# 3870X2 Review @ HardOCP



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ1NCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


----------



## DaMulta (Jan 29, 2008)

I love how they never use the same settings for all the test data......


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jan 29, 2008)

hmm memory bandwidth limited, be better to see how it does against another 256-bit cards, or better yet g92 8800gts sli.


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 29, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> I love how they never use the same settings for all the test data......



Thats why I dont like or read there reviews, there really biased too.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> I love how they never use the same settings for all the test data......



Don't you understand the words "Highest playable".

They start on the same resolution with the same settings and then they go up and up on every card to find the highest playable settings for the card...


----------



## flashstar (Jan 29, 2008)

This "new way" of HardOCP testing is a bunch of crap. How do you define a playable frame rate? Additonally, how does a card with so much more processing power (3870x2) do so poorly against a 8800 gtx when every single other site out there has the 3870x2 pwning it? 

I have not seen a single favorable review for ATI from HardOCP in the past year, especially with this testing method which is highly subjective. 

I think that I am smart enough to determine what a good frame rate is for my needs. I don't need a review site determining how I should play my games.


----------



## DaMulta (Jan 29, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> Don't you understand the words "Highest playable".
> 
> They start on the same resolution with the same settings and then they go up and up on every card to find the highest playable settings for the card...



playable can mean different things to different people. Just run the game on defaults or max and give the results. No need to turn this setting up on one card and not on the other then show a score that is only a few FPS off. 

I just don't agree with the way they do it, never have.


----------



## erocker (Jan 29, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> playable can mean different things to different people. Just run the game on defaults or max and give the results. No need to turn this setting up on one card and not on the other then show a score that is only a few FPS off.
> 
> I just don't agree with the way they do it, never have.



+1, I believe video card reviews should be done on the fastest system possible as well..


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

flashstar said:


> I have not seen a single favorable review for ATI from HardOCP in the past year, especially with this testing method which is highly subjective.



That is not true!

Quote from their 3870/3850 review:



> The Radeon HD 3850 is really the star of the show at its price point of $179. The fact that it contains the full 320 streaming processors as the Radeon HD 3870, with simply lower clock speeds means it is one lean mean fully featured machine. We consistently saw it smacking around the 8600 GTS factory overclocked video card. The gameplay advantages weren’t small; they were night and day noticeable in many instances.
> 
> The Radeon HD 3870 can be summed up as being slightly faster than a Radeon HD 2900 XT, with less power draw, but not as fast as a GeForce 8800 GT. However, at $219 the 3870 does offer a great value with the average selling price of the GeForce 8800 GT being over $290.
> 
> We highly recommend the ATI Radeon HD 3850 for gaming under $200. With the average price of a GeForce 8800 GT currently at $293 and stock hard to find, the Radeon HD 3870 represents a healthy $70 savings while providing the best gaming experience at the $219 price point. Both the HD 3850 and HD 3870 represent the best gaming experience at their suggested retail prices. ATI has assured us that MSRP priced cards will be available and are classifying this as a “hard launch.”



And back in the days with the ATI X19xx releases HardOCP was always very postive about ATI hardware.

But the HD2900 cards were a joke...


----------



## erocker (Jan 29, 2008)

flashstar said:


> This "new way" of HardOCP testing is a bunch of crap. How do you define a playable frame rate? Additonally, how does a card with so much more processing power (3870x2) do so poorly against a 8800 gtx when every single other site out there has the 3870x2 pwning it?
> 
> I have not seen a single favorable review for ATI from HardOCP in the past year, especially with this testing method which is highly subjective.
> 
> I think that I am smart enough to determine what a good frame rate is for my needs. I don't need a review site determining how I should play my games.



In all honesty, ATi really didn't put out anything to warrant a favorable review in the last year, up untill the HD3XXX series.


----------



## flashstar (Jan 29, 2008)

I didn't see that review. Their reviewing methods are still very sub-par though.

Ati's 2900xt still did much better than what HardOCP led people to believe however.


----------



## erocker (Jan 29, 2008)

flashstar said:


> I didn't see that review. Their reviewing methods are still very sub-par though.
> 
> Ati's 2900xt still did much better than what HardOCP led people to believe however.



Just like most other sites.  Not too many had decent drivers for the reviews.  While I really don't like thier review method, I really don't think they are biased.  C'mon, when the G80 came out, it was the next best thing to breathing air.  Bad reviews usually don't come by bias, they come by dissapointment, which is what ATi/AMD have been lately.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

flashstar said:


> Ati's 2900xt still did much better than what HardOCP led people to believe however.



That's not true. Only the first ATI 2900XT were very positive, and the very high 3DMark score was a big "wauw" in the beginning.

TomsHardware charts clearly show that the 8800GTS 320MB is slightly faster then the 2900XT:







This is the overall result of 8 games tested with many different resolutions and settings.

The above was tested in DirectX 9, now take a look at DirectX 10 results:






Now, are you gonna say that Tomshardware is biased aswell?

The 2900XT was never better then the 8800GTS while many people beleaved it was equal to the GTS 640...some eaven thaught it was faster.


----------



## flashstar (Jan 29, 2008)

Unfortunately, I believe that Tom's hardware is biased as well. Tweaktown recently conducted a review of the 2900pro and even it beat the 8800gts 320 mb. The 2900xt smoked the 8800gts. 

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1189/8/page_8_benchmarks_f_e_a_r/index.html


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

flashstar said:


> Unfortunately, I believe that Tom's hardware is biased as well. Tweaktown recently conducted a review of the 2900pro and even it beat the 8800gts 320 mb. The 2900xt smoked the 8800gts.
> 
> http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1189/8/page_8_benchmarks_f_e_a_r/index.html



4 months ago = recently?

The 2900Pro faster then GTS 320MB? LMAO!

Tomshardware biased? LMAO times two! 

Haven't you noticed how many ATI Analysis tweaktown has? They clearly prefer ATI and whats keeping them from messing around with the scores...
They reviewed so many ATI drivers but never Nvidia drivers, doesn't that tell you anything? Think about it...


----------



## flashstar (Jan 29, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> 4 months ago = recently?
> 
> The 2900Pro faster then GTS 320MB? LMAO!
> 
> ...



Have you noticed that Tom's Hardware never reviews new ATI drivers? I don't see what's funny about the 2900pro being faster than the 8800gts 320. The 2900pro IS physically a faster card. Look at the specs. 

Anyway, the pro really shines when you speed it up to over XT speeds. With good air cooling, you can hit 1 ghz on the core and easily pass the 8800gtx.


----------



## magibeg (Jan 29, 2008)

Well i'm not sure what all the hoopla is about but i can tell you this little bit from what i've noticed. In my immediate friends base we all have q6600 cpus, the same type of ram, and similar motherboards. My 3870 easily bests my friends 8800gts 320 in virtually everything. My other friend has a 8800gt and it seems to be slightly faster. To my knowledge the benchmarks for the hd2900xt are about similar to the 3870 so i'd have to say that a hd2900xt should give a 8800gts a huge beating.

edit- the new 8800gts 512 on the other hand is a different story of course


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

magibeg said:


> Well i'm not sure what all the hoopla is about but i can tell you this little bit from what i've noticed. In my immediate friends base we all have q6600 cpus, the same type of ram, and similar motherboards. My 3870 easily bests my friends 8800gts 320 in virtually everything. My other friend has a 8800gt and it seems to be slightly faster. To my knowledge the benchmarks for the hd2900xt are about similar to the 3870 so i'd have to say that a hd2900xt should give a 8800gts a huge beating.
> 
> edit- the new 8800gts 512 on the other hand is a different story of course



Look, I personally owned a 8800GTS, a 8800GT and the 3870.

Evidence that I owned 8800GTS and 8800GT:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?threadid=243024

Evidence that I owned ATI 3870:
http://computers.zoekertjes.net/dualcore_directx_101_gamepc

2900XT > 3870 = 8800GTS 640 < 8800GT


----------



## ghost101 (Jan 29, 2008)

8800gtx being better value than the 3870x2? Isnt the 8800gtx $450 as well? What complete crap. Most review sites have shown that the card can beat the 8800ultra in half of the games they test it on. Where the new card performs badly is in nvidia's domain i.e. Quake wars etc.


----------



## zOaib (Jan 29, 2008)

flashstar said:


> This "new way" of HardOCP testing is a bunch of crap. How do you define a playable frame rate? Additonally, how does a card with so much more processing power (3870x2) do so poorly against a 8800 gtx when every single other site out there has the 3870x2 pwning it?
> 
> I have not seen a single favorable review for ATI from HardOCP in the past year, especially with this testing method which is highly subjective.
> 
> I think that I am smart enough to determine what a good frame rate is for my needs. I don't need a review site determining how I should play my games.



ill have the hd 3870 x2 2morrow will give u guys a better benchmark , honestly all these nvidia fanboy sites are just overly crazy in thier effort to debunk AMD/ATi ............... i mean i like both companies and its good there are 2 of them out there ..................... i have been riding with a 8800 gts g92 since it gave me better performance than the hd 3870 and now i switching back to ati , because they have something BETTER than the green right now.

anywho u guys will get a kick out of reviews on newegg. nvidia fanboys spewing false comments on there under the hd 3870 x2 , to quote one " an overclocked 8800 gt can beat this dual hd 3870 hands down " LOL ..............


----------



## ghost101 (Jan 29, 2008)

Who actually respects hardocp video card reviews? Kyle on the thread for this benchmark, admitted that they do not try to do the same things for each test. Instead, they just "play the game". If that isnt easily manipulated and subject to high variance, i dont know what is.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> 8800gts being better value than the 3870x2?



And where did you see anyone posting that?


----------



## ghost101 (Jan 29, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> And where did you see anyone posting that?



sorry typo,

8800gtx accordng to hardocp


----------



## ghost101 (Jan 29, 2008)

If anyone believes this has some remblance of accuracy, they are deluded. The 8800gtx is 30 fps slower at 1 second and then 30fps better the next.






Look at some of the differences at ~420secs and ~470. If the scene composition is similar in both tests, i'll eat my hand.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> If anyone believes this has some remblance of accuracy, they are deluded. The 8800gtx is 30 fps at 1 second and then 30fps better the next.



Eeuhm...so? I see that every day. I play America's Army on 2048x1536 and my framerate can drop from 85 to 65 in less then a second. What's so strange about that?


----------



## ghost101 (Jan 29, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> Eeuhm...so? I see that every day. I play America's Army on 2048x1536 and my framerate can drop from 85 to 65 in less then a second. What's so strange about that?



Im not talkign about that. Im saying relative to each other. Of course 2 cars approacing a bend will both slow down and then speed up. But when one speeds up at a bend and the other slows down, theyre clearly not at the same bend.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> Im not talkign about that. Im saying relative to each other. Of course 2 cars approacing a bend will both slow down and then speed up. But when one speeds up at a bend and the other slows down, theyre clearly not at the same bend.



Two different cards, two different brands, two different architectures. It would be strange if both card "reacted" the same way in games now wouldn't it?

Why not check for yourself if it's possible. I re-tested hardware that got reviewed on hardocp once and I clearly saw that the benchmarks are not false.

Just ask some friends to give their hardware for a day and test it for yourself


----------



## ghost101 (Jan 29, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> Two different cards, two different brands, two different architectures. It would be strange if both card "reacted" the same way in games now wouldn't it?



No it wouldnt. Architectures are inherently similar. One car may slow down at a bend less than the other due to better grip and downforce, BUT they will both slow down.

Check their crysis results. That resembles much more accruracy. Difference between the 2 should be a parallel shift.

edit: the crysis graph may be better, but there are still problems.


----------



## TUngsten (Jan 29, 2008)

lol Jelle will be @ 25ppd by the time this silly argument loses steam

The value in different methods of testing products like GPUs is that we have a wealth of information to use when deciding which to buy. 

If you don't agree with HardOCP reviews, don't read them. If you do, we get it, you can stop shouting about it.....


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

TUngsten said:


> lol Jelle will be @ 25ppd by the time this silly argument loses steam
> 
> The value in different methods of testing products like GPUs is that we have a wealth of information to use when deciding which to buy.
> 
> If you don't like HardOCP reviews, don't read them. If you do, we get it, you can stop shouting about it.....


----------



## ghost101 (Jan 29, 2008)

TUngsten said:


> lol Jelle will be @ 25ppd by the time this silly argument loses steam
> 
> The value in different methods of testing products like GPUs is that we have a wealth of information to use when deciding which to buy.
> 
> If you don't agree with HardOCP reviews, don't read them. If you do, we get it, you can stop shouting about it.....



Well when someone goes out and purchases an 8800gtx on the recommendation of HardOCP, because its supposedly better than the 3870x2 then clearly theres something wrong going on.

Im just getting the word out that people should ignore this review. I dont want to see people making mistakes.

A different result which is wrong doesnt add to the information, its simply wrong. It is an outlier which should be ignored. Very basic scientific methodology.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> Well when someone goes out and purchases an 8800gtx on the recommendation of HardOCP, because its supposedly better than the 3870x2 then clearly theres something wrong going on.
> 
> Im just getting the word out that people should ignore this review. I dont want to see people making mistakes.
> 
> A different result which is wrong doesnt add to the information, its simply wrong. It is an outlier which should be ignored. Very basic scientific methodology.



Look, ignore the benchmarks for a second, read what they say about the card:



> *When you boil it all down to the actual gameplay experience delivered, the ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2 does offer a very high level of image quality in games. It is able to handle 2560x1600 very well in Call of Duty 4, HL2, and UT3.* A single Radeon HD 3870 cannot do this, so there is a marked improvement over a single Radeon HD 3870 video card. *As driver updates are released it is a safe bet performance will also be increasing, especially in Crysis.*
> 
> *One thing we really like is the transparent nature of the onboard CrossFire with the Radeon HD 3870 X2. CrossFire is hardwired to be enabled. When we installed the video card there was no CrossFire tab present in Catalyst Control Center. We found CrossFire performance to work out-of-the-box with absolutely no issues! CrossFire on the 3870 X2 is truly transparent. If you are using this card and not aware that it is a dual GPU CrossFire configuration, you likely never will. This is the way it really should be, and we must give kudos to AMD for making this work so well.
> 
> ...



All I see is:
- HardOCP writing a lot of postive things about the card
- HardOCP claiming that new drivers will improve performance
- HardOCP admitting that they didn't use the latest driver available

Clearly they are not anti-ATI...many reviewers didn't mention all the good stuff they mentioned.


----------



## erocker (Jan 29, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> Look, ignore the benchmarks for a second, read what they say about the card:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## ghost101 (Jan 29, 2008)

Im not saying they are anti-ATI. Im saying their methodology is flawed and therefore their conclusion.

Its nice to see that theyve appeased you with a few positive comments.



> *The Bottom Line*
> 
> 
> AMD has delivered an impressive piece of technology; the ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2. While it has some trouble catching up to the performance of the GeForce 8800 GTX, it produces a satisfying gameplay experience. The fact is that unless you are running a 30” monitor the HD 3870 X2 is likely going to “outrun” your display anyway. With the promise of updated drivers it has potential for an improved gameplay experience, and we think that will come. The 3870 X2 is a good value at $449, but the GeForce 8800 GTX is a better value if you can find one on sale like those linked above and don’t mind the MIR. If pricing settles out around the $400 - $420 mark, the ATI HD 3870 X2 is going to be that much more of an attractive video card.



The ultimate conclusion is simply wrong.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> The ultimate conclusion is simply wrong.



Is it?

There are benchmarks on other websites that show simular conslusions:

*Overclockersclub.com:*



> So can we truly believe that when it comes to the ATI HD 3870 X2, that two is better than one? Yes and No.
> 
> Yes because with two processors on one board there is less room occupied. Yes because there is less heat produced. Yes because you can get comparable results to nVidia cards at its price point. Yes because you will be able to run Crossfire X and only take up four expansion slots.
> 
> No because at present with an overclock, *the card performs quite horribly*. No because* the drivers are not able to produce the results you would expect with a graphics card of this caliber*. No because *until there are patches (for games) that actually enhance performance when using a dual processor board, you may see a decrease in performance.*



*Horhardware.com:*



> The Radeon HD 3870 X2 proved to be a strong performer throughout our testing.  In most of the games we tested, the Radeon HD 3870 X2 was usually the highest performing single-card in the group. * It loses some benchmarks to a dual-card Radeon HD 3870 CrossFire setup, and wins others.  The same can be said of the Radeon HD 3870 X2 in comparison to the GeForce 8800 GTX.*



*ExtremeTech.com:*





> Frankly, we aren't sure what to make of this card. This is ATI's solution for the really high-end market. The company is estimating prices at $449, telling us "well we have to make it cost the same or less than two Radeon HD 3870 cards." We'll have to wait and see if real prices fall in line with this projection.
> 
> At that price, it's one of the better single high-end graphics cards you can buy. Not the best, but one of the best. Let's look at the relative performance.
> 
> ...



*TomsHardware.com:*



> What should we think of this Radeon HD 3870? First of all, AMD has reached its goal, taking back the crown for the most powerful graphics card. After all, it had been more than a year (since the launch of the 8800 GTX) since it was lost.
> 
> However, looking a little closer, the situation isn't the best; to get to this, the manufacturer has used the old technique of pairing two mainstream GPUs on a single card using its existing technology: CrossFire. This design carries many consequences.* First and foremost, there are random performance issues; in the rare event when games haven't been profiled or can't take full advantage of the spread computational power, performance is low and often inferior to those of the GeForce 8800 Ultra.*



Are all these reviewers anti-ATI? Are there benchmarks biased? Offcourse not. Basicly, they all say that all ATI needs is some new drivers, and we all know that ATI will provide those.

The only good argument that you can give about HardOCP that they didn't test enough games. Because they only test in a few games, their conclusion can not be taken seriously. Based on their tests you might think that the GTX is the better choice. But how can you know by only testing a few games knowing that the drivers aren't optimezed yet. 

The hardOCP benchmarks are not false, the way that they test is good, but they need to test more games. Based on their ( few ) tests, the conclusion is correct.

The 3870X2 is the best card available! Don't think I think otherwise...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jan 29, 2008)

The post above me contradicts the OP. The OP and some of the follow up posts in this thread did nothing more then incite arguments as well as pointless diatribe attacks on 3870 X2 as a whole.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 29, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> The post above me contradicts the OP. The OP and some of the follow up posts in this thread did nothing more then incite arguments as well as pointless diatribe attacks on 3870 X2 as a whole.



Teach me a new English word. What's OP?


----------



## Crazyhorse (Jan 29, 2008)

Original Poster,

For a good review check Anandtech they actually have the card up against some 8800 GT's in SLi.


----------



## Xaser04 (Jan 30, 2008)

Crazyhorse said:


> Original Poster,
> 
> For a good review check Anandtech they actually have the card up against some 8800 GT's in SLi.



Dear god no. Papntech seem to think that its ok to do performance tests on cut scenes in games. 

If you want a proper review which includes 8800GT's in SLI read the techreport review.


----------



## Makaveli (Jan 30, 2008)

flashstar said:


> Have you noticed that Tom's Hardware never reviews new ATI drivers? I don't see what's funny about the 2900pro being faster than the 8800gts 320. The 2900pro IS physically a faster card. Look at the specs.
> 
> Anyway, the pro really shines when you speed it up to over XT speeds. With good air cooling, you can hit 1 ghz on the core and easily pass the 8800gtx.



Wow just WOW bro whatever you are smoking can I have some. Talk about defending your purchase!


----------



## zOaib (Jan 31, 2008)

Makaveli said:


> Wow just WOW bro whatever you are smoking can I have some. Talk about defending your purchase!



i agree , thats taking a little too far , i have had a 2900 xt 1gb and it is not as fast as an 8800 gtx even overclocked ............... my 8800 gts g92 is fast , but my hd 3870 x2 is gonna be fastest . =P


----------



## flashstar (Jan 31, 2008)

I think that I might be high on reality! 

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2159&page=9

Here you can clearly see that the 2900xt matches the 8800gtx at only 825 mhz core. When overclocked to 1 ghz, expect to see an additional 15-20% performance boost. 

I'm really glad that I got the 2900pro/xt. This is precisely why I'm curious as to why HardOCP recommends getting an 8800gtx over a 3870x2 when the x2 is clearly the winner in the speed category.


----------



## zaqwsx (Jan 31, 2008)

Look at the price diffrence on these cards one from Tigerdirect and one from newegg.

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3572148&Sku=V261-3872

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814129103

Only problem is that its ddr3 and not ddr4 hopfully they come out with ddr4 on these cards


----------



## trog100 (Jan 31, 2008)

the one advantage of it being declared not quite the winner is the price will drop..

i dont mind red being not quite as fast as green cos it lowers the price of both colours..

trog


----------



## Rurouni Strife (Jan 31, 2008)

Personally,
I think HardOCP makes good reviews.  I'm not a huge fan sometimes, esp. when the conflict with everyone else but it is a pretty decent way to review.  It just gives you another viewpoint-->the "way you play" way.


----------



## JRMBelgium (Jan 31, 2008)

Rurouni Strife said:


> Personally,
> I think HardOCP makes good reviews.  I'm not a huge fan sometimes, esp. when the conflict with everyone else but it is a pretty decent way to review.  It just gives you another viewpoint-->the "way you play" way.



I agree, but they should test more games so that they can write better conclusions...


----------



## Deusxmachina (Feb 5, 2008)

Jelle Mees said:


> TomsHardware charts clearly show that the 8800GTS 320MB is slightly faster then the 2900XT:



Tom's chart takes AA into account, and everyone knows ATI's AA is, um, not as good as Nvidia's performance in AA, so there's that.  Regardless, the 2900 and GTS320/640 are pretty darn close either way depending on game.  One thing to consider about the GTS320 is how it does in certain games that need more than 320mb of memory.  Average FPS is nice, but some benchmarks that show minimum FPS have the GTS320 dropping pretty bad compared to the 2900 simply due to less memory.

I think HardOCP's different way of testing is fine, a different way of testing and opinion rarely hurts, but I do take issue with the 2900xt driver re-test they did against either an 8800 GTS or GT.  They only re-tested I think three games, and two out of the three are known to be ATI's worst games.  The test seemed rigged from the start due to game choice.


----------



## btarunr (Feb 5, 2008)

Ain't this just a 8800GTX > HD3870 X2 thread? 

Well truth is it isn't. In fact I've read several reviews of the HD3870 X2 ass-raping the 8800 Ultra. Forget that, TPU's own review shows the X2's superiority over the 8800 GTX, all for $440. Only certified idiots would want to buy the 8800 GTX now (that also sells around $430~$490!).


----------



## warhammer (Feb 5, 2008)

The marketing Department are working well for ATI and NVIDIA..$$$$$$$$$$

Can some one tell me why  on the GTX SHADERS QUALITY is set to high and not on the 3870x2?????










```
Well truth is it isn't. In fact I've read several reviews of the HD3870 X2 ass-raping the 8800 Ultra. Forget that, TPU's own review shows the X2's superiority over the 8800 GTX, all for $440. Only certified idiots would want to buy the 8800 GTX now (that also sells around $430~$490!).
```

And in a few weeks it will read Nvidia 9800 GX2 will be ass raping the HD3870 X2 
Only certified idiots would want to buy the ????? for $$$


----------



## JRMBelgium (Feb 5, 2008)

warhammer said:


> Can some one tell me why  on the GTX SHADERS QUALITY is set to high and not on the 3870x2?????



ATI cards don't run Crysis very well. Simply because Nvidia and Intel provide all hardware for Crytek. They did test if it runs on ATI/AMD, but they didn't made optimalisations for ATI hardware.

The minimum framerate is only 7fps at medium. HardOCP call that playable...damn.
If they increased shader quality the minimum FPS would be 5-6. 7 is already a slideshow.

When my framerate dropped to 24 at the slowlevels, I thaught my framerate was bad. 7, come one, that had to be a stutter.


----------



## warhammer (Feb 8, 2008)

For what its worth I ran the crysis test with SHADERS QUALITY set to high and normal as per Pic. Sorry to much effort to drop my GTX back in so I did it with 8800gts sli just to give you an idea.. And draw your own conclusion

SHADERS SET TO HIGH 

8/02/2008 2:04:34 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1600x1200, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: Custom
Custom Quality Values: 
VolumetricEffects=Medium
Texture=Medium
ObjectDetail=Medium
Sound=Medium
Shadows=Medium
Water=Medium
Physics=Medium
Particles=Medium
Shading=High
PostProcessing=Medium
GameEffects=Medium
 ==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
    Play Time: 78.56s, Average FPS: 25.46
    Min FPS: 18.90 at frame 155, Max FPS: 35.46 at frame 1009
    Average Tri/Sec: 20549640, Tri/Frame: 807187
    Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.14
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
    Play Time: 65.27s, Average FPS: 30.64
    Min FPS: 18.90 at frame 155, Max FPS: 35.93 at frame 981
    Average Tri/Sec: 24985132, Tri/Frame: 815367
    Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.12
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
    Play Time: 65.11s, Average FPS: 30.72
    Min FPS: 18.90 at frame 155, Max FPS: 37.09 at frame 1005
    Average Tri/Sec: 25062874, Tri/Frame: 815860
    Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.12
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Completed All Tests

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

8/02/2008 2:04:34 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1600x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: Custom ~~ Overall Average FPS: 30.68

          ========================================================

SHADDERS SET TO MEDIUM

8/02/2008 2:15:27 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1600x1200, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: Custom
Custom Quality Values: 
VolumetricEffects=Medium
Texture=Medium
ObjectDetail=Medium
Sound=Medium
Shadows=Medium
Water=Medium
Physics=Medium
Particles=Medium
Shading=Medium
PostProcessing=Medium
GameEffects=Medium
 ==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
    Play Time: 59.80s, Average FPS: 33.45
    Min FPS: 28.27 at frame 138, Max FPS: 59.57 at frame 1011
    Average Tri/Sec: 26962010, Tri/Frame: 806145
    Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.14
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
    Play Time: 41.32s, Average FPS: 48.40
    Min FPS: 28.27 at frame 138, Max FPS: 65.93 at frame 111
    Average Tri/Sec: 39382428, Tri/Frame: 813712
    Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.13
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
    Play Time: 41.37s, Average FPS: 48.34
    Min FPS: 28.27 at frame 138, Max FPS: 66.27 at frame 108
    Average Tri/Sec: 39369828, Tri/Frame: 814376
    Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.13
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Completed All Tests

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

8/02/2008 2:15:27 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1600x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: Custom ~~ Overall Average FPS: 48.37


----------



## Agility (Feb 8, 2008)

warhammer said:


> For what its worth I ran the crysis test with SHADERS QUALITY set to high and normal as per Pic. Sorry to much effort to drop my GTX back in so I did it with 8800gts sli just to give you an idea.. And draw your own conclusion
> 
> SHADERS SET TO HIGH
> 
> ...


----------

