alexanrs wrote:

You're comparing Intel's top consumer/non-enthusiast solution (to which AMD has no Piledriver competitor) against a mid-end AMD processor. I'd say those results are pretty much normal. That i7 isn't even working at its full potential, as I have that processor and reached 90+ FPS with similar speed memory and another graphics card, so now you are not being bottlenecked by the processor anymore.

More than that, the perceived performance of the 8350 felt like a downgrade from my previous i7-860. I dunno, it's just pretty disappointing that AMD can't compete right now.

joe6pack wrote:

It makes me wonder if the FX-8350 really is that bad or if I had something configured incorrectly...

Considering I had only 6 FPS less with a much weaker GPU, and this benchmark seemingly favoring AMD cards... yes, the FX is that bad even compared to its predecessor 😀

Another entry.

Got a GTX 285 from eBay and tried it out under Windows XP:

philscomputerlab wrote:

Another entry.

Got a GTX 285 from eBay and tried it out under Windows XP:

How do you like the GTX 285? I find it the best video card for a really fast XP system 😀

For most stuff (probably not Crysis) in XP its as fast as a GTX 580 but uses about ~75W less power at load, any PSU with two 6pin PCI-E power connectors can usually handle it.

Skyscraper wrote:

How do you like the GTX 285? I find it the best video card for a really fast XP system 😀

For most stuff (probably not Crysis) in XP its as fast as a GTX 580 but uses about ~75W less power at load, any PSU with two 6pin PCI-E power connectors can usually handle it.

I put in a return request. It has the loudest coil whine I've ever heard. Check this out: Singing GTX 285

Really annoys me that he hasn't mentioned this. I mean this thing is so loud, it's crazy. I tried two PSUs. Otherwise the card works fine, but I simply cannot use it.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

How do you like the GTX 285? I find it the best video card for a really fast XP system 😀

For most stuff (probably not Crysis) in XP its as fast as a GTX 580 but uses about ~75W less power at load, any PSU with two 6pin PCI-E power connectors can usually handle it.

I put in a return request. It has the loudest coil whine I've ever heard. Check this out: Singing GTX 285

Really annoys me that he hasn't mentioned this. I mean this thing is so loud, it's crazy. I tried two PSUs. Otherwise the card works fine, but I simply cannot use it.

That was pretty extreme 😁

Some coil whine while running 3dmark 2001 and other stuff that produces really high FPS is normal but I never heard coil whine that extreme before.

My GTX 2XX cards are nearly silent so that level of coil whine for sure isnt normal.

Skyscraper wrote:

That was pretty extreme 😁

Some coil whine while running 3dmark 2001 and other stuff that produces really high FPS is normal but I never heard coil whine that extreme before.

My GTX 2XX cards are nearly silent so that level of coil whine for sure isnt normal.

Yea it's totally unreal. Never heard anything like it. The BIN was with free shipping, so returning it will be a loss of $10. I'll add "does it make noises when gaming" to the list of questions I ask for the next card.

Same machine with a GTX 460 768. Not sure why it's slower than the 285.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Yea it's totally unreal. Never heard anything like it. The BIN was with free shipping, so returning it will be a loss of $10. I'll add "does it make noises when gaming" to the list of questions I ask for the next card.

Same machine with a GTX 460 768. Not sure why it's slower than the 285.

I would guess its because the GTX 285 is a faster card 😀

Even the GTX 470 got beaten by the GTX 285 in my testing but the GTX 470 is probably faster running DX10 stuff in Windows 6.x

Skyscraper wrote:

I would guess its because the GTX 285 is a faster card 😀

Even the GTX 470 got beaten by the GTX 285 in my testing but the GTX 470 is probably faster running DX10 stuff in Windows 6.x

😊 Forgot that there wasn't a real 300 series. Not bad at all. Shame because I didn't bid on a GTX 275, which ended up selling for ~ A$ 30 shipped.

As my 9700 Pro wouldn't run in my XP 2400+/A7S333 setup I had to bench it in another computer.
Radeon 9700 Pro (an early one I bought just after launch)
Pentium 4 3.06GHz HT (from a Packard Bell)
Asus P4C800-E Deluxe (bought for overclocking Pentium M's with phase change back in the days)
2x 1GB PC3200 @ 178MHz 2-2-2-5 (got them from a friend for free)

Average: 28.70 FPS
The tool still got problems calculating the average, looks like trouble with VB (maybe wrong version?).

Installed Catalyst 10.2 and increased FPS avrage with about 10.

Avrage: 38.34 FPS

My 2002-2008 Retro comp 😀

800x600dx9 AVG: 82.26
1280x1024dx9 AVG: 45.29
1920x1080dx10 AVG: 27.88

Pentium D 965 3.73GHz HT (default clock 3.73GHz, OC: 4.8GHz)
Nvidia Quadro FX4800 (default clock - 600MHz/1204MHz/800MHz, OC: 760MHZ/1520MHz/1100MHz) - I just love this card, it also only requires 1 power connector.
4 GB DDR2 1066 Mhz 5-5-5-13
Asus P5Q-Deluxe
Windows Vista x64

I`m not sure why, but the tool does not report correct comma/dot in the final average. Perhaps because i have Swedish location or because I use the Steam version of Crysis? Regardless, it seems to be correct AVG.FPS though if one insert a comma or dot.

@1920x1080 the GPU becomes insanely hot. At some point soon, I`m gonna insert another Quadro FX4800 for SLI and see if it improves the result or if the CPU is the total bottleneck.

EDIT: 1
@1280x1024dx9 High Settings AVG: 46,6
EDIT 2
@1920x1080dx10 High Settings: AVG 41.62

Kamerat wrote:

Installed Catalyst 10.2 and increased FPS avrage with about 10.

crysis_9700pro_cat10.2.PNG

Avrage: 38.34 FPS

Considering 9700 pro is below the minimum requirements, that's pretty good

Few LGA775 results posted.

Here is my main computer
Intel Core Quad Extreme 9650 @ 3.6ghz
8GB DDR2 RAM
ASUS P5Q-PRO LGA 775
Radeon R9 280X in Crossfire

Result: 51.3 FPS

Edit: Tested again without Crossfire. This time I got 50.1 FPS. Crossfire is useless in Crysis SP Demo!

I didn't get a average result due to the program not being able to calculate the result due to localization settings on the computer. (. and , which is used differently in numbers)

Phil:
http://www.techspot.com/article/83-crysis-pat … mance-multigpu/

Patch 1.1 improves multi-gpu performance alot and also increases performance in DX10

Here you go. My monitor is only 1600x1200 but it scales, and the CRT is disconnected at the mo.

Still, for those of you that can't remember my system specs : spot the oddity in this screenshot..

ynari wrote:

Here you go. My monitor is only 1600x1200 but it scales, and the CRT is disconnected at the mo.

Still, for those of you that can't remember my system specs : spot the oddity in this screenshot..

5GB of (unknown specs/timings/channels) RAM?

vetz wrote:

Phil:
http://www.techspot.com/article/83-crysis-pat … mance-multigpu/

Patch 1.1 improves multi-gpu performance alot and also increases performance in DX10

Nice!

sgraffite wrote:

ynari wrote:

Here you go. My monitor is only 1600x1200 but it scales, and the CRT is disconnected at the mo.

Still, for those of you that can't remember my system specs : spot the oddity in this screenshot..

5GB of (unknown specs/timings/channels) RAM?

Nope. Clue : CPU

(although, I'm not surprised CPU-Z can't figure out the RAM..)

27x multiplier? On 100MHz FSB? I'm confused.