The Tech Forums Official Crysis [Warhead] GPU Benchmark Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
^ way more than 33%. i was running it at 16x aa and there was a 1fps loss i'll get screens in a minuet. so crysis isint as cpu intensive as i thought. all though the core clock of gfx was 860mhz so that might be a factor.
 
^ way more than 33%. i was running it at 16x aa and there was a 1fps loss i'll get screens in a minuet. so crysis isint as cpu intensive as i thought. all though the core clock of gfx was 860mhz so that might be a factor.

the fact that you had a 1 fps drop means it is cpu intensive as your cpu is botle neckign gyou, where as with 16xaa the gfx card cant stretch its legs, and with out it the 9800gtx is beign slowed down by the cpu. and not matter how high the setting you end up with the same fps. also its gonna be more then a 33% increase as his card is faster the diference is 33% in our scores but he has a faster gpu where as i have a faster cpu. ive seen 9800gtx get in the 48/50 range for warhead, guru posted scores way back. anyway thats is over 50% speed increase for just a cpu upgrade alone, so yes crysis is some what cpu intensive.
 
not all of us have warhead

1280x1024standard.jpg


my new score with the gtx 260 oc to 704mhz
e7200 @ 3.02
 
very nice russ, but what cpu do you have.. i'm on an e7200.. not taht it would make a 10fps difference!! LOL...

ya i didnt think the 9800gx2 did worse than my gtx260.. i owned one and knew first hand the gx2 was better
 
I'll hopefully get Warhead in a couple days. I get about 28 fps on the original Crysis, on all High settings, no AA, on 1280 x 1024, with my HD 4670, which is very playable, and I can't be upset with that for paying 80 bucks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom