04 AM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 53.92s, Average FPS: 37.09
Min FPS: 18.46 at frame 144, Max FPS: 55.65 at frame 985
Average Tri/Sec: 36505248, Tri/Frame: 984186
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 43.25s, Average FPS: 46.24
Min FPS: 18.46 at frame 144, Max FPS: 57.32 at frame 85
Average Tri/Sec: 46021336, Tri/Frame: 995293
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 43.40s, Average FPS: 46.09
Min FPS: 18.46 at frame 144, Max FPS: 57.91 at frame 1005
Average Tri/Sec: 45910936, Tri/Frame: 996194
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

4/22/2008 10:01:04 AM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall *Average FPS: 46.165*

*1280x1024 DX10 32Bit High Settings*

4/22/2008 10:06:31 AM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 50.69s, Average FPS: 39.46
Min FPS: 23.48 at frame 158, Max FPS: 54.28 at frame 971
Average Tri/Sec: 38858016, Tri/Frame: 984820
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 42.75s, Average FPS: 46.78
Min FPS: 23.48 at frame 158, Max FPS: 57.52 at frame 1011
Average Tri/Sec: 46593780, Tri/Frame: 995919
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 42.04s, Average FPS: 47.58
Min FPS: 23.48 at frame 158, Max FPS: 57.63 at frame 84
Average Tri/Sec: 47384140, Tri/Frame: 995942
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

4/22/2008 10:06:31 AM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall *Average FPS: 47.18*
*
1280x1024 DX9 32Bit High Settings*

4/22/2008 10:11:49 AM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 48.11s, Average FPS: 41.57
Min FPS: 22.66 at frame 158, Max FPS: 62.35 at frame 1010
Average Tri/Sec: 40907644, Tri/Frame: 984121
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 38.84s, Average FPS: 51.49
Min FPS: 22.66 at frame 158, Max FPS: 62.35 at frame 1010
Average Tri/Sec: 51269676, Tri/Frame: 995670
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 38.66s, Average FPS: 51.74
Min FPS: 22.66 at frame 158, Max FPS: 62.35 at frame 1010
Average Tri/Sec: 51528432, Tri/Frame: 995945
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

4/22/2008 10:11:49 AM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall *Average FPS: 51.615*
*
1280x1024 DX9 64Bit High Settings*

4/22/2008 10:17:19 AM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 50.96s, Average FPS: 39.25
Min FPS: 14.91 at frame 139, Max FPS: 59.87 at frame 977
Average Tri/Sec: 38624680, Tri/Frame: 984173
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 38.51s, Average FPS: 51.93
Min FPS: 14.91 at frame 139, Max FPS: 59.87 at frame 977
Average Tri/Sec: 51700664, Tri/Frame: 995547
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 38.89s, Average FPS: 51.43
Min FPS: 14.91 at frame 139, Max FPS: 61.42 at frame 981
Average Tri/Sec: 51246868, Tri/Frame: 996436
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

4/22/2008 10:17:19 AM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall *Average FPS: 51.68*


----------



## lordikon

Raffy, we'll need some screenshots. They're fairly easy to take. Just hit the PrtScn button and then go into Paint or any photo editor, start a new image, and then click paste or CTRL+V. Then go to http://www.imageshack.us or use the image storage here at OCN, and post a link in your thread. Thanks.


----------



## porky

Lordikon...spotted a mistake :

01.) 86.66 fps -- Litlratt -- qx9650 @ 4.05 -- 2x 9800GX2 (4 GPUs), stock -- Vista 64

02.) 85.94 fps -- secretsexyninja -- e8400 @ 3.8 -- 9800GX2 (NO specs) -- Vista 64
03.) 80.74 fps -- nuclearjock -- qx9650 @ 3.8 -- 2x 8800GTXs, 621/1584/1000 -- Vista 64
04.) 80.28 fps -- {core2duo}werd -- e8400 @ 4.0 -- 9800GX2 (2 GPUs) -- Vista 64
05.) 55.45 fps -- sgtdisturbed47 -- e8400 @ 3.8 -- 9800GX2, 755/1887/1066 -- XP SP2 <-------------Mistake here
06.) 75.94 fps -- SergeRY -- e8400 @ 3.83 -- 2x 9800GTXs (2 GPUs) 891/2228/1229 -- XP SP2


----------



## lordikon

^^^ Thank you.


----------



## deadmeat

just playing around with setting in vista
dx10 1900x1200 no aa v high 44.93 fps
after settings in vista
dx10 1900x1200 no aa v high 45.24 fps

not to bad i think


----------



## lordikon

deadmeat updated. I'm not sure how litlratt will take be de-throned in one of his 8 1st place categories.


----------



## bon3crush2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
deadmeat updated. I'm not sure how litlratt will take be de-throned in one of his 8 1st place categories.









lordikon, can you pm me..


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bon3crush2*


lordikon, can you pm me..


I can.....but what would that do? Can you PM me...?

EDIT: Off to bed for the night right now anyhow, have to work early, need mah zzzz's.


----------



## bon3crush2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
I can.....but what would that do? Can you PM me...?

EDIT: Off to bed for the night right now anyhow, have to work early, need mah zzzz's.

edit: nvm I'll pm, it's working now


----------



## Litlratt

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
deadmeat updated. I'm not sure how litlratt will take be de-throned in one of his 8 1st place categories.









I may attempt to match cpu speed and try it again. Crysis seems to scale with everything you throw at it.


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
deadmeat updated. I'm not sure how litlratt will take be de-throned in one of his 8 1st place categories.









I have a few ideas... ;P


----------



## Litlratt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *2Luke2*


I have a few ideas... ;P


Please share them with us.
Up to this point, you appear to be the E.F. Hutton regarding tweaks, cheating, etc. in this thread.
Based on your previous posts, I would strongly suggest that you made more tweaks prior to running the benchmark than what I did.


----------



## deadmeat

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Litlratt* 
I may attempt to match cpu speed and try it again. Crysis seems to scale with everything you throw at it.

i am sorry litlratt








trying to see how far i can go before i blow something


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Litlratt* 
Please share them with us.
Up to this point, you appear to be the E.F. Hutton regarding tweaks, cheating, etc. in this thread.
Based on your previous posts, I would strongly suggest that you made more tweaks prior to running the benchmark than what I did.

Nah Lilratt I wasn't suggesting you did. As far as you or anyone else knows I did, but the only thing that really matters is I know I didn't because I like to contribute to the community and not hurt it. The reason I brought it up is because it was getting out of hand. On another note you can't honestly tell me you can look at that list and tell me some people arenâ€™t guilty of it. I'm just willing to call some of them out because some people actually like to see useful information/ comparisons for similar systems they might have or are planning to build.

So congrats on your efforts and again no offense was meant towards you my apologies if you felt that way.


----------



## bon3crush2

Here are my results:

*Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 60.54*



This is with my Q6600 at 3.9, SLI'd eVGA 9800GTX vanilla at 800/2001/2350 using XPSP2 32BIT


----------



## Litlratt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *deadmeat*


i am sorry litlratt








trying to see how far i can go before i blow something










No need to apologize for submitting a better score. I ran it at 4.5Ghz this morning......it didn't like it.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *2Luke2*


Nah Lilratt I wasn't suggesting you did. As far as you or anyone else knows I did, but the only thing that really matters is I know I didn't because I like to contribute to the community and not hurt it. The reason I brought it up is because it was getting out of hand. On another note you can't honestly tell me you can look at that list and tell me some people arenâ€™t guilty of it. I'm just willing to call some of them out because some people actually like to see useful information/ comparisons for similar systems they might have or are planning to build.

So congrats on your efforts and again no offense was meant towards you my apologies if you felt that way.


Apology accepted.
I agree that some of the submittals are questionable. If I get time, I'll disable QSLI tomorrow and post some results for comparison.


----------



## Litlratt

1280 X 1024 high DX9
Same settings as previously posted except that SP1 was installed and running 174.88 drivers.
85.535 fps.
With QSLI disabled 43.875 fps.


----------



## bon3crush2

litlratt, I hope you don't think mine's questionable...

Just wondering.. what would be the purpose of disabling QuadSLI? To show results for one card?


----------



## Litlratt

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bon3crush2* 
litlratt, I hope you don't think mine's questionable...

Just wondering.. what would be the purpose of disabling QuadSLI? To show results for one card?

No, I don't think yours are.
Yes, for comparison with other GX2 single card submittals.
I should have physically removed one card but I didn't want to do that since they are now working.
Nor did I try to force any alternate rendering.


----------



## bon3crush2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Litlratt*


No, I don't think yours are.
Yes, for comparison with other GX2 single card submittals.
I should have physically removed one card but I didn't want to do that since they are now working.
Nor did I try to force any alternate rendering.


Yeah, I wouldn't remove the card either, since disabling SLI would do the trick...

I wonder why you only averaged 43.875 fps with one card.

It's just a little odd since I avg 52.xxx with one 9800GTX.


----------



## wavester

Time for my ******ed question of the day (as if I had hair it would be pulled out). Running the new Crysis benchmark v1.2 - registered and everything. I cannot get it to save a log file and thus see what my actual numbers are. I'm using Vista64 and it's really beginning to piss me off (as it seems super simple yet it's not doing which means Vista is not letting it, I'm a ******, or most likely some combination of the two).
Thanks


----------



## Mhill2029

At the bottom of the Crysis Tool after your run, there is a Save Results tab.


----------



## wavester

Okay I'm not getting that save tab. So something is up. I'll have to dig more tonight. Thx


----------



## lordikon

bon3crush2 updated. Everyone should be up to date.


----------



## bon3crush2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wavester* 
Okay I'm not getting that save tab. So something is up. I'll have to dig more tonight. Thx

wave, try clicking "show last run" at the bottom of the results screen. It should read out your avg fps and stuff..


----------



## wavester

I'm not even getting a results screen. So that's part of the problem (test runs fine I believe even multiple times on multiple settings)


----------



## bon3crush2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wavester*


I'm not even getting a results screen. So that's part of the problem (test runs fine I believe even multiple times on multiple settings)


This is what I mean, just to clarify:










but you want it to be at 1280x1024 with no AA on high settings.


----------



## wavester

I was using Ver 1.2 and still get no bottom screen to show results much less save them.

So went back to the old version (the one you show in your screenshot) and while it worked fine in XP in Vista it keeps launching the game instead of actually running the benchmark. So once again I'm either a ****** (granted) or Vista is screwing with me.


----------



## NFF

q6600 @ 2.9ghz 3650 756/1512









i need to get a beter mobo so i can oc the q6600 more

temps not bad for a pasive card eh?


----------



## kkbob33

this game is more GPU bound so getting a newer card would boost the score higher than a higher cpu clock but......i would agree, grab the new MB first


----------



## NFF

i dont need a new card it plays crysis just fine im actualy geting 25+ in game with very high effects


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NFF*


i dont need a new card it plays crysis just fine im actualy geting 25+ in game with very high effects


Your screenshot says your ran the benchmark in custom, but your specific categories all say high. Did you select custom and then mark them all to high? I'll need you to re-run the benchmark at "high" setting for the screenshot. Sorry. Obviously this didn't cause you a high score, 11fps, but if I let this through others could run at low settings in "custom" and then change the categories to high individually after the benchmark finished.

Aside from the screenshot, I'd say 11fps at a medium/high resolution like 1280x1024 would indicate you should get a better card for Crysis. However, if you're getting 25fps+ at a setting you're happy with then it really isn't a big deal.


----------



## NFF

ah yess i shall do that. i do run everything on high/custom because i have the "natural" mod on it so i get my DX10 effects. thats what screw around with the "custom" thing.


----------



## NFF

q6600 @ 2.9ghz asus hd3650 silent @ stock 









ps im not a fps 1337ist 15fps is fine for me when it gets to uner 10 then its kinda hard to play.


----------



## kkbob33

well heres a new one with the latest vantage drivers,brought the core up to 760, and a quad oced to 3.6 this time(instead of a e6300 3.0)



this game doesn't seem to be very cpu dependent. in fact i think the cpu did very little and the bump in the graphics core is what really helped

....just speculation of course, no _real_ testing


----------



## lordikon

Added, and updated.


----------



## Litlratt

*DX10 1900x1200, Very-High Detail, NO AA: *46.26
Same as before but with overclocked cards. Larger pic in gallery.


----------



## Emmett

Rat, did you by chance run your bench with 175.12 driver??

Just curious because 175.12 for me was slower in crysis, (gonna retry 175.12 in a bit.)

Unless the GX2 drivers still need work?

But here is my 1900x1200 Very high with 174.74

EDIT: Nevermind, totally overlooked the DX10 part


----------



## Litlratt

The drivers used will be in GPU-Z.


----------



## lordikon

Litlratt updated....throne restored.


----------



## wiggy2k7

Please add me to the list...

DX9



DX10



Thanks


----------



## TheNorm

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 52.77

Q6600 G0 @ 3.6 (400x9) sync / single 9800GTX (770/1725/1150)

MSI P6N Platinum 650i mobo - XP32

System def has more in it, these are my 24/7 settings..
3dmark06 score 16320


----------



## mr_zukovsky

heres mine


----------



## rancor

Please add me to the list...

DX9


----------



## BTK

isnt crysis a game?


----------



## leimrod

add me to the list. I'm using the new 175.12 beta drivers

DX9 Results (Setup Type #1):
---- Avg. FPS ----- Username ------ CPU/Speed ------------- GPU/OC ------------ OS
----32.73 fps -- leimrod -- qx6700 @ 3.3Ghz -- 2x 8800GTX (2 GPUs), 640/1550/1030 -- Vista 64 Ultimate

DX10 Results (Setup Type #2):
---- Avg. FPS ----- Username ------ CPU/Speed ------------- GPU/OC ------------ OS
----53.625 fps -- leimrod -- qx6700 @ 3.3Ghz -- 2x 8800GTX (2 GPUs), 640/1550/1030 -- Vista 64 Ultimate

Weirdly i'm getting much higher DX10 scores than I am DX9?









I've attached the saved log files from the benchmark tool


----------



## lordikon

wiggy2k7 and Mr_zukovsky added.

Rancor, you were already on the list, and with a better fps than you just posted.









Others, I need screenshots. They're fairly easy, just hit the print screen button your keyboard, go to MS paint, paste the image, save it, upload it to www.imageshack.us, link to your post, done.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BTK*


isnt crysis a game?


Yes it is a game, but at its release, and even now it is one of the most graphically intensive games, making it good for benchmarking GPUs. The 1.05 benchmark was created by an individual, not EA, but it makes a for a decent benchmarking program.


----------



## mithrandir

Please add me on the DX9 list.
High: *24.51 fps*

Thank you


----------



## TheNorm

Please add me to the list now, here are my screens.. Q66 @ 3.6 sync 4-4-4-12 - 9800GTX @ 810/2025/1180 .. XP32 SP2 .. MSI P6N Platinum (650i)

54.185fps



Great thread btw, best way of benching todays fastest cards imo,..
Thanks - Norm


----------



## gamervivek

[email protected] 3870 stock cat8.4
dx9 xp32 1280x1024 34.465


dx9 xp32 1680x1050 27.18


----------



## Heavy Light 117

SLI 
Attachment 72875

No SLI 
Attachment 72876

DX9 Results (Setup Type #1):
q6600 @ 3.0Ghz -- 2x 8800GTS 320mb (2 GPUs), XP Pro 32bit, mobo P5n32e-sli 
avg fps in sli 44.35fps


----------



## Heavy Light 117

Double post but I'll just post my other desktop so you guys don't start hating on my lame xp desktop.


----------



## lordikon

Added 4 scores, everything should be updated.


----------



## wavester

Okay guys I need some help because this thing is pissing me off.

I have 1.05 - I have Crysis updated through patch 1.21

When I try to run the benchmark program it instead launches the actually game itself. Pops up August 7th and starts the starting movie clip. Lots of numbers on top of the screen with FPS and all that good stuff but it's not actually benchmarking anything.

Any ideas ? I've tried uninstall/reinstall on the game and nothing.

Thanks
Frustrated D


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wavester*


Okay guys I need some help because this thing is pissing me off.

I have 1.05 - I have Crysis updated through patch 1.21

When I try to run the benchmark program it instead launches the actually game itself. Pops up August 7th and starts the starting movie clip. Lots of numbers on top of the screen with FPS and all that good stuff but it's not actually benchmarking anything.

Any ideas ? I've tried uninstall/reinstall on the game and nothing.

Thanks
Frustrated D


My guess is you're running Vista. If that is the case, right click on the benchmark, and click "Run as Administrator".


----------



## wavester

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


My guess is you're running Vista. If that is the case, right click on the benchmark, and click "Run as Administrator".


Okay dude you get a cookie. What the hell kinda quirk is that. Guess I need to remember that for a bunch of different things now.

Dave


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wavester* 
Okay dude you get a cookie. What the hell kinda quirk is that. Guess I need to remember that for a bunch of different things now.

Dave

If you setup Vista right it will consider you the admin at all times and won't make you do things like that. It has been too long since I last did that though so I forgot how.


----------



## BenBrown

Here is my first attempt at this. Does not look very good...

Specs:

CPU @ 3.2, 3.2, 2.9, 3.1

Graphis @ 850/1297 (all three)


----------



## iggster

[email protected] vista ultimate 32 bit 780i and 1 9800gx2 (installing a second tommorow or saturday)
54.95fps
dx9









dx10
68.99


----------



## iggster

something is up with my dx9 runs...


----------



## 2Luke2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *iggster*


something is up with my dx9 runs...


Do you have your desktop at 640x480 reso?


----------



## iggster

Quote:


Originally Posted by *2Luke2* 
Do you have your desktop at 640x480 reso?

no I am at 14?0x900


----------



## 2Luke2

Just looked like it from your screenshots lol..


----------



## wiggy2k7

can you update my score please.. this is with the new NVIDIA drivers





Thanks


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Are the new drivers better than the old drivers ?...175.16 WHQL, is that the officialy release ?


----------



## wiggy2k7

Quote:



Originally Posted by *So3oL4Nu*


Are the new drivers better than the old drivers ?...175.16 WHQL, is that the officialy release ?










Yea i seem to get a bit better performance but they seem to crash my with my cuttent overclock so i tried 175.12 and it seems ok... whats that case like in ur sig, im thinking of getting it ???


----------



## So3oL4Nu

My case it's A+ Case Twin Engine, thats the name for Europe...for U.S.A it's Tagan or Xclio...the case it's verry good...good cooling and silent







....i have some pictures if you want to see the case in reallity







....GL&HF.

The new drivers improve my crysis gameplay with 0.5fps







...it's ok...


----------



## ImmortalKenny

*CPU-Z









GPU-Z








**
Setup Type #1*
*25.55 fps* -- ImmortalKenny -- e6420 @ 3.0 -- 8800GTS 320mb, 650/1450/950 -- Vista 64










*Setup Type #2
**16.84 fps* -- ImmortalKenny -- e6420 @ 3.0 -- 8800GTS 320mb, 650/1450/950 -- Vista 64










*DX9 1680x1050, High Detail, NO AA:
**20.15 fps* -- ImmortalKenny -- e6420 @ 3.0 -- 8800GTS 320mb, 650/1450/950 -- Vista 64










*DX10 1680x1050, High Detail, NO AA:
**13.50 fps* -- ImmortalKenny -- e6420 @ 3.0 -- 8800GTS 320mb, 650/1450/950 -- Vista 64










Meh, nothing impressive, just extremely bored right now.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ImmortalKenny* 
Meh, nothing impressive, just extremely bored right now.

That is cool though, most people won't post scores unless they're happy with them. But lower scores give us a wide range of scores for comparison. Thanks man.

Everyone else should be updated as well.


----------



## ImmortalKenny

Thanks lordikon


----------



## gamervivek

tried out with the new cat8.5,new scores








[email protected] [email protected]/1126 xp32

setup1,dx9 high

1280x1024 40.35fps


1680x1050 31.23fps


----------



## lordikon

gamervivek, updated.


----------



## dharmaBum

I'm sure no one cares anymore, but after a new chip and mobo, I got ~10fps on my bench!


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dharmaBum*


I'm sure no one cares anymore, but after a new chip and mobo, I got ~10fps on my bench!




wow, that's awesome! how does very high run for ya? could you bench that and post a pic so i can see??


----------



## 10acjed

53.79 FPS @ 1280x1024 NO AA All Settings High

The second screenie is my cpu/gpu/temps

The third is my Actual Crysis in game settings

1600x1200 NO AA Settings H/VH 42.xx FPS

& the forth is my GPU-Z screenie

Nice thread


----------



## kkbob33

If you could update my score i ran a bench in Vista 64 with the same hardware setup as before but got better results.










[email protected]
9600GT SLI 760/1000
Gskills 800mhz 5-4-4-13 1.9v


----------



## s0nniez

I know I'm kinda late... but oh well.


----------



## JTD92




----------



## iggster

little update,

qx9650
2 9800 gx2

dx10 run 75.275


----------



## iggster

so I just realized after doing a clean install of vista that I didnt update dx10 updated it in the morning and I'll try another run after work, and another run @ 4.2 might even switch OS to 64 bit.


----------



## [FDG]Explosion

*EDIT* Thats XP Pro SP3, liek in my Sig.


----------



## iggster

sweet I'm at 80 Fps with dx10 I will dosome more benching after work if I get a chance but I built a of for a friend and the mobo was DOA, Fry's returned items strike again


----------



## lordikon

Been about 10 days since an update, sorry guys, was out of town. Everyone should be updated again.


----------



## iggster

Quote:


Originally Posted by *iggster* 
something is up with my dx9 runs...

so can anyone help? I get about 45 fps running dx9 and about 80 running dx 10







I do only have 2 gigs of ram I dunno if thats the case?? or what else can it be?


----------



## kkbob33

my guess is the drivers

i get substantially less in dx9 mode in vista also.


----------



## gamepagol

test run on XP re-installation with all updates including SP3

DX9 All High No vSync No AAxAF Crysis v1.2.1

Res: 1280x1024

51.50 fps -- gamepagol -- q6600 @ 3.0-- 8800GTS 512, 780/1950/1020 -- XP SP3


----------



## sgtdisturbed47

Are the charts updated yet?


----------



## AndrewBEJ

- Windows Vista™ 64 Ultimate
- Forceware 175.12
- Q6600 @ 3.8Ghz
- Crysis 1.2.1

DX9 Mode : 81.60 FPS




DX10 Mode : 53.84 FPS


----------



## gamepagol

^ how did u score above *80fps* on a single card?







... did u run any custom settings or change anything or any driver tweak?


----------



## AndrewBEJ

I did a little bit driver tweak like high perfomance setting and trilinear optimization to get more speed.


----------



## GeforceGTS

I've been trying to hit 50FPS but it aint happening, i'm going to change drivers and do another run ;l


----------



## gamepagol

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AndrewBEJ* 
I did a little bit driver tweak like high perfomance setting and trilinear optimization to get more speed.

can u be a lit bit specific where do tweak the driver for high performance and trilinear optimization.... if its through nvidia control panel i tried also but can't get over 52fps in DX9 mode whereas urs is above 80 almost 30fps increase... also ur clocks r freaking higher i never push it on mine but sure can't go beyond 820/1050... volt mod or bios tweak???


----------



## wiggy2k7

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GeforceGTS*


I've been trying to hit 50FPS but it aint happening, i'm going to change drivers and do another run ;l




Thats strange... on the same settings as you but with my Q6600 @ 3.3GHz rather than 3.6GHz and my 8800GT rather than your 8800GTS(G92) i get 48FPS on DX9


----------



## gamepagol

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GeforceGTS* 
I've been trying to hit 50FPS but it aint happening, i'm going to change drivers and do another run ;l



yes something strange.... i test my gfx on other setup of Q6700 @ 3.4GHz... it scores around 55.80 FPS DX9 High in best quality mode and 56.50 FPS DX9 High performance mode... so a single GTS G92 at 3.6GHz and above can easily score almost near to any 88GT-SLI ... u might have driver issue... clean ur driver and try 175.16 which i found best so far for 88 series....


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gamepagol* 
yes something strange.... i test my gfx on other setup of Q6700 @ 3.4GHz... it scores around 55.80 FPS DX9 High in best quality mode and 56.50 FPS DX9 High performance mode... so a single GTS G92 at 3.6GHz and above can easily score almost near to any 88GT-SLI ... u might have driver issue... clean ur driver and try 175.16 which i found best so far for 88 series....

i found the game to really be graphics card bound. with my proc @ 3.0 i only lost one frame :\\


----------



## gamepagol

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kkbob33*


i found the game to really be graphics card bound. with my proc @ 3.0 i only lost one frame :


fo me its a lit bit better... @2.40 i could manage around 47FPS whereas @3.0Ghz i can get 51-52 FPS on same settings... its not by just a single run though i run it several times to get the best average results... so be specific for me a 25% CPU clock increase gimme around 8-10% better FPS in crysis... i know this is not the average scaling but u know its Crysis







... how far u go doesn't matter its always demand more


----------



## So3oL4Nu

WoW...over 80FPS...can you send me the options to tweak the drivers like you







...nice one...cya...


----------



## lonnie5000

Here's my SLI'd 8800GTS's G92 512mb cards. Both cards overclocked to 752/1916/2104. CPU at 3.42 Ghz. All benches run under Vista Ultimate 64.

First two are 1280x1024 res, High settings with NO AA.
DX9 = 63.505
DX10 = 60.445

Second two are 1680x1050 res, High settings with NO AA.
DX9 = 54.79
DX10 = 51.61

WooHoo!!


----------



## NCspecV81

DX9 - VeryHigh @ 1900x1200 w/ 16xQ AA










dx10 - VeryHigh @ 1900x1200 w/ 16xQ AA


----------



## lordikon

Those are some good results at such high settings NVSpec. You should make a run with AA turned off so I can post the results on the front page.


----------



## porky

here my new scores...but they seem very low....perhaps i need to format???


----------



## Ghostleader

Hi, hereÂ´s my score for the "Setup Type #1: DX9, 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High" and itÂ´s done with my GA-N680SLI-DQ6 Rig.

If itÂ´s not by the rules let me know.


----------



## CDMAN

Setup #1









4870 on Crysis with DX9 in vista 64

Setup 2









4870 on Crysis with DX10 in vista 64


----------



## gamepagol

@ CDMAN ..your scores are fine @ 3ghz

if i am not wrong your benchmark's Min FPS - 6.58 in DX9









whats the cause?


----------



## MaiHk

I love crysis, will submit results later on with a pumped GS


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CDMAN*


Setup #1









4870 on Crysis with DX9 in vista 64

Setup 2









4870 on Crysis with DX10 in vista 64



yup these 4870s seem to be performing bad in Crysis. I think its a driver issue.


----------



## Johnnyfive

I was expecting more from those cards as well.


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ghostleader*


Hi, hereÂ´s my score for the "Setup Type #1: DX9, 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High" and itÂ´s done with my GA-N680SLI-DQ6 Rig.

If itÂ´s not by the rules let me know.


6500fps, lol, you can't be serious. You may want to rerun that benchmark.

Scores Updated for everyone BTW.


----------



## mustkill

LOL... i will get like 10FPS.. im installing crysis now.. gonna post results soon


----------



## kkbob33

Alright, I have been benching these ATI 4870 cards and This game fares the worst for them outof all the other games i have played.

I had to run in dx9 mode becuase dx10 just crashes on me for some reason since my reformat.

*
Run #1- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 53.355*

compared to my old 9600GT Sli setup these card do quite well at 1680x1050. My SLI setup would only get high 30s on high at that resolution.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 59.185*

At the lower 1280x1024 resolution the 4870s gained less than 10 fps on the 9600GTs.

Not too impressed with ATI performance in this game. Oh Well, hopefully drivers will clear some of this up.


----------



## tat2monsta

hmm i think i will do mine again.. got a new cpu since last time plus my drives been cleaned up

EDIT well here it is..the dx9 one i did isnt worth posting as its about half a frame faster than before.
but dx10 on the other hand was a lot better to my surprise


----------



## tat2monsta

did these aswell. as they came out better than before. oh bugger just noticed i ran them in 32 not 64bit. still any good?


----------



## mustkill

welll.. i did the best my could.. the max i could oc.. my pc wouldnt boot(couldnt find boot device) if i overclocked more.... ***?(someone help plox)

anyways, results are here:


----------



## mustkill

hmmm.. it has underclocked itself.. i have set it to 2.80GHz and it says 2.40.. it jumps to 2.80 sometimes... dunno y.. help again?


----------



## tat2monsta

hmm theres a setting in the bios somewhere that lets you stop that i think.. i had it with mine.. im 3gig but was always 2 gig when on desktop. ive always been asus till now. so i dunno what it is you should look for. maybe look for a thread on your MB in here or try googleing the meanings of things from your manual. as they dont always tell you what it means,they just say...oh it doeas "this".. but what is "this"?

p.s i like ya fish wallpaper


----------



## mustkill

Nevermind. I fixed it. 
And yes i love my fishy as well lol


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tat2monsta*


hmm i think i will do mine again.. got a new cpu since last time plus my drives been cleaned up

EDIT well here it is..the dx9 one i did isnt worth posting as its about half a frame faster than before.
but dx10 on the other hand was a lot better to my surprise


yeah i noticed that Nvidia cards do perform better in DX10 in 64 bit.


----------



## mustkill

could u post my results lordikon?


----------



## AndrewBEJ

Lordikon, could you post my results from page 49 and this one?
Same settings as on page 49, ty.


----------



## mustkill

***?? 6380FPS.. thats bull


----------



## AndrewBEJ

Its 63.80. I dunno why when i bench with vista 64 its always like this, just see on page 49.


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AndrewBEJ* 
Its 63.80. I dunno why when i bench with vista 64 its always like this, just see on page 49.

For a single GTS, and a quad core only at 3,9GHZ it's impossible to hit 64 FPS...u did something there ...


----------



## AndrewBEJ

Its not impossible if you know how to tweak the driver m8








It isnt good for playing though, it looks like s**t....


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AndrewBEJ* 
Its not impossible if you know how to tweak the driver m8








It isnt good for playing though, it looks like s**t....

We test crysis here not quake 1







...however, can you tell me how you tweak the driver ? :


----------



## {core2duo}werd

Quote:


Originally Posted by *So3oL4Nu* 
We test crysis here not quake 1







...however, can you tell me how you tweak the driver ? :
















maybe you test crysis but most of the people at the top of the list arent doing the same work as you are. it's still fair because anyone can do it, but it's not a good measure of performance.
this might only work for Nvidia cards, but here it is anyways.
if you have rivatuner, you can open it up, click the bottom menu button, then click the button that looks like the directx logo. in there there are options to change the lod (level of detail) bias. you play around with that setting until you get better FPS.

what this does is it makes you video card think that the object is farther away than it is, and when an object is further away it renders it in less detail than it does when it's close up. I have found that this setting really doesn't do anything for 3dmark scores, but it does help in the crysis benchmarks.

Edit: also just a side note, messing with this while testing vantage is a no no. it causes problems like 40FT waves... (they are dynamically created and the calculations change when your distance from them grows)


----------



## mustkill

i benched again after ocing and here are my results.. (the OC is not refined nor proven stable)


----------



## DennisVR

[email protected]
2x 9800gx2 (Quad SLI)

DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High

62.17fps


----------



## NrGx

Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 32.17

Is that a little low or is ATi just not great at Crysis?


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NrGx*


Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 32.17

Is that a little low or is ATi just not great at Crysis?


hmmm...u're drivers are wrong...something it's not good there...at DX9, 4850 hits about 50FPS @ OC on a E8400 3.6~3.8GHZ...at DX10 you must hit atleast 40-45FPS.


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NrGx*


Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 32.17

Is that a little low or is ATi just not great at Crysis?


ATI is just not great on crysis......


----------



## startekee

Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 41


----------



## Pawn-Shop

when I run the bench utility it just loads contact (start of the game) as if i had just started a new game... anyone else had this issue?


----------



## mustkill

is tis still being updated??
caz i dont c my results in there!


----------



## mustkill

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Pawn-Shop*


when I run the bench utility it just loads contact (start of the game) as if i had just started a new game... anyone else had this issue?


thats wat it meant to be like.. except the camera moves itself


----------



## sizeak

I just ran it and feel like crying









what do i upgrade first







lol


----------



## sizeak

Ok now that really hurt, ran on very high just to see what i got lol


----------



## mustkill

hey

i got worst

but i got better on veryhigh

LOL
***?
i would say first ur gfx then ur cpu


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sizeak*


I just ran it and feel like crying









what do i upgrade first







lol


1st u're video, u're cpu still does the trick







..


----------



## sizeak

hehe plan...now to find some funds......


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sizeak*


hehe plan...now to find some funds......


U're right







...u need @ 100-150$...how much is a 4850/8800GTS on forum?


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sizeak*


hehe plan...now to find some funds......


if your looking to play mainly Crysis i would suggest an Nvidia card. A 9800GTX or a GTX+. If you are looking for all around performance in many games the 4850 would be the best bet for price/performance.


----------



## sizeak

... no idea lol, i work in Â£ GBP! how awsome, so $150 is around Â£75 no? tis good, well within the budget


----------



## Ghostleader

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


6500fps, lol, you can't be serious. You may want to rerun that benchmark.

Scores Updated for everyone BTW.


ItÂ´s not 6572,5fps, itÂ´s 65,725fps

My result is always shown like this xxxx,x.

Sure I can rerun it, but it gonna be with my XFX 790i Rig.


----------



## lordikon

Updated three people, still a few more I haven't got to yet, super busy. Thanks guys.


----------



## sjjarvis1

Submitting Results for Intel Q6600 / ATI 4870 CrossfireX setup. New drivers ver 8.15 helped with the crossfire fps, but seem to be unstable and consistantly crashes after a few minutes playing crysis. Didn't have that problem with ver 8.502 drivers. Benches well though, @20,145 on 3Dmark06.

1280x1024/high/no AA ----- 66.235 FPS avg
1650x1050/high/no AA ------56.81 FPS avg

MOBO - Asus Maximus Formula / OC Q6600 @3.568mhz on air
4gb AData DDR2 800 - stock

Work in progress................


----------



## 64bitmania

I'm running dual SLI 9800 GTXs at stock speeds on a Q6600 OC'd to 3.4GHz and I'm only getting about 38 fps on all High, no AA, AF application-controlled, 1650 x 1080. When I play the demo with these settings, I get fps-lagged so badly that it makes it a terrible experience until I reduce everything to medium. I confirmed that SLI is enabled in nTune by the way and both cards are running hot during play. What the hell am I doing wrong? Is there some kind of bottlenecking at play here? I can't seem to figure out why it's so miserably subpar!!! And, on a sidenote, I can't seem to get the Crysis Benchmark 1.05 to install b/c it keeps telling me to specify the main path to the Crysis folder (which I'm doing...specifying the Bin64 folder in x86 Program Files > Electronic Arts > Crytek > Crysis SP Demo. Please help!


----------



## askareem24

Quote:



Originally Posted by *64bitmania*


I'm running dual SLI 9800 GTXs at stock speeds on a Q6600 OC'd to 3.4GHz and I'm only getting about 38 fps on all High, no AA, AF application-controlled, 1650 x 1080. When I play the demo with these settings, I get fps-lagged so badly that it makes it a terrible experience until I reduce everything to medium. I confirmed that SLI is enabled in nTune by the way and both cards are running hot during play. What the hell am I doing wrong? Is there some kind of bottlenecking at play here? I can't seem to figure out why it's so miserably subpar!!! And, on a sidenote, I can't seem to get the Crysis Benchmark 1.05 to install b/c it keeps telling me to specify the main path to the Crysis folder (which I'm doing...specifying the Bin64 folder in x86 Program Files > Electronic Arts > Crytek > Crysis SP Demo. Please help!


the demo DOES NOT support sli. that is why you are getting bad performance


----------



## 64bitmania

lmao...oh...thx for correcting my severe ignorance...could you also answer the last bit?


----------



## tat2monsta

i just noticed that you updated a couple my scores.. but i got a new cpu (used on them benches). just incase peeps think its a tad high
used the sig rig. no over clocks


----------



## Litlratt

cpu and cards at stock


----------



## kkbob33

You know, i had dualie Nvidia cards before and they pulled better frames in this benchmark than dualie 4870s







.

With that being said, A single 4870 has better performance in all other games i play than the Nvidia cards i owned before. That's part of the reason i sold my second 4870









That proves to me that the game is totally Nvidia biased. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this benchmark is only good to compare Nvidia vs. Nvidia cards.

EDIT: I owned both 2 9600GT and 2 8800GT.


----------



## smileyguy

I am having some issues here. I only managed a max of 61.xx FPS with my Q6600 at 3.6 and card clocks at 690/1183. Q6600 @ 3.6

I don't think this bench likes the 200 series cards.


----------



## arkheii

Sig rig, E8400 at stock with SpeedStep, 9600GT @ 775/1950/1080

Very minor difference between DX9 and DX10 on high...


----------



## smileyguy

Better.


----------



## smileyguy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Litlratt*


cpu and cards at stock












Could you run that again on DX 10 4AA same res please?


----------



## NrGx

Bit disappointed. Anyone have any ideas? The funny thing is that when actually playing I run it at High settings with 1680x1050 and get 25-30 FPS.


----------



## Tricky

DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 70.82 

DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 59.9

DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 47.145

DX10 ones coming when I get back from vacation


----------



## smileyguy

We need to update that front list. With a max FPS of 123, there is alot of potential left.


----------



## Chickenman

Damn it - couldn't quite get 70fps avg on dx9, ended up overclocking a bit at a time to get to the last result, not that much more left in the 280. Kept cpu at 3.6ghz for comparisons sake.


----------



## Ce1eron

X2 4000+ @ 2.246 -- _cheapo mobo_
9600GSO 600/1700/1800

Was hoping it would be over 30fps, but every time I tried only the 3rd run managed over 30. :/


----------



## horror

so nobody has the 4870x2 to post on here? that sucks, i would really like to see how it does against the nvidx2


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *horror*


so nobody has the 4870x2 to post on here? that sucks, i would really like to see how it does against the nvidx2


----------



## horror

it scores quite a bit lower than the 9800x2 listed on here, but they all have beefier cpus also.


----------



## Tricky

I want to see some ATi cards doing this. Preferably the 4870X2..

edit: This thread needs to be updated...


----------



## total90

Hello









this is my Score ..










thanks


----------



## horror

oh i thought u had the 4870x2'd


----------



## Verrater

.....


----------



## burning-skies

well i thought id download the benchmark and give it a whirl. 
but when i run it,it loads up the game...the 1st level when he jumps out of the plane,and i can play the game. 
should this happen? or should it be like a demo running,like the benchmark that came with Crysis? sorry for the noob question and if its in the wrong section


----------



## lordikon

Ok, everyone should finally be updated, let me know if I screwed up anyones stats/rank.


----------



## buster2010




----------



## sgtdisturbed47

Here's some updates for me. GTX 280 at 690/2400 177.92 drivers, CPU (E8400) at 4.28 GHz. There's only a couple here that fit into the categories available, the rest were a waste of time lol:

1280x1024 high, no AA = 83.175

1680x1050 high, no AA = 71.835


----------



## USFORCES

1280x1024, *DX9*, High, No AA, Avg FPS:80.415










1280x1024, *DX10*, High, No AA, Avg FPS: 73.79


----------



## quadx

Wow... I get 32fps with 1920x1200... What the eff


----------



## c00lkatz

Here are my updated results (last run 21 fps with an 8600GT and X2 @ 2.81 lol). Ran with my sig rig:

1280x1024, DX9, High, No AA, Avg FPS: 62.9


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

DX9 all high 1280x1024 55.995FPS








DX10 all high 1280x1024 48.81FPS


----------



## NrGx

Does that look normal?


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NrGx* 



Does that look normal?

what speed is your 2160 at?and dx9 runs?
my last run before i sold off my card-


----------



## NrGx

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gamervivek*


what speed is your 2160 at?and dx9 runs?
my last run before i sold off my card-


Yeah I'm convinced there's something wrong with my card. My E2160 is at 3.2Ghz as well and my HD4850 is overclocked to 690/1130.

I'll try and get an XP install up (a fresh one) and then have a go to make sure its not my windows install that's sluggish.


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NrGx*


Yeah I'm convinced there's something wrong with my card. My E2160 is at 3.2Ghz as well and my HD4850 is overclocked to 690/1130.

I'll try and get an XP install up (a fresh one) and then have a go to make sure its not my windows install that's sluggish.


does dx9 in vista produce same results?and other games?
also by any chance did you use the dx9 very high hack cvar settings?


----------



## Ce1eron

*Old:*
66.) 29.78 fps -- Ce1eron -- X2 4000+ -- 9600GSO stock -- XP SP3

*New:*









Bought more ram (and tightened timings), so retested! lol

For reference:
Had 1GB
2GB brought it up to 30.5ish fps
Going from 5-5-5-15 to 4-4-4-12 brought it to the screenshot.


----------



## NrGx

I'm not sure what's wrong with my benchmark result. I can play DX9 Very High fine and it won't drop below 25 FPS. Looks brilliant by the way!


----------



## ReignsOfPower

Performed Test Setup 1 - Average FPS 70.8 Click Here

Also Performed DX10 1680x1050 Very High No AA No AF - Average FPS 36.175 Click Here

All tests run with Catalyst 8.9 Drivers on a 4870X2.
Q9650 @ 4.114 GHz (1.28V) on Air
Graphics card stock clock speeds
PC28800 CL5 2x2GB @ 1.91 Volts @ 1105Mhz
Vista 64 SP1


----------



## dead_j0ker

Wow.


----------



## dead_j0ker

NrGx I saw in the crysis benchie results thred you said something was wrong with your card???


----------



## Danker16

Heres mines

*DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 52.24----XP SP3*

E7200 @ 3.7, VISIONTEK 4850


----------



## dead_j0ker

Is crysis quite cpu reliant?


----------



## 20Driver07

DX9 Results (Setup Type #1): 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High.

I was copying stuff as well at the time

30.99fps


----------



## ZTR1760

DX9 9800 gtx E8500 vista x64


----------



## lordikon

Amazing what some new drivers over 7 months can do.











And as usual DX10 is a little slower...


I'll try and get everyone's scores updated in the next couple of days.


----------



## ZTR1760

is this still getting updated or is it dead?


----------



## Danker16

this thread is dead, my bench never got in the list..


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Danker16*


this thread is dead, my bench never got in the list..


I'm updating it today.

EDIT:
Everyone should be up-to-date again, let me know if I screwed something up.


----------



## lordikon

1680x1050 DX10 @ Very-high, 32.91fps.


----------



## pixie

9950 BE @ 3.05GHz, 4870x2 @ 810core/990ram

1280x1024 DX9 no AA High:










1280x1024 DX10 no AA High:


----------



## lordikon

^^ Pixie those scores are incredibly low for such a powerful card. You might want to make sure your settings are correct. CPU-Z, GPU-Z screenshots might help diagnose what the issue is.

I've updated the list with your scores anyhow.


----------



## BenBrown

I think his card is being held back by the cpu. I know mine is. I get the same average with three cards as with four. I be if he would push the overclock a little more, say 3200MHz he would see an increase.


----------



## Litlratt

cpu @ 3.6 GTXs @ stock
1680X1050 High DX10 4XAA
65.445 fps


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Litlratt*


cpu @ 3.6 GTXs @ stock
1680X1050 High DX10 4XAA
65.445 fps











Dude that score is nuts. 3x GTX280s? That is nuts too!

You could easily increase your scores in all the other categories, or are you just satisfied with 1st place in each category?


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Crysis Warhead does have a benchmark tool? If yes please give me a link to install it.
Have a nice day,

Sobo. PS: u're insane man with u're 3x280 GTX FTW !!


----------



## Litlratt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


Dude that score is nuts. 3x GTX280s? That is nuts too!

You could easily increase your scores in all the other categories, or are you just satisfied with 1st place in each category?










I'm sure I'll run them all again. Haven't done much benching for awhile.
I didn't expect that result at 16X10. I expected to beat the GX2s, but not by that much.


----------



## pixie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
^^ Pixie those scores are incredibly low for such a powerful card. You might want to make sure your settings are correct. CPU-Z, GPU-Z screenshots might help diagnose what the issue is.

I've updated the list with your scores anyhow.

yeah, for some reason, in the benchmark it's barely using my card. of course, it could because i installed the hotfix drivers to see if farcry2 played any better...

usually when crysis is around 30fps, the card is at about 50% or less usage on each core... as the frames go up, each cores' usage goes up with it. i don't understand it. just like sometimes i can get killer frames with 8xAA turned on, but as soon as something (don't know what) happens in the game, all of a sudden frames get down to the teens and twenties with at most, 50% of each core being used.

and i can tell when the card is actually getting used as the fan goes up higher since more heat is being generated by the GPU's. it's weird. and yeah, this card is really CPU dependant. at 3.2-3.3GHz, i barely get 17k in 3dmark06. but if someone who gets their CPU up to 4.0GHz or higher, they can get easy 20k 3dmarks.

but anyways, here's a screenie of 1680x1050 noAA dx9 High:


----------



## SergeRY

Ummmm, I got bored. Here setting up a friends evga 780i, everything on stock air.
e8500 @ 4037 MHz -- 3x 9800gtx+ @ 828/2052/1134 -- Vista 64

All *NO* AA, @ 16 x 10 the cards are lagging... maybe too small frame buffer? dunno...

12 x 10 DX9 - 75.295 fps
12 x 10 DX10 - 71.63 fps
16 x 10 DX9 - 66.8 fps
16 x 10 DX10 - 62.365 fps
16 x 10 DX10 Very High - 45.27

now I miss my 790i, I reckon a couple frames on the top all around...


----------



## SergeRY

and for fun, monitor is 1080p so no 19 x 12

19 x 10 DX10 Very High - 40.76


----------



## ZTR1760

woot I got a new video card plz update me


----------



## wiggy2k7

can you update my score with my new GPU:



Ran with Q6600 @ 3.45GHz and EVGA GTX260 core 216 Superclocked

DX10 - 58.91 FPS

Thanks


----------



## Gunslash

[email protected]
SLI [email protected]/1427/2420

did a few runs:


----------



## gamervivek

some runs with pencil modded 4850,was expecting better but looks like other components are not good enough-

E2140 3.2Ghz [email protected]/1125
DX9 1280x1024 high 59.385



DX9 1680x1050 high 48.835


----------



## iggster

all runs at

cpu 3.9

3 gtx 280s gpu 627 core and 1202 memory (24/7) settings. fresh install of crysis no mods just patch 1.2 and patch 1.2.1 applied.

*FPS:88.765 DX9 Results (Setup Type #1): 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High.*









*FPS:87.84 DX10 Results (Setup Type #2):1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High.
*









*fps:81.28 DX9 1680x1050, High Detail, NO AA:*









*FPS:78.28 DX10 1680x1050, High Detail, NO AA:*









*FPS:75.925DX9 1680x1050, High Detail, 4x AA:*









*FPS:79.245 DX10 1680x1050, High Detail, 4x AA:*









*FPS62.935 DX10 1680x1050, Very-High Detail, NO AA:*









*FPS: 58.995DX10 1920x1200, Very-High Detail, NO AA:*


----------



## lordikon

Thread becomes active again. I'll try and update this either tomorrow or early next week.


----------



## zlojack

No AA, iggy?


----------



## Kimofil

It will be interesting to see *DX10 1920x1200 Very-High Detail run with 8xAA* from you, iggy!


----------



## iggster

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zlojack* 
No AA, iggy?

I just ran all the tests that are in the op. Crazy though before I got i7 I was never that high up on fps on the lower resolutions and the drivers I am using suck LOL I am just tired of changing them so often LOL if need be I'll change them and retest again

Btw what specific tests interest you?


----------



## zlojack

Just want to see how they handle the extra load from AA


----------



## iggster

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kimofil* 
It will be interesting to see *DX10 1920x1200 Very-High Detail run with 8xAA* from you, iggy!

man oh man the nvidia drivers are driving me NUTS!!!

while uninstalling my drivers my son accidently tripped on the power cable of my pc and shut it off and ever since that all kinds of things of screwed up....

I get an error message now when trying to run the benchmark... dunno what the f it could be..


----------



## iggster

installed new drivers and wow!!!!!!!!!!!!

1900x1200 very high and 8xAA DX10 close to 70 fps!!!


----------



## Gunslash

^^^
wow, awesome! what was it with a prior CPU?


----------



## iggster

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gunslash* 
^^^
wow, awesome! what was it with a prior CPU?

1900x1200 dx 10 very high no aa I got about 55 fps litlrat got like 58 here look at the op with the qx9650 also at 4.05

now with 1900x1200 dx 10 very high and 8AA about 70fps...


----------



## Gunslash

Quote:


Originally Posted by *iggster* 
1900x1200 dx 10 very high no aa I got about 55 fps litlrat got like 58 here look at the op with the qx9650 also at 4.05

now with 1900x1200 dx 10 very high and 8AA about 70fps...

holy hell this CPU's awesome...pound or pound (or mhz for mhz I guess) it's rediculous. I assume you had the same 3x gtx280 setup still?

glad to see these results finally in a non-synthetic benchmark, but a real game.


----------



## iggster

yep same exact cards to lol


----------



## Zeus

Here's my score

CPU: E6600 @ 415x8
GPU: HD4870 1GB @ 775/1000

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 35.13


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Zeus* 
Here's my score

CPU: E6600 @ 415x8
GPU: HD4870 1GB @ 775/1000

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 35.13

thats awfully low for a 4870.


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gamervivek*


thats awfully low for a 4870.










This game hates ATI.. i couldn't get much better. my 9600 SLI setup dogged my 4870 crossfire setup


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kkbob33*


This game hates ATI.. i couldn't get much better. my 9600 SLI setup dogged my 4870 crossfire setup


i got more than his 4870 with a 3870,the 4850 is miles ahead.crysis is a lot less biased than the reviews make you think.


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gamervivek*


i got more than his 4870 with a 3870,the 4850 is miles ahead.crysis is a lot less biased than the reviews make you think.










really? i didn't but i haven't run that bench since the card first came out so maybe drivers have improved.


----------



## iggster

wow just noticed every setting the i7 took first place, impressive







I just hope the op can update it one day LOL


----------



## Zeus

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gamervivek* 
thats awfully low for a 4870.









Yeah, I know... I've got a few issues to sort out.... Like the GPU is not 100% compatible with my mobo. Which means I can on oc in windows


----------



## Lukeatluke

To make this thread interesting.Screenshot is real

BTW; crysis compiler forgot to do score right(cry-sized): score /100


----------



## Aubs 9800GX2

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 51.92

Using stock GPU speeds: Core = 600Mhz, Memory = 1000MHz, Shader = 1500Hz

.


----------



## badoldman

Here's mine CPU stock

CPU at 20% OC


----------



## gnotleo<3

here's my results, did some OC'n. I'm pretty happy

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/c..._benchmark.jpg


----------



## Aubs 9800GX2

Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 53.46

Using o/c GPU speeds: Core = 700Mhz, Memory = 1000MHz, Shader = 1750Hz

.


----------



## Aubs 9800GX2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gnotleo<3*


here's my results, did some OC'n. I'm pretty happy

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/c..._benchmark.jpg


Probably get a higher framerate if you overclock your GPU


----------



## gnotleo<3

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Aubs 9800GX2*


Probably get a higher framerate if you overclock your GPU










lmao...I think 62fps is pretty damn good compared to the 67fps from the guy above me. gtx 260 core 216 sli....nuff said


----------



## Aubs 9800GX2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gnotleo<3*


lmao...I think 62fps is pretty damn good compared to the 67fps from the guy above me. gtx 260 core 216 sli....nuff said


I wasn't having a go, just a small mention that's all. NM.


----------



## gnotleo<3

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Aubs 9800GX2*


I wasn't having a go, just a small mention that's all. NM.


haha...no, not a necessary comment then. 62 fps is hella good for a single card, espeically for Crysis. That being said, why tell me to OC more then what it already is, mmm? Maybe I should tell you to OC more, and get some WC, so you get 62 fps, ehh?


----------



## Aubs 9800GX2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gnotleo<3*


haha...no, not a necessary comment then. 62 fps is hella good for a single card, espeically for Crysis. That being said, why tell me to OC more then what it already is, mmm?


The screenshot at the time showed stock speeds on the GPU, that's the only reason why I mentioned it. If it's changed since then it's not my fault, chill.


----------



## gnotleo<3

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Aubs 9800GX2*


The screenshot at the time showed stock speeds on the GPU, that's the only reason why I mentioned it. If it's changed since then it's not my fault, chill.


at the time? umm, look at the default clock & gpu clock. It shows you the difference, and if you didn't know, you offended me with ur ignorance. l2read, before you type, ok? Not trying to start anything, but when you tell someone to OC their gfx card, that's just a low blow, or some jealously. btw, my vid card is stock speeds atm, and doing just fine, so pls, keep to yourself and try reading the info that's displayed right before you.


----------



## agold123

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gnotleo<3*


at the time? umm, look at the default clock & gpu clock. It shows you the difference, and if you didn't know, you offended me with ur ignorance. l2read, before you type, ok? Not trying to start anything, but when you tell someone to OC their gfx card, that's just a low blow, or some jealously. btw, my vid card is stock speeds atm, and doing just fine, so pls, keep to yourself and try reading the info that's displayed right before you.


You only just joined and your already ready giving out to people, good start pal!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gnotleo<3

Quote:



Originally Posted by *agold123*


You only just joined and your already ready giving out to people, good start pal!!!!!!!!!!


you joined nearly 4 weeks ago. umm, new?

besides, this doesn't concern you. kthxbai


----------



## agold123

Quote:



Originally Posted by *gnotleo<3*


haha, oh man, you crack me up. Listen hear kid, you got told off, and know you it, you didn't take the time to read my comment, and my #'s. Now you feel foolish and switching this whole situation around, good job









Just take it the pm's now, these comments are gonna get deleted obviously, which I have no prob with. If you have the urge to reply again, then by all means, do so. Go ahead







Aubs 9800GX2, ima be checkin my mail.


Maybe you should read who posted as well!!! It wasn't me who didn't read your post but you clearly didn't check!!!! Maybe you should practice what you preach!


----------



## gnotleo<3

Quote:



Originally Posted by *agold123*


Maybe you should read who posted as well!!! It wasn't me who didn't read your post but you clearly didn't check!!!! Maybe you should practice what you preach!


edit?


----------



## agold123

What?


----------



## lordikon

Been awhile since I last updated this thing. But I finally got the time to do it.

UPDATED!!!


----------



## [FDG]Explosion

While your at it, wanna pull my 9800GTX result out and add my new one?


----------



## iggster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *lordikon*


been awhile since i last updated this thing. But i finally got the time to do it.

Updated!!!


thank you :d


----------



## iconocast71

Quote:



Originally Posted by *iggster*


thank you :d


Do you want a cookie for taking first in all or what?


----------



## nuclearjock

New rig in sig:

I7 [email protected] 2xgtx280 702/1463/2400

Vista 64


----------



## Nolander

*Presently I have my XFX 8800 GS (G92) 384 MB overclocked from default GPU 580, Shaders 1450, Memory 1400 to 700/1750/2000. The results are with the 178.24 drivers and I have yet to benchmark with any newer drivers, however, I don't see a need since I just ordered a EVGA 260 216 sp.*


----------



## iggster

nuclearjock lol you pwd my last score good job man crazy fps!!

here is an update for me with my current 24/7 settings.

FPS:98.915 DX9 Results (Setup Type #1): 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High.


----------



## wiggy2k7

Can you update my scores please:

DX9 score:



DX10 Score



Not bad for a GTX260, quite a big jump from my overclocked 8800GT









Q6600 @ 3.42GHz
EVGA GTX260 Core 216 @ 697/1490/2400


----------



## iggster

Some random settings I ran today in the morning.


----------



## porky

iggster , i get like 30% less performance than you........but your system is a lot more powerfull................i think crysis is broken


----------



## iggster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *porky*


iggster , i get like 30% less performance than you........but your system is a lot more powerfull................i think crysis is broken










naw you got like FPS 50 at 1280x1024 no AA high settings dx 10
http://www.overclock.net/4141047-post501.html

I got 87 FPS thats almost 100% increase. (closer to 70%)

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/h...2Nov201956.gif

Also going from dual core to quad doesn't help any, someone in the news section posted a comparison of quads versus duals and imagine a quad to an octo thread one no help either lol.

now try running the benchmark at 1920x1200 and very high and 8AA and report back what you get which is a more fair comparison since I am sure neither of us games at 1280x1024 lol

(edit I also ran most benchmarks here at 3.9 which is my old 24/7 settings I am at 4.2 24/7 as of now, I tried 4.3 and no way is that ever gonna be stable for 24/7 hahah)


----------



## porky

iggster , that was done with my 9800GTX SLI setup with a Q6600 @ 3.4ghz!

http://www.overclock.net/graphics-ca...my-new-pc.html look at the date of that post

ill post a new one with my current setup

k installing now , gonna bench it at my 24/7 settings @ 4ghz , but i have 4.4ghz stable , or i can shoot for 4.6ghz suicide!


----------



## iggster

oh ok well I'll wait for the new one let's see what the setup does at 1920x1200 very high 8aa









Nice case by the way







when you respond with results can please link me to some pictures of your current setup. I can save it to my computer porn folder


----------



## Nolander

XFX 8800 GS (G92) 384 MB overclocked to 700/1750/2000.


----------



## porky

haha sure why not









installing crysis now , getting patches etc...............

ill bench @ 4ghz now , tommorow ill go at 4.4-4.5ghz


----------



## porky

WTH , my 9800GTX SLI BEATS my setup @ 1920*1200!?!??

screenie attached!

**ok , iggster , your right...you kick my ass!!......thought i scored higher! (maybe i was thinking bout warhead?)

***heres an old benchmark i found , something aint right atm , i got 52fps @ 1920*1200

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/7865/57799103sm7.jpg


----------



## Slightly skewed

Q6600 is @ 3.7.


----------



## porky

your GTX sli config is getting double my 4870x2!!!

ok something aint right!


----------



## iggster

IMO I never liked this benchmark any thing goes wrong with the file and you get way off fps...


----------



## iggster

almost 80fps at 1920x1200 and very high and 8AA


----------



## AndrewBEJ

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AndrewBEJ*


- Windows Vista™ 64 Ultimate
- Forceware 175.12
- Q6600 @ 3.8Ghz
- Crysis 1.2.1

DX9 Mode : 81.60 FPS




DX10 Mode : 53.84 FPS





Why my score is not on the list yet?


----------



## wiggy2k7

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AndrewBEJ*


Why my score is not on the list yet?


Because you've obviously got a problem... look at your scores


----------



## AndrewBEJ

What problem do you mean??? I just use nhancer to tweak the driver.


----------



## Aubs 9800GX2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *AndrewBEJ*


What problem do you mean??? I just use nhancer to tweak the driver.


Hi AndrewBEJ,

From the screenshot, the min FPS is 31.67 and max FPS is 64.55. The average FPS must be somewhere in between those two values.

The final result shows 5384,5, so there's a glitch somewhere in the calculation.

Could you do a few more runs to see if you get a valid result?


----------



## AndrewBEJ

The final average fps always show like that in xxxx,x form. But you can really see that its actually ofc xx.xx. No matter how much i benched it was always like that. 
And the bench was from 6 months ago. During that 6 months, ive changed my mobo, my gfx, sell the game to get warhead and did 2 times reformat. 
I just wanna know why my score didnt get on the list, not that i really care about my e-penis. Because i actually tried to get that score, and im curious about the reason.


----------



## iggster

ahhh as it looks like someone missed my last runs let me upload my latest to photobucket. I think many of you will be like wt


----------



## iggster

cpu 4.44 (dang forgot to drop the vcore lol oh well lol)

3 gtx 280s gpu 716/1282/1489. fresh install of crysis no mods just patch 1.2 and patch 1.2.1 applied.
*
FPS:109.235 DX9 Results (Setup Type #1): 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High.*










*fps:98.16 DX9 1680x1050, High Detail, NO AA:*









*
FPS80.26 DX10 1920x1200, Very-High Detail, 8 AA:*


----------



## USFORCES

DX10 1920x1200 Very-High Detail, 8 AA,
Average 80FPS nice!


----------



## Asus Mobile

bad paste


----------



## Aubs 9800GX2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Asus Mobile*


Madigan is not leading this! Is not that fellow from Dixmore pushing? To get a by line you people will do all? I mean it is just wrong and who sells who's soul? Also Barbara Flynn Currie is no ones Lutenists.

The writers (author would indicate some level of intelligence or dare I beg insight) is so mistaken and has such a lack of understating. They fail to understand Chicago machine politics. Barbara Flynn Currie is and always has been an Independent Democrat. What should be more amazing than Barbara Flynn Currie becoming the first female Majority Leader. Is she is not a Machine politician! She is an Independent but has survived for 27+ years. The epitome of Machine politics had to pick her. I am sure he was less than thrilled!

She is her own woman. Mike knows it! I think why she deserves trust. Anyway the chairperson? Give it a chance.


..so anyway....what is your FPS score??


----------



## iggster

lorikon should update setup 1 check out the lasts posts in page 67. I have been playing with crysis benchmark for the pass 3 days LOL I think it's time to get back to 3dmarks


----------



## wiggy2k7

Quote:



Originally Posted by *iggster*


cpu 4.44 (dang forgot to drop the vcore lol oh well lol)

3 gtx 280s gpu 716/1282/1489. fresh install of crysis no mods just patch 1.2 and patch 1.2.1 applied.
*
FPS:109.235 DX9 Results (Setup Type #1): 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High.*










*fps:98.16 DX9 1680x1050, High Detail, NO AA:*









*
FPS80.26 DX10 1920x1200, Very-High Detail, 8 AA:*










Thats a very very very very nice rig you have.....


----------



## zlojack

Hey Iggster, which drivers for those scores?


----------



## Slightly skewed

I have a question. Now that I got my second card back (finally) I am getting a lower FPS score then I did with one card. Any suggestions as to why that is? Driver is 180.84 and the cards are OC'd.

And lol at iggster destroying it with 110fps.


----------



## kkbob33

wow iggster. you definately conquered Crysis man.

new benchies in DX9 with some hybrid crossfire.

1280x1024 no AA Quality High : *56.095*

1680x1050 no AA Quality High : *51.175*

1680x1050 x2 AA Quality High : *47.265*










i cant get dx10 to run in 64 bit for some reason so DX9 will have to do for now.

Im going to try to volt mod the 4850 up to around 800 on the core and see what i can get. Drivers have come along way from when i had 2 4870s.


----------



## wiggy2k7

Can you update my DX9 score please... 72.7 FPS



Not bad for a single GPU, it will put me at No.14 on the list


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:


Originally Posted by *wiggy2k7* 
Can you update my DX9 score please... 72.7 FPS



Not bad for a single GPU, it will put me at No.14 on the list









your single 260 totally wooped my hybrid crossfire :/


----------



## RAFFY

why is it whenever i run this benchmark tool it opens up the single player game instead of the island scene that it use to benchmarK?


----------



## f0K5

please please see this thread and someone who has 2 48x0 cards add some results with single card and crossfire mode with 8.12 drivers , 1680x1050 high settings , with DX9 and DX10 . i know it's 4 tests , but please do it


----------



## Asus Mobile

Avg 27fps medium 1024x768 no AA.


----------



## nuclearjock

1900 x 1200 dx10 very high no aa

i7 940 @3.8, 2x gtx 295 700/1536/2300 vista 64 forceware 181.20 whql

Just got these today, more tweaking to come. These are some bad boyz!!!


----------



## Kimofil

Quote:



Originally Posted by *nuclearjock*


1900 x 1200 dx10 very high no aa

i7 940 @3.8, 2x gtx 295 700/1536/2300 vista 64 forceware 181.20 whql

Just got these today, more tweaking to come. These are some bad boyz!!!



















Great numbers! Can you test in this resolution with 8xAA please?
And you must install the latest patch for the game (1.2.1), that really helps gain more FPS. Retail version without patch don't work well with SLI/Quad-SLI.


----------



## Litlratt

Very impressive nuc.
How are they in-game?


----------



## nuclearjock

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Litlratt*


Very impressive nuc.
How are they in-game?


Smoooooth and fast.....

With refined drivers, these should continue their awesomeness.


----------



## nuclearjock

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Kimofil*


Great numbers! Can you test in this resolution with 8xAA please?
And you must install the latest patch for the game (1.2.1), that really helps gain more FPS. Retail version without patch don't work well with SLI/Quad-SLI.



1.2.1 is installed.


----------



## nuclearjock

ok, so I'm a dork...

1.2.1 was NOT installed, did that.
upped cpu clock to 4.2g, gpu clocks same:

1900 x 1200 dx10 very high no aa

i7 940 @4.2, 2x gtx 295 700/1536/2300 vista 64 forceware 181.20 whql


----------



## wiggy2k7

Very nice.... i'd like to have your rig


----------



## nuclearjock

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kimofil* 
Great numbers! Can you test in this resolution with 8xAA please?
And you must install the latest patch for the game (1.2.1), that really helps gain more FPS. Retail version without patch don't work well with SLI/Quad-SLI.

Here's 8xaa in game:


----------



## gamervivek

8xQ benchies please?


----------



## nuclearjock

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gamervivek* 
8xQ benchies please?

Are you asking me??

8xq in game:


----------



## gamervivek

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nuclearjock* 
Are you asking me??

8xq in game:









thanks a ton,wanted to see results 8xq vs 8x.
thats an awesome system and really nice oc on both the cpu and gpus,hopefully you can pull out better numbers than iggster's rig.


----------



## Kimofil

Quote:



Originally Posted by *nuclearjock*


ok, so I'm a dork...

1.2.1 was NOT installed, did that.
upped cpu clock to 4.2g, gpu clocks same:

1900 x 1200 dx10 very high no aa

i7 940 @4.2, 2x gtx 295 700/1536/2300 vista 64 forceware 181.20 whql











Thanks for benching with patch, impressive numbers with this outstanding rig!
Only one questions-what about Vantage Perfomance and Extreme scores?


----------



## waqasr

I just got crysis few days ago so heres my results:

DX9









DX10


----------



## Pao

ok, can someone tell me really quickly why when I start the benchmark tool (v. 1.05) it instead starts up the game and wants me to play as opposed to running the loops?

It still has all the data being tracked in the upper right hand corner, but it's just like I'm supposed to be playing it.


----------



## Sethorama

dx10








dx9








Runs Alright on my rig


----------



## Xiob

Dx 10


----------



## D3TH.GRUNT

my run:








DX10








DX9


----------



## jam3s

Here are my scores,

DX10 first, then DX9.


----------



## lordikon

Alright, UPDATED!

Oh, and only the top 25 ranks in each category will now be posted. Please don't post your results unless they qualify on the current top 25 of that category.


----------



## Thermikus

good evening,

1680x1050 High No AA DX9

53,925-- Thermikus -- [email protected],5 -- GTX 260 @ 740/1272/1481 -- XP 32bit

1680x1050 High 4xAA DX9

44,875-- Thermikus -- [email protected],5 -- GTX 260 @ 740/1272/1481 -- XP 32bit


----------



## Lyric

26.70 fps - Lyric - E8400 @ 4.1 - 1x PNY GeForce 9600 GSO @ 710/1750/950 - Vista 32 SP1










Also, I guess I don't have dx9 installed, I figured vista could switch between dx10 and 9, but I only have 10...oh well.


----------



## Piff James

I checked allot pages and have not found the answer to my question so i will just ask.
I cant seem to get this tool to work everytime i go to run it, it just starts the game and lets me play and when i exit it doesnt record anything.
I'm running vista 64bit and have tried using dx9 and dx10.
Any ideas?


----------



## lordikon

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Piff James*


I checked allot pages and have not found the answer to my question so i will just ask.
I cant seem to get this tool to work everytime i go to run it, it just starts the game and lets me play and when i exit it doesnt record anything.
I'm running vista 64bit and have tried using dx9 and dx10.
Any ideas?


Are you running as administrator? Right click on the .exe, click Run As Administrator.


----------



## Lyric

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
....

Could I get mine updated as well?

Sorry to post two results in the same thread, and on the same page, but I recently upgraded my video card, here are my new results:

63.45 fps @ 1280x1024 - No AA - DX10 -- Lyric -- E8400 @ 4.1 GHz -- EVGA GTX260 55nm, 725/1450/1150 -- Windows Vista SP1 (32bit)

51.69 fps @ 1680x1050 - No AA - DX10 -- Lyric -- E8400 @ 4.1 GHz -- EVGA GTX260 55nm, 725/1450/1150 -- Windows Vista SP1 (32bit)


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lordikon* 
Alright, UPDATED!

Oh, and only the top 25 ranks in each category will now be posted. Please don't post your results unless they qualify on the current top 25 of that category.


Yes sir!


----------



## AcerocksWS

109.42 FPS -- AceRocksWS -- i7 965 @ 4.391 -- 3x GTX280 SC's, 746/1540/1320 -- Vista 64 SP1 DX9

99.595 FPS -- AceRocksWS -- i7 965 @ 4.390 -- 3x GTX280 SC's, 750/1630/1320 -- Vista 64 SP1 DX10


----------



## jam3s

Hi Lordikon, not sure if you're still updating,

but I get

71.75 FPS -- Jam3s -- Q9550 @ 4.2GHz -- GTX 260 700/1483/1125 -- Vista x64 DX9

72.245 FPS -- Jam3s -- Q9550 @ 4.2GHz -- GTX 260 700/1483/1125 -- Vista x64 DX10

My pics are included in the attachment.


----------



## AcerocksWS

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jam3s* 
Hi Lordikon, not sure if you're still updating,

but I get

71.75 FPS -- Jam3s -- Q9550 @ 4.2GHz -- GTX 260 700/1483/1125 -- Vista x64 DX9

72.245 FPS -- Jam3s -- Q9550 @ 4.2GHz -- GTX 260 700/1483/1125 -- Vista x64 DX10

My pics are included in the attachment.









Not sure if this is being updated... I posted top scores a while ago but the leader board hasn't changed. Still good to see your bench results. Great job!


----------



## brettjv

THE PRELIMINARY RUN (the warm-ups)
Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 87.41
87.41 -- brettjv -- i920 @ 3.467 -- GTX295 (2 GPUs), 675/1476/2484 -- XP32 SP2
Run #2- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 76.79
76.79 -- brettjv -- i920 @ 3.467 -- GTX295 (2 GPUs), 675/1476/2484 -- XP32 SP2
Run #3- DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 67.19
67.19 -- brettjv -- i920 @ 3.467 -- GTX295 (2 GPUs), 675/1476/2484 -- XP32 SP2

On second thought, heck ... why not push it a little further, just this one time?

THE REAL DEAL:
Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 89.06
89.06 -- brettjv -- i920 @ 3.6 -- GTX295 (2 GPUs), 691/1476/2484 -- XP32 SP2
Run #2- DX9 1680x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 78.57
78.57 -- brettjv -- i920 @ 3.6 -- GTX295 (2 GPUs), 691/1476/2484 -- XP32 SP2
Run #3- DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 68.58
68.58 -- brettjv -- i920 @ 3.6 -- GTX295 (2 GPUs), 691/1476/2484 -- XP32 SP2

Once I'm not on stock cooling, I'm gonna push this baby toward 4.0, but this is about as high as I wanna go on the proc for now ...


----------



## aaronmonto

I'd highly recommend doing a cleaner format of the leaderboard and getting rid of all the minor inconsistencies (e.g. "2 x 8800 GTX" and 2x 8800 GTX's"). It just looks like crap. Then maybe I'll think about showing those benchmarkers how it's done.


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aaronmonto* 
I'd highly recommend doing a cleaner format of the leaderboard and getting rid of all the minor inconsistencies (e.g. "2 x 8800 GTX" and 2x 8800 GTX's"). It just looks like crap. Then maybe I'll think about showing those benchmarkers how it's done.

I'd be happy with just an update.


----------



## Zeus

DX9
56.515 -- zeus -- Q6600 G0 @ 3.24GHz --HD4870 1GB -- Vista SP1

DX10
56.195 -- zeus -- Q6600 G0 @ 3.24GHz --HD4870 1GB -- Vista SP1


----------



## So3oL4Nu

Hi all,

Please add my new EVGA GTX 260 216 core









Dx9 1680x1050 HIGH NO AA
Dx9 1680x1050 HIGH 4x AA

Dx10 1680x1050 HIGH NO AA
Dx10 1680x1050 HIGH 4x AA

Dx10 1920x1200 VERY HIGH NO AA
Dx9 1920x1200 VERY HIGH NO AA

Regards,
Sobo.


----------



## moward

73.16 FPS 1280x1024 -DX9 - High - moward -- E8400 @ 3.825GHz -- GTX 275 705/1600/1225 -- Vista x64

60.94 FPS 1280x1024 - DX10 - High - moward -- E8400 @ 3.825GHz -- GTX 275 705/1600/1225 -- Vista x64

24.57 FPS 1900x1200 - DX10 - Very High - moward -- E8400 @ 3.825GHz -- GTX 275 700/1600/1200 -- Vista x64


----------



## rico2001

Radeon HD4850 X3, 1600x1200, 1900x1200, 2560x1600


----------



## brettjv

LORD, time for an update to the board my friend!


----------



## trevor425

well i thought id try this out, but everytime i try and bench in x64 it crashes. so here is my crappy score in x32 with mild oc.

min35 max59 trevor425 e8400 @ 3.9ghz 2x 9600gt @ 716core 1003mem 1766shad


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *trevor425*


well i thought id try this out, but everytime i try and bench in x64 it crashes. so here is my crappy score in x32 with mild oc.

min35 max59 trevor425 e8400 @ 3.9ghz 2x 9600gt @ 716core 1003mem 1766shad


Crysis is real finicky that way. The game wouldn't run in 64bit mode for me either and then after a reformat it wouldn't run in 32. Who the hell knows whats going on with that game


----------



## trevor425

bummer!


----------



## Burn

41.04 -- Burn -- E6600 @ 3.4 -- GTX260 c216, 638/1400/1200 -- Vista x64 SP1


----------



## grunion

50 loops


----------



## Burn

okay, so it was a quasi-stability test, too


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Burn*


okay, so it was a quasi-stability test, too











How long did that take?


----------



## Burn

Dunno, I kind of just let it go, shut off my monitors, and went outside and did some work


----------



## jam3s

lol this is technically necro-posting but damn i love this core i7 rig!

I just ran this run:

*Run #1- DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 96.125*










I'll do a run on DX10 right now, and then i'll do another at 1920x1200 all on very high, with max AA and AF

*Run #2- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 95.445*










Here's 1900x1200 very high, No AA.

*Run #3- DX10 1900x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: Very High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 71.44*










Last run, 1900x1200 Very High, 16xQ AA, (max Anti-Aliasing)
*
Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=16xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 65.405*


----------



## kkbob33

Very nice! I just ordered another GTX 260 also. looking forword to thos ekind of frames in Crysis.........if only I could get my Bloodrage working..


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jam3s* 
lol this is technically necro-posting but damn i love this core i7 rig!

I just ran this run:

Last run, 1900x1200 Very High, 16xQ AA, (max Anti-Aliasing)

Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=16xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 65.405


I'm having a really hard time believing this. Must be magical cards.


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Slightly skewed* 
I'm having a really hard time believing this. Must be magical cards.

What type of frames do you get?


----------



## jam3s

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Slightly skewed* 
I'm having a really hard time believing this. Must be magical cards.

sorry, I added in screenshots, just for your reference.


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jam3s* 
sorry, I added in screenshots, just for your reference.









That truly is awesome mate. I cant wait to get my new gear now


----------



## jam3s

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kkbob33* 
That truly is awesome mate. I cant wait to get my new gear now









Thanks man, cheers! You'll love SLI.

I went from Q9550 @ 4.2GHz + Single GTX 260 65nm = 20k 3dmark06.

I just ran 3DMark06 and I got a score of 25468 with HT On


----------



## kkbob33

I have had SLI before but it was with 2 9600gt. I ran crossfire 4870s for a bit too. Something tells me that a SLI setup on i7 will tear them both to shreds.

edit: I don't think you necro'd the thread. Its here to post your benches. I am going to post once I get my rig up


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jam3s*


sorry, I added in screenshots, just for your reference.










 Then AA is not working or something is amiss. Do you have the Warhead benchmark? My original Crysis is far too modded and it would be too much work remove the mods and reinstall the game.


----------



## jam3s

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Slightly skewed* 
Then AA is not working or something is amiss. Do you have the Warhead benchmark? My original Crysis is far too modded and it would be too much work remove the mods and reinstall the game.

I can try and force max AA and max AF in the User Control Panel, one second.

Let me run it again. I'll post a screenie









I also do not own Crysis WH








*
EDIT*: I manually went into the control panel and forced 16xAF and 16xQ AA

*Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=16xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 28.495*


----------



## kkbob33

could you turn AF off and try it with AA on? I know Ao doesnt work with AF.


----------



## jam3s

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kkbob33*


could you turn AF off and try it with AA on? I know Ao doesnt work with AF.


alright, no problem, give me a few and i'll attach a screenshot and post up my results

I'll do 1900x1200 16xQ AA, no AF Very High Dx10

EDIT:
*
Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=16xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 31.035*


----------



## kkbob33

Thanks, +rep

Note: 1 260 is not enough to play on VH without "chugging"


----------



## jam3s

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kkbob33*


Thanks, +rep

Note: 1 260 is not enough to play on VH without "chugging"


yeah I honestly couldn't imagine!


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jam3s*


yeah I honestly couldn't imagine!










yeah from everything Ive seen, performance almost doubles with AA on with another 260. SLI scaling is great in Crysis. Crossfire is another story


----------



## Slightly skewed

That's more like it. Thanks for doing that and posting it up.

Here's a thread with a few TRI SLI set-ups and their results for your comparison.

http://www.overclock.net/graphics-ca...ch-thread.html


----------



## steelbom

Hi, I just finished doing all my benchmarks, it was fun









I posted all the examples (might have to do second post to show them all)

Code:


Code:


1280x1024 High no AA DX 9
50.82 FPS -- steelbom -- Dual Quad Core X5472 @ 3.0 -- GTX 285 -- Windows 7 64

1280x1024 High no AA DX10 
43.76 FPS -- steelbom -- Dual Quad Core X5472 @ 3.0 -- GTX 285 -- Windows 7 64

1680x1050 High no AA DX 9
44.08 FPS -- steelbom -- Dual Quad Core X5472 @ 3.0 -- GTX 285 -- Windows 7 64

1680x1050 High no AA DX 10
38.47 FPS -- steelbom -- Dual Quad Core X5472 @ 3.0 -- GTX 285 -- Windows 7 64

Continued next post


----------



## steelbom

The next five:

Code:


Code:


1680x1050 High 4xAA DX9
39.28 FPS -- steelbom -- Dual Quad Core X5472 @ 3.0 -- GTX 285 -- Windows 7 64

1680x1050 High 4xAA DX10
33.01 FPS -- steelbom -- Dual Quad Core X5472 @ 3.0 -- GTX 285 -- Windows 7 64

1680x1050 Very High no AA DX10
24.42 FPS -- steelbom -- Dual Quad Core X5472 @ 3.0 -- GTX 285 -- Windows 7 64

1920x1200 Very High no AA DX10
21.57 FPS -- steelbom -- Dual Quad Core X5472 @ 3.0 -- GTX 285 -- Windows 7 64

1920x1200 Very High 16xQ DX10
17.88 FPS -- steelbom -- Dual Quad Core X5472 @ 3.0 -- GTX 285 -- Windows 7 64

That's all of em

Kind Regards


----------



## ATI4rme

You can now put on number 1 spot on this benchmark. DX10-1280X1024 no AA run.

Attachment 120952


----------



## kkbob33

Score with my i7 rig


----------



## Tazi

ok heres mine,maybe you should make a 1920x1200 16xq very high box.

50.78=very high settings 1920x1200 16xqAA


----------



## kkbob33

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TÃ¡zÃ¯* 
ok heres mine,maybe you should make a 1920x1200 16xq very high box.

50.78=very high settings 1920x1200 16xqAA










This thread is so old and i dont think the OP is even updating it anymore







. Its a shame because my new setup owns the 9600GT setup thats listed(which was actually run by me well over a year ago







)


----------



## dan7777

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TÃ¡zÃ¯* 
ok heres mine,maybe you should make a 1920x1200 16xq very high box.

50.78=very high settings 1920x1200 16xqAA










nice score ive tryed crysis @ 16Q and my fps go"s to like 20 fps oh well.... on warhead 16Q 57 FPS


----------



## kkbob33

Iggster is on top of the list lol. What ever happened to him? I bet he went bankrupt! LMAO


----------



## Faster/Denis

Asus Rampage II Extreme
Core i7 950
3x2gb G.Skill Trident DDR3 2000
CrossfireX 5870
HD: 2x Hitachi 320GB Raid0 / 1x Hitachi 500GB
Enermax Galaxy Evo 1050W
Water Cooler

DX9 / 1280x1024 / No AA / High / Overall Average FPS: 110,02
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/1665/crysisdx946.jpg

DX10 / 1280x1024 / No AA / High / Overall Average FPS: 108,75
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9...ysisdx1046.jpg


----------



## kkbob33

crossfire 5870s kills!................................should i get a pair or no?


----------



## Faster/Denis

..


----------



## Faster/Denis

..


----------



## Faster/Denis

..


----------



## Faster/Denis

110 fps -- Faster -- i7 950 @ 4.6 -- 2x 5870, Stock -- Windows 7 Ultimate 64
DX9 Results (Setup Type #1): 1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High: http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1665/crysisdx946.jpg

108,75 fps -- Faster -- i7 950 @ 4.6 -- 2x 5870, Stock -- Windows 7 Ultimate 64
DX10 Results (Setup Type #2):1280x1024, No AA, Game Quality: High: http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9779/crysisdx1046.jpg

99 fps -- Faster -- i7 950 @ 4.6 -- 2x 5870, Stock -- Windows 7 Ultimate 64
DX9 1680x1050, High Detail, NO AA: http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/488...x1050noaa4.jpg

93,29 fps -- Faster -- i7 950 @ 4.6 -- 2x 5870, Stock -- Windows 7 Ultimate 64
DX10 1680x1050, High Detail, NO AA: http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/773...0x1050noaa.jpg

95,51 fps -- Faster -- i7 950 @ 4.6 -- 2x 5870, Stock -- Windows 7 Ultimate 64
DX9 1680x1050, High Detail, 4x AA: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/418...x10504xaa4.jpg

84,14 fps -- Faster -- i7 950 @ 4.6 -- 2x 5870, Stock -- Windows 7 Ultimate 64
DX10 1680x1050, High Detail, 4x AA: http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/326...0x10504xaa.jpg

64,23 fps -- Faster -- i7 950 @ 4.6 -- 2x 5870, Stock -- Windows 7 Ultimate 64
DX10 1680x1050, Very-High Detail, NO AA: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/640...0x1050very.jpg


----------



## Ocnewb

Is my fps acceptable to play Crysis anyone? I don't play this game so i have no idea. A local guy wants to buy my rig to play Crysis on AA 8x so i want to know ur inputs.


----------



## steelbom

Looks good to me, I'd tell him how the benchmark went - the results of the benchmark, and any other important details.

Low of 26 is pretty good I think








Is this Crysis warhead or the first that he wants to play? I think FPS might vary on which one he plays.

Kind Regards


----------



## Faster/Denis

when the rankings are updated?


----------



## kkbob33

Last year







....Sadly, I think the guy gave up.


----------



## Ihatethedukes

Alright fellas, I've got a trifire rig result. 5970+5870 all stock. With screenshots to show AA is being applied.

DX10 Very High, 8xAA










DX10 Very High, 4xAA+ edge detect (12xAA)









DX10 Very High, 4xAA


----------



## Ihatethedukes

*DX10, Very High, 1900x1200, 8xAA + wide tent (16x)*









*DX10, Very High, 1900x1200, 8xAA + box (8x)*









*DX10, Very high, 1900x1200, 8xAA + box + supersampling*


----------



## Slightly skewed

Interesting results. Thanks for posting those.


----------



## Cliobritt

My first post and my 1st dip into this..

I can't get ATI tool to work so its std clock speeds.

Max FPS 84.57

Av 67.07

I7 920

ATI 4890

6 gig RAM.

waiting till I get BB internet on sat to DL 3dm06

Lee.


----------



## Cliobritt

http://http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/..._4821206_n.jpg


----------



## Cliobritt




----------



## badger6021

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cliobritt*












 problem loading page link no good!


----------



## Cliobritt

Mate I cant post the screen shot! 
is it URL after right click in the ins image?


----------



## Cliobritt

http://http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/...0045_779855045


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cliobritt*


http://http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/...0045_779855045


----------



## Cliobritt

thanks mate!


----------



## Cliobritt

does that get me in the top 25?


----------



## Pouleterie

I'm a little confused. I just ran the test on mine, 1900x1200, No AA, Very High quality, and I'm getting an average of 37 fps... That doesn't sound quite right at all, does it? I mean looking at the first page someone's getting a better average fps with a q6600 at 3.2 and 2x9800 GTX cards? lol. Running 195.62, SLI updated, and made sure the SLI profile from the NVIDIA control panel was loaded.


----------



## fear5300

18.27 fps -- fear5300 -- x3 720 @ 2.8-- 4870 1gb, 750/900 -- Vista Ultimate 64 SP2









34.45 -- fear5300 -- x3 720 @ 2.8-- 4870 1gb, 750/900 -- Vista Ultimate 64 SP2









20.79 -- fear5300 -- x3 720 @ 2.8-- 4870 1gb, 750/900 -- Vista Ultimate 64 SP2









Sucky framerates but my system sucks. :/


----------



## bigsentry

Setup #2

109.185 fps -- bigsentry -- i7 920 @ 4.1 -- 2x 5870 (2 GPUs) -- Windows 7(64b)


----------



## 88EVGAFTW

Eat it.


----------



## fear5300

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigsentry* 
Setup #2

109.185 fps -- bigsentry -- i7 920 @ 4.1 -- 2x 5870 (2 GPUs) -- Windows 7(64b)

I ammmmm verryyy jealous.







Nice benchies mate!


----------



## bigsentry

Quote:



Originally Posted by *fear5300*


I ammmmm verryyy jealous.







Nice benchies mate!










Thanks m8!









I figured I should run it again with higher settings:


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *88evgaftw*


eat it.











sli?


----------



## bigsentry

Quote:



Originally Posted by *88EVGAFTW*


Eat it.


No, YOU eat it!


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bigsentry* 
No, YOU eat it!









He was also running dx9. Nice scores guys.


----------



## FtW 420

Ran this for a different thread a few days ago, 2 x gtx285


----------



## 1BADASS

Inno 3d GTX 295 platinum OC'd.Still putting out some good frames

25/05/2010 4:04:49 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1900x1200, AA=4x, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 66.31s, Average FPS: 30.16
Min FPS: 24.12 at frame 1945, Max FPS: 43.55 at frame 865
Average Tri/Sec: -10047431, Tri/Frame: -333138
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.75
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 55.33s, Average FPS: 36.15
Min FPS: 23.55 at frame 1951, Max FPS: 43.80 at frame 992
Average Tri/Sec: -11653863, Tri/Frame: -322379
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.84
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 55.09s, Average FPS: 36.31
Min FPS: 23.55 at frame 1951, Max FPS: 44.61 at frame 1016
Average Tri/Sec: -11614403, Tri/Frame: -319911
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.87
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

25/05/2010 4:04:49 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 36.23


----------



## make82

New on the board, this is my first score:

Play Time: 27.41s, Average FPS: 72.97
Min FPS: 47.46 at frame 1973, Max FPS: 101.36 at frame 105
Average Tri/Sec: 72663240, Tri/Frame: 995831
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92


----------



## robbo2




----------



## Slightly skewed

^^ Still not playable with a min of 6FPS. Not even close.


----------



## steelbom

I'm getting a min/max/avg of 14.11/36.74/25.69 maxed out @ 720p (no AA) w/ Crysis Warhead.


----------



## robbo2

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Slightly skewed*


^^ Still not playable with a min of 6FPS. Not even close.


The first run was really bogged down an slow the next 2 actually ran quite decent although I still wouldn't call it playable.


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:



Originally Posted by *robbo2*


The first run was really bogged down an slow the next 2 actually ran quite decent although I still wouldn't call it playable.


 You have the windowed box ticked. Why?


----------



## robbo2

To run it at that res. My screen is only 1920x1080


----------



## Slightly skewed

Wut? How can those results be accurate then?


----------



## robbo2

To run it at the resolution of 2560x1600 I had to run it in windowed mode. You can't see it all obviously but it still renders it.


----------



## cookiemonsta

just fort i would post my crysis benchmark results with 2 hd4890s in cf

*DIRECTX 10*
100.265 fps -- cookiemonsta -- i7 920 @ 3.8 -- 2x HD4890s, 875/1000 -- WIN 7 X64


----------



## cookiemonsta

Here is my crysis benchmark result @ 1900 x 1200

*DIRECTX 10*

50.4 fps -- cookiemonsta -- i7 920 @ 3.8 -- 2x HD4890s, 875/1000 -- win 7 x64


----------



## cookiemonsta

here is my crysis bench results @ 1900x1200 - AA X8 on 2 4890s in cf

*DIRECTX 10*
*43.05 fps -- cookiemonsta -- i7 920 @ 3.8 -- 2x HD4890s, 875/1000 -- WIN 7 X64*


----------



## tasospaok123

DIRECT X 10
34.27fps -- tasospaok123 -- q8400 @ 2,66 -- 5830, 875/1200 -- Win 7 64bit

1680x1050 @ high 4xAA


----------



## mastical

Cant break 50 Ahhhhhh










2 5870's @ 1020/1275


----------



## grunion

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mastical* 
Cant break 50 Ahhhhhh










2 5870's @ 1020/1275

Hmm something wrong there.
Are your memory clocks stable?
Could throttle performance if not stable.
My results, stock clocks.

Attachment 167032


----------



## mastical

^ ^ ^ What cpu? The E8400?


----------



## grunion

Quad


----------



## Fallen Angel -X

With my 260s


----------



## humpmasterflex1

Wish i could tell you but i keep getting some error and it says the benchmark is still running when it clearly stops...

But i was getting anywhere from 25-34 fps @1920x1080 DX10 4x AA


----------



## capoDJ

DX10 32bit bench
82.41 -- capoDJ -- i7 [email protected] -- gtx 480 @ 800/1000/1600 -- Win7 64
Attachment 168559


----------



## Zemshin

DX10 1920x1080 AA=16xQ, 64 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 70.72


----------



## kora04

anyone knows how to apply 1440x900 res on that benchmark tool?


----------



## lordikon

Wow, people are still posting on this thing?

Could someone help me automate this thread by putting a link where you can enter your stats? It is very difficult updating the entire OP by hand anytime someone makes it on the list....which is why I haven't updated it in over a year now.


----------



## yourtoilet

I'm curious some mouth ago I had 52fps avg, 1680x1050 on veryhigh with dx10 with 5870.

Now, I have 50fps avg, did the two fps go to vacation or what? CCC and everything were the same. anyone have the same symptom?


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *yourtoilet*


I'm curious some mouth ago I had 52fps avg, 1680x1050 on veryhigh with dx10 with 5870.

Now, I have 50fps avg, did the two fps go to vacation or what? CCC and everything were the same. anyone have the same symptom?


You switched to the 10.8 cats, didn't you?


----------



## yourtoilet

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grunion*


You switched to the 10.8 cats, didn't you?


If my memory serves me right, I had this decrease on 10.8 and drivers before it: 10.7 and 10.6, not sure about 10.5. Two fps is quite a lot, it corresponds to 75mhz and to get back to 52fps id have to increase the core to 1075mhz, thats crazy.


----------



## Yoko Littner

one i did a few day's ago.

Eat it!!!!



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## Yoko Littner

Bump.


----------



## FtW 420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yoko Littner;11795530*
> Bump.


Well that was a pretty fast bump. I'll have to find my runs I did with the 285s if this still gets updated...


----------



## Yoko Littner

Im reviving this thread :3


----------



## Yoko Littner

crysis 1680X1050 8xaa veryhigh. 74fps average 53 minimum.

that's beating GTX 470 sli!


----------



## robbo2

You do realize that unless you forced 8xAA in CCC you weren't actually running with 8xAA?


----------



## Yoko Littner

umm.. this is a myth.

Iv'e tryed and my FPS adjusted accordingly.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *robbo2;11795729*
> You do realize that unless you forced 8xAA in CCC you weren't actually running with 8xAA?


----------



## FtW 420

I will leave your score to be admired for a while before showing what volt modding a pair of 285s to hell & back & OCing the crap out of a cpu can do...


----------



## Witchdoctor

I love this bench


----------



## FtW 420

Just noticed I've posted in this thread before, was just never added to the OP. The 285s are still king.
http://www.overclock.net/8744083-post782.html


----------



## robbo2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yoko Littner;11795740*
> umm.. this is a myth.
> 
> Iv'e tryed and my FPS adjusted accordingly.


Interesting I have always believed it to be true an had people show me benchmarks to prove it was. Can you do a run with 4xAA an post the results?


----------



## Yoko Littner

Bull 2 GTX 285's scoring 91fps??

Impossible.


----------



## FtW 420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yoko Littner;11795968*
> Bull 2 GTX 285's scoring 91fps??
> 
> Impossible.


Difficult, but not impossible. Very few 285s clock like those & cpu is higher than many can manage. I still have the 285s & can freeze the cpu now, bet I could improve on that...


----------



## Yoko Littner

Your clock's on the 285's are nothing impressive.

your CPu is at 4.7GHZ.

Which wont make that much of a difference say from 4.2GHz

Srry man.. i just cant believe it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FtW 420;11796039*
> Difficult, but not impossible. Very few 285s clock like those & cpu is higher than many can manage. I still have the 285s & can freeze the cpu now, bet I could improve on that...


----------



## FtW 420

Have a peek around here: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_285?tab=rankings#/manufacturer.rankings.do?applicationId=17&manufacturer=nvidia&hardwareTypeId=GPU_1444&hardwareType=GPU&tabid=gpubenchmarks
Nobody else has a pair of 285s that clock like these on water. Only people with higher clocks on them are frozen single cards. I just noticed I've gotten knocked down the ranks pretty good by folks with 980x, I`ll have to rebench everything & take my points back...

cpu clocks in crysis don't make a big difference, but still a difference.


----------



## Yoko Littner

So you expect me to believe that you have godly card's. and are an uber overclock?

uh huh.....

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FtW 420;11796178*
> Have a peek around here: http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_285?tab=rankings#/manufacturer.rankings.do?applicationId=17&manufacturer=nvidia&hardwareTypeId=GPU_1444&hardwareType=GPU&tabid=gpubenchmarks
> Nobody else has a pair of 285s that clock like these on water. Only people with higher clocks on them are frozen single cards. I just noticed I've gotten knocked down the ranks pretty good by folks with 980x, I`ll have to rebench everything & take my points back...


----------



## FtW 420

I only wish I was an uber-clocker, but I try. The 285s are godly among 285s though, screenshots & scores tell the story.


----------



## Yoko Littner

hmmmm.


----------



## FtW 420

Need to keep in mind I'm a benchmarker too, I'll take a soldering iron to whatever is holding me back & force more performance out of it, I also spend a stupid amount of money on hardware.
Just wish I could luck out with new cards like I did with the 285s, had to get 5 x 480s to get 2 great cards for sli, & looking like I'll have to do the same for 580s to get some good ones.
Evga binning has gone downhill. Bring on the 580 lightnings MSI...


----------



## Yoko Littner

Like thousands?

Iv'e shelled out 4k in the last year.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FtW 420;11796466*
> Need to keep in mind I'm a benchmarker too, I'll take a soldering iron to whatever is holding me back & force more performance out of it, I also spend a stupid amount of money on hardware.
> Just wish I could luck out with new cards like I did with the 285s, had to get 5 x 480s to get 2 great cards for sli, & looking like I'll have to do the same for 580s to get some good ones.
> Evga binning has gone downhill. Bring on the 580 lightnings MSI...


----------



## FtW 420

Think I've done close to 4k on gpus this last year, I spent over $500 on new mem kits just this month.


----------



## Yoko Littner

bump.


----------



## Arrowslinger




----------



## AcerocksWS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yoko Littner;11795487*
> one i did a few day's ago.
> 
> Eat it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Is it possible for one of you posters that have an average FPS's above 70+ run a bench mark that we can view submitted validated results and not screen shots, a benchmark such as 3DMark Vantage? I'm not saying you guys are not getting FPS's that high with the equipment that you list... but those frame rates are compared and even higher than other users running i7 980x @ 4660MHz, TRI-SLI GTX 580 HC2 GPU's runing @ 1820/2110 etc... etc... So maybe it's just that the combination of Windows 7 64Bit, i7-980x, TRI-SLI GTX 580 HC2's can't take any more advantage of the older Crysis game benchmark tool so they all flatten out etc.

Thanks!


----------



## logan666

heres my lil 460s in action


----------



## Yoko Littner

my system is optimized very well.

tri sli doesnt scale well.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AcerocksWS;11804506*
> Is it possible for one of you posters that have an average FPS's above 70+ run a bench mark that we can view submitted validated results and not screen shots, a benchmark such as 3DMark Vantage? I'm not saying you guys are not getting FPS's that high with the equipment that you list... but those frame rates are compared and even higher than other users running i7 980x @ 4660MHz, TRI-SLI GTX 580 HC2 GPU's runing @ 1820/2110 etc... etc... So maybe it's just that the combination of Windows 7 64Bit, i7-980x, TRI-SLI GTX 580 HC2's can't take any more advantage of the older Crysis game benchmark tool so they all flatten out etc.
> 
> Thanks!


----------



## RagingCain

And Yoko is starting again.... Good scores FTW, I am definitely going to try and compete with you









The Crysis record iirc is on 285s, isn't it?

@acerock, that's entirely possible, I will do my best to get validated for you, please give me some time as I am moving in 12 hours. Just so you know, I am just under 70 fps on the i7 980x, with Ultra custom config so I will have to wipe and reinstall just to go back to very high.

P.S. Official 580 drivers are a bit broken right now. We get 35% gains from the latest quadro drivers.

Sent from my DROID2


----------



## AcerocksWS

Thanks guys, it's not that I question the trueness of your scores... It's just your scores are right on with the higher end GTX580 HC2s and I was just wanting a bench run that I could compare to for system specs etc like total RAM, drives, drivers and versions etc etc etc. Vantage is the only Bench software I know of that posts and validates for compare. I know the nVidia drivers out right now are JUNK. Totally the wrose roll out of a new cards/driver I think nVidia has ever released. It's a shame because when I drop $2,100 + on 3 video cards and the cards/drivers don't work well with each other it just leaves a really BAD TASTE in ones mounth!


----------



## ~sizzzle~

First time running this benchmark. Couldn't get 64bit to work ? Anyhow this is what I have so far. How does it look ?

i7 [email protected] - [email protected]

DX9 - High - No AA - 1280 X 1024 - Avg. FPS 83.09









DX10 - High - NO AA - 1280 X 1024 - Avg. FPS 61.51









DX10 - Very High - AA 8x - 1920 X 1080 - Avg. FPS 40.58









Wish the screenshots had the min. FPS in them because I didn't write it down. LOL. I was suprised that the last one pulled 40 FPS. 40 should be playable but those settings are pretty laggy in game. Most likely due to low min. FPS. I'll have to run it again.


----------



## Fallen Angel -X

Dude at 1920 x 1080 how did you average 40 with no aa

I think the aa didnt work

I get 42fps avg with no aa at 1920 x 1080 very high


----------



## ~sizzzle~

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fallen Angel -X;11817822*
> Dude at 1920 x 1080 how did you average 40 with no aa
> 
> I think the aa didnt work
> 
> I get 42fps avg with no aa at 1920 x 1080 very high


IDK This is my first day running this bench. I ran it again after I saw your comment at very high, 8X AA, 1920 X 1080 and got the same results (~40). So then I ran it again without AA and only did marginally better (ss below). Maybe my system is already so bogged down at those settings that with or without AA isn't going to make a big difference ?


----------



## Fallen Angel -X

Woah man thats crazy

At 1000/1200 i get 42fps avg

How are you getting 42fps at 800/1000 xD

Maybe driver versions xD


----------



## ~sizzzle~

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fallen Angel -X;11819420*
> Woah man thats crazy
> 
> At 1000/1200 i get 42fps avg
> 
> How are you getting 42fps at 800/1000 xD
> 
> Maybe driver versions xD


That may be. 10.3 works for me without much problems and after reading about all the problems everyone else was having with the newer drivers as they came out I just chose not to update it.









[edit]

Ran it again with the 5850 stock @ 725/1000. Glad my overclock is giving me a whopping 2.635 FPS


----------



## youra6

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yoko Littner;11795740*
> umm.. this is a myth.
> 
> Iv'e tryed and my FPS adjusted accordingly.


Alright then... Run the same benchmark with 0AA. I have reason to doubt you; take no offensive though


----------



## snowtoday

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fallen Angel -X;11819420*
> Woah man thats crazy
> 
> At 1000/1200 i get 42fps avg
> 
> How are you getting 42fps at 800/1000 xD
> 
> Maybe driver versions xD


It looks a little crazy for sure.


----------



## Yoko Littner

it's ok. ill convince you









Quote:



Originally Posted by *youra6*


Alright then... Run the same benchmark with 0AA. I have reason to doubt you; take no offensive though


----------



## man from atlantis

*Crysis*
GTX 460 @940/1880/4600Mhz
1920x1080, Dx10, 4xAA, 64 bit, Forceware 265.90










http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/4233/desktop2011010101042853.png
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5055/desktop2011010100515035.png










http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/8389/desktop2011010100373364.png


----------



## logan666

my 460s


----------



## ~sizzzle~

New GPU overclock: 1920 X 1080; Very High; DX10; No AA










Just updated drivers to 10.12 and ran it again. FPS only went up a tiny bit; I was just glad it didn't drop or crash all together with all the driver horror stories I've read.


----------



## Fallen Angel -X

Wow sizzle thats epic

I get 42fps avg @ 1000/1200


----------



## Fallen Angel -X

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *~sizzzle~;11898635*
> New GPU overclock: 1920 X 1080; Very High; DX10; No AA


Same settings

GPU @1000/1200
CPU I3 @ 4200MHz (it isnt the i7 as crysis only uses 2 cores)










How in the hell are you 8fps up on me xD

Is your crysis patched?


----------



## ~sizzzle~

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Fallen Angel -X*


Same settings

GPU @1000/1200
CPU I3 @ 4200MHz (it isnt the i7 as crysis only uses 2 cores)

How in the hell are you 8fps up on me xD

Is your crysis patched?


I really don't know what to tell you. Initially I just figured it was a difference in drivers. I just updated to 10.12 and came up with 49 FPS at those same benchmark settings. (edited in the ss above)

No special patches on crysis. $5.99 steam version I picked up about a week or so ago. Saw this thread about a benchmark being included and have ran it a couple times. No stripped OS just normal run of the mill install. I do try to make sure I shut down a few things in the background.

You might not want to hear this but I wonder about your stability. I was 20 minutes OCCT stable @ 950 but when running Vantage I was coming up with lower than I expected scores. Bumped GPU Voltage up some more and reran it with a greatly improved score. My CPU 3.8 overclock is very stable as it is the profile that I fold with. Maybe that isn't the case at all I'm just throwing it out there as a possibility because I really don't know why our FPS is so different and looking at the clocks you should be beating me by aways.


----------



## Tazi

here you go heres my crysis screenie,im going for 75 fps...its my goal.


----------



## AznSlayer

Not bad I think, going to be overclocking to ~1100/1300, but until then, enjoy







.


----------



## ~sizzzle~

Almost beat the 5970. Still have room to bump the shader and memory clocks a bit. Aznslayer, what is your 930 running at ?


----------



## AznSlayer

At 3.8ghz, same as yours, except using a 19x multiplier. Here's a shot.










Going to be Overclocking further once I get some new Fans and possibly a new PSU.


----------



## Yoko Littner

ill do a run with some aa if u guys want.

EDIT: hell with it. ill do 8XAA.


----------



## logan666

do u have sli now sizzzle???


----------



## ~sizzzle~

Quote:



Originally Posted by *logan666*


do u have sli now sizzzle???


Yep, picked up an open box deal off newegg and UPS dropped off the 2nd 460 on Tuesday. Had the cards switched around and was running a couple benchies in nothing flat. Pretty happy with the SLI setup so far.


----------



## AdvanSuper

I ran the bench before looking at the standard benching settings so I set it to my max monitor setting, very high and 16xQ... I also have the Natural Mod, but I don't know if that makes it better or worse and I haven't even played the game yet at all.


----------



## GTR Mclaren

Question..can I use that benchmark with the Steam version of crysis ???

and where I can download it ??


----------



## FtW 420

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren;12128388*
> Question..can I use that benchmark with the Steam version of crysis ???
> 
> and where I can download it ??


No idea if it works with the steam version (it should I would think), you can get the bench tool here: http://downloads.guru3d.com/Crysis-Benchmark-Tool-1.05-Final-download-1791.html

Somebody has to beat the sli'd 285s with the new cards one of these days...


----------



## RagingCain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren;12128388*
> Question..can I use that benchmark with the Steam version of crysis ???
> 
> and where I can download it ??


Yes you can, follow FTW's link, but you can't run the 64-bit version (we don't have it) the benchmark tool does work though.

@Yoko
I wonder if your benchmark has the 1" black border around the entire screen or are you hitting ALT+Enter as soon as the benchmark begins because ATI 6870s start the benchmark non-fullscreen no matter what resolution. This gives you fake scores no matter what settings you use.

If you say you are going to do 8xAA, don't post an image of you doing 0xAA immediately after, it will confuse some people.


----------



## Yoko Littner

are you stating that my result's are fake?

and it always starts fullscreen by the way.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RagingCain;12129771*
> Yes you can, follow FTW's link, but you can't run the 64-bit version (we don't have it) the benchmark tool does work though.
> 
> @Yoko
> I wonder if your benchmark has the 1" black border around the entire screen or you hitting ALT+Enter as soon as the benchmark begins because ATI 6870s start the benchmark non-fullscreen no matter what resolution. This gives you fake scores no matter what settings you use.
> 
> If you say you are going to do 8xAA, don't post an image of you doing 0xAA immediately after, it will confuse some people.


----------



## RagingCain

I know for a fact that ATI cards often don't run in full-screen crysis benchmark, and I was just asking if you were running with full screen. I thought for the longest time that my 5870 scores were amazing, then I took a screenshot in game and someone had to point it out to me that my scores were skewed/faked because it wasn't full screen. They explained I have to hit ALT+Enter after it started to properly utilize the screen and run at the benchmark settings.

I am not saying your scores are fake, unless you are not running at full screen by using ALT+Enter. If that is the case, then yes I am.


----------



## Yoko Littner

CrossfireX doesnt work unless fulscreen is applied.

so in the event my result's were not done in fullscreen i would of got 45fps. not 72+.

Hell i can crank my fans up to 100% 1.4V 1100MHZ core and get the same fps at 16x aa if i wanted.

these cards were ment for this game









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RagingCain;12129843*
> I know for a fact that ATI cards often don't run in full-screen crysis benchmark, and I was just asking if you were running with full screen. I thought for the longest time that my 5870 scores were amazing, then I took a screenshot in game and someone had to point it out to me that my scores were skewed/faked because it wasn't full screen.
> 
> I am not saying your scores are fake, unless you are not running at full screen by using ALT+Enter. If that is the case, then yes I am.


----------



## RagingCain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yoko Littner;12129868*
> CrossfireX doesnt work unless fulscreen is applied.
> 
> so in the event my result's were not done in fullscreen i would of got 45fps. not 72+.
> 
> Hell i can crank my fans up to 100% 1.4V 1100MHZ core and get the same fps at 16x aa if i wanted.
> 
> these cards were ment for this game


I had over 100fps at max settings with Crysis in Trifire 5870. After I utilized 5870s correctly I had just over 65fps. The game loads full screen, but you are left with a one inch black border around the entire screen. Hitting ALT+Enter, the windows command that would make a window fullscreen, fixes the GPU scaling issue.

Post a screenshot while the benchmark is running.


----------



## Yoko Littner

The fps in the benchmark display are corresponding with the result's.

72fps average.


----------



## RagingCain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yoko Littner;12129949*
> The fps in the benchmark display are corresponding with the result's.
> 
> 72fps average.


I am sure it does, and it really is 72 fps. But its running at a resolution similar to 1280 x 768.


----------



## Yoko Littner

Run's at 1680X1050.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RagingCain;12129983*
> I am sure it does, and it really is 72 fps. But its running at a resolution similar to 1280 x 768.


----------



## RagingCain

So either you already know about the borders and are continuing to post those results, or you are lying about your benchmarks, since your images show 1920 x 1080.

Referring to this post: Yoko's Latest Benchmark


----------



## Frosty88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RagingCain;12130052*
> So either you already know about the borders and are continuing to post those results, or you are lying about your benchmarks, since your images show 1920 x 1080.
> 
> Referring to this post: Yoko's Latest Benchmark


Yoko's 6870s beat my flashed 6950s by ~5 fps at the same settings. In general, the Crysis benchmark is very buggy, it makes it very hard to tell what's real and what's fake among different GPUs scored.

@Yoko, have you actually set those setting in-game before running the benchmark? That has skewed my results many times.


----------



## Yoko Littner

cain. none of those are an issue.


----------



## Razi3l

Hmm.. Why arent people benching Warhead? :s


----------



## M0E

Sig rig
CPU @4.0Ghz
GPUs @ stock


----------



## Razi3l

delete


----------



## Razi3l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fallen Angel -X;10268303*
> With my 260s


What was that you were telling me on Steam the other day? About my 6950 barely beating your GTX 260s?... Yeah.


----------



## SgtMunky

^^^^ Cant touch the 6950
















[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

thats 8x AA btw


----------



## Razi3l

Quote:



Originally Posted by *joemunky*


^^^^ Cant touch the 6950
















[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

thats 8x AA btw


Hey you don't have voltage control w/ that bios do you?








Check this out


----------



## SgtMunky

I can raise the voltage in ccc now, but I dont need to because raising the clocks from 6950 does nothing impressive.

Heres my newest bench beating 40fps


----------



## Razi3l

Quote:



Originally Posted by *joemunky*


I can raise the voltage in ccc now, but I dont need to because raising the clocks from 6950 does nothing impressive.

Heres my newest bench beating 40fps










Nice, i need to run it with 8xAA still. Will do that later and post back


----------



## antuk15

58.56 fps -- antuk15 -- Phenom 2 x6 @ 4.1 -- 2x 5850's, 850/1225 -- Windows 7 Ultimate x64


----------



## barrpet

*[email protected] - 8GB 1600MHz RAM - Single GTX580 @ 940/2100*

*42.68 FPS*
DX10 - 1920x1080 - Very High - 8xAA


*50.65 FPS*
DX10- 1920x1080 - Very High - No AA


----------



## Razi3l

My "6950" beats that :O by 10 fps :O


----------



## enri95

does anyone with 570 post a bench @ 1920x1080 8xaa very high?


----------



## Razi3l

Quote:



Originally Posted by *enri95*


does anyone with 570 post a bench @ 1920x1080 8xaa very high?


Fermi cards dont do so well in Crysis mate.


----------



## Mr OCN

cpu at stock is holding me back


----------



## mxthunder




----------



## jenesuispasbavard

Dammit the Steam version doesn't even start the benchmark. The "results" show up (just says test complete, with no frame rates) even before the game launches.

Anyone had any success with the Steam version of Crysis with the benchmark tool (or the built-in .bat file)?


----------



## Razi3l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jenesuispasbavard;12425762*
> Dammit the Steam version doesn't even start the benchmark. The "results" show up (just says test complete, with no frame rates) even before the game launches.
> 
> Anyone had any success with the Steam version of Crysis with the benchmark tool (or the built-in .bat file)?


You'll need a no cd patch.


----------



## humpmasterflex1

GTX 470 sli at stock speeds i get 42 fps average

at an OC of 750 Mhz on the core for both cards, i get 43fps average.

LOL...

FAIL!

I'm assuming thats a big CPU bottle neck eh?


----------



## Razi3l

^Yes


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *humpmasterflex1;12431617*
> GTX 470 sli at stock speeds i get 42 fps average
> 
> at an OC of 750 Mhz on the core for both cards, i get 43fps average.
> 
> LOL...
> 
> FAIL!
> 
> I'm assuming thats a big CPU bottle neck eh?


At what settings? Something must be wrong. Let me know the settings you used and Ill do a run. I have unlocked 465s and get just under double that in fps.

Hope you get it figured out.


----------



## humpmasterflex1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mdbsat;12448171*
> At what settings? Something must be wrong. Let me know the settings you used and Ill do a run. I have unlocked 465s and get just under double that in fps.
> 
> Hope you get it figured out.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I oc'd my CPU to 3.4Ghz and the last time i did the benchmark my fps went up to 48 avg after 3 runs in SLI


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *humpmasterflex1;12456845*
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> I oc'd my CPU to 3.4Ghz and the last time i did the benchmark my fps went up to 48 avg after 3 runs in SLI


I cannot quite see your resolution. Can you run it at 1920x1080 without the 64 bit enabled so we can run it at the same settings. I cannot get it to run in 64 bit mode for some reason. Thanks.


----------



## amstech

Does it still use 3 cores fully like the first?
Probably.


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *humpmasterflex1;12456845*
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us
> 
> I oc'd my CPU to 3.4Ghz and the last time i did the benchmark my fps went up to 48 avg after 3 runs in SLI


I cannot quite see your resolution. Can you run it at 1920x1080 without the 64 bit enabled so we can run it at the same settings. I cannot get it to run in 64 bit mode for some reason. Thanks.


----------



## JuniorDaisy

just did mine today, let me know what you think.

avg 42.76 fps JuniorDaisy E5200 @ 3.8GHz, 4870X2 @ stock setting 750/900 Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

EDIT: Ok I guess I ran the wrong one will run it again and post my new scores.


----------



## noahhova

Time to resurrect this thread from the dead, do those numbers look normal? Its the GPU and CPU in my sig same settings.
Also the difference in FPS between No AA and 16xQ was only about 2FPS which seems odd to me.

Edit: is that potentially because I am limited in FPS to what my CPU can pump out??


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *noahhova;13416150*
> Edit: is that potentially because I am limited in FPS to what my CPU can pump out??


Yes, yes, yes. Even with 3x GTX 580's, I can get no higher fps than 47. That's why I ordered an i5-2500k.


----------



## munaim1

Didn't do so bad with my 460's, still testing the overclock as I just installed my second card yesterday. So far loving the fps boost.

Sig rig and GPU at 870core 2050memory:










DX10 - 1920x1080 - Very High - No AA - 32bit - Average *62.735*


----------



## Panickypress

ohh.. heres a newbie question, what program are you guys using to run benchmarks in crysis 2 and how do you do it?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Just fired up this bench for the heck of it. Not too bad:

DX10 - 1920x1080 - Very High - No AA - 32bit - Average *75.07*



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## VettePilot

I ran the crysis bench tool for win 7 and it ran but didnt give me results. I got some error. I dont know if steam was causing a problem. The best I saw during the test was an end avg FPS of 40.8 with all enthusiast settings, AAx4, 1920x1080


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Have you tried running the benchmark program as admin?


----------



## humpmasterflex1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


Just fired up this bench for the heck of it. Not too bad:

DX10 - 1920x1080 - Very High - No AA - 32bit - Average *75.07*



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Damn, a CPU OC really makes that much of a difference?

I get 42 fps average with sig rig


----------



## youra6

Quote:



Originally Posted by *humpmasterflex1*


Damn, a CPU OC really makes that much of a difference?

I get 42 fps average with sig rig


Only 42 FPS with 2 470s? Are you sure the second GPU is enabled?


----------



## VettePilot

It gave me an error that looked like ti had to do with steam preventing it from operating properly. I have no idea what it said. It was just a bunch of jibberish and the word "steam" appeared in there some place.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Have you tried running the benchmark program as admin?


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *humpmasterflex1*


Damn, a CPU OC really makes that much of a difference?

I get 42 fps average with sig rig


I think it defaults to DX9/32b mode when no API is selected.

I get a variation, 32b vs 64b.

Attachment 209752

Attachment 209753


----------



## PrimeBurn

No error or anything, but I'm getting logs but no results in the benchmark utility.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13445448*
> I think it defaults to DX9/32b mode when no API is selected.
> 
> I get a variation, 32b vs 64b.
> 
> View attachment 209752
> 
> 
> View attachment 209753


It defaults to DX10 if nothing is checked...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Also, mine wont run at 64 bit for some reason...


----------



## munaim1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric;13446255*
> Also, mine wont run at 64 bit for some reason...


Go to the bin64 folder and set compatibility to vista service pack 2 and tick run as administrator. This method works fine for me.


----------



## logan666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *humpmasterflex1;13444190*
> Damn, a CPU OC really makes that much of a difference?
> 
> I get 42 fps average with sig rig


mate u should get more than that my mate has sli 470s hes gettin 52 stock and 64 oced


----------



## humpmasterflex1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *youra6;13444660*
> Only 42 FPS with 2 470s? Are you sure the second GPU is enabled?


yea it is obviously... LOL

with single gpu i get 29 fps average on gfly by benchmark

with SLI on i get about 39 fps with my CPU @ stock 2.8



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## munaim1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *humpmasterflex1;13456746*
> yea it is obviously... LOL
> 
> with single gpu i get 29 fps average on gfly by benchmark
> 
> with SLI on i get about 39 fps with my CPU @ stock 2.8
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us


There's something definitely wrong, I get over 60fps with my 460's at 870core (still pushing for more).


----------



## humpmasterflex1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *munaim1;13457314*
> There's something definitely wrong, I get over 60fps with my 460's at 870core (still pushing for more).


Yea the only thing wrong for me is that i am @ stock and you are OC'd to 5Ghz

its a clear bottleneck, just look at my usage, 40% GPU.

Whats a good cooler for 1366?


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

DX10 - 1920x1200 - Very High - No AA - 32bit - Average 82.425


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PrimeBurn;13445786*
> No error or anything, but I'm getting logs but no results in the benchmark utility.


You have to run as admin...


----------



## Enfluenza

hey im having an issue
crysis and crysis warhead wont display at 1080p res for some reason!
'input not supported' bounces on my monitor so i can only play in 1050p res instead








YES I HAVE LEGIT CRYSIS. can any1 help me? i wanna post benchies at 1080p :/


----------



## munaim1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Enfluenza*


hey im having an issue
crysis and crysis warhead wont display at 1080p res for some reason!
'input not supported' bounces on my monitor so i can only play in 1050p res instead








YES I HAVE LEGIT CRYSIS. can any1 help me? i wanna post benchies at 1080p :/


have tried the reset to current game settings button?

To run the actual game in 1080p I have to input +r_width=1920 +r_height=1080 in the shortcut.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


DX10 - 1920x1200 - Very High - No AA - 32bit - Average 82.425











Bah nice cpu bottleneck









Make it go faster! (or add x8/q16 aa)


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Bah nice cpu bottleneck









Make it go faster! (or add x8/q16 aa)










I don't wanna push any more voltage into this chip. I ran it with 16xAA and got 72fps. Shame that 4.9Ghz still bottlenecks these, unless it's my ram?


----------



## Enfluenza

Quote:



Originally Posted by *munaim1*


have tried the reset to current game settings button?

To run the actual game in 1080p I have to input +r_width=1920 +r_height=1080 in the shortcut.


been there done that








idk why but cryengine 2 seems to hate my monitor @ 1080p :/


----------



## munaim1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Enfluenza*


been there done that








idk why but cryengine 2 seems to hate my monitor @ 1080p :/


backup the autoexec.cfg file and see whether or not the benchmarktool runs without it.


----------



## love9sick

What is it with all the bench marks not using AA. Come on. I hate jaggies.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


I don't wanna push any more voltage into this chip. I ran it with 16xAA and got 72fps. Shame that 4.9Ghz still bottlenecks these, unless it's my ram?


Well its bn'ing because its an old game that only uses two cores.

And you have 3 GTX 580s at 1200p res









My 470s don't really bn much with my chip at 1080p.

Bench surround and I bet you could get by with like 3.4GHz or less.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


Just fired up this bench for the heck of it. Not too bad:

DX10 - 1920x1080 - Very High - No AA - 32bit - Average *75.07*



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Still planning a new build?


----------



## grifers

Hi!!.

1080, Very High, Directx 10, AA4X:










Crysis Warhead same settings:










6990 set to 850 Core and 1250 Memory.

Bye!


----------



## combatveteran




----------



## Cotton

removed.


----------



## Cotton




----------



## BallaTheFeared

;o 1.6v


----------



## Cotton

I had just gotten off of 5.6

Didn't need that, but I ran heavy because of the benching. I had a limited amount of time to run and didn't want to mess with BSODs. It kept cool.

5.4 folds with 1.54


----------



## BallaTheFeared

How long have you been running it at 1.54v?


----------



## Cotton

Last night, and twice before. I typically run 1.49, but right now its at 1.4 and 5ghz. Im going to run some unigine and superpi tonight so ill run it high again for a hour or two.

18 through 20C ambient right now. I crank the air up while benching.

As for folding, my stats are in my sig. Fold temps are 66-69C with 1.54 and 25-27C ambient.

Cools down considerably when I drop the house to 18C.


----------



## grifers

1080p no AA (like here). 6990 stock:



Bye!


----------



## Cotton

Nice game library


----------



## grunion

You should put those shortcuts in the toolbar.

View attachment 229292


----------



## grifers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cotton;14969535*
> Nice game library


XDD. Thanks









Bye!!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;14969607*
> You should put those shortcuts in the toolbar.
> 
> View attachment 229292


Nice results







.

Thanks for advise to the Shortcuts







.

Sorry for my english. Bye!


----------



## xardeus

Hows my score guys?


----------



## alexmaia_br

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grifers*
> 
> 1080p no AA (like here). 6990 stock:
> 
> 
> 
> Bye!


Curiosity: Why not run in 64 bits?

I can't seem to run mine in 32 bits, that's the reason of my question


----------



## grifers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alexmaia_br*
> 
> Curiosity: Why not run in 64 bits?
> I can't seem to run mine in 32 bits, that's the reason of my question


Run you to 32 bits and compare







.

Bye!

P.D - I cant run to 64 bits, bench not inicializating......


----------



## alexmaia_br

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grifers*
> 
> Run you to 32 bits and compare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Bye!
> P.D - I cant run to 64 bits, bench not inicializating......


er... I did say I can't run in 32 bits, won't work


----------



## Derko1

Hello! For a while now I've been avoiding playing crysis because it does not run at 60fps all the time. I've been thinking that I'm just having some type of issue, and have been looking into it now.

So before I even try to figure out if anything is wrong. Can you guys tell me if my bench results seem like what they should be for my hardware? I am playing with text mods and reli2. Plus at 2560x1440 and 8xAA, everything at max.

These are my results from the bench in the games folder... for some reason I can not get the tool to display the results within it.
Quote:


> ==============================================================
> TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
> !TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
> Play Time: 36.52s, Average FPS: 54.77
> Min FPS: 42.45 at frame 1942, Max FPS: 85.44 at frame 1756
> Average Tri/Sec: -6619693, Tri/Frame: -120869
> Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -7.58
> !TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
> Play Time: 31.87s, Average FPS: 62.75
> Min FPS: 41.01 at frame 1952, Max FPS: 85.44 at frame 1756
> Average Tri/Sec: -6034407, Tri/Frame: -96162
> Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -9.53
> !TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
> Play Time: 31.84s, Average FPS: 62.81
> Min FPS: 39.90 at frame 1965, Max FPS: 85.44 at frame 1756
> Average Tri/Sec: -5926471, Tri/Frame: -94348
> Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -9.72
> !TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
> Play Time: 31.80s, Average FPS: 62.89
> Min FPS: 39.90 at frame 1965, Max FPS: 85.44 at frame 1756
> Average Tri/Sec: -6052986, Tri/Frame: -96248
> Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -9.52
> TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
> ==============================================================


----------

