Hey, just got a new video card to replace my old x1800xt, as well as jumped to vista. On my 1st install of vista, i thought i did sumthing wrong, not getting great results from my system, so i decided to format the drive again and try all over again. I got the same results. Crysis is unplayable at 1280x960 on high(10-30fps) ut3 is unplayable maxed 1600x1200(unacceptable) and the witcher is avg about 30-40fps maxed 1600x1200. Is this underperforming, or am i expecting too much? Ino i have a weaker processor, but almost all the reviews i read had this running smooth on crysis 1280x1024 on high.
You need atleast Core 2 Duo @ 2.66Ghz or higher, and atleast 2Gb (for Vista i recommend you 3 gb or more) ddr2 @ 800Mhz to get some performance with 4000 series...
Any other opinions, i believe you completely because i dont thinkive done nething wrong, but would just like to know if anybody could point out something i might be doing wrong. And wow, i didnt know a bottleneck could be this bad.
Well, my 3d mark compared to xp users is pretty much higher or equal to the competition, so idk, but u seem to be on quite a crusade against vista.
3DMark doesn't mean jack. It's the games; that's where it counts. I'm sorry, I don't want to turn this into a flaming thread. To be honest, I just realized that you mentioned the games Crysis and UT3. They are the two most CPU bottlenecked games out on the market. The frame-rate difference between having a dual-core and a quad-core is tremendous in those two games. The only game that I've really tested my HD 4850 on my AMD rig is Call of Duty 4. It doesn't feel much different between my AMD rig (Opteron 165 @ 2.91 GHz, 1.35v) and my Intel rig (C2Q Q6600 @ 3.5 GHz, 1.472v). FWIW, I also ran 3DMark05 with the card at stock on both rigs... for the Opteron rig, it got ~15,500 for the Q6600 rig, it got ~19,500 Reason for the big score difference: 3DMark05 is multi-threaded, as well as CPU bottlenecked.
Alright, thanks a bunch, you weren making it into a flaming thread, i just noticed u depise vista, which you have a right to do. I plan on buying a new system, i need to find a cheap crossfire board with decent ocing abilities though. I just wnated to make sure there was nuthing wrong with my card. Thanks a bunch
If you're planning on staying AMD, I suggest waiting for the SB750 chipset. However, if you want to get an AMD board that has CrossfireX support now, I highly recommend the DFI M2RS-790FX (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813136044). It has great layout, solid board, Cross-fireX Support, Phenom support, future 45nm support. But, if you want to go blue team, get the ASUS P5Q Deluxe. It has full support for Penryn and 1600 MHz FSB.
Same old rhetoric...guess what? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc ...minimum frames will increase, but max will be within 1-5fps of the nasty C2D's in many many many games.
Could always go Core 2 Extreme or whatever, get an X48 or something, socket it with 8GB DDR3.. Also: Remember, the xx50 boards are the slower versions of a particular production line (HD 3870 is always faster than 3850, same story with 4850 and 4870)... Ask yourself when you buy: Do you want to save the measly $50~ and get inferior hardware? Or do you want to spend that extra dollar and get something that performs as good as the rest of the 3870/4870 builds you see on the forums around here? The extra cost (which is always mundane compared to NV boards, 8800 GTS compared with a piss-ass 8800 GT or GS, the price variance there is rather large, but so is the performance gap, ATI boards have a much smaller price gap between cards in the same production line, usually) is always negated by the improved performance and 'overhead room' to handle games that come out for about 18 months or so after you buy your new board. You ALWAYS get the faster board in a particular product line, because if you don't want to waste your $500~ in less than 12 months, you're going to get the 4870 over the 4850. In some cases, new games will come out within 12 months after you buy a particular board, and there have been several instances where games like COD4 and Crysis and whatever the latest shooter-addict pill-game is, out-right kill the 3850, while the 3870 performs much better, on average, assuming you have adequate base hardware to begin with. Don't build the PC version of the WTC towers: ALWAYS MAKE SURE YOUR BUS SPEED, CPU, AND RAM ARE THE FASTEST AVAILABLE AT THE TIME YOU PURCHASE THEM. PERIOD. It may cost more, but damnit, if you get a really good mobo/cpu/RAM combo right from the very let-go, you can easily change video for the next 2-3 years or not, and you won't have to worry about the blasted system going to hell regardless of which new video board you get (provided it is not the el-cheapo version out of a new product line, like the 4850 is compared with the 4870 )... In the end, I hate to tell you this: But you got screwed into buying an inferior product. To make it worse, you had improper base hardware to begin with, so you have no one else to blame but yourself. You did not spend any time researching all of your hardware to make sure of what may or may not happen, so you basically wasted whatever money you spent, getting a 4850. As one of the guys said, he has a 4870 and proper base hardware to begin with, and he has the framerates he is supposed to have, although I think 100FPS is a figurative guesstimate in his case, I'd say somewhere between 60 and 80FPS would be a much more realistic framerate, from his example and proposed specs
lool do you hear yourself? that's the damn idea, minimum frames to increase...but i guess you want your frames to drop to 10 and not 25-30... i can tell you after i changed my cpu an amd 4200+x2 my frames stop dropping and my max fps increased plus i got much, much more stable frame rates in games..
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9650_penryn_performance/page11.asp I think it has little to do with the CPU's, but I did not like the demo so I will wait for it to get to $5. The real thing people are seeing probably relates to... The retail version of the game has been fixed the drivers have been improved and vista has been improved and there are mods. Why not just stop all this bs and use a real GPU benchmark like FUR and a better game benchmark like DMC4. If you do not get the about the same FUR mark as someone else with the card at the same clocks, you then know something is wrong. You could then run DMC4 and find someone with the same card and CPU and check it looks about the same.
Well, it was spend 160 on a great card or spend 280 on a better card, and mine came with the witcher free, so it was a no brainer for me, as my resolution only goes up to 1600x1200, and i couldnt afford the 4870, especially when i plan on buying a c2d or q mobo cpu and memory. I think ill try out the FUR benchy, even though i have no idea what it is exactly(ive been out of gaming for about a year now). Thanx for all of the replies, jus waking up didnt expect to see 10 more replies, and thats y g3d is the best forum.
Thats not entirely true. I doubt its a vista issue directly based on that fact that there any many other happy users. Your CPU on the other hand should be perfectly fine for use with that GPU, yes it wont give the results like you would if you had a faster one but in real world use there'd be little difference maybe 10-25% in crysis. And whats with the vista bashing? It seems to me someone hasnt really looked into it properly, I suggest you avoid vista negativity with out any references.
I've read numerous articles over the years like the one posted by Spathi and the results always looked like those charts, nearly identical at high res/effects for "most" games. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9650_penryn_performance/page11.asp here is another, a year old and limited games, but CoH is included http://www.Legion hardware.com/document.php?id=672&p=5 Minimum fps IS important, but not necessarily vital if your minimum is already good enough. The hundreds of extra dollars spent on a CPU upgrade is pointless to many people who already have a decent enough CPU. Those that would need a mobo and ram to go with it would be even more unhappy with the upgrade results in relation to the amount of cash spent on it.
Well if thats the case, then why is it performing so badly compared to other in crysis. Just for the record, i get 26 fps avg on medium 1280x960. The only logical answer would be the cpu bottleneck.
Wow, jus changed around some random bios settings for my mobo, oced and did fan fix, and i can play 1280x960 on high no aa and all i can say is wow, its amazing on the 1st snow level. even though it does dip into teens now and again, it is crysis. This is the kind of performance i wanted for my money, ati, i applaud you. Thanx for the help everybody, cant wait till i get bday money, as im saving for college spending cash, so bday money will be clutch to upgrading to c2d. If nebody has ne ideas for a good upgrade, im open for listening.
Glad it picked up, IMO if your on a tight budget then check out the lower end cheapish P35 boards (intel P35 chipset) either from ASUS/Abit and look at the e7200 since A) It'll run cool and B) Overclock well on these P35's. Grab either a mid end set of 2GB or 4GB (64bit usage) of ram (two stick sets, or four one gigabyte sticks eitherway I guess). And you'll be set.
