Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Post your best Dirt 2 benchmarks here (DX9-DX10-DX11)

Tags:
  • PC gaming
  • Framerate
  • FPS
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
January 25, 2010 2:34:28 AM

Is your system up to the task? If so please post your min and max framerate [:jaydeejohn:5]

Here is my best (x4 B50 @ 3.9Ghz / GTX 260 @ 655/1220) 1680x 1050 everything on "HIGH" including x16AA :



Max FPS = 80
Min FPS = 59

More about : post dirt benchmarks dx9 dx10 dx11

January 26, 2010 11:52:09 PM

I would but not sure how to attach pic to my post,but what i have noticed about your pic,on multisampling you have the letters CSAA,on mine i have MSAA,is there a difference?,also mine only goes up to 8xMSAA not 16
m
0
l
January 26, 2010 11:59:24 PM

To attach the pic you need to use Photobucket.com or ImageShack.com

As far as the xAA settings go, it depends on the GPU that you use..

CSAA gives roughly the same quality for less of a performance hit...

IQ- SSAA>MSAA>CSAA
Performance- CSAA>MSAA>SSAA

If you want to read more into it, read the next few pages of this AnandTech.com article http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2870&p=9

=)

m
0
l
Related resources
January 27, 2010 7:23:45 PM

Thanks for that OvrClkr,ill check out that link and post my benchmarks very soon.
m
0
l
January 27, 2010 7:36:14 PM

sweet =) .....
m
0
l
January 27, 2010 7:53:48 PM

I was running Fraps while doing the benchmark,dont know if that makes any difference to frame rate.Cant get any pictures on here,uploaded the on Imageshack but it wont let me edit the post so that i can attach pictures.I can only quick edit
m
0
l
January 27, 2010 9:12:55 PM

i7 920 3.8GHz, GTX295 OC(633/1364/1100)

1920x1200, 4xMSAA, Ultra settings
m
0
l
January 27, 2010 11:14:42 PM

NICE^^^ LoL

I bet the game looks awesome at 1920x1200 =)
m
0
l
January 28, 2010 6:31:24 PM

just tried again,but it wont do it aarrrggggggggg
m
0
l
January 28, 2010 6:44:52 PM










Whoo done it lol,this is with Fraps running,dont know if that makes any difference in performance.
m
0
l
January 28, 2010 7:05:09 PM

nice =)

I like the fact that the game runs soo smooth with no lag whatsoever.....
m
0
l
January 28, 2010 7:19:02 PM

It took a while but got there in the end lol,cheers
m
0
l
January 29, 2010 2:42:30 AM

here my results,,..avrg=46fps , min=38fps ,th is with everything set to highest and some ultra settings as dx9,,@12x10 ,,system specs below
m
0
l
January 29, 2010 2:51:10 AM

pkw4 said:
here my results,,..avrg=46fps , min=38fps ,th is with everything set to highest and some ultra settings as dx9,,@12x10 ,,system specs below


Not bad at all considering you are running at 2.9Ghz..... good job [:jaydeejohn:5]

going for another run brb.....
m
0
l
January 29, 2010 3:16:56 AM

whoops sorry ,,thoese results where at 2.6ghz (stock) , at 2.9ghz i get avrg=51 and min=44, these are at the same settings.
m
0
l
January 29, 2010 3:26:02 AM

i do not use anti-aliasing or anistrop filtering as a 96 would get crippled lol
m
0
l
January 30, 2010 9:45:05 PM

With everything on ultra setings and x16AA i get around 60FPS max / 54FPS min, so that is not bad at all considering it's at its highest settings possible for a 260.



Of course this is done with v-sync enabled ;) 

Now going to test w/o v-sync ....brb

w/o v-sync

m
0
l
January 31, 2010 8:58:36 AM

Thats not bad at all,its very playable at those fps and is that with a single 260?
m
0
l
February 1, 2010 2:14:32 AM

yep ........
m
0
l
February 1, 2010 11:34:06 AM

OvrClkr said:
With everything on ultra setings and x16AA i get around 60FPS max / 54FPS min, so that is not bad at all considering it's at its highest settings possible for a 260.

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/dirt22010-01-3017-24-57-95.jpg

Of course this is done with v-sync enabled ;) 

Now going to test w/o v-sync ....brb

w/o v-sync

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/dirt22010-01-3017-58-18-35.jpg

These screenshots are without AA let alone the 16xAA. Also the 64fps is normal performance for a single GTX260 with these settings 1680x1050, no AA, Ultra settings. Now a single GTX260 will get about 40fps with 16xCSAA.

You have done the same thing with the crysis. Do you remember when you said that you get 42-50fps in crysis with 1680x1050 4xAA enthusiast DX10 and in the end we find out that your true fps are 24min and 34avg with 1680x1050, no AA, enthusias, DX10.

Really I don’t understand why you give fake results? Does this help you to sleep at night?
m
0
l
February 1, 2010 2:01:59 PM

Quote:
[These screenshots are without AA let alone the 16xAA. Also the 64fps is normal performance for a single GTX260 with these settings 1680x1050, no AA, Ultra settings. Now a single GTX260 will get about 40fps with 16xCSAA.
/quote]

Look at the top video, it clearly shows 60-80FPS with all settings on "HIGH" including x16AA @1680x 1050.

Quote:
and in the end we find out that your true fps are 24min and 34avg with 1680x1050, no AA, enthusias, DX10.


Nonsense :lol:  , who found out what? I just started using DX10 about 2 weeks ago so the DX10 argument is totally false. I have yet to test Warhead in Win 7 64bit, the only Warhead benchmarks i have were done with XP Pro 32bit.

I never stated that i get between 42-50FPS with x4AA, that is ubsurd since a single 260 cannot achieve such results. I stated that I can get anywhere from 50-80FPS with all settings on enthusiast and NO xAA. I will do another Warhead benchmark once installed and post a new video ;) 
m
0
l
February 1, 2010 3:03:21 PM

Quote:
These screenshots are without AA let alone the 16xAA. Also the 64fps is normal performance for a single GTX260 with these settings 1680x1050, no AA, Ultra settings. Now a single GTX260 will get about 40fps with 16xCSAA.


Look at the TOP video, it clearly shows 60-80FPS with all settings on "HIGH" including x16AA (1680x 1050) w/ v-sync off.

With v-sync enabled I get a constant 60FPS and if I change all settings to ULTRA i still manage to get 54FPS min and 60FPS max.....

Here is another video :

http://s683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/?actio...

m
0
l
February 2, 2010 7:16:51 AM

The video that you show is from the demo not from the full game. The benchmark on the demo gives more fps than the benchmark on the full game. Also you do not use 16xAA because there is no anti-aliasing on the benchmark you posted and the proof is that dirt 2 renders the menu and when anti-aliasing is disabled you can see it in the letters, which are full of jaggies so stop lying.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dirt-2-performance-...
Benchmark from tomshardware: the GTX260 with ultra setting, DX9, 4xAA, 1680x1050, fps 52avg, 40min.

In crysis you cannot get this fps(50-80) with enthusiast and 1680x1050. Crysis wouldn’t have this kind of reputation if graphics card’s like yours could max it out with this insane fps(50-80).



bechmark with the GTX260.
1680x1050, DX9, 0xAA, gamer settings(not even enthusiast settings).
Results: 38fps avg, 25fps min absolutely not anywhere near to 50-80fps…
www. hardwarecanucks .com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/24216-asus-radeon-hd-5770-1gb-voltage-tweak-edition-review-11.html


LIAR
m
0
l
February 2, 2010 1:20:15 PM

michaelmk86 said:
The video that you show is from the demo not from the full game. The benchmark on the demo gives more fps than the benchmark on the full game. Also you do not use 16xAA because there is no anti-aliasing on the benchmark you posted and the proof is that dirt 2 renders the menu and when anti-aliasing is disabled you can see it in the letters, which are full of jaggies so stop lying.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/dirt-2-performance-...
Benchmark from tomshardware: the GTX260 with ultra setting, DX9, 4xAA, 1680x1050, fps 52avg, 40min.

In crysis you cannot get this fps(50-80) with enthusiast and 1680x1050. Crysis wouldn’t have this kind of reputation if graphics card’s like yours could max it out with this insane fps(50-80).



bechmark with the GTX260.
1680x1050, DX9, 0xAA, gamer settings(not even enthusiast settings).
Results: 38fps avg, 25fps min absolutely not anywhere near to 50-80fps…
www. hardwarecanucks .com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/24216-asus-radeon-hd-5770-1gb-voltage-tweak-edition-review-11.html

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1439/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1439R-1072235.jpg
LIAR


You are correct, the first video is the DEMO, but if you look at the video above you will see a more legit benchmark from the full version. The demo does not provide more FPS, not sure where you got that from cause I get higher FPS with the full version.

Here is the old Crysis video, I have more videos from different scenes that I still have to upload.

http://s683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/?actio...


m
0
l
February 2, 2010 1:24:04 PM

First of all I am not playing the game in DX9, second I do not have my CPU at 3Ghz (like the test shows) I have my CPU at 3.9Ghz, and the GPU is at 655/1280. You got a special pair of nuts for calling me a liar even when I provide you with videos that show every single setting in detail.

Anyways I am giving you proof, the x16 is enabled in the benchmark. There are NO jaged edges once x16 and v-sync are enabled.....

Tonight I will post an IN-GAME benchmark, just so you can see that I get he same exact FPS as opposed to the menu "benchmark". And then after that I am done with you ;) 
m
0
l
February 2, 2010 8:21:56 PM

I think this is getting a little out of hand,its only a game,and i have to be honest here,i run the game @1920x1200 with 8xMSAA(because its ATI) and v-sync and i still get jagged lines in the text.
m
0
l
February 2, 2010 8:37:17 PM

andy_93 said:
I think this is getting a little out of hand,its only a game,and i have to be honest here,i run the game @1920x1200 with 8xMSAA(because its ATI) and v-sync and i still get jagged lines in the text.


Yea, well I don't know of any other way to provide proof of my specs/benchmarks.......

First I posted a video and got a few posts saying that I was running something more powerfull than a 260... Now in all my videos I point my camera at the case for proofing reasons. Not sure what else I can do to prove the frames I get with a single 260. Anyways I will post few more videos tonight ;) 
m
0
l
February 2, 2010 10:18:56 PM

Hey,i beleive you,what would be the point in lieing,i just asked if it was a single card because i am running 2 4870 in CF and your benchmarks are not far of mine,but that could be for many reasons,your processor is running higher than mine for starters,i dont feel like you have to prove anything,you have posted your benchmarks and that it,lets get back to the subject of your orignial post and not prove whos lieing and who is not,i think that your screenshots and videos speak for them selves ;) 
m
0
l
February 3, 2010 3:21:35 AM

While I acknowledge your courage, and candor, OvrClkr, I can't beleive you posted up a Crysis video, with a BSOD at the end.... made me rofl, in the bad way.
m
0
l
February 3, 2010 4:52:10 AM

well that was the whole point, max everything out to squeeze the last bit of oomph!!
m
0
l
February 3, 2010 11:44:46 AM

OvrClkr said:
You are correct, the first video is the DEMO, but if you look at the video above you will see a more legit benchmark from the full version. The demo does not provide more FPS, not sure where you got that from cause I get higher FPS with the full version.

Here is the old Crysis video, I have more videos from different scenes that I still have to upload.

http://s683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/?actio...

A GTX260 simply is not capable to deliver that performance simple as that. (Also the screenshot that you post show that you don’t have AA)

Even 2x GTX260 cannot get this fps(50-80) in crysis warhead with 1680x1050 enthusiast. Also doesn’t matter if you have your CPU at 3.9GHz(especially with one GTX260).

Really I don’t understand why you saying this lies.
m
0
l
February 3, 2010 11:54:14 AM

For what it's worth, it did look like he was getting great fps, with a single gtx 260, in Crysis, even without AA the results were excellent. That is of course, before he blue screened ^^
m
0
l
February 9, 2010 6:49:49 PM

Hey good video,how the hell you play with keys tho,and i gotta say,it looks like your single 260 runs Dirt2 better than my 2 4870`s.
m
0
l
February 9, 2010 6:53:32 PM

Practice, I normally use the gamepad but with the keyboard it is more of a challenge....

I have a buddy that is gettin a bit more frames than me with a single 4890... not sure what the deal is....
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 3:14:29 AM

Wait, are you saying you use a keyboard/gamepad for Dirt2 or Crysis? I can't imagine doing Dirt2 without a wheel/pedals with force feedback.
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 3:27:07 AM

andy_93 said:
Hey good video,how the hell you play with keys tho,and i gotta say,it looks like your single 260 runs Dirt2 better than my 2 4870`s.


Im not sure whats going on, I am waiting on Fermi and the new 5830 (cross-fired) , hopefully Fermi will be worth the cost, if not then dual 5830's should be more than enough for my gaming needs. Once I get my hands on either i will bench again in DX11 just to see the performance hit and compare numbers. I think that the game runs better (performance-wise) on Dx10 rather than 9 or 11. Win 7 64bit also helps with allocating more ram as well ;)  , I have another buddy (neighbor) that has dual 275's and he is gettin over 100FPS with the same settings as me, 121 max 97 min @ x16QSAA (1680x 1050) to be exact :) 

Im fine with a constant 60FPS with all the eye-candy.... I am very impressed with the quality of gameplay this game provides, I am a Grand Turismo fan and this game just smokes it in every way.... And the fact that a PC obliterates the"console" when it comes to visuals....
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 10:33:54 AM

I agree with you 100% on Gameplay. As for DX11 (assuming I'm turning it on correctly, I guess it just happens if you have a DX11 card on Ultra settings) it does introduce a hit, but a bearable one normally. The weird thing is it used to really slow down in places, so I turned down GFX settings. Then I decided to turn it back up again and now it seems to run fine (no slowdowns). I can't think of what I changed inbetween, other than some windows updates perhaps.
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 12:45:26 PM

Avg. 52.3fps....using the inbuilt benchmark...system:
Phenom X3 8450@2.2Ghz
Sapphire Hd 4890
4GB DDR2 @810Mhz
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

settings:Res:1440x900:8x AA
all possible highest settings using 4890
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 2:10:12 PM

EXT64 said:
Wait, are you saying you use a keyboard/gamepad for Dirt2 or Crysis? I can't imagine doing Dirt2 without a wheel/pedals with force feedback.


I use the keyboard when it comes to shooters.. As far as driving simulators on the PC, I use both the keyboard and the gamepad. Same for PS3, if im going to play MW2 or any other FPS i use the adapter/keyboard/mouse ;)  and pwn everyone in sight...

Have not used a wheel on the PC yet, what wheel do you have? Link?

m
0
l
February 10, 2010 2:34:15 PM

sayantan said:
Avg. 52.3fps....using the inbuilt benchmark...system:
Phenom X3 8450@2.2Ghz
Sapphire Hd 4890
4GB DDR2 @810Mhz
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

settings:Res:1440x900:8x AA
all possible highest settings using 4890


Why are you running the game at 2.2Ghz? And how did you manage to average 52FPS at that clock?
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 3:34:07 PM

I got really lucky on the wheel actually. It is an old PS2 wheel (bought for GT4) and although not officially supported by Dirt2, Logitech still includes it in their PC drivers, so it works. It has all the essentials like a strong force feedback, paddle shifters, and a few buttons. I do periodically have issues where it stops working in game (or randomly gets really "loose") but most of the time it works great. It really lets you get finesse and a feel for the road (or in this case, dirt).
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 6:34:23 PM

OvrClkr said:
Why are you running the game at 2.2Ghz? And how did you manage to average 52FPS at that clock?



Some people may not know how to overclock.... OvrClkr....
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 7:16:40 PM

Yea, just used to seeing the "Phenoms" at higher clocks, specially when used for gaming. The 8450 should be able to at least achieve 2.6Ghz...
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 8:43:34 PM

Dirt 2 will run automatically in DX11 if your card supports it,but it does not run in DX10,only 9 or 11 and it does seem to run better in DX9,ive seen the game run in both and tbh there is not that much difference,i think that Codemasters rushed it to include DX11 features and in reality there are not that many,just water and the way the flags blow in the breeze from what i have seen.
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 8:52:18 PM

Yeah, from the previews I saw, DX11 does add some nice (but not very noticeable at all) improvements; however, the performance hit is large compared to the benefits. it is amazing what they did with DX9 though.
m
0
l
February 10, 2010 10:36:20 PM

andy_93 said:
Dirt 2 will run automatically in DX11 if your card supports it,but it does not run in DX10,only 9 or 11 and it does seem to run better in DX9,ive seen the game run in both and tbh there is not that much difference,i think that Codemasters rushed it to include DX11 features and in reality there are not that many,just water and the way the flags blow in the breeze from what i have seen.


Ok so let me get this strait, im definately not using DX9 because im running Win 7, and I cannot be running DX11 cause my card does not support it... so what am I running?

DX DIAG indicates that im running DX11.... But am I ? :lol: 
m
0
l
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!