*** OcUK Crysis DX9 TopList ***

[marc2003]

Not to shabby!

Ideal's to increase this score:

• Buy a new CPU featuring more than 2MB Cache?
• Increase System Ram from 2GB to 4GB
• Replace stock cooler and try to increase HD4850's overclock
• Bribe Gurusan to perform vMods on HD4850

i actually get a lower score than you with a quad at the same speed as your cpu and 8gb of ram.

gpu was clocked the same and i only got 46fps. i guess the reason is that i'm running vista.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Where is your results marc2003?

Hmm I'm just about to upgrade to Vista x64!!!!

 

[marc2003]

Where is your results marc2003?

Hmm I'm just about to upgrade to Vista x64!!!!

i ran it a couple of times (in 32bit and 64bit mode and results were the same)

and stop doing this FFS.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Thanks to everyone for their kind words and upgrade advice. Of course I would have to be a right muppet to spend what little money I have to try and increase my Crysis score, that's not why I am upgrading but I heard that 4GB of RAM is a nice amount to have in Vista x64.

I been waiting for a while before switching over O/S and now that SP1 is out I figured why not, I know nothing about Vista so wouldn't mind checking it out and sussing it out tweak wise etc. It seems Microsoft are playing hardball and will shortly stop selling WinXP in an effort to force people to upgrade and truth be told I been using WinXP for six years so bit bored.

Regarding memory size effecting game framerate this article at bit-tech.net seems to indicate it can improve the minimum frame rate quite a bit?

While the overall average performance doesn't increase, except only slightly for 8GB of memory, the gaming experience on 4GB or 8GB of memory is far, far smoother as you can see from the linear increase in minimum frame per second. In fact, if all were equal we'd have to recommend gaming on Crysis with 8GB of memory as it's 50 percent smoother over just 4GB

 

[ZoomZ]

Nice .

The article i read posted 2 gigs vs 4 gigs as a 10-12% difference so i bought 2 more gigs of 1150 and poof ,, 7 frames in vista64 .

 

[Dr_Fartypants]

Interesting...

I've only got 2Gb in my machine, since I'm using XP. I do have another 2Gb and a copy of 64bit Vista sat here, so maybe I should get around to installing them?

 

[Greebo]

Interesting...

I've only got 2Gb in my machine, since I'm using XP. I do have another 2Gb and a copy of 64bit Vista sat here, so maybe I should get around to installing them?

Go for a dual boot system for the best of both worlds!

I still have old pc hardware and software which I want to run which won't work on vista and never will which is why I held off intalling it until a month ago (it sat on a shelf for a year)

Dual boot is the way forward and easy to do.

Just a pain installing everything twice though

 

[Biffa]

Or if you don't want to dual boot you can use VMware or some other virtual software for your old apps

 

[Dr_Fartypants]

I'd earmarked one of my older drives (300Gb I think) for a Vista drive, but I've not got round to clearing out all the data on it and saving what I need. I probably have enough space on my externals though, if I do some shuffling... Maybe I'll have a crack tonight.

I take it I can just install vista on the second HDD and dual-boot should appear automatically? Or must I do something else as well?

 

[Greebo]

I'd earmarked one of my older drives (300Gb I think) for a Vista drive, but I've not got round to clearing out all the data on it and saving what I need. I probably have enough space on my externals though, if I do some shuffling... Maybe I'll have a crack tonight.

I take it I can just install vista on the second HDD and dual-boot should appear automatically? Or must I do something else as well?

Easy with xp already on.

Put your hard drive in.

Insert Vista.

Boot from cd.

Install to new hard drive (format first with NSTC)

When finished, whenever you reboot your get a choice on screen between vista and legacy windows for 30 secs. defaults to vista.

You can change the default round if you want but I leave mine on vista. I only really go back to xp as and when I need the hardware or software which only runs on xp.

The only thing to be careful thereafter is, if like me, you end up with xp on C: and vista on d:, whenever you install something on vista, you must select custom and change it to d: drive location or it will over right the installation on the c: drive xp system.

I lost track how many times I forgot and then when I went back into xp I found things like rivatuner wasn;t working cause I had overwritten the files in the xp windows directory with me vista installation

But you get used to it and quick reinstall to the right drives on both systems fixes it.

 

[Dr_Fartypants]

Thanks Greebo Looks like it's still the same procedure as when I had XP and windows98 dual boot back in the day.

I'll report back when I have vista64 and the extra memory in, to see what performance difference there is. I have noticed in-game that there is a fair amount of paging going on when I use the scope into a new game area. I'm going to try setting r_TexturesStreaming=0 with the extra memory and see if that gets around the problem.



edit - also, apologies to fornowagon for implying that his results could have been produced with positive LOD settings. There was plenty of evidence on how you got to your results in this thread, I was just too lazy to check before opening my big mouth. So, sorry! Looks like you actually went to the effort to tweak and optimise your system for the benchmark, and you ended up with abuse for it!

 

[Greebo]

I reckon you will see quite a boost with that extra ram.

 

[Dr_Fartypants]

ha! Just looked at the score list.

My GTX280 score has been utterly spanked by shockyFM

I have no idea how you get the GPU to 738mhz though, unless it's watercooling. I can't even get through the benchmark at over 700, and I get some artifacting at over 675. If it's air cooling then congrats on getting hold of a super-clocking GPU!

 

[ZoomZ]

I have vista on d drive and xp on c drive and simply select which one i want to boot to in bios .

 

[willhub]

i ran it a couple of times (in 32bit and 64bit mode and results were the same)

and stop doing this FFS.

That score was slightly lower than my overclocked 8800GT

 

[ZoomZ]

That score was slightly lower than my overclocked 8800GT

I would say either Marc has issues somewhere in his system or the 4800 series isnt all its cracked up to be .

Was it the 4850 or the 4870 that is supost to compete with the 9800gtx ?

My buddy with a 4870 pulled out 60.5 last night at these settings with a fresh built [email protected] box ,, he was hoping for a lot more .

I just ran these settings on my office computer at stock cpu clocks and a moderate gpu oc .

 

[Big.Wayne]

I would say either Marc has issues

Yip he's deffo got issues!

Can he read my mind or what?

or the 4800 series isnt all its cracked up to be

Wind your nVidia fanboy neck in lol!

The HD4850 is the card to beat a 9800GTX, at least it appears to be faster in every single game at 1920x1200 except Oblivion?

The HD4800 series doesn't really stand out until you hit the bigger resolutions so sadly this Crysis test at 1280x1024 isn't ideal.

Would love to see some 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 results from actual users but this database hasn't been configured to allow anything higher under WindowsXP

 

[Greebo]

Well a few things.

Both the 4850 and 4870 do not perform well in either 3dmark06 or crysis compared to other games. However, the 4850 competes with the 8800GT and the 4870 with the 9800GTX

My system as per sig only gets 56fps so your score Zoomz with a lesser clocked e8400 and a slower GTS (read GTX) makes me think there is something wrong with my system now

Looking at the list, your score is quite remarkable and beats faster cpus and faster 9800GTX/GTS scores.

However, there is no getting away from Marc has a very low score for a 4850.

There is a similar clocked 4850's with a e4300 3ghz getting 49fps compared with Marc's 3.4Ghz quad getting 46fps

And your mates score is low in comparison with yours and the chart too. He is getting beaten by 3Ghz E6xxx cpus with the 4870. However his system is as fast as GX2, 8800GTX SLI and Ultra SLI systems with a £180 card so not sure how much he was expecting tbh. He is clearly beating the pants off 9800GTX systems.

However, as Fornowagain has shown, there is a lot to getting more fps from crysis and everybody on here has different setups more than just cpu, cpu speed, gpu and gpu speed.

Just cause somebody posted the same cpu, gpu and same clock speeds doesn't mean equality either.

Eg 3.6Ghz cpu could be 9 x 400 or 8 x 450 or even 7 x 514 and the memory caould be running anywhere from 800 to 1100Mhz+ at different timings.

If we all were doing it from a fresh install of the same operating system and the same memory configs, motherbaords etc then you might be able to draw a comparison.

I suppose the important thing is, how a new card changed your scores on your own system and not worry about other peoples.

I was happy with my 3rd fastest single gpu 3dmark06 score on this forum (was, not anymore ) but I could never seem to get the crysis score my system on paper should have got or compared with other people.

All I have learnt from the database on this forum is that you can get 10fps difference with what appears to be the same gpu and cpu.

The reviews are looking at the same system each time so if your intended new card shows a 20% gain then that is what you will get with your system as well.

It may will be the review shows your 9800gtx getting 40fps and the 4870 50fps when you already get 50fps but in theory you should then get 60fps.

 

[SimonMaltby]

Could be wrong but they look dodgy to me.

Hi all... been awhile since i looked in, mainly cos i got rid of all my kit and changed to an M1730 lappy so my overclocking days are on hold for now.... Cant believe i'm still on top spot

RavenXXX2.... Couple of comments i would make.
Firstly when the 9800GX2 first came out there were poor drivers but some very good beta one's which i'm sure helped get these scores. Also there have been patches for Crysis which may well have fixed some bugs and the pre patch may acually have better performance (i'm guessing here).

What i can say is this. I took a totally different approach to most overclockers on the setup where i got great benchmarks...

Firstly i kept the FSB at 333Mhz when booting and just made minor adjustments in windows - this gave me much better control over every aspect of the setup from ram to pci-e speed. I'm afraid i can't remember the exact settings, but i spent many hours perfecting the right balance and i do remember that it made a great deal of difference.

The bigest advantage of not usin high FSB is that you can keep the NB and SB cooler.

Secondly, i took a great deal of time and attention to the OS. Using server 2008 64 Bit with only minimal installed components helped a huge amount. Stopping as many processes and services (including the clock) also produce gains.

Anyway. I asure you the benchmarks are genuine. I was able to re-create within a few fps although of course the setup was far from stable for real use at those speeds.

Come on someone... knock me off the top... I cant say i deserve to be there when i dont have the kit anymore.

 

[=VTA=MANFACE]

Just installed 4870 today.