Well one score has about £1200 worth of video cards behind it, the other doesn't.
Both gtx 280 SLI?
-
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.
**** OcUK Crysis Warhead Top-List ****
- Thread starter marc2003
- Start date
Both gtx 280 SLI?
Doesn't make much sense then how he got that score then, the cryenigne doesn't seem to notice much when the cpu is ratcheted up. I remember clocking mine from 3ghz to 3.6 and there wasn't even a 1fps improvement.
no i didnt, still dont have it in, recived it back today, but do you think i could actuly be bothered putting it back in just now. il do it tomorrow when im off work ^^
i ran the test again out of curiosity and i got 64.5fps so i think the guy down in 3rd with the sli 280s eaither has an ancient driver ( sorry i didnt even bother looking to check ) or the possiblity of a dodgy sli bridge or wrong config. cause if you look at the list the guy with 8800gtx is beating a guy with gtx 280s sorry but there is something wrong there.
i ran the test again out of curiosity and i got 64.5fps so i think the guy down in 3rd with the sli 280s eaither has an ancient driver ( sorry i didnt even bother looking to check ) or the possiblity of a dodgy sli bridge or wrong config. cause if you look at the list the guy with 8800gtx is beating a guy with gtx 280s sorry but there is something wrong there.
Last edited:
I'm currently getting quite a lot of tearing all gamer @ 1920 x 1200. Not quite enough to Vsync but more than enough to enable some enthusiast settings and never dip below 30fps. Discovered how it's more 'optimized' though.. Whole bushes magically pop up in front of you as you're running, it's ridiculous! Would rather loose some frames and not be running through Houdinis forest.
Check the up-to-date table on marcs website
Edit: just realised you just submitted, so you probabaly already have
Soldato
uploaded mine
what a brilliant game, makes crysis 1 look old and well bland
graphics wise, i think that :
minimum on warhead is like crysis on meidum but runs twice as good fps as crysis on low.
mainstream on warhead is like crysis on high but runs fps like crysis on low
gamer on warhead is like crysis on very high but runs with fps like crysis on medium
enthusiast looks twice as good as crysis in general looks so life like, and has fps like crysis on high, which is still a good average of 50-70 depending on where you are
warhead isnt faster.. i bet they have enabled crossfire support? so your X2 is working it nicely
it looks the same and is mabye 10% slower
Associate
I have a sneaking suspicion he using a much older nforced based chipset. Like 680i/650i.
That combined with a moderately clocked quad and possibly older driver set is not allowing it's true potential to shine. When I used to use 8800gtx sli'd with the 790i and a dual core clocked to 4.3ghz you should have seen it fly. To be honest he seems to have the right components like pc8500 ram and raptors in raid 0 and 280sli so you would expect it to do better than what it is. The fact it only seems to be faster than single 280's by 2-3 fps.But as long as he is happy with it performance that is what matters most.
Just like the Ati cards don't seem to benefit whether crossfired or using something as powerful as the 4870x2. It's only one game and they seem more than happy with it performance in other titles. If EA patch it or ATI release drivers for it which would enable crossfire I expect the results to be reversed or not so clearly in the favour of Nvidia based cards or chipsets.
Last edited:
Associate
Finally got round to buying myself a copy of this (sorry khemist ).
Shame it's just like the first one in that the cpu counts for very little at anything above 3.4ghz.
So much for the game being better optimized, it looks worse and plays slower, lol.
1280x1024 Gamer
77.92
1680 x 1050 Enthusiast
40.09
). Shame it's just like the first one in that the cpu counts for very little at anything above 3.4ghz.
So much for the game being better optimized, it looks worse and plays slower, lol.
1280x1024 Gamer
77.92
1680 x 1050 Enthusiast
40.09
Yep. 680i
Finally got round to buying myself a copy of this (sorry khemist
Shame it's just like the first one in that the cpu counts for very little at anything above 3.4ghz.
So much for the game being better optimized, it looks worse and plays slower, lol.
1280x1024 Gamer
77.92
1680 x 1050 Enthusiast
40.09
Git! ha ha
i think that's about the best i can do.. no point in bumping the cpu up and the card cant do any better i don't think.So much for the game being better optimized, it looks worse and plays slower, lol.
Cryteks definition of 'optimized' turned out to be reducing the draw distance for anything that wasnt a mountain or vehicle to 6 feet.
So much for the game being better optimized, it looks worse and plays slower, lol.
Cryteks definition of 'optimized' turned out to be reducing the draw distance for anything that wasnt a mountain or vehicle to 6 feet.
Glad someone agrees with me