[stRodda]

i was looking to see what kind of fps' my card should be putting down. now of course, all the cards listed are older cards, since this game has been out for a little while now. but the 560 fared damn well. topped the charts too(not sure if thats a "duh its supposed to" moment, but i was happy).

i benched the same scene with fraps, and i got a minimum of 70fps, and an average of 126.7, all max settings @ 1920x1080.

considering the hd5870 topped the charts with 89fps, the 560ti kills it!

 

[Shredicus]

Apparently going balls deep isn't allowed or something...

 

[Penicilyn]

Do you have any actual proof of your scores?

Not saying it's not possible, just adds some credibility.

 

[stRodda]

not sure what else i could show, so here.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0fGXK6S2xg[/ame]
captured with my iphone.

 

[Princess Garnet]

Remember that it's using a modified Quake 3 engine, which is years old. Besides the latest Call of Duty (Black Ops) of the PC, which was an unoptimized port, most of them ran fairly well on anything "modern" (which is classify as a GeForce 8800 equivalent or newer).

Yeah, the GPU is definitely nice though. I was surprised how well it did in Crysis for me after seeing new GPU after new GPU getting nowhere fast with that game. It still doesn't perform perfectly in it, but almost, and it is Crysis, so it handles most games perfectly.

 

[Booty Warrior]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Garnet;13119721
Yeah, the GPU is definitely nice though. I was surprised how well it did in Crysis for me after seeing new GPU after new GPU getting nowhere fast with that game. It still doesn't perform perfectly in it, but almost, and it is Crysis, so it handles most games perfectly.

SLI it and even Crysis won't slow you down.

 

[stRodda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booty Warrior;13119779
SLI it and even Crysis won't slow you down.

if you have either game, modern warfare2 or crysis, have you ever run a bench on them?

im curious to see how much higher your fps is. i just ordered a 2500k, so you have what i will have, but better.

 

[Princess Garnet]

I don't have Modern Warfare 2.

In Crysis, my GPU is almost always in the high 90% range, so the CPU isn't holding back in that game. Since we have similar video cards, you'd get similar results to me rather than him (since he has SLi). I do run at 1600x1200 though so you might not get the exact same as me.

This game isn't CPU bound though, so you won't see anything moving to a Core i5 2500K in this game. The post above yours was right. If you want more in this game, you have to give it more in the GPU department.

 

[Booty Warrior]

Quote:

Originally Posted by stRodda;13119817
if you have either game, modern warfare2 or crysis, have you ever run a bench on them?

im curious to see how much higher your fps is. i just ordered a 2500k, so you have what i will have, but better.

I don't have any CoD games so I can't help there, but I did run a quick 3 loop Crysis bench @1080p, Very High w/ 16xQ AA.

My cards are only clocked at 900 core btw.

 

[BradleyW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booty Warrior;13119779
SLI it and even Crysis won't slow you down.

Put a 2 after crysis haha.

 

[Noctizzle]

i want the 460 2win ... looks badass

 

[Ascii Aficionado]

I'm playing MW2 on a 9600 GT at 1920x1080, max settings, 2x AA. And I'm extremely picky about performance and I'm actually satisfied how it's running on this system. So, I can only imagine how much better it's going to run when I get my GTX 560 Ti in the next 2 weeks.

Silly question, what would I use to properly benchmark the game ? I can tell by the feel of the game I'm averaging around 35-45 FPS, but I want to be more detailed.

 

[Ascii Aficionado]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booty Warrior I don't have any CoD games so I can't help there, but I did run a quick 3 loop Crysis bench @1080p, Very High w/ 16xQ AA. My cards are only clocked at 900 core btw.

Suddenly my future single GTX 560 Ti seems inadequate

Though I'd personally never go above 2x AA at 1920x1080.

 

[noahhova]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booty Warrior I don't have any CoD games so I can't help there, but I did run a quick 3 loop Crysis bench @1080p, Very High w/ 16xQ AA. My cards are only clocked at 900 core btw.

I'd be interested at your score with 2x or 4x AA since 16xQ is kind of pointless at 1080p. Probably well over 60FPS.
Also why 32bit test and not 64bit?

 

[Ascii Aficionado]

Quote:

Originally Posted by noahhova I'd be interested at your score with 2x or 4x AA since 16xQ is kind of pointless at 1080p. Probably well over 60FPS. Also why 32bit test and not 64bit?

I completely agree too, the highest I'd go at 1920x1080 would be 2x, possibly 4x, rather have the performance increase than use 16x

 

[Princess Garnet]

Here's mine I took from back when I swapped my video cards. I don't use AA as the look of the edge AA that smooths the foliage looks good enough and performs better for me.

You can ignore the "OC" part for the GeForce GTX 560 Ti. It technically is overclocked, but by so little it's not worth mentioning. It's like 850/4100/1700 or something.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ascii Aficionado I'm playing MW2 on a 9600 GT at 1920x1080, max settings, 2x AA. And I'm extremely picky about performance and I'm actually satisfied how it's running on this system. So, I can only imagine how much better it's going to run when I get my GTX 560 Ti in the next 2 weeks. Silly question, what would I use to properly benchmark the game ? I can tell by the feel of the game I'm averaging around 35-45 FPS, but I want to be more detailed.

Look at my results for my GeForce 8800GT OC above. I find it a bit of a high guess on your part that you're pulling those kind of frame rates at 1920x1080 with AA on a weaker video card when I couldn't minus AA and at lower settings at a lower resolution, PLUS that lower resolution was a narrower aspect ratio and FOV, and wider FOV in this game just kills performance.

If it looks good, then that's all that matters. However, test it and you'll probably see you're overestimating how many frames you're really getting.

 

[Ascii Aficionado]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Garnet Look at my results for my GeForce 8800GT OC above. I find it a bit of a high guess on your part that you're pulling those kind of frame rates at 1920x1080 with AA on a weaker video card when I couldn't minus AA and at lower settings at a lower resolution, PLUS that lower resolution was a narrower aspect ratio and FOV, and wider FOV in this game just kills performance. If it looks good, then that's all that matters. However, test it and you'll probably see you're overestimating how many frames you're really getting.

I understand the difference between 20-30-60, I don't call 60 fps 30 fps, but I did say average and not minimum, It can drop below 30, and it does. I wasn't being exact. But my logic still stands.

I did ask how I can benchmark the game, no one replied.

 

[Blacklac]

I like 8AA myself, but I have a 50" screen.

. I agree 16AA is overkill.

 

[Blacklac]

Just use fraps. Set it to benchmark for like 3 minutes to get a good average, although you don't want it to benchmark for a lot of time if your dead, like in Search and Destroy. Play TDM or something.

 

[Ascii Aficionado]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blacklac Just use fraps. Set it to benchmark for like 3 minutes to get a good average, although you don't want it to benchmark for a lot of time if your dead, like in Search and Destroy. Play TDM or something.

I was hoping for something more sophisticated than resorting to Fraps, but I can do that. I'll do that today sometime.