• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

The Asgard (GTS 512) Vs HeX (GTX) - Crysis Scores

1st ran was 2xAA and 2nd run is 4xAA.
6d188e7f.jpg

by the way, that's with an unoverclocked GTX.

come on GTS owners, give us your AA results :D
 
8800 GTS 775/1737/1075 High quality...

No AA



Other results too follow.

Not bad, I'm guessing your using the CPU clocks in your sig which probably explains the higher minimum framerate compared to Asgards, but doesnt explain the relatively low average and max framerate, was that done with vista?
 
No, XP.

I had driver set to high quality, my scores match the others when set to performance. Im going to run NO AA/ 2AA / 4AA on performance now.
 
Last edited:
You might want the check the 4xAA results, theres no way you get almost no loss from 2xAA to 4xA, also your minimum framerate is higher set to quality then set to peformance which makes no sense at all.
 
Last edited:
I agree it is odd. Ive re-run the quality tests and they are very similar to those above.

Its also odd the the GT beats the GTS.
 
Last edited:
How about running a different game, FEAR or COH maybe at 1920x1200 with 16AA/16AF.

Sounds good, if there is a set benchmark for those. I think fear has one.

I think the CSS (source) benchmark would be useful too.

I think a new thread is required.
 
Last edited:
As no one has yet to do as was asked, here is an 8800 gts 512 @ stock with a 3ghz quad:

high-pp-1680x1050-stock.jpg


1680x1050, all high except pp on med, no aa, 169.21 drivers, performance set in controll panel.

That's pretty damned close to the op's gtx mildly clocked actually...
 
As no one has yet to do as was asked, here is an 8800 gts 512 @ stock with a 3ghz quad:

high-pp-1680x1050-stock.jpg


1680x1050, all high except pp on med, no aa, 169.21 drivers, performance set in controll panel.

That's pretty damned close to the op's gtx mildly clocked actually...


If you have the time, set your nvidia driver to performance, then set set Cryisis to be all on high then post your results.
 
Very interesting Thread and some great results. :)

I just hate the fact you get three board changes or is it even tied to one board on oem ?

Hey C64, If you purchase an OEM copy of Windows Vista and install it on your system and then change your motherboard for a performance upgrade, you will then have to go out and buy a new copy (License) of Windows Vista since you are no longer licensed to use your existing copy of Windows. This is actually nothing to do with Windows Vista, same applies to Windows XP. :)
 
Last edited:
Very interesting Thread. :)



Hey C64, If you purchase an OEM copy of Windows Vista and install it on your system and then change your motherboard for a performance upgrade, you will then have to go out and buy a new copy (License) of Windows Vista since you are no longer licensed to use your existing copy of Windows. This is actually nothing to do with Windows Vista, same applies to Windows XP. :)

And what ever you do dont crack a legit version because they will invalidate your key. Theres a simple thing you can do online to change your hardware that someone posted before but ive lost it now.
 
Ok ran the benchmark on my GTX system.

Driver used : NVIDIA Forceware 169.21

System

E6600 @ 3.6Ghz
8800GTX @ 621/1512/2000
Windows XP 32bit
2GB RAM

Resolution : 1680x1050
Driver options set to Quality

All settings high apart from PP which is set to medium:

1680x1050PPMedEverythingelseHigh.png


All settings high:

1680x1050EverythingHigh.png
 
Back
Top Bottom