|
HD3870 512MB or 8800GT ? (still cant decide)
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. December 2007 @ 12:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hmm, youtube. If I was demonstrating how well games look, youtube is the last place I'd think of. At least use stage6, that doesn't look terrible.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
27. December 2007 @ 14:53 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Hmm, youtube. If I was demonstrating how well games look, youtube is the last place I'd think of. At least use stage6, that doesn't look terrible.
Scream for too much, you get fuck all. :P
Anyway, it's just to show FPS mainly.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. December 2007 @ 14:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
But how is it a relevant test? Most youtube videos aren't even 640x480 res, let alone 800x600 or anything higher? How can you tell the game isn't running at 512x384?
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
27. December 2007 @ 15:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
But how is it a relevant test? Most youtube videos aren't even 640x480 res, let alone 800x600 or anything higher? How can you tell the game isn't running at 512x384?
He records with a cam and shows settings before along with the res he uses.(you can clearly see the res on config settings)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. December 2007 @ 15:04 |
Link to this message
|
Well, at least being cammed means the FPS are genuine. It must look disgusting though (not that games like Crysis look good to start with. COD4 on the other hand, sweetness)
|
|
phill2000
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. December 2007 @ 18:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Anyway back on topic, anyone used either to watch HD content?
(+[__]%) - 2.00 > 2.71 > 1.50 > 3.53-m33-4
NasLite - 1TB Total NFS (RAID 1+0)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. December 2007 @ 18:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
HD content playback should be pretty similar with either. You'll find Radeons more forgiving for interacting with other AV equipment though (TVs, recorders etc.)
|
Senior Member
|
27. December 2007 @ 19:54 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
(not that games like Crysis look good to start with. COD4 on the other hand, sweetness)
I disagree entirely sam. COD 4 doesnt give you as much freedom, and I think the physics and overall graphics in Crysis are way better. Also, you cannot destroy houses, lamps, chairs, etc and use them as a weapon in COD 4 too.
COD 4 vs crysis:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gyQTCeobZlg
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
27. December 2007 @ 21:22 |
Link to this message
|
Both are great games. Enough said.
Hopefully the new patch for Crysis will improves performance(for sli and crossfire) will be out next week. It will be interesting to see just how much fps is improved at high/very high settings. Ill say no more than a 10fps increase.
|
Senior Member
|
27. December 2007 @ 22:29 |
Link to this message
|
^I agree. Patches usually don't increase the fps in game by that much, but with Crysis anything helps.
Is the patch coming out next week? I haven't really heard any news about that on incrysis.com
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. December 2007 @ 04:03 |
Link to this message
|
I won't start a fanboy war over this, but I don't think Crysis is a better looking game than COD4. What I will say, is that it had the POTENTIAL to be better looking than COD4. The overall design of the graphics and physics engine allows for much more detail and if done right, could be a spectacular looking game, but it just isn't. The shadows, even on high are absolutely horrific, they look like low quality shadows on any other game. Then there's the fact that the game doesn't support Anti-Aliasing. Consider that the game runs so badly that you'll be forced to use a low resolution, aliased graphics on resolutions like that look abysmal.
COD4, by allowing anti-aliasing, and actually having decent shadows takes the biscuit IMO. If all the stupid things in Crysis were sorted, I'd vote it hands down the best looking game of the year, but as it stands, because of the crazy resolution I have to run it at and the major oversights in its development, it's actually the worst looking game I've played in a long long time. It looks so bad I refuse to play it until I can at least make up for some of its deficiencies. I don't play games at 800x600, not on a PC like mine I don't.
As for increases in performance, I wouldn't get your hopes up. Crysis has already been patched for both graphics card manufacturers to improve the frame rates significantly, and since graphics is the area where the low performance stems from, I doubt we'll se any further big increases. Considering the recent complete halt in graphics development, I think it could be several years before we're playing Crysis at high res, high detail, possibly the longest time of any PC game ever made.
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
28. December 2007 @ 08:47 |
Link to this message
|
Interesting Sam. Be interesting to see what the 9000 series GPU's are able to do with it. Crysis is actually having 2 patches made at the same time. Patch 1 works on performance with mainly SLI/Crossfire. Patch 2 is gonna be bug fixing in gameplay aswell as finally the game using a quad core cpu.
|
|
REAM
Suspended permanently
|
28. December 2007 @ 10:15 |
Link to this message
|
for COD4 crysis and UT3, each in its own mind GOTY, xfire has have a 65%+ sclaing. most being close to 75% and some even as high as 80%, but on different resolutions.
you will see a big difference with xfire, and it is worth it unless you want to wait another 9-12mothns for a more powerful R700 or 6months for the G100s
IMO cod4 takes GOTY for me, but visually, i dont think it can hold its own vs ultra high crysis. hell even low crysis looks like high farcry!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. December 2007 @ 18:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Look closely at how the game runs for you, not how well "it could run if only my PC was faster". On that basis, that's where COD4 gets the points. High resolution, Anti-Aliasing and slightly simpler textures takes it over low res, jaggedy graphics to me.
|
|
phill2000
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. December 2007 @ 20:12 |
Link to this message
|
Let me get this right?.....
Even on todays hardware Crysis cannot perform where other games exceed?
Is it me? or do we have a problem of not having hardware to cope, or do we have a poorly designed, under-developed and bloating inefficiently coded game?
I can't believe its one of the latest games, yet it can't do what other games are doing fantastically for ages? One of the reasons I have decided to upgrade my rig so much is to play games like COD4 (a preview at my friends took enough convincing).
Hate how this thread has completely gone of my original topic (again), but good to see that there is a lot of interest on the topic (HD3870 Vs 8800GT).
So am I right the consensus is on the HD 3870 for the following reasons??
1) Better image quality then the 8800GT.
2) Might be less powerfull, but at £/performance it kicks ass.
3) Directx 10.1.
4) Crossfire mode seems to give a better performance than SLI.
5) Quiter and cooler to run.
(+[__]%) - 2.00 > 2.71 > 1.50 > 3.53-m33-4
NasLite - 1TB Total NFS (RAID 1+0)
|
Senior Member
|
29. December 2007 @ 21:58 |
Link to this message
|
Crysis is just way ahead of its time. Nothing can run the game on very high with 2560x1600 with frames over 60 constant like other games. I think Crysis is just very detailed, and therefore today's hardware sucks at performing. Also, since the game is set in the jungle, there are many shadows to render, and the shadows are very detailed as well.
I am not sure about #4, as I do believe SLi is a bit better. Also note that the 3870 supports shader 4.1, unlike the GT.
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
29. December 2007 @ 22:10 |
Link to this message
|
Patch 1 of Crysis will with a single card(aswell as with SLI/Crossfire) boost FPS by quite abit the CEO of Crytek has said. Maybe they rushed the game even after having years to make it?
|
Senior Member
|
29. December 2007 @ 23:12 |
Link to this message
|
^^Yes, but Yerli also said that Crysis could be played on systems that are as old as 4 years... My older system with a x1950xt couldn't even play it on low as the levels increased.
Not to mention the fact about Quad Core support...
|
|
REAM
Suspended permanently
|
30. December 2007 @ 08:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by phill2000:
1) Better image quality then the 8800GT.
2) Might be less powerfull, but at £/performance it kicks ass.
3) Directx 10.1.
4) Crossfire mode seems to give a better performance than SLI.
5) Quiter and cooler to run.
1) YES
2) id say no. the 8800GT is only 10-20 pounds ahead but gives a much better frame. esp in nvidia coded games like UT3 etc.
3) wouldnt really count this as a + or - because there arnt even any games announced that have started working on dx10.1, hell there still arnt many wit dx10.
4)it all depends on the game
5)yes, this is absolutely true, but if your strapped for space, it has a double slot cooler
|
Senior Member
|
30. December 2007 @ 11:29 |
Link to this message
|
^You're obviously a nvidia fan boy... But anyways, replying to what you said about DX10.1, there will most definitely be games out there that will use it. I mean when DX10 was coming out, all we really heard about was Crysis, but then there was WIC, Company of Heroes, Bioshock, Brothers in Arms, FSX, Gears of War and more.
I bet that most games that are out right now will release a patch for DX10.1 when it comes out, like how COH released their patch for DX10.
|
|
REAM
Suspended permanently
|
30. December 2007 @ 15:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Waymon3X6:
^You're obviously a nvidia fan boy... But anyways, replying to what you said about DX10.1, there will most definitely be games out there that will use it. I mean when DX10 was coming out, all we really heard about was Crysis, but then there was WIC, Company of Heroes, Bioshock, Brothers in Arms, FSX, Gears of War and more.
I bet that most games that are out right now will release a patch for DX10.1 when it comes out, like how COH released their patch for DX10.
oh no... i am deffo not an nvidia fanboy, hell my last two gfx cards have been ati, i currently have an x1900XT, and will be upgrading to a HD3850 soon.
when the HD3870 was at £135, yes it was very viable, but with it being £150-£160, and 8800GT s being avaiable at £160, then i dont think it is worth it. unless ofcourse your really into HD flim watching and gaming the 8800GT is better, and when you do use it for gaming, you wont notice the image quality, because it is still damned good, yes less than the HD3870, but if you havent seen a game with that card, then with the 8800GT you get to apply top top settings, and still have it lag free, and looking superb with all eye candy.
|
|
He_Man
Senior Member
|
30. December 2007 @ 17:56 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by REAM:
then with the 8800GT you get to apply top top settings, and still have it lag free, and looking superb with all eye candy.
Yeah and hit the 90c mark ;)
Boil water much?
I wonder if Sam's opinion will change to NVIDIA when the 9800GTX is realesed in February. I was gonna go crossfire on 3870's and buy a x38 board with 2 16x lanes but whats the point when a single 9800gtx has built in SLI and GDDR5 memory.............
|
|
REAM
Suspended permanently
|
30. December 2007 @ 18:02 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by He_Man:
Originally posted by REAM:
then with the 8800GT you get to apply top top settings, and still have it lag free, and looking superb with all eye candy.
Yeah and hit the 90c mark ;)
Boil water much?
I wonder if Sam's opinion will change to NVIDIA when the 9800GTX is realesed in February. I was gonna go crossfire on 3870's and buy a x38 board with 2 16x lanes but whats the point when a single 9800gtx has built in SLI and GDDR5 memory.............
i doubt the 9800GTX had SLI....
and if you can cool you 8800GT, or atleast set the fan to 60% usage, its whisper quiet and kool. BTW, 90 for a GPU, ain that bad.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
5. January 2008 @ 15:58 |
Link to this message
|
Crysis is far from being ahead of its time, it's just shoddily coed. Very shoddily coded. The additional slowdown in the graphics industry isn't going to help either. I wouldn't be too surprised if it takes more than 5 years to be able to run Crysis at 2560x1600 on Very High. Right now, an 8800GTS (the new G92 version) will get an average frame rate of about 2.2fps at that setting. We'll need a graphics card at least 15 times the power of the new GTS to be able to run the game smoothly like that. (And even after all that, the shadows will still be crap!) The last 'cutting edge' card that was 15 times less powerful than the GTS was the Radeon 8500. That was a hell of a long time ago.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. January 2008 @ 17:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Crysis is far from being ahead of its time, it's just shoddily coed. Very shoddily coded. The additional slowdown in the graphics industry isn't going to help either. I wouldn't be too surprised if it takes more than 5 years to be able to run Crysis at 2560x1600 on Very High. Right now, an 8800GTS (the new G92 version) will get an average frame rate of about 2.2fps at that setting. We'll need a graphics card at least 15 times the power of the new GTS to be able to run the game smoothly like that. (And even after all that, the shadows will still be crap!) The last 'cutting edge' card that was 15 times less powerful than the GTS was the Radeon 8500. That was a hell of a long time ago.
hehe. can we play farcry at that res FULLY LOADED YET?
MGR (Micro Gaming Rig) .|. Intel Q6600 @ 3.45GHz .|. Asus P35 P5K-E/WiFi .|. 4GB 1066MHz Geil Black Dragon RAM .|. Samsung F60 SSD .|. Corsair H50-1 Cooler .|. Sapphire 4870 512MB .|. Lian Li PC-A70B .|. Be Queit P7 Dark Power Pro 850W PSU .|. 24" 1920x1200 DGM (MVA Panel) .|. 24" 1920x1080 Dell (TN Panel) .|. |
