• 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.

*** Far Cry 2 1680 x 1050 max settings Top List ***

Shocky-FM said:
It's not the CPU, I'm at 3.8GHz right now with higher bus and it makes no difference at all, plus i'm using a Q9550 which is faster clock for clock then your Q6600.
Click to expand...

At what bus speed?
What drivers are you using?
What motherboard?
What memory speed?
Have you disabled any background services for crap like adobe, punkbuster, nero etc?
Defragged before running?
etc, etc, etc...

I could go on but I'm not going to do it for you :D

Are you accusing me of cheating BTW? :D
 
43.21 fps > gurusan > E8500 @ 4400mhz > ATI HD 4850 @ 880/1150

10795520zg2.png
 
AndyOcUK said:
At what bus speed?
What drivers are you using?
What motherboard?
What memory speed?
Have you disabled any background services for crap like adobe, punkbuster, nero etc?
Defragged before running?
etc, etc, etc...

I could go on but I'm not going to do it for you :D

Are you accusing me of cheating BTW? :D
Click to expand...

lol, no I'm not accusing you of cheating, I just want to know where that extra 9fps is coming from.

I'm using a 180.43, the drivers that are ment to provide better performance, i'm running 8.5*450 (3825MHz) with rated FSB of 1800 and memory running at 1080MHz.

Have you tried the latast driver? it's ment to be faster and not slower which is what I don't understand here.

Besides, my score is in line with the other GTX280 users, yours isnt which is why i'm asking. :)
 
Last edited:
Shocky-FM said:
lol, no I'm not accusing you of cheating, I just want to know where that extra 9fps is coming from.

I'm using a 180.43, the drivers that are ment to provide better performance, i'm running 8.5*450 (3825MHz) with rated FSB of 1800 and memory running at 1080MHz.

Have you tried the latast driver? it's ment to be faster and not slower which is what I don't understand here.
Click to expand...

LOL :D

Just dropped back from the 180.43 driver because I was having problems running Bluray discs in arcsoft total media theatre.

Tried to see if there was a difference in the DX 9 tests and results were still around the 50-52 mark :confused:

Are you running your GFX card with the clocks linked?

Also running a multiplier of anything but a whole number (e.g. 8.0 or 9.0) is not good on quads.

If you beat me now you owe me beers you swine :D lol
 
Last edited:
AndyOcUK said:
LOL :D

Just dropped back from the 180.43 driver because I was having problems running Bluray discs in arcsoft total media theatre.

Tried to see if there was a difference in the DX 9 tests and results were still around the 50-52 mark :confused:

Are you running your GFX card with the clocks linked?
Click to expand...

I get simalar with DX9 at least, nope unlinked, i'll try linked..
 
I presume i did this right.

DX10
GTX260 @ 730core/1563shader/2400mem
Q6600 @ 3.6ghz (450fsb)
4GB Corsair XMS3 1800mhz
Evga 790i ***

2974806506_e46ae27940_o.jpg


Now to just add in my second for SLI.
 
AndyOcUK said:
Also my RAM is running unlinked at 1333MHz, yours is only at 1080MHZ :)
Click to expand...

It's not that either, dropped memory back down with CPU speed using 8x ratio and again makes no difference, this is nothng to do with CPU or Memory, linking shader and core made no difference either....

Only thing left to try is roll back the driver and I don't really want to do that but with a potential extra 9fps it might be worth it.. lol
 
I can't be bothered to check ALL the results, but the 4870X2 charts, despite posting a similar average score to the single GPU Nvidias, seem to be far less consistent and 'spiky', often with lower minimum frame rates. The closest 4870X2 score to mine whilst only being 5fps less on average, is 13fps lower at it's lowest point, and jumps up and down like a jack Russell terrier.

I know this isn't a resolution for cards like the X2 to even start stretching it's legs, so these discrepancies may be attributed to another part of the system?
 
Adrianr said:
I can't be bothered to check ALL the results, but the 4870X2 charts, despite posting a similar average score to the single GPU Nvidias, seem to be far less consistent and 'spiky', often with lower minimum frame rates. The closest 4870X2 score to mine whilst only being 5fps less on average, is 13fps lower at it's lowest point, and jumps up and down like a jack Russell terrier.

I know this isn't a resolution for cards like the X2 to even start stretching it's legs, so these discrepancies may be attributed to another part of the system?
Click to expand...

Definitely mate - at the end of the day, the data must come off the HDD, throught the MOBO to the RAM and CPU etc - any weak link in a chain is always the stumbling block.

ANY type of machine or device is only as good or as fast as the sum of it's slowest/ weakest part. :)
 
Hi, aside from showing all the test runs and in DX10 the settings look the same don't they???
Chris

Edit: I see it, the wrong ranch :-( I have changed the picture now, hopefully it is correct...
Chris
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom