Tri-SLI benchmarked

[paradigm]

Yep, just like I will most likely try CrossFire-X when I get a chance. The money isn't an issue and I like playing with stuff.

 

[helmutcheese]

But don't the ultras have open ends? Unlike the GTXs which have closed ends.

The open end is is nothing, its simply a shroud to hide all the parts on PCB, the Fan still sucks from same place as any other fan, ie intowards itself.

The only differnce if the fan is offset on the Ultra and after all GTX can also do Tri SLI.

 

[Dead Dog]

some ££ stuffed in there

 

[smsmasters]

If I were rich I would buy that.

 

[Tooks]

Read the minimum frame rates on Tri-SLI at 1920 x 1200, and weep!! 14fps??

 

[helmutcheese]

If I were rich I would buy that.

LOL

And WTF they using buggy Crysis for, the Game was written to be CPU Dependant but dont use cores well (where is promised patch, its past 10days).

You could add 3 dual core GPU's in Tri SLI and it would make little difference.

 

[luismenendez]

all that superb expensive hardware and i am sure it can't run crysis carrier level without slowdowns

 

[Mattus]

£1200 of graphics card and a 1200W PSU for a minimum of 14fps in Crysis with no AA

And WTF they using buggy Crysis for, the Game was written to be CPU Dependant but dont use cores well (where is promised patch, its past 10days).

What? The game is entirely GPU dependent. Graphically it's a step ahead of anything else released. No number of CPU cores will help render that graphical load any faster.

You could add 3 dual core GPU's in Tri SLI and it would make little difference.

Then explain why one Ultra gets 15fps avg, two get 27fps and three get 38fps? That's two GPUs giving 180% of the performance of one, and three GPUs giving 250%, without considering SLI overheads. Seems pretty GPU-limited to me.

 

[Smoogels]

Who cares?

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

expensive cards in SLi = waste, Tri SLi is even more of a waste.. if 2 cards cant handle crysis why bother buying a third for a huge amount of money when the 9800's will handle it a lot better.

but i still stand with what i said before, crysis is either a really poorly optimised game or they released it way too early and is not worth playing right now.

 

[Smoogels]

expensive cards in SLi = waste, Tri SLi is even more of a waste.. if 2 cards cant handle crysis why bother buying a third for a huge amount of money when the 9800's will handle it a lot better.

but i still stand with what i said before, crysis is either a really poorly optimised game or they released it way too early and is not worth playing right now.

Like Farcry was, play it now on a 8800 with HDR lighting, AF,AA in wide screen F'in awesome! Even now and if you have the 64bit patch - Say no more.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Like Farcry was, play it now on a 8800 with HDR lighting, AF,AA in wide screen F'in awesome! Even now and if you have the 64bit patch - Say no more.

Farcry has been playable without slowdown with high settings for how long? only about up until last year.. I think Crytek has made their games way too demanding.. i still cant see how anybody can enjoy a game that runs so poorly, its the reason im not buying it. I mean, even on medium settings the game is pretty sluggish

 

[helmutcheese]

[

£1200 of graphics card and a 1200W PSU for a minimum of 14fps in Crysis with no AA



What? The game is entirely GPU dependent. Graphically it's a step ahead of anything else released. No number of CPU cores will help render that graphical load any faster.



Then explain why one Ultra gets 15fps avg, two get 27fps and three get 38fps? That's two GPUs giving 180% of the performance of one, and three GPUs giving 250%, without considering SLI overheads. Seems pretty GPU-limited to me.

NO ITS NOT, your another one that did not read the CEO's interviews, the GAME ia about CPU, then GPU then RAM.

You want to read, either Google for Crysis Interviews or do same here under my name, I have posted most of the BS he fed public.

I get nearly ZERO diff in FPS with my GPU Stock/Overclocked /Underclocked, cause my CPU is using like 40% Max of 1 core.

The Game as it stand now has issues and its to be Patched.

 

[Indy500]

Farcry runs fine on a Radeon 9600 Pro if you tone down the settings to medium and don't play at 1600x1200...

 

[helmutcheese]

Farcry has been playable without slowdown with high settings for how long? only about up until last year.. I think Crytek has made their games way too demanding.. i still cant see how anybody can enjoy a game that runs so poorly, its the reason im not buying it. I mean, even on medium settings the game is pretty sluggish

I Played FarCry at 1280x960 and all as high as it went with a G-Force TI4600, then after patch 1.3 added HDR I did it again on a 6800Ultra AGP.

 

[Smoogels]

I Played FarCry at 1280x960 and all as high as it went with a G-Force TI4600, then after patch 1.3 added HDR I did it again on a 6800Ultra AGP.

4200Ti 1024x768 unplayable and it ripped my 5900 to pieces

 

[Indy500]

4200Ti 1024x768 unplayable and it ripped my 5900 to pieces

Cause FXs sucked in DX9 shaders. As for your Ti4200, did you have the textures set too high to fit in its memory?

 

[Smoogels]

Cause FXs sucked in DX9 shaders. As for your Ti4200, did you have the textures set too high to fit in its memory?

I didn't even play through it on the 4200. I actually played right the way through on the 5900 on medium if I remember correctly.

Then I played it again this year on a 8800gts and it looked awesome.

 

[helmutcheese]

4200Ti 1024x768 unplayable and it ripped my 5900 to pieces

Possibly as the 4200 is lower than a 4400 and a 4600, and I had a OC version.

The FX5000 range were all a POS, the story goes they were broken for DX9 and ran all in DX8.1 Mode the same as all TI G-Force 4's (only TI's were DX8.1, all others were DX8.

 

[smilertoo]

Crysis only crawls because they're using stupidly high settings.