THE BORE
General => Video Game Bored => Topic started by: Smooth Groove on June 12, 2008, 08:20:06 AM
-
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/06/12/gt200-scores-revealed
"Remember though, these parts are $449 for the 260, $649 for the 280, and they are barely faster than the ATI 770/4870. On price/performance, they lose badly, really badly, to the 770. On the high end, the R700 spanks them by wide margins, but those numbers will have to wait a bit."
Sucks that I'll have to replace my motherboard for a crossfire configuration. But then again, my 680I was a POS anyway.
Hopefully, 2 of AMD's top GPUS will be able to play Crysis at very high settings in 1920x1200. It probably won't happen though.
-
Can't imagine the power one would have to cramp on a card to run Crysis @ 1920x1080 with 4xAA, 4xAF and 60 fps.
Are those actual settings available in Crysis?
-
quad sli?
good lord.
-
Every time I see the term "quad SLI" I can't help but think of the Mooninites "quad laser."
"The bullet is huge there is no escape."
-
Really though Crysis is just one game that you might play for 20-30 hours or so tops.
The real metric on the next round of video cards is how well a single card - SLI and its allies always have problems - runs a chosen suite of high-end games. I expect performance at native resolutions on 24" LCDs with 1920x1200 resolutions, with AA and AF, to be more than playable, which is something that is actually asking for a lot with the current market leader cards that are available.
-
So yeah $1000 spent on 2 highest-end video cards (two GX2) still doesn't give you playable framerate in Crysis @ 1920x1080 even with some details turned down and NO AA.
Kinda pathetic.
9800GX2 is not the highest performing GPU at 1920x1200 though. Nvidia underestimated the importance of memory bandwidth and amount of framebuffer memory at such a high resolution so the 8800 GTX is actually faster at such a high resolution. Pathetic, ain't it?
Really though Crysis is just one game that you might play for 20-30 hours or so tops.
The real metric on the next round of video cards is how well a single card - SLI and its allies always have problems - runs a chosen suite of high-end games. I expect performance at native resolutions on 24" LCDs with 1920x1200 resolutions, with AA and AF, to be more than playable, which is something that is actually asking for a lot with the current market leader cards that are available.
I used to think the same but multi-gpu performance has come a long way. Since adding a 2nd GTX, I've seen substantial improvements in high resolution framerates. The big name games especially benefit from multi-gpus since Nvidia spends more time on optimizing the drivers for them.
-
Every time I see the term "quad SLI" I can't help but think of the Mooninites "quad laser."
"The bullet is huge there is no escape."
this made me laugh
-
So yeah $1000 spent on 2 highest-end video cards (two GX2) still doesn't give you playable framerate in Crysis @ 1920x1080 even with some details turned down and NO AA.
Kinda pathetic.
The best part will be when Crysis is a 3 year old game and people are finally able to max it. Shit will be gorgeous and more of a blast to play.