2x 4850 vs top end 4870

[Ch3m1c4L]

Because it would run better over all. The high settings arent that impressive to look at.

Plus they wouldnt put out a game that was so far advanced for the current market that no one had the technology to play it at max to get the most out of it. That would just be stupid.

People target markets when selling products, who would be the market for crysis?

So on that conclusion, yes it would likely be poor coding.

Didn't they do this with far cry as well though? I thought it was more they made the engine and then made a game to show off their new engine?

 

[psychas]

stay with singe gpu set up less problems had two 3870 was a pain in the ... crashed in crysis had some strange stutering in cs:s when trowing a flash.

after a week of torture sold them

 

[VortexA1]

Didn't they do this with far cry as well though? I thought it was more they made the engine and then made a game to show off their new engine?

Yeah I would agree with your comment too. They said that it was too advanced for current gen because of that AFAIK.

 

[willhub]

I would say so far I'm getting really good framerates, I've just got to the "ice level" again, y'know, the bit that really kills ppl's performance, and the lowest I've see so far is about 32-35 fps on average. Its dropped momentarily to the high 20s, but rises again pretty quickly. I tried using 2 x AA, and while some levels were fine giving low to mid 30s, as soon as the action hotted up, they dropped a fair bit and became laggy. I'd rather have the highest fps possible to give me a bit in reserve for when they drop again but remain playable. I'm also using a sort of "mid level" config file, nothing too demanding, but not the smallest as it were. The thing that really surprised me was the performance remaining virtually identical with me cpu at stock. Do we really need to overclock 'em (don't answer that, Iknow what the reply would be) I'm playing the game in DX9 mode using windoze XP pro, 32 bit atm, I can't see any difference between DX9 and DX10 meself.
If theres any part of the game you'd like to compare performance with, I'll set me pc up to your level, run the game at that point so you can compare notes.
Wrt "warhead" I wonder these optimisations I heard of will be/are?

Yea AA is causing drops here but its abit low drop and I'm wondering if its to do with random stuttering/fps rates crashing through the floor or something as in GRID I get this problem and other people do and some people are also on about Crysis having it too.

Also check that Crysis CFG thread, I posted like 5 cfg's in there, compared them at the same place to give an idea on the performance difference.

I use DX9 in Vista, DX10 is useless and gives massive performance drop anyway,waste of time.

If you could possibly try some of the 5 cfg's in the other thread and in the same area to compare performance that would be great?

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17903233&page=2

 

[gbdtil1]

Doesn'f offer me a single FPS increase over running in non-xfire mode.

I'm with you on this one mate. Not a single frame extra for me over a 1 card set up. Most disappointed

That said, the gains elsewhere (eg COD4) are phenomenal

 

[Richdog]

Also people claim that the coding is crap - how would they know?

I think the fact that Crysis Warhead looks just as good but runs twice as fast speaks for itself. Why would the devs re-develop the engine if there wasn't a problem with performance.

 

[willhub]

I think the fact that Crysis Warhead looks just as good but runs twice as fast speaks for itself. Why would the devs re-develop the engine if there wasn't a problem with performance.

Can you link me to some benchmarks?

Thats amazing if it is indeed true, time for some AA Action in Warehead.

 

[pieman109]

/\/\/\/\/\/\ I'd be interested in that too