|
|
|
The Official Graphics Card and PC gaming Thread
|
|
|
Red_Maw
Senior Member
|
29. January 2009 @ 15:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Wow. Having not looked at gpu's for a while I must say I was surprised to see how stable the 4870's performed. Looks like I've got some reading to do.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. January 2009 @ 16:07 |
Link to this message
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. January 2009 @ 16:07
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
29. January 2009 @ 16:30 |
Link to this message
|
Awesome. Those graphs seem comparable with my own performance. The single HD4870 512MB just dies with AA, lol. It would be interesting to see HD4870 512MB Crossfire results.
Also, interestingly enough, 4 GPU Crossfire is scaling in the Crysis graph.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. January 2009 @ 16:36
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. January 2009 @ 18:21 |
Link to this message
|
Crysis Very High min fps:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/2967/crysisvhminbq6.gif
Where one 512MB HD4870s falls down to nothing, so will two, as it's the memory limitation per GPU, the performance isn't likely to double. Even if it does, at 2560 res the 512s score so low that it's irrelevant, especially with AA. As far as I'm aware, all Very High with 8x AA at 2560 can crash even 1GB cards to 1fps at certain points (not that they'd make much beyond 4 or 5 anywhere else)
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
29. January 2009 @ 18:48 |
Link to this message
|
Have you guys tried the FEAR 2 Project Origin demo yet? It's f***ing sweet :D
http://www.fileplanet.com/196225/190000/fileinfo/FEAR-2-Demo
Same engine as FEAR with MASSIVELY updated shaders, textures, models, and effects. Much like Source 2007 and Episode 2. The graphics are FAR improved from FEAR and put this game well within Crysis territory and even way beyond in some aspects.They took everything from FEAR and basically super charged it :P Motion blur, better water, MUCH better lighting, MUCH better post processing, MUCH smoother character models, MUCH sharper textures, MUCH better particulate effects. The game looks AWESOME!!! Very similar looking to Source 2007 games, but like 2 notches higher in graphical quality.
The performance is good. Though it seems to be limited at 30FPS in the demo, so I can't really give an accurate figure. I never dropped 1 FPS though at 1920 w/ the auto-detected 4xMSAA and 16xAF. Widescreen support is full hor+ as well so that's good for us widescreen users :)
You can now carry unlimited guns and they tweaked the shooting engine and AI. You actually have iron sights in zoom mode now. The shooting is much more satisfying this time around(think CoD4). The slo-mo and everything are still there and they've tweaked the default controls a bit. The AI has also been made a bit less aggressive but smarter and better about taking cover.
My only gripe is that they've added a Left 4 Dead style film grain that can't be turned off in the demo. It looks cool but I'd like to have the option to turn it off. The graphics are so sharp that the game really doesn't need it.
FEAR 2 is going to be 2009 GOTY :D I'm so excited now!!!!!!
EDIT:
Also, it's a lot scarier that FEAR. They used the lighting engine to excellent effect this time around. The scary parts/flash backs mess with your head and blend much more seamlessly into the levels. FEAR blacked you out and put you in a different spot. But FEAR 2 uses some very clever lighting tricks to really blend you into the flashbacks. It's much scarier and more surreal.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. January 2009 @ 18:56
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. January 2009 @ 19:24 |
Link to this message
|
I have, I was going to comment on it shortly.
I think in many places the graphics are better than the Source engine, stunning textures, great lighting etc. It's easily a Crysis rival, but short of lag spikes (I believe are RAM related, I ran the game in 32-bit) - the frame rate is actually really good. I too am limited to 30fps, but also never dropped a frame except for the aforementioned load jitters. 2560x1600 Max, 4xAA.
Hor+ widescreen is also nice.
As far as I'm aware you can carry four guns, not unlimited, but stil one more than the original.
I was scared poopless by the demo. It's absolutely incredible. Full marks, hoping the game will be this good. Pre-ordered it this afternoon.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
29. January 2009 @ 20:16 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I think in many places the graphics are better than the Source engine, stunning textures, great lighting etc. It's easily a Crysis rival, but short of lag spikes (I believe are RAM related, I ran the game in 32-bit) - the frame rate is actually really good. I too am limited to 30fps, but also never dropped a frame except for the aforementioned load jitters. 2560x1600 Max, 4xAA.
The overall look of the engine is very similar to Source in shader/texture implementation and the like. But undoubtedly better looking as a whole. I see it this way. FEAR 2 looks almost like Source, but cranked up. Think Crysis High vs Very High.
I too had a few lag spikes but not bad at all. I think it's more due to the unfinished nature of the game. Maybe a loading issue that will be ironed out methinks. Even Crysis rarely has lag spikes. The FPS is still good though. I want some testing and gameplay without the frame limit. I'd like to see 50+FPS to really smooth it out.
Quote:
As far as I'm aware you can carry four guns, not unlimited, but stil one more than the original.
You are right. I discovered that after I posted LOL.
Quote:
I was scared poopless by the demo. It's absolutely incredible. Full marks, hoping the game will be this good. Pre-ordered it this afternoon.
Exact sentiments here :) It looks and plays awesomely and I hope the full game is more of the same.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. January 2009 @ 20:31
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
29. January 2009 @ 20:32 |
Link to this message
|
Crysis has loads of lag spikes for me, especially Warhead, which don't exist in XP, presumably beause I only have 2GB left of addressable memory, but since you only have 2 gigs to start with I'm not sure. In Vista though, Warhead has engine de-sync issues, which are extremely bizarre. Regardless of the frame rate, the actual running speed of the game wavers like badly ripped console cartridge ROMs, if you've ever emulated them and seen that problem.
For the record however, Perseus Mandate has numerous lag spikes if you run through the game quickly, I think it's a problem inherent to Jupiter.
Now, arguably the most important tests coming up, Crysis High, Average and Minimum frame rates, more cards tested, 2x AA included for some at 2560 res.
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8745/crysisdx10avewx5.gif
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6141/crysisdx10minha3.gif
Amazingly, despite Crysis' immense focus on SLI performance over Crossfire, the best performers are the pair of 1GB HD4870s and the HD4870X2, as they provide the highest minimum frame rate in the most demanding tests, and one that is playable, most importantly. Drops to 15fps in most games aren't pleasant, and Crysis is no exception, but in general, 15 isn't actually too bad in the game by comparison. SLI just doesn't have it when the going gets tough.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. January 2009 @ 20:35
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
29. January 2009 @ 22:27 |
Link to this message
|
Well 2GB of RAM has always been more than enough for everything really. Warhead, using 1.4GB, is so far the only game to go much past 1GB of RAM usage. Even Crysis maxes out at about 950MB after several hours of play.
Quote:
In Vista though, Warhead has engine de-sync issues,
LOL that's half your problem XD
I'm waiting for windows 7. Vista has too many problems.
Warhead certainly had lag spikes, but Crysis, surprisingly, never really did. Mostly some minor hitching when loading new stuff in and when starting a level.
Quote:
Now, arguably the most important tests coming up, Crysis High, Average and Minimum frame rates, more cards tested, 2x AA included for some at 2560 res.
Amazingly, despite Crysis' immense focus on SLI performance over Crossfire, the best performers are the pair of 1GB HD4870s and the HD4870X2, as they provide the highest minimum frame rate in the most demanding tests, and one that is playable, most importantly.
It all seems in line with my own performance. I get about 40FPS average with my customized very high settings at 1920 vs 2 1GB cards getting about 48 at high settings. But my minimum is around 20 vs 27, so the 1GB frame buffer will have an impact for sure.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 29. January 2009 @ 22:28
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. January 2009 @ 11:39 |
Link to this message
|
Well, you know how much I like my X2, and my silent cooling.
I found this:
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5899/upxt4xv3wb7.jpg
By the looks of things £47 plus postage gets me all the gear needed to pull this off. I'm pretty apprehensive about it, as there is no official instruction for this procedure, just this picture. But for that, how different can this be from installing these coolers normally?
The only thing that has me worried is the VRM cooling. They're scattered all over the place on the X2 ad I'm concerned I won't have enough bits to cover all of them.
As much as I really don't want to wreck my very expensive graphics card, it looks like a really cool project, and would be very impressive if it succeeds.
Any thoughts?
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
30. January 2009 @ 17:16 |
Link to this message
|
Who makes the cooler? Is that a 120mm fan? Well, you got the 4870x2 really cheap - so ....... hehe.
Sam, going back to those graphs, especially as regards 2560x1600 (I'm trying to set up an appointment to go up to the Valley tomorrow and pick up a new 3007wfp-hc for $850) could you explain the scaling mystery of those crysis graphs?
As Estuansis pointed out, all of a sudden crysis is scaling well for 4870x4. I see 10 fps improvement over 4870x2 over on the right side of each graph - (except the very last graph on minimum fps, for some reason the 4870x4 ends up slightly under the 4870x2 on DX10.)
We have said all along that crysis doesn't see 4 ATI gpus, but these graphs say otherwise. To get 10 fps more, it looks like it might well be worth making sure my psu will support a second 4870x2 for down the road.
What's going on, Sam, with the crysis 4870x4 good scaling?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. January 2009 @ 17:19 |
Link to this message
|
Thermalright, both of them, the HR-03 Rev. A and the V2. The fans are 80mm and 92mm Noctuas, but I'll probably use Zalmans as they have a wide range of speed, and don't sound terrible like the Silverstones or Thermaltakes.
Crysis never used to see 4 ATI GPUs, presumably newer drivers have helped there, much as they have helped with Warhead crossfire performance. However, in the worst parts, the extra GPUs have no work to do.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. January 2009 @ 17:21
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
30. January 2009 @ 19:41 |
Link to this message
|
Very interesting. Just so I understand you, you are talking about catalyst drivers - not about anything that crytek has done - is that right?
If so, then are we to conclude that ATI has figured out how to spread out the workload whether or not the game sees all those extra gpus?
I mean, that's a total jaw-dropper :O
All of a sudden, adding a second 4870x2 down the road is beginning to make REAL sense. Let me ask you about power supplies - figuring 300 watts per 4870x2, am I being unrealistic thinking a corsair 850 at $119 is the right psu - should I really be thinking about spending another $100 for 1000 Corsair watts and future-proof the build a little bit? (Particularly if one factors in capacitor aging.)
Back to the graphs, Sam, I didn't quite understand what you said at the end of your post.Originally posted by sam:
However, in the worst parts, the extra GPUs have no work to do.
Were you explaining the DX10 graph that showed the 4870x4 at actually a lower MINIMUM fps - about 4 fps less - than the regular 4870x2 (although average fps was about 10 fps higher on previous graphs). When you say have no work to do - are you saying that Vista somehow blocks the utilization of the other two gpus in the worst parts - or are you saying that the worst parts are actually cpu-bound somehow - I still don't get why the 4870x4 would drop more fps than 4870x2 - is there some extra overhead of trying to utilize all the gpus?
-Rich
|
|
oluvinu
Member
|
30. January 2009 @ 20:27 |
Link to this message
|
hello,
i have a gigabyte hd4670 ( GV-R467D3-512I/ )
i connected this to my HDTV KDS55A2000 LCOS television. when i connect the video card to the television VIA HDMI the picture on the desktop seems "washed out" . i tried to playback The Dark Knight in 720p that i downloaded to test if theis card works or not . the movie playback is in kinda slow motion. the audio is in sync with it but both seem slow.
i have attempted to try the catalyst program from ati cant figure it out. i looked for threads but cant find any on it. i contacted ATI-AMD but the were not asnwering. Abit ( my mother board maker for AW8D) hung up on me when i asked them question lol go figure ...
does anyone know what i should do or ....do i return this video card?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. January 2009 @ 21:33 |
Link to this message
|
I wouldn't necessarily say that they've managed to balance the workload in many titles yet. Crysis is still far from perfect. I would caution against adding another 4870X2, as by the time you can afford one, the newer card, whatever it is will easily outpace two 4870X2s due to the scaling issues of more than 2 GPUs.
With an overclocked quad, two 4870X2s use in the 800s for AC load. While that's within scope of a good 850W PSU, it's cutting it a bit fine, I would say get the HX1000 or ZM1000-HP.
The reason why the fps is lower for four GPUs is that as you say, more GPUs is more CPU power, but also because in the bits that lag out, ATI hasn't sorted out the driver problem. The scaling of multiple GPUs is not a fixed percentage based on the game or the resolution and detail, it varies. Essentially, 4 GPUs work in some areas, but not in others.
oluvinu: Abit will hang up on everyone as they have gone bust and no longer exist.
As for the performance it sounds like a codec problem. What player are you using?
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
30. January 2009 @ 23:15 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks Sam.
Yeah, you're right. I guess I'll end up selling the 4870x2 and buying the new stuff later this summer. I'll go with a 1000 watt psu - might as well not cut it so close.
(On the other hand, I can just as easily sell two 4870x2 as one, so it's still a thought. That 10 fps improvement was compelling!!!)
It will be nice to finally enter the arena of "modern hardware" so I can see what you and Estuansis have been raving about!!
My contact for the 3007 called me this evening - I meet him at 2:00 tomorrow in "the Valley" to do the deal. Keep your fingers crossed - no stuck pixels. He took home four monitors to test out to make sure at least one of them is acceptable to me - hahahaha. So I should be in good shape.
Like I say, keep your fingers crossed everybody. Big step for Rich.
Soon I may be the proud owner of a 30" monitor, with still a p4 to drive it, LOL.
Which game could I really run at that resolution with my 4700+ 3dmark6 system - the first Band of Brothers? Call of Duty 2? For the fun of it, I'll see if any of those titles supported 2560x1600 and crank them up again!! Hahahaha
Rich
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
30. January 2009 @ 23:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Four? It shouldn't have been that hard unless they're very old, 3007s are very well built.
Rich, on my X1900 and X2 I could run most older stuff like Unreal 2004 and Counter Strike source at 2560 on pretty much all high settings, your system will function fine graphically, but you will experience the same frame rate caps you do now with your processor.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
31. January 2009 @ 18:30 |
Link to this message
|
Rich, it may interest you to know that I had a bit of a weak moment, and found a cheap HD4870X2 on ebay and have bought an 850W Zalman PSU to run the pair. I discovered tonight that my X2 does fit in my top slot, after trying hard enough, so I feel rather embarassed about that and apologise to anyone I misinformed. So, with any luck, by the middle of next week I should have two X2s up and running.
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
1. February 2009 @ 13:03 |
Link to this message
|
Sam, the second 4870x2 - that is absolutely fabulous news!! Congratulations for being able to rearrange your motherboard.
What kind of deal can one make on ebay these days?
I am all the more excited about the extra pixel pushing power you are investing in, because I finally brought home the 30" monitor last night - it's perfect! Robert told me that the first monitor he pulled out of the box had a couple stuck pixels - the second was perfect and zero dead pixels as he showed me on the white screen - he said I would have been able to notice little tiny black specs if there were any dead pixels.
I have the big Dell sitting on the table next to the 19". They look good together. But the contrast is so comical, I think I'll try to post a picture.
So I take it, Sam, by this surprise announcement about the second 4870x2, that you were also compelled by those last graphs to "pump up" your average frame rate, lol.
Rich
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. February 2009 @ 13:17 |
Link to this message
|
Well, the Sapphire 4870X2s typically go for £345 if you're lucky, £370 ish if you're not. I bagged mine for £270, not quite as good as my first at £245, but hey, prices have gone up in the recession and all... :P
I wasn't exactly compelled by the last graphs, but I combed ebay just the same and found an extra card with a very low starting bid, turned out to end low as well. I may not end up keeping it, as it's a lot of money to be sat there not doing an awful lot, but Quad crossfire is a bit of a grey area online so I'll try and post some more scientific tests.
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
1. February 2009 @ 15:34 |
Link to this message
|
Hmmmmm,
Good buy!
I may have to take some tips from you on how to be good ebay shopper.
Originally posted by rich laptop search:
I am looking for a couple of laptops - so far microcenter has some refurbished dell 610s (I saw a review showing they orig sold for around $1600) for about $329, and I have found them also for around $300. Anything 1.5ghz or so is fine for what I'll be doing - no gaming absolutely - just standard web and real estate stuff - I do need a wifi card in one of them.
Anyway, until or if you decide to sell the second 4870x2, I will be very interested in seeing what more evidence you find on quad crossfire.
I am really fired up by the crysis graphs you posted. Since I have never played the game, I might as well spend the extra $500, when I get the money together later (I can always get 2/3 of that money back later on ebay) in order to get that extra 10fps so I can crank up the 2560x1600 settings and immerse myself in that crysis experience that estuansis was raving about.
That's especially important because I take it there is a huge improvement in graphics quality going from high to very high, isn't that correct? (Don't they also have an ultra-high - although that might still be out of reach even for quad crossfire - but perhaps the ultra-high crack will help.)
Rich
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. February 2009 @ 15:54 |
Link to this message
|
Not really, Ultra-high is a detail setting hack, and such hacks usually have negative impacts in as much abundance as positive ones, and I don't mean performance.
As much as I'm interested in how quad CF handles Crysis I'm also interested in seeing its performance in Crysis Warhead, as contrary to what the developers stated, it's much more demanding than the original.
|
|
oluvinu
Member
|
1. February 2009 @ 19:12 |
Link to this message
|
hello sammorris,
i have used windows media player , zoom media player , and media player classic. all 3 have juddering sound a min or so after i play the movie. at first it is in sync but then it is completely out of sync and the juddering sound starts. my processor runs between 72 and 84 percent usage when i playback the movie...resident evil degeneration 1080p mkv h.264 .
not sure if i mentioned i have a Pentium D 3.4 Ghz processors and 3 GB of PC 6400.
what codec might it be do you think?
thank for any help :)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 1. February 2009 @ 19:16
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
1. February 2009 @ 19:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
The CPU is quite slow but it should be able to handle that. Try installing CoreAVC.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
harvrdguy
Senior Member
|
1. February 2009 @ 20:01 |
Link to this message
|
Ok, so for 2560x1600 guys, ultra high crysis will remain out of reach for now, hack or no hack.
Do you run GTA4 full 2560x1600? I recall you do - but at what settings? As I recall, that's the game that's cpu bound and you recommend 4 ghz 9550. I take it you don't expect to see any gain with the additional 4870x2 on that title.
|
|
