do you notice any IQ difference between 3870 and 8800 gt here is the screen shots

[mandelore]

LOL texture quality also determines how many objects are shown onscreen?

BTW Now it does look as good as in XP, but at 6fps that is pointless.

*lets out a big sigh.....

im running alot in background, downloading, not overclocked anything. please take this into consideration....

740mhz/1000mhz compared to 890/1200+ makes a big difference, as does a couple of hundred MHz on the cpu too

also, I can play crysis @ 1920x1200 with most on high with a couple like tex v high and get reasonable frame rates. also upgrading to a quad soon so im not complaining. Im doing fine for a crap cpu and ddr1

 

[cefurkan]

*lets out a big sigh.....

im running alot in background, downloading, not overclocked anything. please take this into consideration....


740mhz/1000mhz compared to 890/1200+ makes a big difference, as does a couple of hundred MHz on the cpu too

also, I can play crysis @ 1920x1200 with most on high with a couple like tex v high and get reasonable frame rates. also upgrading to a quad soon so im not complaining. Im doing fine for a crap cpu and ddr1

i think u dont look tests that have been make at this game

there is no difference between

dual core 4.2 ghz and 4.2 ghz quad core

i say dual core not core 2 duo

this game is suck if we consider about how optimized cpu usage

so u wont get any fps increase if u change cpu

but i dont know how much it depended on ram timings and clocks

also oc increase really really low performance
i dont know why but when oc my card only 1 or 2 fps increase in 20 fps
20 to 22 like

 

[mandelore]

i think u dont look tests that have been make at this game

there is no difference between

dual core 4.2 ghz and 4.2 ghz quad core

i say dual core not core 2 duo

this game is suck if we consider about how optimized cpu usage

so u wont get any fps increase if u change cpu

but i dont know how much it depended on ram timings and clocks

also oc increase really really low performance
i dont know why but when oc my card only 1 or 2 fps increase in 20 fps
20 to 22 like

well, 4GHz + is quite insane compared to what I game at. I can barely get 2.9ghz perfectly stable, so it does make a big difference for me since my graphics card is HEAVILY bottlenecked. at 4ghz a card wont be so that would have an impact.

but upping my 2900 oc does improve things, and my cpu helps significantly

 

[cefurkan]

well, 4GHz + is quite insane compared to what I game at. I can barely get 2.9ghz perfectly stable, so it does make a big difference for me since my graphics card is HEAVILY bottlenecked. at 4ghz a card wont be so that would have an impact.

but upping my 2900 oc does improve things, and my cpu helps significantly

in most of the games

ur cpu of course bottleneck ur graphic card

but not at crysis

i know my friend
he has

dual core 4.2

and get same fps with quad core 4.2

 

[mandelore]

in most of the games

ur cpu of course bottleneck ur graphic card

but not at crysis

i know my friend
he has

dual core 4.2

and get same fps with quad core 4.2

what I mean is the cpu frequency, not the number of cores.
on an unbottlenecked 2900, say with a cpu of 4.1ghz, raising the cpu frequency more may not generate any improvement, but on my bottlenecked card, raising the cpu from say 2.8ghz to 3 ghz would give a significant boot to the FPS due to alleviation of the 2900's bottleneck.

 

[cefurkan]

what I mean is the cpu frequency, not the number of cores.
on an unbottlenecked 2900, say with a cpu of 4.1ghz, raising the cpu frequency more may not generate any improvement, but on my bottlenecked card, raising the cpu from say 2.8ghz to 3 ghz would give a significant boot to the FPS due to alleviation of the 2900's bottleneck.

i understood what u mean

but what i say is

between 2.5 ghz and 3.2 ghz there is no differences at this game

at least for core 2 duo

 

[DarkMatter]

*lets out a big sigh.....

im running alot in background, downloading, not overclocked anything. please take this into consideration....

740mhz/1000mhz compared to 890/1200+ makes a big difference, as does a couple of hundred MHz on the cpu too

also, I can play crysis @ 1920x1200 with most on high with a couple like tex v high and get reasonable frame rates. also upgrading to a quad soon so im not complaining. Im doing fine for a crap cpu and ddr1

Not saying your setup is crap or anything. What I mean is that on XP, maybe, you could have just another 2 or so settings on very high.
I have heard so many people with 8800GTS that can't play on high, when I could if I wanted to play below 25fps with lows of 15 or so, not very comfortable but playable. And that is because they are playing DX10. I play it on medium except shaders, textures, objects detail and water on high. Of course without AA, 1152x864 resolution. Is a good resolution, not as low as 1024x and not as slow as 1280x. It looks as 1280 with a really small difference, unnoticeable when you are playing. 27FPS average, 20 lows (this isn't the lowest but the common low, there is always a really low that appears even on 8800GTX when averaging 100+ fps). 8800gts is twice as powerful than mine but they can't play much higher than me because of Vista. It seems a good reason to go XP, IMHO.

 

[cefurkan]

by the way i just noticed that

at xp screen shot my shadow was high not very high

also i am gonna try vista very high again

i didnt understand how mountain details not seen clearly at vista

 

[GrapeApe]

OMFG!

Essentially an entire thread proving how useless Crysis, and the people who use it, are at IQ testing. And in this case I use IQ in both senses of the word.

Simply put, until you guys, or the st00pid reviewers, can get the exact same frame with the exact same settings, stop posting guesses you all look silly as a result showing ever lower levels of IQ.

Just let it go.

PS, I want the last 5 mins of my life I spent reading this thread back!

 

[rougal]

OMFG!

Essentially an entire thread proving how useless Crysis, and the people who use it, are at IQ testing. And in this case I use IQ in both senses of the word.

Simply put, until you guys, or the st00pid reviewers, can get the exact same frame with the exact same settings, stop posting guesses you all look silly as a result showing ever lower levels of IQ.

Just let it go.

PS, I want the last 5 mins of my life I spent reading this thread back!

That's true. Glad someone pulled the trigger.

What, no Crysis testing?

I just wanted to address this quickly since I know I'll get emails and forum posts if I don't: I did not include any Crysis demo testing or early-release full game testing because of some issues with the game, drivers and multi-GPU support. In short, just a few days after the game release, both Crytek and Microsoft are going to be releasing patches for Vista and Crysis that will address performance issues in both single and especially in multi-GPU system configurations. Rather than waste hours testing a title for results that will be null and void 7 days down the road, I just thought I’d wait for the update to be released and then get a full write up ready for you all.

Sorry!

That's quite a good argument he got there. Ain't it?

Taken from here

 

[Behemoko]

cefurkan, I don't know why you bother. This site is actually ATI/AMDfanboy.com, it just has a more neutral name, you might as well post this same question on Nvidiafanboy.com while you're at it.

And, if anybody's thinking this is offensive, it's saying fanboys in general suck, NOT ATI/AMD.

Anybody who says otherwise knows they're lying, I'm just trying to help the guy out.

 

[cefurkan]

well i belive that i proved everything

and who wants to compare ati nvidia quality i made 15 games test with


8800 gts 2900 pro on my computer with all same settings

i was thinking to continue with 2900 pro

but its performance was suck when i compared with 8800 gts

%80 gts was powerfull so i sold 2900 pro

then sold 8800gts and added 10$ bought 8800 gt ^^
here is the screen shots


http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=42527&highlight="cefurkan"

 

[Tatty_Two]

cefurkan, I don't know why you bother. This site is actually ATI/AMDfanboy.com, it just has a more neutral name, you might as well post this same question on Nvidiafanboy.com while you're at it.

And, if anybody's thinking this is offensive, it's saying fanboys in general suck, NOT ATI/AMD.

Anybody who says otherwise knows they're lying, I'm just trying to help the guy out.

I'm an Nvidia fanboi

 

[largon]

Wow, 100+ posts of bickering about comparing images that were not captured on exact same game files, settings and OS?

cefurkan,
The difference in level of detail (trees, bushes, rocks, etc.) is solely due to your Crysis XP hack-pack. The hack-pack contains files that are custom modified to alter viewing ranges for vegetation, I did such modification to the files on my copy of Crysis MP beta and differences were obvious. This whole image comparison of your's is based on your nonstandard game settings; the XP "very high setting" hack-pack is in no way camparable to the proverbial very high settings on Vista.

On the other hand, problems in 8800GT's rendering quality such as those discussed in reviews like the one on VR-Zone RV670 review (http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4637/iqcheckqu2.gif) are completely unproved, people have tried to duplicate the issue without success. That means it's more likely that VR-Zone fubared their IQ comparison.

 

[cefurkan]

Wow, 100+ posts of bickering about comparing images that were not captured on exact same game files, settings and OS?

cefurkan,
The difference in level of detail (trees, bushes, rocks, etc.) is solely due to your Crysis XP hack-pack. The hack-pack contains files that are custom modified to alter viewing ranges for vegetation, I did such modification to the files on my copy of Crysis MP beta and differences were obvious. This whole image comparison of your's is based on your nonstandard game settings; the XP "very high setting" hack-pack is in no way camparable to the proverbial very high settings on Vista.

On the other hand, problems in 8800GT's rendering quality such as those discussed in reviews like the one on VR-Zone RV670 review (http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4637/iqcheckqu2.gif) are completely unproved, people have tried to duplicate the issue without success. That means it's more likely that VR-Zone fubared their IQ comparison.

u still show me ati fans site topics

and u dont know anything about xp very high pack

we compared both vista very high and xp very high for pages before(not on this forum)

vista very high IQ is %5 better than xp very high

i hope u understand this


also

i gave exactly same frame

and i dont see any difference (even my shadow wasnt very high it was only high noticing this difference is quite hard)

 

[Wile E]

If you want a fair comparison, both people have to take the screen shot from the same frame, same OS, and same settings.

That said, I don't think anyone proved anything in this thread so far. This IQ comparison is going terrible. Different settings, different OSes, different frames. It's all apple to oranges.

And for God's sake, quit using the Very High XP hack. Just use Vista with a completely unmodified game. Meaning no hacks, no moving of files, no nothing. Run it from a clean, 100% unaltered, in any way, shape or form, install of the game

 

[largon]

and u dont know anything about xp very high pack

What 's that supposed to mean? What I don't know?
You're not making any sense here.

I played the game with the hacks over a month ago...

we compared both vista very high and xp very high for pages before(not on this forum)

vista very high IQ is %5 better [*] than xp very high

very high settings

via xp hackpack

is not

the same as

very high

on vista

!!1§!eleven

[I hope the above typing format makes it easier for you to understand :|]

edit:
*And how on earth do you measure IQ in %?
Let me guess: you count the trees, rocks, etc. in both images? (j/k)

 

[Polaris573]

...and so ends this thread.