|
|
|
Video Card Thread (Mostly Gecube x1950xt)
|
|
Senior Member
|
13. January 2008 @ 21:07 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Right Waymon, assuming you have done your boot dvd correctly, (and I think you have as it boots the system) you should find that your bios rom files are on drive z: when you boot up. So boot it up, at the A:\ type z: then z:\dir and you should be able to see your bios files and update from there. This z: business I think is something to do with the fact that the boot sector and the data sector are different tracks on the dvd (whereas a floppy is a single drive) so dear old DOS treats the two tracks as separate drives. In the event that this doesn't work, another way round would be to boot off the first dvd and swap to another that has the rom files on but this shouldn't be necessary. Here is a link for reference; http://www.bay-wolf.com/bootcd-bios.htm
Let me know how you get on!
(This is why I still have a floppy on mine!!)
(sorry for the long quote)
Ok, I tried accessing the Z: part of the drive, but it doesnt see it, like it isn't there. Also abuzar, I didn't use that tool in that link to create my bootable dvd, maybe that's the problem? I am running low on them now, as I have about 9 that are useless from screwing up the burning process to ones that wont write.
But anyways, when I get into the CMD prompt, I can access the C: drive, so I put the files in the root of C:, and that almost worked. I can see all of the files, but the problem is when I type the conmmand it comes up with an error... I guess I will have to fine my USB key which is somewhere around here and hopefully that will work. I also have a iPod, but dont really wont to erase everything on it put less than 3mb worth of files. Oh well.
EDIT: Here's my highest 3dmark06 score so far. I really want the BIOS unlock so I can blow past 21k hopefully, then I will be satisfied. Btw, does the BIOS also unlock the memory speeds as well? I can only go to 1331 until 3dmark06 crashes (could be a vista bug).
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4689751
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. January 2008 @ 21:10
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 08:07 |
Link to this message
|
Welcome back Rich, how's it going?
If you're going to get a 30" screen, don't get the 3007, get the new 3008WFP! Inputs ahoy on that thing!
I for one have no interest in getting upgrades just to run Crysis. Even if I had ten grand to blow on PC parts, I wouldn't do it for Crysis - It would only be just for the satisfaction of running everything out there on max. All told, I have no real interest in getting Crysis to look good, because IMO, it doesn't look good, not even on the high setting. Frame rates aside, at 2560x1600 while some textures look awesome, others look complete pants, and there are very few scenes in the game where there isn't something that makes me go "that looks crap" and detract from the whole experience. It's difficult to be involved in a game if occasionally something glaringly not real pops up in the middle of your crisp graphics.
|
Senior Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 08:50 |
Link to this message
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2008 @ 15:38
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 08:54 |
Link to this message
|
turn those embedded pics into links, they don't even all fit on my screen, let alone anyone else's!
I'm still not hugely impressed with the game's graphics, but that setting does look a lot better than the standard high setting, mainly because it corrects the awful shadows. Can you provide a screenie of a guy's head with a shadow on the wall? That seems to be the acid test for Crysis.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 09:13 |
Link to this message
|
Hey I can manage to play Crysis on high. Is there a custom setting for that? How much does it effect the framerate.
|
Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 09:15 |
Link to this message
|
Crysis is all graphics, no gameplay. Crytek just focused on the graphics too much and it doesnt look like they payed too much attention to some parts of the game. And the graphics arent even that top notch like Sam said. Just not my kind of game IMO, and I think that it would chew my PC up and spit it back out again anyway =[
PC Specs:
E6750 C2D @ 2.66GHZ 1333FSB
1GB Corsair Value Ram 667MHZ/Transcend 2GB 800MHZ
EAH4650 512 Onboard
2x 250G Seagate SATA
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2008 @ 09:17
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 09:26 |
Link to this message
|
I bet it'll affect the frame rate bucketloads. If crossfire now works with Crysis in the patch, that's a dreadful frame rate to be getting at that resolution. It looks better, but still nowhere near justifiable for the frame rate, and still no AA I expect.
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 09:27 |
Link to this message
|
Well I shall definitely be giving that exe a go tonight! I really don't see what your huge problem with Crysis is Sam? I think that looks incredible, even just in the high settings. I can't think of a game that looks better IMO. (I do have COD4 and would say that that is an equally stunning game too) I haven't really played Crysis yet so I shall start again with that mod me thinks! Thanks for the link!
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 09:49 |
Link to this message
|
That's the problem, COD4 looks equally stunning, and this is Crysis Ultra High. I can run COD4 on max at 1920x1200 4x8 with no major issues. 1280x1024 0x4 Crysis would be completely unplayable for me at these settings. I'll give them a go though and report how well the patch works for people who don't have insane graphics card(s).
Crysis looks much improved here and there's nothing that leaps out at me saying "this looks ass" - but I'd still like a screenie of some indoor shadows of a head since that's where Crysis looks worst to me, and I'm still not convinced by the texture of the rocks on the left in the 5th screenshot.
Since Waymon seems to have disappeared, hopefully a mod can tidy up his ridiculous post.
|
Senior Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 15:47 |
Link to this message
|
Sorry for the huge images sam! Won't they fit on your 30" screen anyway?
Anyways, the new Crysis 1.1 patch has fixed many things, and the AI is ALOT harder now. I can't even play on delta or I wont make it passed the first level. There were more performance increases too.
Sam - I think the reason why Crysis performs worse than COD4 is because all of the object are destructible, and if you blow up a tower or whatever, there is a huge amount of physics that are happening; so when I had my P4, a simple grenade in a house would drop the frames under 10. In addition, there are so many shaders and polygons in the jungle, and when you mix that with DX10 (the biggest performance killer), then frames drop even more.
I mean, COD4 doesnt offer DX10 support, so you could run Crysis on just high settings (DX9 default) and get maybe 30-40fps, but then run it on very high and the frames drop tremendously.
Also, there are a bunch of threads in the tech section at incrysis.com of people that have made custom configs to optimize performance without making the game look unrealistic.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 15:52 |
Link to this message
|
Lol as it happens they do, but only just - three of them ran in a line - plus there were several Megabytes of images there, people with slow internet wouldn't thank you for that/
The performance isn't CPU-related, it seems strictly GPU related to me - it ties up with the resolution perfectly (so it's GPU) for me, so I think as long as you have a decent CPU like a Core 2, it doesn't really matter any more.
Quote:
Also, there are a bunch of threads in the tech section at incrysis.com of people that have made custom configs to optimize performance without making the game look unrealistic.
You shouldn't have to do that though, the game should look decent from the beginning!
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 15:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
Answer my question damnit! lol
Do the hell do I do that on high? Also will it from lots of frames?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 15:56 |
Link to this message
|
if it's anything like a lot of DX10 games, being Crysis your frame rate will probably halve.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
do I need DX10 to use the tweaked settings? I refuse to use vista.
|
Senior Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 16:42 |
Link to this message
|
Well there is a "hack" to enable the very high settings in XP. It involves editing the cvar files in the crysis directory, it is pretty simple.
Anyways, what was your question? Were you talking about the custom config? You just download it and extract it to the crysis directory (there are instructions in the link I provided), and I believe you have to have the settings set it high or very high - not sure on which one it is.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 16:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well I can't run it at very high lol! Only have a HD 3850 here, not freakin cross-fire 3870 rich boy!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 17:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's funny, to buy two 3870s now would set me back less than my current GPU did. Of course no Crossfire mobo though.
|
Senior Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 20:24 |
Link to this message
|
I heard that the guys over at HP got their "Blackbird" pc to be both compatible with ATi and Nvidia Sli and Crossfire. Any news on how the hell they got that to work???
BTW abuzar, I get about 20-25fps in the editor on very high in vista, so I bet you could at least get 25 or even 30 on high. Also, I think that config works for high setting as well.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 20:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
Simple, if you want SLI, put a SLI mobo on there, if you want X-Fire put a X38 mobo on there.
What is the config site?
|
Senior Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 21:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
^Well yeah I know that! lol. But they somehow got a 680i board to work with both configurations...
Ok, which site do you want? The one with the edited cvars or the Ultra high?
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
14. January 2008 @ 22:02 |
Link to this message
|
My god, I finally caught up! Yeah, hi Sam, nice to be back. I'll try to keep up with you guys.
Ray does 20,000+ 3d mark - jeez luizz! "Rich boy" =)
So, Ray, I know you had to turn your voltage back down or fry your quad core, so what volts are you running now, below 1.6, (are you at 1.52 per Sam's recommendation?) and what 3d mark are you now getting, since you no longer have to break 20,000. (I admit, I am very impressed - almost speechless !!!)
Anyway, I know your parents chipped in because your grades have been good, but the last I remember is you had a budget of about $1500. What did that sweet rig set you back, Waymon?
And now MaccerM is cruising at 11,000+, "Nvidia fanboy" - just kidding, MaccerM. I guess there is no question about it - the 8800 is at the top of every fps chart I have found.
Sam, you repeatedly say that the 8800 does not put out the same graphically pleasing image as the 3870. Do you have proof? (Screenshots?) A bit back you said something about no DX10.1 support, meaning no AA support on DX10 titles? Or am I getting that wrong.
But even on DX9 you seem to be indicating that the 8800 does not paint as pretty a picture as the 3850/3870. So, is there an article you can reference about that? Anandtech? Screenshots? I would be quite interested in seeing that verified.
Not to steal MaccerM's thunder - he makes some good points about smooth playability - but if you can provide proof of the graphic superiority of the 3870, that's the card I'll stick with when I get some commission checks.
Give me the proof Sam!
After all, since Waymon is now the undisputed performance 3dmark king of this forum (and virtually the entire world when he was at 1.6 volts and 4 ghz) and he is running crossfire 3870, then when I sell a friggin house or two I'll just follow his lead.
Rich
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
14. January 2008 @ 22:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Man you guys have too much money on your hands lol.
I get 11000 too, with my 3850!
|
Senior Member
|
15. January 2008 @ 07:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
with only 1 card, I get around 14k but I think it is mostly the CPU that increases the score as 3dmark06 is heavily CPU dependent.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
15. January 2008 @ 07:12 |
Link to this message
|
Waymon: With hacked chipset drivers it could well be doable, that's an impressive mod, a general purpose motherboard....
Rich: Here sits me with my 6870 marks. <sighs> To be honest though if you exclude Crysis (which is a ridiculous game anyway) I can still play games at higher resolutions than most people because even my X1900XT can keep up at up to 1920x1200. You can imagine how annoyed I get when people with 8800GTXs and HD3870s use screens of 1680x1050 or 1280x1024 - what a waste of all that GPU power!
As for the image quality results, it's difficult to provide any concrete proof. The one benchmark that actually provided screenshots, the images are so different it's hard to draw any comparisons. Most of the people who own the card comment that it seems to provide a better image, but don't provide any pictorial proof. It essentially seems to boil down to the shadows mostly. If you like your well rounded shadows, then there's good reason why you want an HD3870.
One of the games I can definitely say the 8800 series fails on is Tomb Raider Legends, in the image quality aspect, and if a humble X1900 can out-image an 8800GTX, I certainly think a 3870 can do the same for an 8800GT.
X1900XT: http://img137.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tombraiderlegend1cn0.jpg
8800GTX: http://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image...21395734tt0.jpg
Worst areas highlighted.
Yuck.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
15. January 2008 @ 09:17 |
Link to this message
|
Hey Rich,
Quote:
So, Ray, I know you had to turn your voltage back down or fry your quad core, so what volts are you running now, below 1.6, (are you at 1.52 per Sam's recommendation?) and what 3d mark are you now getting, since you no longer have to break 20,000. (I admit, I am very impressed - almost speechless !!!)
I have to have it a 1.6 when I run the Q6600 at 4Ghz, or 3dmark06 will come up with an error and crash. I only have it at 1.6 for benching, so I think the next time I try to break my score with the modded BIOS for the 3870, I will bring the voltages back up. In addition, that's with everything else set to "auto" voltages except for the ram which I have at 2.2v (default) 5-5-5-15.
Sam, is that x1900 overclocked at all? 6k is a pretty nice score, considering that before my max was 4.6k with overclocks on the CPU and the graphics card.
Quote:
You can imagine how annoyed I get when people with 8800GTXs and HD3870s use screens of 1680x1050 or 1280x1024 - what a waste of all that GPU power!
I agree sam, but I only play with high resolutions in games where I know my card(s) can handle it. Crysis for example runs at 1152/864, which is better than the 800x600 which I ran on the x1950xt. Also, I can now see the difference between 800x600 and the 1152/864, I guess just because it was impossible to notice a difference with frames below 5 with my older card.
I have an extra case, and with all of the older parts I think I might put them into it and have a smaller machine, not to sure what I will use it for though as it is a lot slower compared to my newer rig. I still need a HDD though...
|
|
