# Crysis on the 3870..



## trog100 (Nov 18, 2007)

it seem to run okay at about 30fps 1680 x 1050.. 

settings on high (not very high) with no AA.. any AA kills it big time.. i tried 1400 x 900 and 4 x AA but only got about 20 fps.. 

even 2 x AA causes a big hit.. 

still i am getting better results than what some of the comments suggested.. i expected to have to run a lower resolution period.. whether u choose a very low resolution with AA or a higher one with no AA is up to u..

30 fps plays smoothly.. it aint really a leap all over the place game.. 

trog


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 18, 2007)

what drivers is that with?


----------



## Chewy (Nov 18, 2007)

does AA use up more video ram? I think so but I want to know 4 sure


----------



## WarEagleAU (Nov 18, 2007)

30fps is perfect for gaming though. no ghosting or stutter and its really smooth.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 18, 2007)

its with the drivers that came with the card.. these drivers are identcal to the downloadable hotfix drivers.. the only ones that work with the new cards..

the card is running 840/1226 so knock say 1 to 2 fps for one clocked at default speeds..

trog


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 18, 2007)

could u make

with 4x aa(opened from game) 16x af(opened from windows drivers)

1280*1024 pixel 
high setting(everything high)

gpu benchmark

@ ur maximum stabil clocks

i really want to compare 8800gt performance

ty


----------



## cooler (Nov 18, 2007)

HD3870 does better AA than 8800gt at 8xAA (sometime even beat 8800ultra at 8xAA)
8800gt win at non AA and 4XAA

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2007/test_ati_radeon_hd_3870/13/

pretty cool info if u want to crossfire 3870


----------



## trog100 (Nov 18, 2007)

i done have or cant find a gpu benchmark..???

but i did run a forced 8 x AA.. its all i can run.. roughly 30-ish fps at 1280*1024.. perhaps a little lower.. 

8 x AA at 1680 x 1050 produced 20-ish fps.. 8 x AA dont seem a lot worse than 2 x AA.. 

20-ish is a bit too low for me but its down to choice.. its playable..

trog

ps.. this is in running around forest/beach type scenes with a few enemies. i have no idea what some super end of level meanie type scenario would produce.. he he..

take note high setting is not the max.. very high is..


----------



## Frogger (Nov 18, 2007)

trog100 said:


> i done have or cant find a gpu benchmark..???..




gpu benchmark= bin 32/bin64 of the game dir... windows batch file


----------



## IggSter (Nov 18, 2007)

Chewy said:


> does AA use up more video ram? I think so but I want to know 4 sure




This article has a pretty good summary of how driver setting effect gfx performance. Im fairly sure it has been posted here somewhere before but can't see it anywhere obvious.

Enjoy

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how_much_do_you_really_need/


----------



## Spunky (Nov 18, 2007)

Chewy said:


> does AA use up more video ram? I think so but I want to know 4 sure



Yes, a lot more. It also uses more GPU clock cycles (16x anti-aliasing, for example, would render 16 supersampled pixels for each single pixel in each frame, thus using more buffer space (or local memory), so it takes much longer to render the image before passing it on to display it on the monitor, hence, lower frames per second).


----------



## niko084 (Nov 18, 2007)

Just curious what are you using to get your framerates...

Because Fraps will tell me 30, the console will tell me 20 and the benchmark will tell me 45.. Right around there game play looks perfect.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Nov 18, 2007)

Chewy said:


> does AA use up more video ram? I think so but I want to know 4 sure



You can find that out yourself.  Go to: X:\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis SP Demo\Game\Config\benchmark_gpu.cfg   or benchmark_cpu.cfg

Open it with notepad then enter the following on the first 2 lines:
*con_restricted = 0
r_DisplayInfo = 1*


From what I've seen it uses over 800 Megs by the time you reach the 2nd loop without AA.  Now see how much it takes with AA! I want to surprise you on that one! 
:shadedshu


----------



## trog100 (Nov 18, 2007)

niko084 said:


> Just curious what are you using to get your framerates...
> 
> Because Fraps will tell me 30, the console will tell me 20 and the benchmark will tell me 45.. Right around there game play looks perfect.



i am just using fraps.. i believe fraps but only because of my own subjective idea of what 20 and 30 fps play like.. 20 is chuggy 30 is smooth.. about what i would expect..

trog


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 18, 2007)

still waiting gpu test result


----------



## Chewy (Nov 18, 2007)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Open it with notepad then enter the following on the first 2 lines:
> *con_restricted = 0
> r_DisplayInfo = 1*
> 
> ...




 Im to lazy and not playing the game atm lol.. I need to get a new vid card sold my 8800gts 640mb. 800mb's is alot of mbs lol. so I guess some stuff can be put on system ram like lvls elc and not hurt performace much.

IggSter's link was helpful, but I didnt finish reading it.. I'm waiting on my new monitor arm, my screen sits to far away and I cant get it to sit right closer either.. changing my res makes things fugly but I guess I should live with that now till it arrives


----------



## trog100 (Nov 18, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> still waiting gpu test result














one is 8 x AA forced in the cat control center the other is no AA..

1680 x 1050 setting on high.. backs up my fraps readings i think.. 30-ish with no AA.. 

trog

ps.. bit higher than my fraps estimate thow looking closer.. also dosnt seem to show the big AA hit i experienced with 2 x and 4 x..


----------



## newconroer (Nov 18, 2007)

Not to be an 'asshole,' but what is the point of measuring "high?" I mean, on a personal level, you can do whatever you well like..but why come here and post about 'high' settings, with one of the latest and greatest GPUs?


Put that thing on "very high" and give us some results please.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 18, 2007)

obviously because its to slow to run it 


performance wise the 3870 adn 8800GT run close to each other so not exactly gods gpu


----------



## niko084 (Nov 18, 2007)

trog100 said:


> i am just using fraps.. i believe fraps but only because of my own subjective idea of what 20 and 30 fps play like.. 20 is chuggy 30 is smooth.. about what i would expect..
> 
> trog



I agree with you fully on that aspect, fraps is the only one that looked right to me too...
The benchmark is telling me 45fps on my 2600xt 1280x1024 medium/high settings.. When I play it I can budge a few to high without hurting myself, but the console says I'm getting to like 15, sorry but I would shoot myself.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 18, 2007)

lol trog do some benchies for hwbot so wtpu gets ome more points currently there is only one 3870 in all of HWBOT


----------



## newconroer (Nov 18, 2007)

Indeed CD, but not everyone can afford "God's GPU," yet they'd still like to attempt the full Crysis experience.


@Niko

I noticed this as well. The benchmark program seems inconclusive at times.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 18, 2007)

my intention was to relate my experience on the game and how it played on my system with the 3870 card which no doubt a few folks are considering buying..

sounds to me like are are being an "asshole" intentional or not.. do u want me to say what the card will do or what it wont do.. course it wont play the game on very high.. 

but strangely enough i was gonna post a very high result just for comparison.. the game wont let me.. all the very high options are greyed out.. praps the game knows my "cheapo" card wont manage it.. dunno..

the above benchmark was posted in answer to a request.. a repeated request to be honest i ignored the first one.. he he

trog


----------



## niko084 (Nov 18, 2007)

You can't run very high in xp normally... You can edit it so you can.

What I'm really curious about is how it performs in dx10 at very high.
People always talk about dx10 being slower... I see 1-3fps "gain" in dx10 over dx9 in crysis...
Tested mind you probably close to 30x.


----------



## newconroer (Nov 18, 2007)

That's good Trog, and that's fine, but Crysis is a particular exception, because of it's ..let's call them 'requirements.' 

People who are looking for a card of Crysis, are going to be looking for one that can play it maxed, at least that's what all the posts suggest, that's what their questions are aimed at.

If the card won't play the game on Very High, then it's no better than a 640 GTS, because the GTS WILL play it on Very High. Not at 30+ FPS, but it will play... so the performance of 3870 IS relevant, unless of course you're telling me it's not better than a GTS????

As for being not selectable, do you not have at least a trial version of Vista? If not, my apologies, I was quite confident you had Vista at one time.

Niko, there's no point in using the dx10 'hack,' it just makes things more convulted given that it's not 100% the same as the Vista DX10 settings.


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 18, 2007)

trog100 said:


> one is 8 x AA forced in the cat control center the other is no AA..
> 
> 1680 x 1050 setting on high.. backs up my fraps readings i think.. 30-ish with no AA..
> 
> ...



i asked game aa not catalist

for example nvidia control panel aa not working

also at cod 4 if u open aa from catalist ur IQ drops(my friend tested with 2900xt)

but nwm


----------



## Oliver_FF (Nov 18, 2007)

newconroer said:


> People who are looking for a card of Crysis, are going to be looking for one that can play it maxed, at least that's what all the posts suggest, that's what their questions are aimed at.



By "maxed" most people mean on the high settings. Take Oblivion nearly two years back for example. How many people brought 7900's and 1900's to play Oblivion "maxed" but ended up playing with the shadows set to like 50% and no filtering?

I technically got my HD3870XT for Christmas, but i've got it early because it's not sensible leaving computer hardware in it's box for that long, the consequence being all the games that I want to play on it are being saved till Christmas. So i've got the card, can play all my games on max just like i used to, and benefit from it over christmas when i get all the newer games.

To me, this thread is very helpful - I now know that i'll get a good experience from Crysis on High at 1280x1024 - it's definitely put my mind to rest.

As for questioning the "Very High" settings, lets be sensible about this - even a £400 graphics card can't put out decent fps on that, so why ask?


----------



## Oliver_FF (Nov 18, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> i asked game aa not catalist
> 
> for example nvidia control panel aa not working
> 
> ...



CoD4 is a game that i DO have 

1280x1024, all settings as high as they go, 4xFSAA from in-game, model details on Normal (can't change ) the lowest i've had in intense outdoor fighting is around 35, indoors i've had all the way into the hundreds of fps.


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 18, 2007)

Oliver_FF said:


> CoD4 is a game that i DO have
> 
> 1280x1024, all settings as high as they go, 4xFSAA from in-game, model details on Normal (can't change ) the lowest i've had in intense outdoor fighting is around 35, indoors i've had all the way into the hundreds of fps.



if u have vista 32 bit
we can make this comperission(i made with 2900xt before in my main forum)


settings

1280 pixel
4x aa
no af
everything high

8800 gt clocks(720/1728/999)
driver 169.04 not 169.09

2900xt clocks

830/1030

catalist 7.10

save files

http://rapid+share.com/files/68927821/saves.rar






8800 gt


http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3302/crysis2007111222000215mf1.jpg


2900 xt


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/5230/44837528km7.jpg



8800 gt


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8867/crysis2007111222002022ua9.jpg


2900 xt


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4537/61097530sp8.jpg


8800 gt


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6585/crysis2007111222005943lz2.jpg


2900 xt


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/7452/43866707ww1.jpg


8800 gt


http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/3447/crysis2007111222011652ma2.jpg


2900 xt


http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2957/31148577ib7.jpg


8800 gt


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/3164/crysis2007111222013500qk5.jpg


2900 xt


http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/5663/67281823lv5.jpg


8800 gt


http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7571/crysis2007111222015556ty8.jpg


2900 xt


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/8628/95263119no3.jpg


8800 gt


http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/2812/crysis2007111222021397ra2.jpg


2900 xt


http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/3220/69678175dy0.jpg


8800 gt


http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/2958/crysis2007111222025821og3.jpg


2900 xt


http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/3456/10mk4.jpg


8800 gt


http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2951/crysis2007111222031278jy2.jpg


2900 xt


http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/5733/11uc9.jpg


----------



## Oliver_FF (Nov 18, 2007)

they all look soooo good 

Can't wait to play this game XD


----------



## trog100 (Nov 18, 2007)

with Cod 4.. at 1680 x 1050 with settings maxed out and 4 x AA the 3870 useing fraps in a fairly intense fight scene was giving me frame rates of around 45-ish 

not the slightest problem with cod 4 but i didnt expect there to be..

when a game comes with "very high" or "ultra quality" one can assume its for the future and no normal mortal  is intended to be able to use it.. kinda of reminds me of quake 4 with its ultra quality texture setting back in the days when 256 of memory on a card was the norm.. it needed 512 cos ultra meant none compressed..

trog


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 18, 2007)

Oliver_FF said:


> they all look soooo good
> 
> Can't wait to play this game XD



if u want to see some real scenes

here

win xp modded to all very high expect shadows it is high
no aa 
8x af
1280 pixel


http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7682/crysis2007111300281182wg0.jpg

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7972/crysis2007111300281828xs4.jpg

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6141/crysis2007111300282670zx3.jpg


http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1963/crysis2007111300340034yl6.jpg



http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4379/crysis2007111300361925js0.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/3003/crysis2007111300345256hb0.jpg


http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/7083/crysis2007111300345540hw2.jpg

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/944/crysis2007111300375148oo2.jpg

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1934/crysis2007111300371748yr3.jpg


http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/2066/crysis2007111300372718vr1.jpg


http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6558/crysis2007111300384556xv9.jpg

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2184/crysis2007111300402237nv4.jpg

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/1868/crysis2007111300402378qt1.jpg

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2618/crysis2007111300335467gt4.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8550/crysis2007111300413515rm4.jpg

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/3759/crysis2007111300422406ft1.jpg


----------



## niko084 (Nov 18, 2007)

Please people....

Did you not notice it "WONT" play "VERY HIGH" because he runs "XP".....

From the sounds of it around the 3850/3870's are having some fairly serious driver issues currently too... Want some real numbers, wait 1-2 months and see how things are rolling.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 18, 2007)

for cefurkan as requested.. 

4x game aa 16 x forced af.. at high settings at the ask for resolution..






trog


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 18, 2007)

trog100 said:


> for cefurkan as requested..
> 
> 4x game aa 16 x forced af.. at high settings at the ask for resolution..
> 
> ...



is this in win xp and 1280 pixel

or vista and 1680 pixel ?


----------



## trog100 (Nov 19, 2007)

win xp 1280 pixel.. how does it compare..

trog


----------



## newconroer (Nov 19, 2007)

Oliver_FF said:


> By "maxed" most people mean on the high settings. Take Oblivion nearly two years back for example. How many people brought 7900's and 1900's to play Oblivion "maxed" but ended up playing with the shadows set to like 50% and no filtering?
> 
> I technically got my HD3870XT for Christmas, but i've got it early because it's not sensible leaving computer hardware in it's box for that long, the consequence being all the games that I want to play on it are being saved till Christmas. So i've got the card, can play all my games on max just like i used to, and benefit from it over christmas when i get all the newer games.
> 
> ...




That's all good and dandy for you, but by knowing the performance of the newer cards from both ATi and Nvidia, we can determine whether or not they'll be able to handle Crysis with all it's glory. If it cannot, then you can then conclude that you might as well use XP, if you're going to be stuck on 'high' settings.

Since Crysis is pretty forgiving about mouse lag even at low frames, people might accept low twenties/high teens frames, so they can have all of the eye candy. Yet, if all of the tests are using 'high,' because they're just trying to show-off their frames rating, then it's pointless.

We already know current cards can handle it on High...


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein (Nov 19, 2007)

newconroer said:


> That's all good and dandy for you, but by knowing the performance of the newer cards from both ATi and Nvidia, we can determine whether or not they'll be able to handle Crysis with all it's glory. If it cannot, then you can then conclude that you might as well use XP, if you're going to be stuck on 'high' settings.
> 
> Since Crysis is pretty forgiving about mouse lag even at low frames, people might accept low twenties/high teens frames, so they can have all of the eye candy. Yet, if all of the tests are using 'high,' because they're just trying to show-off their frames rating, then it's pointless.
> 
> We already know current cards can handle it on High...




Hear, hear! My lowly 1950xt handled "High" settings with relative ease (when it was working! *grumble, grumble*) It didn't do so shabby with all options on "Very High" settings via the tweaked cvars, either.

I too would like to know if these new cards are a MAJOR step up or just a mild boost to what we have now. The only way to tell is to punish them with the most demanding soft.

My 2 pennies...


----------



## niko084 (Nov 19, 2007)

Dr. Spankenstein said:


> Hear, hear! My lowly 1950xt handled "High" settings with relative ease (when it was working! *grumble, grumble*) It didn't do so shabby with all options on "Very High" settings via the tweaked cvars, either.
> 
> I too would like to know if these new cards are a MAJOR step up or just a mild boost to what we have now. The only way to tell is to punish them with the most demanding soft.
> 
> My 2 pennies...



3870 should by all means take your 1950xt to the town...
My 2600xt gddr4 competes hand and hand with my old 1950pro...

And a set of 2900 pro's I put in a customers machine a few weaks ago beats up my 1950xt's pretty good.


----------



## bim27142 (Nov 19, 2007)

ei ya'll guys! i have a question.... i believe this card is PCIe 2.0 right? will this be compatible with my board (EpoX 9NPA3 Ultra) which i believe is PCIe 1.1... i've read a PCIe 2.0 board accepts PCIe 1.1 cards but will it be the same vice versa?

thanks


----------



## newconroer (Nov 19, 2007)

Aye, it might just take the 1950 'to town,' but will it take Crysis 'to town?' 


@Bim

Yes sir, it will. And you needn't worry that by having a 1.1 board that your 2.0 card will not be performing at max capacity. GPUs do not yet use all of the bandwidth available through PCI-E 1.1 :0


----------



## bim27142 (Nov 19, 2007)

aight thanks! that's very enlightening....


----------



## niko084 (Nov 19, 2007)

newconroer said:


> Aye, it might just take the 1950 'to town,' but will it take Crysis 'to town?'
> 
> 
> @Bim
> ...



I think it will improve massively with drivers and crysis updates...

FYI-
Notice these numbers are given from Windows XP...

The 3850/3870's are known right now to perform very poorly in XP and moderately in Vista.


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein (Nov 19, 2007)

niko084 said:


> 3870 should by all means take your 1950xt to the town...
> My 2600xt gddr4 competes hand and hand with my old 1950pro...



Yeah, but who wants a 2600xt anymore?!?



> And a set of 2900 pro's I put in a customers machine a few weaks ago beats up my 1950xt's pretty good.



Blimey! I would certainly hope so! But by what margin vs. PITA and expense!
With "Crossfire Fever" taking over, makes you wonder if they have actually maxed-out the potential for GPU architecture and have no alternative but to use multiple chips (ala rendering farms) or are we just getting feed some bunk to get us to buy more hardware.
I have yet to see crossfire results that have made me gasp at the gains. Maybe someone needs to educate me as to the real benefits.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 19, 2007)

Dr. Spankenstein said:


> Yeah, but who wants a 2600xt anymore?!?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To put the relative performance difference in perspective, my stock 2900XT more than doubled the performance of my OCed X1800XT.


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein (Nov 19, 2007)

Now that's some gain! Then again, we're now talking 2900xt, which is a different beast!

I'm just dubious of the whole Crossfire deal.


----------



## erocker (Nov 19, 2007)

Idk, I've seen some voltmodded x1950pro's that are pretty insane.  Not 8800 numbers mind you, but better than x1950xtx numbers.


----------



## trt740 (Nov 19, 2007)

Dr. Spankenstein said:


> Now that's some gain! Then again, we're now talking 2900xt, which is a different beast!
> 
> I'm just dubious of the whole Crossfire deal.



not really the 3870 performs almost exactly like a 2900 xt


----------



## Wile E (Nov 19, 2007)

Dr. Spankenstein said:


> Now that's some gain! Then again, we're now talking 2900xt, which is a different beast!
> 
> I'm just dubious of the whole Crossfire deal.


Sorry, misread your other post. I thought you were doubtful of moving away from your 1950.

Crossfire shows gains of between 60-75% on average, depending on the game.


----------



## niko084 (Nov 19, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Sorry, misread your other post. I thought you were doubtful of moving away from your 1950.
> 
> Crossfire shows gains of between 60-75% on average, depending on the game.



Unfortunately Crysis is one of the few that show next to no gain for it...
I am more than certain this issue will be addressed and fixed!

Even if you wanted to go up...  A 3850 might even contend if not flat out beat your 1950 as soon as we get a driver update or 2.

As for the 2600xt, anyone who uses linux might want one... LOL
Dx10, low power requirement, fairly quick and runs under linux like a champ!
And for $100, you still can't touch it in dx10, dx9 not too shabby either, people complain that the 1950gt's and pro's will beat them with AA, true but you "need" that AA on the 1950 for the same IQ that the 2600xt gives without it.


----------



## SSXeon (Nov 19, 2007)

Is that in DX9? Damn in DX10 atleast the benchies show 20fps @ 1600x1200 high. :shadedshu


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 19, 2007)

trog100 said:


> for cefurkan as requested..
> 
> 4x game aa 16 x forced af.. at high settings at the ask for resolution..
> 
> ...



i just came from school
sorry for being late

here is the my results

win xp sp 2 32 bit
1280*1024 pixel
everything high
any config file is not modified all config files are original
4x aa opened from game
16x af opened from windows
u may have some windows problem i suggest u that format ur windows


----------



## DarkMatter (Nov 20, 2007)

Chewy said:


> does AA use up more video ram? I think so but I want to know 4 sure



I think you are going to find this article as interesting and useful as I did.

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how_much_do_you_really_need/

Crysis on page 7.

See you


----------



## trog100 (Nov 20, 2007)

"





> u may have some windows problem i suggest u that format ur windows


"

rest assured i have no windows problems dude.. he he.. but thats the score i got with the 3870 at the resolutions and settings u ask for..

the matter does need some investigation thow.. at present i am getting about an average fps of 34-ish at  14 x 900 no AA and no AF.. could be ati driver problems.. they are some kind of beta.. 

i will run the 1400 resolution with 16 x af and 4 x AA to see what happens..

trog


----------



## trog100 (Nov 20, 2007)

yep as i thought.. a combination of 16 x AF and 4 x AA cripples it..

at 1400 x 900 an average of 34 with no af or aa goes down to 16.84 with 16 x af and 4 x aa..

please dont insult me with the reformat windows nonsense this i what i get.. just take it as fact..

i think the drivers need some work.. my current choice of settings to play the game is everything on high no af or aa at 1400 x 900.. it runs nice at those settings and dosnt look too bad..

but the af and aa cause a massive frame rate hit.. 

trog


----------



## SSXeon (Nov 20, 2007)

OK:

1) Crysis sux with AA even if you will live and die by nvidia, tuff shit the game gets raped by it
2) SLI AND crossfire support are barely present, and dont even give 60% increase with SLI, something you wouldnt see in a Nvidia game.
3) Quad core is non-existant, and i will have a word with the intel lawyers to see if they didnt pay too much for something that hasnt been used.
4) I really thought this game was built from the ground up for multi GPU/CPU computers. After playing the MP beta when it launched, and the demo, and now have the game it doesnt seem so.
5) im bitter because i built a $2100 PC in jan and added a 2900XT to the rig expecting the worst for crysis and what did i get, well, a sh*t load of SH*T!!! :shadedshu

The game really is amazing, MP is something i never found in BF2 and liked when i played the MP beta, the the lack of support gives me little doubt that crytek really cares about optimising for computers. Reason why i see only 20-30 servers with 20 or more people playing. EA can suck my big irish balls!!!

/rant

Steve


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 20, 2007)

trog100 said:


> yep as i thought.. a combination of 16 x AF and 4 x AA cripples it..
> 
> at 1400 x 900 an average of 34 with no af or aa goes down to 16.84 with 16 x af and 4 x aa..
> 
> ...




well i conclude this from here

ati seems not solved aa af problem yet
u have to wait for new driver


----------



## trt740 (Nov 20, 2007)

SSXeon said:


> OK:
> 
> 1) Crysis sux with AA even if you will live and die by nvidia, tuff shit the game gets raped by it
> 2) SLI AND crossfire support are barely present, and dont even give 60% increase with SLI, something you wouldnt see in a Nvidia game.
> ...



Nasty I have irish ball and they are nasty.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Nov 20, 2007)

WarEagleAU said:


> 30fps is perfect for gaming though. no ghosting or stutter and its really smooth.



eh...i prefer no less than 45. i can definately tell the difference between the 2.


----------



## SSXeon (Nov 20, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> eh...i prefer no less than 45. i can definately tell the difference between the 2.



I agree! And i prefer 60+.  Damn i wish more 3870s would get in stock. :shadedshu


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 20, 2007)

Do people really buy a card for just one game?  I have played the crisis demo on my 8800GTS 640MB albeit voltmodded and revved up at 16xx x 10xx at max detail with 8x AA and full AF with no stuttering, I would imagine that once a proper driver release has happened for the 3870 it will match that no worries, also isnt Crisis VERY Cpu dependant?  if thats the case maybe thats why mine worked so well as I game at 4Gig???? what U think?


----------



## SSXeon (Nov 20, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Do people really buy a card for just one game?  I have played the crisis demo on my 8800GTS 640MB albeit voltmodded and revved up at 16xx x 10xx at max detail with 8x AA and full AF with no stuttering, I would imagine that once a proper driver release has happened for the 3870 it will match that no worries, also isnt Crisis VERY Cpu dependant?  if thats the case maybe thats why mine worked so well as I game at 4Gig???? what U think?


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 20, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Do people really buy a card for just one game?  I have played the crisis demo on my 8800GTS 640MB albeit voltmodded and revved up at 16xx x 10xx at max detail with 8x AA and full AF with no stuttering, I would imagine that once a proper driver release has happened for the 3870 it will match that no worries, also isnt Crisis VERY Cpu dependant?  if thats the case maybe thats why mine worked so well as I game at 4Gig???? what U think?



we will see

when ati will release that proper driver

i wonder much too


----------



## a_ump (Nov 21, 2007)

im pretty sure(though i may b wrong)that these benchmarks on crysis r dx9, my bro has a 8800GTX OC, with a e6850, 4GB ram and he runs crysis at 1440x900 on high no 2aa or anistrophic filtering and gets an average of 26fps i've already googled it b4 and got the same idea so anyone here thats plannin to use the HD 3870 to run crysis i hope enjoys poor-mediocre graphics, personally out of the 2 the 8800gt is definetly worth the extra 40 bucks , get it if u want to run crysis dx10 on medium-high settings depending on ur other pc specs


----------



## wiak (Nov 21, 2007)

this will be improved in driver my dear friends


----------



## a_ump (Nov 21, 2007)

i'd like to thk that drivers r goin to fix problems for ATI bc a card for 219 that can run crysis at high with no lag would b awesome but it isn't goin to happen, everyone thought the same thing when the 2900xt came out that it was "driver problems" then 2, i know that drivers can make a difference but i don't thk thats the problem this time cause it never has been in the past with ati at least not majorly


----------



## Scrizz (Nov 21, 2007)

man.... wish amd would not of bought ati....
now amd has to fight on two fronts......


----------



## a_ump (Nov 21, 2007)

lol yea no dout, though i figured that it would only help ATI with makin better gpu's but i gues not


----------



## Xolair (Nov 21, 2007)

How much FPS would you get @ 1280*1024 and 2x AA, perhaps 4x at most? Is it over 30 on average? I'm getting one of these soon, but sadly have to wait for another friggin' 2.5 weeks.


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 21, 2007)

Xolair said:


> How much FPS would you get @ 1280*1024 and 2x AA, perhaps 4x at most? Is it over 30 on average? I'm getting one of these soon, but sadly have to wait for another friggin' 2.5 weeks.



1280 pixel
4x aa
high
under win xp


30 fps is dream for now with 3870
i wonder cf 3850 performance


----------



## trog100 (Nov 21, 2007)

an example of the AA hit.. 1400 x 900.. noAA and 4xAA..











i am also getting bad texture drop out seem a bit random but its far worse with noAA than wih 4xaa..  its large rocks and fence panels that drop out.. the trees and jungle sceness are okay..

i could have faulty memory on my card dunno..  could be the game or unfinshed drivers.. ???

trog


----------



## trog100 (Nov 21, 2007)

this one is interesting.. 1400 x 900 all setting at medium.. no AA and 4 x AA..











going from high to medium almost doubles the frame rates with no AA.. but dosnt make much difference with 4xAA.. odd..

it seems that even with lower settings this card and driver combination is simply crippled by any AA..

trog


----------



## Scrizz (Nov 21, 2007)

hope they fix the drivers soon


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 21, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> 1280 pixel
> 4x aa
> high
> under win xp
> ...



I dont think 30fps is a dream on a 3870 with decent quality settings if you have a fast CPU to back it up, I am willing to bet if Trog had a C2D running at 4Gigs he would be flying!  otherwise why is it that I can max everything in the demo at 16xx x 10xx with the 8800GTS with smooth frames all the way at well over 30FPS?


----------



## cdawall (Nov 21, 2007)

i dont think its very cpu dependant or i wouldnt be able to play at the rate i do

my 7800GS @540/730...1024X768 THESE settings

and i get from 14-65fps but most of the time it stays @~22fps

using ForceWare 163.44/XP


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 21, 2007)

cdawall said:


> i dont think its very cpu dependant or i wouldnt be able to play at the rate i do
> 
> my 7800GS @540/730...1024X768 THESE settings
> 
> ...



My point is (perhaps explained badly)....anyone knows, those especially that own a 2900XT, and I would guess the 3870 that the ONLY way you get the best out of those cards is with raw CPU power so with weak CPU power the card is working nowhere near it's potential therefore the card is very CPU dependant.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 21, 2007)

ok i see what your saying


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 21, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> I dont think 30fps is a dream on a 3870 with decent quality settings if you have a fast CPU to back it up, I am willing to bet if Trog had a C2D running at 4Gigs he would be flying!  otherwise why is it that I can max everything in the demo at 16xx x 10xx with the 8800GTS with smooth frames all the way at well over 30FPS?




look

this game is not depended on cpu a lot
after 3 ghz u dont get any performance increase

game depended on ram timings
i saw tests made by quad core

and none of the card cant get 30+ fps with 8x aa 16x af 
even with 8800 ultra 

everybody understand what i mean by this

there were 1 or 2 fps difference between

3 ghz quad core and 3.6 ghz quad

also there is no difference between

quad core and core 2 duo since game doesnt have quad core support

i have e4300@3240 mhz but i get

only 29 avg fps with 4x aa 16x af high setting

8800gt@720/1728/999  mhz


----------



## trt740 (Nov 21, 2007)

*Thats all shes got Capan shes breaking up, I cannot hold her together man*



cefurkan said:


> look
> 
> this game is not depended on cpu a lot
> after 3 ghz u dont get any performance increase
> ...


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 21, 2007)

trt740 said:


>



lol

with that cpu

that sm2 and sm3 scores are  crap

wait my test


----------



## trt740 (Nov 21, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> lol
> 
> with that cpu
> 
> ...



with a new bios flash when released this card will hit 15000. The core has a giant amount left but until then thats not crap at all. your not going to beat that score with a 3870 I used  a top of the line after market cooler core never went over 40c.


----------



## trt740 (Nov 21, 2007)

*heres my gt*



cefurkan said:


> lol
> 
> with that cpu
> 
> ...


----------



## bengun666 (Nov 21, 2007)

resolution , AA and AF hidden ?


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 21, 2007)

bengun666 said:


> resolution , AA and AF hidden ?



no need to hide

this score is real

here is the my score with crap cpu


----------



## trog100 (Nov 21, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> I dont think 30fps is a dream on a 3870 with decent quality settings if you have a fast CPU to back it up, I am willing to bet if Trog had a C2D running at 4Gigs he would be flying!  otherwise why is it that I can max everything in the demo at 16xx x 10xx with the 8800GTS with smooth frames all the way at well over 30FPS?



how much tatty cos when low frame rates are your problem its your grafix card that matters.. a faster system aint gonna help.. 

i will take your bet up dude i say at problem (low) frame rates your system will go no faster than mine.. 

trog

ps.. once a 3dmark hits 10,000 it has becomes system dependant.. it is no longer a valid grafix card bench.. round about the 6 or 7 thou mark it is but not when it gets to ten.. we need a new 3dmark..


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 21, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> look
> 
> this game is not depended on cpu a lot
> after 3 ghz u dont get any performance increase
> ...



I know.....see post 76 above....the grapics card IS very CPU dependant so to get the best out of it you need a very fast CPU hence why I said that the FPS would be a lot better with say my CPU, I could plug my 3870 in to show you the difference between Trog's and mine with the different CPU power.....but I am not because I may just sell it as new, am not sure yet.  I am currently running on my 8800GTS 640.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 21, 2007)

trog100 said:


> how much tatty cos when low frame rates are your problem its your grafix card that matters.. a faster system aint gonna help..
> 
> i will take your bet up dude i say at problem (low) frame rates your system will go no faster than mine..
> 
> ...



I'll take that bet m8, are you not aware of the vast performance difference in a 2900XT due to CPU power?  the architecture between the 2 cards are very similar (apart from the obvious), for example, I wont name the members in the forum but one has a 2900XT coupled with a AMD @ 3Gig, the other has the same card, same clocks with a C2D at 3.8Gig, the difference in 3D Mark 2006 is over 2000 points!


----------



## SSXeon (Nov 21, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> I'll take that bet m8, are you not aware of the vast performance difference in a 2900XT due to CPU power?  the architecture between the 2 cards are very similar (apart from the obvious), for example, I wont name the members in the forum but one has a 2900XT coupled with a AMD @ 3Gig, the other has the same card, same clocks with a C2D at 3.8Gig, the difference in 3D Mark 2006 is over 2000 points!



That doesnt prove that in any game the 2900XT or 3870 is cpu limited. In crysis its looking like its not, that game is GPU limited.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 21, 2007)

at high frame rates tatty a score is very system limited.. at low frame rates it isnt.. 

sooo a fast system.. lets say yours will turn 200 fps into 300 fps with the same card.. 

but will not under any circumstances turn 20 fps into 30 fps.. 

in games where are are tallking about low frame rates (turning 20 into 30) and how to improve em.. your fast system will make very little difference.. in the benchmarks we are now running the fame rates are too high to bench a grafix card performance properly..

soo in the fake benchmark world the fast system shows a frame rate gain but in the real game world it wont make any real difference.. 

your card/system will score higher in a 3dmark but not higher in crysis..

now if we get a new 3dmark bench that really works a modern card hard.. one that has scores of 5000-ish and not 15000-ish we will have a real grafix card benchmark again.. untill we do there is no way of taking the system out of the equation..

i am happy with an AMD system because i know its the card/cards that matter in a real world gaming situation not an over the top system.. if i didnt think this i would chuck it and go intel..

a 4 gig system with a single card wont play crysis any better than a 3 gig system.. fact.. i have settled on medium setting with no AA for crysis..  i might lose some eye candy but the nice 55-ish fps i get more than make up for it.. if i want better i am have to gonna buy another card and go crossfire..

something i am gonna do before that much longer to be honest.. we are moving into the day where very high maxed out means more than one card.. i quite like amd/atis cheap and cheerfull spider idea.. 

trog

ps.. somwwhere earlier in this thread i did guess the 3870 card performance (compared to mine) in the 3dmarks with a fast 4 gig intel system.. i recon a 2000 gain in 2006 and a 4 or 5000 gain in 2005.. but in crysis i recon a bugger all gain..


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 21, 2007)

trog100 said:


> at high frame rates tatty a score is very system limited.. at low frame rates it isnt..
> 
> sooo a fast system.. lets say yours will turn 200 fps into 300 fps with the same card..
> 
> ...



Well hopefully I will keep my card, especially if you tell me the winflash works with the bios fix and if thats the case I will and I will do a run to compare but I only have the demo, is it possible to do the timedemo in the demo?


----------



## trog100 (Nov 22, 2007)

dont know i never had the demo.. i have the flash and bios but havnt run it yet.. i have run it with the new cat 7.11 drivers thow.. he he

it does tell u to keep using the hotfix ones for crysis and its right.. he he

but in the new lightsmark bench my score goes up from 220 something to 309.. not exactly sure what this thing measures but it must be worth something.. its now up there with the nvidia cards.. at 309 i recon i am up in the land of being system limited..

i get 3231 in that furry thing bench.. up from just over 3080..

about 1140 in 2006.. i recon your system would boost this to between 13 and 14 thousand.. i recon a pair of em would be around 20 thou..

but the download site dosnt even acknowledge the existence of a 3000 series card yet..  i assume this is cos they would rather us stay with the drivers that came with the card..

as for crysis stay with the card/hotfix ones..

the other odd thing is i forced 16 x af and 8 x AA from the control center and it dosnt do anything in the game.. i still think we are waiting for some real drivers for this new card.. didnt seem to knock the 2006 score much either.. thow it did look like it was working.. 

trog


----------



## Wile E (Nov 22, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> I'll take that bet m8, are you not aware of the vast performance difference in a 2900XT due to CPU power?  the architecture between the 2 cards are very similar (apart from the obvious), for example, I wont name the members in the forum but one has a 2900XT coupled with a AMD @ 3Gig, the other has the same card, same clocks with a C2D at 3.8Gig, the difference in 3D Mark 2006 is over 2000 points!


Yep. I'm one of the members with the 3+GHz AMD. My 3.4 GHz AMD runs were made with the card at 847/999. I had an E6600 up and running at 3375 for a day, and I scored higher than the AMD setup, and the card was at stock. The mobo blew up in the middle of the 847/999 run. Not that it means anything. Just wanted to throw that out there. lol


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 22, 2007)

some ppl still lives in the benchmark world


----------



## Wile E (Nov 22, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> some ppl still lives in the benchmark world


Yep, and I'm one of them. What's your point? I only game on my benchmark machine, because benchmark rigs are usually good at gaming.

I gave the 3DMark info purely as an fyi, in response to Tatty.


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 22, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Yep, and I'm one of them. What's your point? I only game on my benchmark machine, because benchmark rigs are usually good at gaming.
> 
> I gave the 3DMark info purely as an fyi, in response to Tatty.



u are sure about that benchmark gives good info about gaming huh

just explain me
 i made these tests with 8800gts before

3141 mhz tdu 

http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tdu1zb1.jpg

1800 mhz tdu 

http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tdubk7.jpg

3141 mhz dirt

http://img204.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dirtea0.jpg

1800 mhz dirt

http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dirtqr3.jpg








do you see difference that occurs in 3d mark @ games


----------



## Wile E (Nov 22, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> u are sure about that benchmark gives good info about gaming huh
> 
> just explain me
> i made these tests with 8800gts before
> ...


At what point did I say 3Dmark gives good info for games? I didn't say that at all. I said I like to benchmark better, and that benchmark rigs usually make good gaming rigs, due to the high-powered hardware installed.


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 22, 2007)

Wile E said:


> At what point did I say 3Dmark gives good info for games? I didn't say that at all. I said I like to benchmark better, and that benchmark rigs usually make good gaming rigs, due to the high-powered hardware installed.




for me

3d mark 2006 is pointless atm


for expample

u have 8800gts and quad core @ 4ghz

some one have 8800 ultra max overclocked and 3.5 ghz core 2 duo


u get much more score than ultra owner @ 3d mark 2006

but ultra owner crash ur performance
@ all games


----------



## Wile E (Nov 22, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> for me
> 
> 3d mark 2006 is pointless atm
> 
> ...


Well, it's a "to each his own" thing. I like benchmarking, you like just straight gaming. Nothing wrong with either choice.


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 22, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Well, it's a "to each his own" thing. I like benchmarking, you like just straight gaming. Nothing wrong with either choice.


*
I like benchmarking, you like just straight gaming.*

@ this point i am totaly agree with you

but dont say me benchmarks are really usefull for getting idea about game performance


----------



## trog100 (Nov 22, 2007)

the 3dmarks used to very useful.. right up to 2005 they were.. with 2006 they dropped the ball and ant picked it up since..

the policy was when the top end cards reached scores of near 10.000 they produced a new 3dmark which loaded the card more and dropped scores back down again..

but the rule is simple.. the grafix card governs the lower frame rate end of things.. the things that matter in games.. when those frame rates go up to levels beyond what we need in games the rest of the system starts to play a big part..

benchmarks are good u just have to know what they mean when they get related to gaming performance.. at the moment we dont have a decent 3dmark..

multicore cpus dont make much difference either.. games are still mostly single threaded.. the ones that claim to use more than one core only half or partially use each one..

still they have to keep selling us hardware some way.. even if we dont need half of it.. he he..

trog


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 22, 2007)

trog100 said:


> the 3dmarks used to very useful.. right up to 2005 they were.. with 2006 they dropped the ball and ant picked it up since..
> 
> the policy was when the top end cards reached scores of near 10.000 they produced a new 3dmark which loaded the card more and dropped scores back down again..
> 
> ...



u are right

because of this i wait new cores

when new cores comes up i will  buy second hand quad core


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 22, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> *
> 
> but dont say me benchmarks are really usefull for getting idea about game performance *


*

He didnt.*


----------



## trog100 (Nov 22, 2007)

i have only just moved to an amd dual core.. i wait till the price of the new "more core" things drop to the same as my older "less core" thing at the same (overclocked) speed then i buy one.. he he..

if the new "more core" thing runs at the same speed as my older lesser core one and comes at the same price i aint got nothing to lose.. i should have gone intel but i am a bit too "loyal" for my own good.. he he..

no phemons or quad intels for me thow for quite some time .. i quite like the idea of 4 gpu cores thow.. but will probably settle for two.. either on two cards or one.. dunno..

trog


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 22, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> some ppl still lives in the benchmark world



and some people dont play games!


----------



## DarkMatter (Nov 22, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> and some people dont play games!



Some don't?? 
I don't agree with you there.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 22, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> Some don't??
> I don't agree with you there.



U dont, you cannot have time with all the writing you do


----------



## Scrizz (Nov 22, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> Some don't??
> I don't agree with you there.



right, b/c 100% of the people DO play games


----------



## DarkMatter (Nov 22, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> U dont, you cannot have time with all the writing you do



Hmm! I do play a lot. When writing so much what I don't do is work.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 24, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> and some people dont play games!


I rarely do. Mostly just bench.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 24, 2007)

Wile E said:


> I rarely do. Mostly just bench.



Well a survey done by "which maagazine" in the UK in 2006 said that in the UK, only 26% of all desktop PC users played games for more than 1 hour a month!  Maybe it's similar in the US, but that was not split into age groups, just users.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 24, 2007)

i have "periods".. he he he.. 

periods of playing games and benching.. these tend to coincide with periods of upgrading for some odd reason..

then i have a lengthy period of just using the bloody computer.. forgetting about whats current and whats a not.. 

then it all strikes again.. the expensive "period".. amusing really.. i buy what i think is "okay".. come here and decide what i thought was okay isnt.. chuck it all away and buy what really is "okay"..

without the lengthy rest period i would be bankrupt.. he he

trog


----------



## von kain (Nov 24, 2007)

trog100 said:


> the 3dmarks used to very useful.. right up to 2005 they were.. with 2006 they dropped the ball and ant picked it up since..
> 
> the policy was when the top end cards reached scores of near 10.000 they produced a new 3dmark which loaded the card more and dropped scores back down again..
> 
> ...




i haven't see a better explanation


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 24, 2007)

von kain said:


> i haven't see a better explanation



Thats very true but there are also a couple of things to be taking into consideration as of now, firstly the next year will see 2 out of every 3 games made being optimised for at least 2cores and 1 in every 3 games being genuinly multithredded (more cores can be used), now if this is the case, and I suspect it is then whichever way you look at it......system...... AKA CPU performance will play a bigger role in games, when you get to that point then things start going downhill for the GPU because no matter how powerful the GPU if it isnt helped very much by the CPU it will start to struggle and gameplay will suffer because of it.


----------



## von kain (Nov 24, 2007)

although you will have to notice that the gpu have surpass the moore law a lot of times but cpu doesn't meaning that the gpu performance will start slow down and cpu performance rise


----------



## trog100 (Nov 24, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Thats very true but there are also a couple of things to be taking into consideration as of now, firstly the next year will see 2 out of every 3 games made being optimised for at least 2cores and 1 in every 3 games being genuinly multithredded (more cores can be used), now if this is the case, and I suspect it is then whichever way you look at it......system...... AKA CPU performance will play a bigger role in games, when you get to that point then things start going downhill for the GPU because no matter how powerful the GPU if it isnt helped very much by the CPU it will start to struggle and gameplay will suffer because of it.



interesting theory tatty but u have more faith in the software guys changing their ways than i have.. why should they..?? 

multi core has been a con (for most folks) right from the start.. two is better than one is all too easy to believe for joe public.. now its four is better than two.. he he he

i have even seen  a pic of some guy showing how crysis was making good use of his new 4 core cpu.. he seemed to miss the fact each core was only running at 25%.. 

multi gpus are a bit different.. mainly cos its down to the software writers employed by the guys selling the multi core gpu that make the drivers that use em..

interestingly thow i did read that software is ten years behind hardware..  the new bloatware junk they write simply relies on us buying new hardware to run it.. Vista being a prime example..

it all comes down to money.. at the moment as long as we keep buying new hardware.. the software guys have no financial incentive to change their ways and i am pretty certain they wont..

the real problem is joe public is too easy to fool.. he he he.. even a fool knows four is better than two.. it takes a wise man to know that sometimes it aint..

basically writing software that can efectivly run however many cpus get thrown at it is years away.. it all needs redoing from the ground up.. they wont do this until they have to.. at the moment they dont have to..

now if for some unknown reason we all stopped buying new hardware.. things would change.. cant see this happening thow..

i have just and only just bought a dual core AMD CPU.. it runs at 3 gig.. now if AMD had a single core CPU that ran at 4 gig u can guess which i would buy..

basically my single core sandy  at 3 gig plays games just as well as my (whatever its called) dual core does at 3 gig..

something everyone would know if they still made fast single core chips.. they didnt stop making them by accident.. he he

of course they all piss in the same pot and how things are is how things suit em.. the industry keeps rolling bless it..

trog

ps.. one very current example.. crysis will not run properly on todays hardware.. it will run properly in a years time.. why.. cos the software has been rewritten to make it run better.. no.. cos in a years time we will have all gone out and bought new hardware..


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Nov 24, 2007)

a 6400 @ 333 is choking a 3870?


----------



## trog100 (Nov 24, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> a 6400 @ 333 is choking a 3870?



in a high frame rate benchmark any system till  will choke any grafix card.. in a game it wont.. 

if playing games is your thing u need a bloody good grafix card.. if benching is your thing u need a bloody good system and a bloody good grafix card/cards..

u dont need more than one cpu core thow.. he he

least not with gaming benchmarks..

my amd system will score just over 11000 in 3dmark 2006.. an intel system at 4 gig would probably score 13 to 14 thousand.. but 2006 is no longer any good as grafix card comparer.. or a games performance comparer.. my system and the 4 gig intel one would play games at about the same level..stangely enough it used to be all about gaming.. now it seems to be about benching.. its a funny old world.. 

trog


----------



## Wile E (Nov 25, 2007)

trog100 said:


> interesting theory tatty but u have more faith in the software guys changing their ways than i have.. why should they..??
> 
> multi core has been a con (for most folks) right from the start.. two is better than one is all too easy to believe for joe public.. now its four is better than two.. he he he
> 
> ...


Encode some videos on a 3GHz dual core vs a 4GHz single core, and see which wins. Multi cores aren't useless at all.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 25, 2007)

trog100 said:


> interesting theory tatty but u have more faith in the software guys changing their ways than i have.. why should they..??
> 
> multi core has been a con (for most folks) right from the start.. two is better than one is all too easy to believe for joe public.. now its four is better than two.. he he he
> 
> ...



Good points but it does not change the fact that there are already 11 games that are genuinly "multithredded" (can use as many cores as you have), that includes patched games, but this figure is increasing each month and thats a fact not speculation, whether we like it or not, the CPU IS playing a bigger role in our gameplay.

I can only suggest, when you compare your single sandy with your dual core that you play supreme commander for half an hour on each then come back to me with the same comment.......U wont! Supreme Commander is multithredded and you will see a big performance difference between the 2 rigs, and surprisingly a little difference in FPS also.

Take a read of this, it may surprise you, this page is just the conclusuion, read that first but then read the whole article.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiwxMCwsaGVudGh1c2lhc3Q=

The real worrying thing that blows the single core argument right out of the window is that in the same system with identicle components, running supreme commander with a single core in relation to a dual core even with CPU speeds the same is a difference of a single cores MINIMUM FPS being ZERO and the dual cores being just 8 (at the in game settings they have tested on) and the average for single being just 10.7 BUT the average for just a dual core being 35.5........thats the difference between smooth gameplay and not playing the game at all!  This kind of confirms that the CPU is playing a bigger role in gameplay than ever before no matter how good the gfx card is, although I appreciate this is just one game, there are plenty of others that are at least "dual core optimised".


----------



## trog100 (Nov 25, 2007)

u are right about supreme commander.. but the fast majority of games dont benefit from multicore to any meaningful extent.. 

i did qualify my "con" statement by adding (most folks).. 

the future is the future.. we can only guess at what will happen when and where.. i just take a more pessimistic view than u i think..

the professional  video/audio stuff definitely benefits from multicore..  but my (most folks) get out lets me out on that one.. he he..

most folks dont use the software that benefits from multicore.. most games dont benefit from multi core.. 

the real reason we have multicore is they can no longer keep making faster and faster super chips.. intel started it when they hit the heat barrier with with the p4..

one chip runs too hot.. ????.. two chips running together dont get too hot.. who is kidding who.. he he he..

so they slow the too hot chip down.. bung two together in a single package and kid us that two is better than one.. 

the big con.. the only way they got away with it in the first place was because one core sat there doing bugger all and the other was going slower.. wonderful.. i love it.. he he he.. and any fool knows two is better than one so it all worked..

the benching reviewers helped the con along by selecting benches that show up the multicore  benefts and dropping the benches they had been useing that didnt....

multicore is the immediate future thow without a doubt.. but at present "most folks" aint seeing much benefit from it..

shame they dont have a 4 gig single core phenom.. 

trog

ps.. interesting thought but how many together will it stop at.. 4 i think.. what happens next.. a new single core super chip.. ???


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 25, 2007)

Remember also tho.....that there are like 70 dual core optimised games, I am not suggesting the differences in those would be as great as Supremem Commander but there are likely to be differences.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 26, 2007)

pretty hard to tell without running a dual and a single at the same speed.. it dosnt make a deal of difference in the 3dmarks..i got about 500 points extra for the two core score than the single core score in 2006.. in 2005 again a small increase but i put this down to the greater memory bandwith on the am2 system..

i only compared the score i used to get with my 939 system single core sandy at 3 gig and 1900xtx and the am2  dual core at 3 gig.. to be honest i didnt even consider the swop an upgrade.. i did it just to bring the system on to a current platform..

check the price of ddr and a 939 x2 4800 on ebay and u will know why..  ddr is twice the price of ddr2 and an x2 4800 is for sale on ebay at £170..

i paid less than that for an am2 mobo 2 gigs of dd2 memory and an x2 6000 +..

now my old 1900xtx has gone i cant really make any valid comparisons any more.. 

course being a cheapskate will cost me in the long run.. since the initial upgrade (about three weeks ago) i have added another 2 gigs of ram.. another grafix card have ordered a C/F 790X chipset mobo and will buy another 3870 when they are available..

still rightly or wrongly it will commit me to AMD for a while.. i nearly ordered the four slot 790fx mobo but sanity got the better of me in the end.. he he he

trog

ps.. in truth my new dual system with my old grafix card seemed to run much like my old one did.. i didnt expect much but was slightly disappointed to perceive nothing..


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 26, 2007)

2006 is one of the few "multithredded" apps, there is a HUGE difference on my system between single and dual core performance.....and a HUGE difference between dual and quad core performance (a Quad core running at 3Gig out performs a dual core running at 4Gig in 2006), I will do 2 runs tonight with all settings the same....memory......gfx speeds.....cpu speeds, on the first test I will run it with both cores, on the 2nd just one core (on the DQ6 I can disable a core in BIOS).....expect to see at least 2000+ points difference......2005 however is not optimised for more than one core.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 26, 2007)

2006 isnt optimized for more than one core.. it is optimized to use multicores for its cpu test thow.. the increase is from the extra cpu score part of 2006..

lets say a single cpu core at a given speed scores 2000 in the cpu tests.. this is added to the grafix card part score.. so a single core equals grafix card score plus 2000.. dual is grafix card score plus 4000.. quad is grafix card score plus 8000. 

the faster your core speed the greater the extra core will add to your score..
 its this kinda thing that annoyed me.. all part of the multicore con..

sisoft sandra is the worse.. it looks just like it takes a single core score then doubles or quadruples it.. all this creates a totally false impression of the benfits of multicore..

strangely enough because 2005 isnt optimized in any way for multicore (like most games) it is a more accurate indication of the real benefits of dual core..

disable the cpu part of the 2006 bench and u might then have a real indicator of how dual core affect real life gaming performance.. 

lets not forget the 3dmarks were designed to test grafix card performance.. as they stand at the moment they are utterly useless at doing the job they were intended to do..

when i ran super pi.. something i know  isnt optimized for multicore  my score actually went down slightly (it took longer) with the new dual am2 system compared to the old 939 system with both cpus at 3 gig.. 

now i know super pi only uses the one core but i at least thought the other core might unload some of the overhead caused by all the other junk thats running in windows.. in theory if its doing anything at all it should have.. it quite clearly dosnt..  

it seems to be that my new extra core isnt doing anything to improve my general system performance at all.. its pretty much standing about like a spare pr-ck at a wedding.. he he he

and when i do see some signs of it doing something i see two cores running at half speed doing no more than one would at full speed.. which is pretty much what is happening with most of the games that claim to use multicore..

trog

ps... running crysis (a game designed for tomorrow lets not forget)  with a different numbers of cores in operation might be a good test..


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 26, 2007)

Yup but as the CPU test/score is part of the overall score....it matters is all I am saying, the more cores, the higher the score....relative of course


----------



## Xolair (Nov 26, 2007)

Goddamn... my *Intel E4300* might bottleneck this *HD3870* quite severely, am I correct? :shadedshu


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 26, 2007)

Xolair said:


> Goddamn... my *Intel E4300* might bottleneck this *HD3870* quite severely, am I correct? :shadedshu



Depends on what you are playing to a certain extent but generally yes, if you are running it at 2.4Gig then there will be a bottleneck, if you can get 3Gig outta her that shouldnt be too bad but depends on res/detail levels as to how much.

2900's and 3870's (it would appear) games aside only perform at their best with a lot of CPU power, that is more apparent in synthetic benchmarks but is an indicator nonetheless.  Crysis as a game does not seem to be CPU bound particularily from what I have read in this thread but a point I made earlier was that the 2900/3870 GPU seems to be CPU bound at least to a certain extent.


----------



## SSXeon (Nov 27, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> 2900's and 3870's (it would appear) games aside only perform at their best with a lot of CPU power, that is more apparent in synthetic benchmarks but is an indicator nonetheless.  Crysis as a game does not seem to be CPU bound particularily from what I have read in this thread but a point I made earlier was that the 2900/3870 GPU seems to be CPU bound at least to a certain extent.



Yeah its far from cpu bound, but if they acually used more then 40% of my quadcore then we would defently see atleast 20% increase and thats better then what crap performance we have now.


----------



## Xolair (Nov 27, 2007)

^ Well, I'll most likely play my games @ 1280*1024 and maybe medium-high detail, does the CPU speed matter already at that resolution? Thank god I don't have my old *Athlon XP 2600+* anymore...


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 27, 2007)

Xolair said:


> ^ Well, I'll most likely play my games @ 1280*1024 and maybe medium-high detail, does the CPU speed matter already at that resolution? Thank god I don't have my old *Athlon XP 2600+* anymore...



As I said, gaming specifics aside, CPU speed is important to the performance of a 2900 or HD3000 series which seem to be more cpu dependant to get the best out of them than NVidia cards are, although that importance should be minimised to a certain degree playing at lower res.


----------



## Xaser04 (Nov 27, 2007)

Get that E4300 clocked and you will be fine.

Mine is happily humming along at 3ghz and has been most of its time in the pc. Seems to be quite comfortable with the HD3850 as well.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 27, 2007)

back on topic track..

having played crysis for some time with the 3870 i have settled on 1680 x 1050 resolution.. mostly medium settings with the textures and shaders on high with no AA..

so far this has given me nice smooth game play around 35 to 45 fps.. this is with the 7.11 drivers.. the game looks pretty on these settings and at 1680 x 1050 the lack of AA isnt really noticable.. 

any AA at all kills the frame rates.. its clear the drivers need work on em..

i am just about to swop out my Abit AN52 nvidia chipset motherboard for an MSI K9A2 CF AMD 790X  one (in preparation for another 3870 when they become available) so if i disappear for a while its cos the swop aint gone easy.. he he he

trog


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 27, 2007)

trog100 said:


> back on topic track..
> 
> having played crysis for some time with the 3870 i have settled on 1680 x 1050 resolution.. mostly medium settings with the textures and shaders on high with no AA..
> 
> ...



Do you want mine?  still sealed, boxed also from Overclockers Uk, also an HIS?  It's going on fleabay otherwise on "buy it now", not looking for any profit, just what I payed for it (same as you) but my guess is when the next batch arrives they may be a little bit more expensive.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 28, 2007)

yes dude i aint sure how to use the pm thingy.. if u read this send me an email at trog@cavecom.com ..

trog


----------



## SSXeon (Nov 29, 2007)

trog100 said:


> back on topic track..
> 
> having played crysis for some time with the 3870 i have settled on 1680 x 1050 resolution.. mostly medium settings with the textures and shaders on high with no AA..
> 
> ...



Nice i run low settings, with med textures, shaders and i get 45-60fps.  Same res and in DX9. Ill wait till the 3870s get released and get one or 2 for now.


----------



## wiak (Nov 29, 2007)

meybe get more ram?, 2GB and crysis is a bit little, crysis needs atleast 4GB to run smooth
gonna test it on my newly purchased Club 3D 3870 512MB, when i get it

system: X2 5000+, 4GB DDR2 PC6400, 74GB raptor, Vista x64

http://www.club3d.nl/index.php/products/graphics/item/299
http://www.club3d.nl/index.php/download/pdf/CGAX_3872DD.pdf
http://www.club3d.nl/index.php/download/highres/CGAX_3872DD.jpg <- picture


----------



## trog100 (Nov 29, 2007)

wiak said:


> meybe get more ram?, 2GB and crysis is a bit little, crysis needs atleast 4GB to run smooth
> gonna test it on my newly purchased Club 3D 3870 512MB, when i get it
> 
> system: X2 5000+, 4GB DDR2 PC6400, 74GB raptor, Vista x64
> ...



mine shows 1.16 gig of system ram in use on the carrier deck scene.. so where your "more ram" idea comes from i dont know.. i am in XP but even vista cant be that bad.. 

trog


----------



## wiak (Dec 2, 2007)

anyone got some config files for us 3870 lovers?


----------



## cefurkan (Dec 2, 2007)

Xolair said:


> Goddamn... my *Intel E4300* might bottleneck this *HD3870* quite severely, am I correct? :shadedshu



i have e4300 too
but using @3240 mhz daily

and @ most of the games it wasnt bottlenecking my 8800gt

i just sold 8800gt and waiting g92 8800gts


----------

