Speculated Crysis Performance - ATI & Nvidia Cards

Tom|Nbk · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:44

Hey All

A while ago the Admin Team put together a spreadsheet with specualted crysis performance on different graphics cards. It sat there gathering dust so I decided to make a post and stick it out their for the rest of you to use.

Please Note: These are speculated performance levels, actual performance may vary

At first I thought it was a load of tutt, now I have checked out the link and it does seem credible, thought I would post it here to a wider audience. Looks like the 2900XT is ready to dish out some punishment to the G80 series in DX10

.

Cheers to the original poster in PC Games.

http://www.crysis-online.com/forum/index.php/topic,4567.0.html

Cyber-Mav · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:51

just speculation, nothing true at all in those tables. performance looks poor across the board.
but unlike other games, this game has a reason to run slow. from the videos posted so far this game is the only one that makes sense of having high requirements.

Tute · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:56

Without trying to rurn this into yet another flaming thread, why do they claim better performance with a 2900XT than an 8800GTX?

Is there something in Crysis' code that makes it perform far better on this card?

Tom|Nbk · 19 Jun 2007 at 00:59

Cyber-Mav said:
just speculation, nothing true at all in those tables. performance looks poor across the board.
but unlike other games, this game has a reason to run slow. from the videos posted so far this game is the only one that makes sense of having high requirements.

The guys who compiled this work for Crytek and alongside them.

Tute said:
Without trying to rurn this into yet another flaming thread, why do they claim better performance with a 2900XT than an 8800GTX?

Is there something in Crysis' code that makes it perform far better on this card?

Yes, the HD2900XT is the better card for DX10.

chaparral · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:03

" based on 2Ghz CPU "

Tests of a HD2900xt/8800gtx at low res with a 2Ghz cpu = waste of time

Cyber-Mav · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:08

chaparral said:
" based on 2Ghz CPU "

Tests of a HD2900xt/8800gtx at low res with a 2Ghz cpu = waste of time

why is that?

i hope your not trying to say cpu limitation, because if there is cpu limitation then the fps should remain the same at all the resolutions they predicted.
since the fps drop as the rez is increase its not cpu limitation its gfx card limitation. :rolleyes:

(rolleyes only applies if u thought it was cpu limitation

)

Cyber-Mav · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:11

Tom|Nbk said:
The guys who compiled this work for Crytek and alongside them.

Yes, the HD2900XT is the better card for DX10.

its just speculation, nothing solid. unless they post official benchmarks on the crytek website im not gonna believe anything just yet.

Tom|Nbk · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:16

OT: Mav will you please use the edit button, seeing double, triple posts by you almost 99% of the time is annoying.

Greenboi · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:18

It says the X2x00 is the XTX version....hmm

BristolBulldog · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:19

i have a hd2900xt, and i would love this to be true (if only for amd to sell a few more cards, and remain compeitive), but so far everything shows the 2900xt only being really good in synthetic benchmarks.

everything dx10 so far shows its a little short of the gtx. Like all other 2900xt owners, i am awaiting the "killer driver" lol.

Tom|Nbk · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:20

Greenboi said:
It says the X2x00 is the XTX version....hmm

Probs a typo

Cyber-Mav · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:31

Tom|Nbk said:
Probs a typo

hmm, so wrong card model number? dodgey performance results are possible.

thing is these are speculated figures, speculations are based on guesses made based on gfx card specifications.

if i were to make a speculation on gfx card performance by just looking at the card specs i would say the 2900xt is the fastest card in the universe.

but as we all know, speculation is hardly close to reality.

Tute · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:38

Tom|Nbk said:
Probs a typo

I actually disagree with you on this one Tom.

If Quake 4 on Ultra can fill 512MB then it's entirely possible that Crysis on Very High might well benefit from the 1GB GDDR4 on the XTX (and the extra bandwidth it provides).

Of course, i'm just guessing here though.

Tom|Nbk · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:45

Tute said:
I actually disagree with you on this one Tom.

If Quake 4 on Ultra can fill 512MB then it's entirely possible that Crysis on Very High might well benefit from the 1GB GDDR4 on the XTX (and the extra bandwidth it provides).

Of course, i'm just guessing here though.

Tute, the XTX does not exist. :confused:

Tute · 19 Jun 2007 at 01:49

Tom|Nbk said:
Tute, the XTX does not exist.

*Watches brain liquify and drop out of ears*

I blame the confusing naming scheme!

Cyber-Mav · 19 Jun 2007 at 02:04

Tute said:
*Watches brain liquify and drop out of ears*

I blame the confusing naming scheme!

whats so confusing about it? naming scheme has been used since last generation of cards :confused:

Timdog · 19 Jun 2007 at 02:16

Tom|Nbk said:
Tute, the XTX does not exist.

was the 1gb 2900xt not meant to be the xtx originally?

the 1950 xtx was just an overclocked xt with ddr4

so they are prob just referring to the 1gb 2900xt

IceShock · 19 Jun 2007 at 02:44

O.o

what 1680x1050 res on a single 2900XT? fps will be as low as poo

alltho i didnt buy this card for dx10 anyway, ill upgrade when the next nextgen dx10 cards are out

Toryglen-boy · 19 Jun 2007 at 03:08

*speculated*

great word that, could mean quite litterally anything .....

best wait and just see how it performs

Cyber-Mav · 19 Jun 2007 at 03:16

Toryglen-boy said:
*speculated*

great word that, could mean quite litterally anything .....

best wait and just see how it performs

i agree.