Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

EVGA GTX 260 SLI benchmark results

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 3, 2008 10:02:42 PM

So, I got my gtx260s today and I thought i'd do some benchmarks and let you know what I think of them.

Thus far i'm very happy with the purchase, but my one and only complaint is the cards are ENORMOUS, but I still managed to fit them in my Antec900 with only having to shuffle forward the fan bays.

Heat production seems par normal at 40% fan speed in evga precision 60-70 degrees - I liked the software package which was included with these cards: Fraps, Precision Utility and 3dMark Vantage Advanced is available as a download from EVGA.com once you register your graphics cards.

A rather major thing I wanted to note about my benchmarking experience in Crysis - I have so far experienced zero visible microstutter which is a typical issue of SLI mode cards. So far, so good; I will note when/if I do have microstutter issues however.

Relevant system specs:

Intel e8400 wolfdale @ 4050mhz, 4gb corsair ddr2, 7200rpm WD SATA hdd, EVGA 750I SLI FTW motherboard, Vista 64 bit

1000 watt thermaltake toughpower cable management, 86A power supply

I'm going to do stock clocked results in Crysis first, overclocked Crysis and stock-clocked vantage results will be posted in a little bit; i'm not going to overclock for vantage just cause it could lead to misleading numbers for something that is not totally representative of true gameplay anyways. I'm also not taking the time to do screenshots, i'm just going to post logs and if verification is really that important, i'll do that up later.

Nvidia control panel settings:

Force 16x Anisotropic filtering, Single-display performance mode, Trilinear optimization, Anisotropic sample optimization all enabled. Vsync forced off, other settings Nvidia defaults.


Stock clocked:

Crysis, 1680*1050; Very High, 0xAA, 16xAF

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 63.18s, Average FPS: 31.66
Min FPS: 19.76 at frame 1335, Max FPS: 41.62 at frame 931
Average Tri/Sec: -10950508, Tri/Frame: -345902
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.65
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 61.33s, Average FPS: 32.61
Min FPS: 19.76 at frame 1335, Max FPS: 42.38 at frame 916
Average Tri/Sec: -10771551, Tri/Frame: -330324
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.78
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 61.08s, Average FPS: 32.75
Min FPS: 19.76 at frame 1335, Max FPS: 44.60 at frame 61
Average Tri/Sec: -10823947, Tri/Frame: -330539
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.77
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 61.40s, Average FPS: 32.57
Min FPS: 19.76 at frame 1335, Max FPS: 44.60 at frame 61
Average Tri/Sec: -10770232, Tri/Frame: -330644
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.77
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min -19.76 fps, Max 41-45 fps, Average 32-33fps


Crysis, 1680*1050, Very High, 4xMSAA, 16x AF

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 76.16s, Average FPS: 26.26
Min FPS: 17.10 at frame 694, Max FPS: 34.22 at frame 891
Average Tri/Sec: -8629397, Tri/Frame: -328597
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.79
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 72.61s, Average FPS: 27.54
Min FPS: 17.10 at frame 694, Max FPS: 34.69 at frame 871
Average Tri/Sec: -8633355, Tri/Frame: -313437
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 72.01s, Average FPS: 27.77
Min FPS: 17.10 at frame 694, Max FPS: 34.74 at frame 76
Average Tri/Sec: -8664793, Tri/Frame: -311996
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.94
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 72.27s, Average FPS: 27.67
Min FPS: 17.10 at frame 694, Max FPS: 34.74 at frame 76
Average Tri/Sec: -8671914, Tri/Frame: -313365
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.93
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min -17.10 fps, Max - 34-35 fps, Avg 26-27fps



Crysis, 1680*1050, Very High, 2xMSAA, 16xAF

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 73.93s, Average FPS: 27.05
Min FPS: 17.57 at frame 1334, Max FPS: 35.89 at frame 871
Average Tri/Sec: -9053086, Tri/Frame: -334654
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.74
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 71.52s, Average FPS: 27.97
Min FPS: 15.93 at frame 1910, Max FPS: 35.91 at frame 894
Average Tri/Sec: -8930102, Tri/Frame: -319326
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.87
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 70.91s, Average FPS: 28.20
Min FPS: 15.93 at frame 1910, Max FPS: 36.27 at frame 886
Average Tri/Sec: -9007670, Tri/Frame: -319383
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.87
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 71.38s, Average FPS: 28.02
Min FPS: 14.73 at frame 1938, Max FPS: 36.27 at frame 886
Average Tri/Sec: -9002637, Tri/Frame: -321319
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.85
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min - 15-17fps, Max 35-36 fps, Avg 27-28 fps Note: Weird anamoly with 4xAA vs 2xAA - 2xAA min fps was lower by a couple frames than 4xAA min fps; go figure.


Crysis, 1680*1050, High, 4xAA, 16xAF

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 50.93s, Average FPS: 39.27
Min FPS: 22.50 at frame 1365, Max FPS: 52.27 at frame 934
Average Tri/Sec: -25587256, Tri/Frame: -651621
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 47.64s, Average FPS: 41.98
Min FPS: 22.50 at frame 1365, Max FPS: 60.42 at frame 121
Average Tri/Sec: -27260394, Tri/Frame: -649333
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 47.25s, Average FPS: 42.33
Min FPS: 22.50 at frame 1365, Max FPS: 61.86 at frame 109
Average Tri/Sec: -27466720, Tri/Frame: -648856
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 47.24s, Average FPS: 42.34
Min FPS: 22.50 at frame 1365, Max FPS: 61.86 at frame 109
Average Tri/Sec: -27514862, Tri/Frame: -649873
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min fps - 22.50, Max fps 60-61 fps, Avg Fps 41-41 fps Note: another anamoly, in timedemo 1 max fps was 52.27 which brings timedemo 1's average down to 39.27 fps. I would say this is probably not totally unrealistic and that the 62fps maxes are more anamalous than the 52 fps max maybe - anyways, thats the results.


In Crysis, seems the biggest hit to max FPS comes from "Very High" settings, and there is a difference of 5 min fps between 1680*1050 Very High 4xAA and High 4xAA - i'd say between Very high 4xAA and High 4xAA, High 4xAA is more playable by that standard.


More to follow shortly.
July 3, 2008 10:03:42 PM

OC result 1:

604 core, 1302 shader, 1109 Memory (gtx280 stock clocks)

First note: temps were good, never went above 70 degrees

1680*1050, Very High, 4xAA, 16xAF

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 74.69s, Average FPS: 26.78
Min FPS: 15.91 at frame 1316, Max FPS: 35.43 at frame 922
Average Tri/Sec: -8788302, Tri/Frame: -328188
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.79
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 71.04s, Average FPS: 28.15
Min FPS: 15.91 at frame 1316, Max FPS: 35.51 at frame 910
Average Tri/Sec: -8853474, Tri/Frame: -314461
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 70.67s, Average FPS: 28.30
Min FPS: 15.91 at frame 1316, Max FPS: 35.62 at frame 922
Average Tri/Sec: -8862007, Tri/Frame: -313145
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.93
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 70.74s, Average FPS: 28.27
Min FPS: 15.91 at frame 1316, Max FPS: 35.62 at frame 922
Average Tri/Sec: -8856334, Tri/Frame: -313264
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.93
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min - 16fps, Max 35 fps, Avg 26-28 fps



Unsatisfied, I decided to go a bit higher:

666 core, 1436 shader, 1109 memory (gtx 260 FTW speeds)

Same benchmark settings:

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 84.47s, Average FPS: 23.68
Min FPS: 13.57 at frame 142, Max FPS: 34.06 at frame 94
Average Tri/Sec: -7792291, Tri/Frame: -329109
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.79
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 81.10s, Average FPS: 24.66
Min FPS: 13.57 at frame 142, Max FPS: 37.89 at frame 91
Average Tri/Sec: -7761038, Tri/Frame: -314725
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.91
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 81.19s, Average FPS: 24.63
Min FPS: 13.57 at frame 142, Max FPS: 39.96 at frame 80
Average Tri/Sec: -7713197, Tri/Frame: -313114
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.93
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 80.62s, Average FPS: 24.81
Min FPS: 13.57 at frame 142, Max FPS: 39.96 at frame 80
Average Tri/Sec: -7804021, Tri/Frame: -314595
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.91
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min 13 fps, Max 34-40 fps, Avg 23- 24 fps


Last test in Very High, I raise the memory clock to 1216mhz - but I leave the core/shader the same as the previous test above. (GTX280 FTW speeds)

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 80.28s, Average FPS: 24.91
Min FPS: 13.24 at frame 147, Max FPS: 33.88 at frame 103
Average Tri/Sec: -8195812, Tri/Frame: -328968
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.79
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 77.84s, Average FPS: 25.69
Min FPS: 13.24 at frame 147, Max FPS: 39.24 at frame 86
Average Tri/Sec: -8060078, Tri/Frame: -313713
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 77.07s, Average FPS: 25.95
Min FPS: 13.24 at frame 147, Max FPS: 40.49 at frame 77
Average Tri/Sec: -8100151, Tri/Frame: -312144
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.94
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 76.94s, Average FPS: 25.99
Min FPS: 13.24 at frame 147, Max FPS: 40.49 at frame 77
Average Tri/Sec: -8135068, Tri/Frame: -312963
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.93
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min - 13 fps, Max - 39-40 fps, Avg 24-25fps


Crysis at Very High settings, 4xMSAA, 16xAF doesn't seem to want to budge its min fps through overclocking - it is nice to see the 6fps Max improvement over the stock clocks though.

Again, temps are very acceptable 65-70 degrees even while overclocked. The gtx260/280 cooler definitely works well, at least in my Antec 900 case.
July 3, 2008 10:03:56 PM

Last Crysis benchmark, I thought i'd do another runthrough on high with my last overclocked settings:

1680*1050, High, 4xAA, 16xAF

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 53.85s, Average FPS: 37.14
Min FPS: 18.82 at frame 1048, Max FPS: 61.42 at frame 117
Average Tri/Sec: -24224660, Tri/Frame: -652201
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 61.36s, Average FPS: 32.59
Min FPS: 18.82 at frame 1048, Max FPS: 66.20 at frame 76
Average Tri/Sec: -21175906, Tri/Frame: -649693
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 61.07s, Average FPS: 32.75
Min FPS: 18.82 at frame 1048, Max FPS: 68.84 at frame 101
Average Tri/Sec: -21286948, Tri/Frame: -650041
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 61.03s, Average FPS: 32.77
Min FPS: 18.82 at frame 1048, Max FPS: 68.84 at frame 101
Average Tri/Sec: -21278246, Tri/Frame: -649336
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min - 18.82, Max 61-68 fps, Avg - 32-33 fps Note: seems timedemo 1 had an anamoly again, as its showing the average fps as being higher than the last 3 tests, but i'm going to chalk that up to a glitch and disregard the 37fps avg.


Seems the "sweet-spot" for gtx260 SLI in Crysis is 1680*1050 High, 4xMSAA, 16xAF - overclocked or stock clocks, i'd say this is the playable limit and best balance of IQ/FPS i'm sure that higher min/max fps could be reached with AA or AF disabled, but I can't be bothered and its kinda a meaningless fluff test anyways for higher end hardware - again, no signs of microstuttering, frame bottom outs, or otherwise throughout any of these tests.


3DMARK Vantage - 1680*1050, 4xMSAA, 16xAF, Extreme Quality, 1:2 Post Processing scale - I couldn't do a "Extreme" benchmark, as my screen doesn't support 1920*1200, so you get an "Extreme settings" with 1680*1050 instead.

I take 3DMARK with a grain of salt anyways, but I just thought i'd post it seeing as EVGA does include it in the software package.

GPU Test 1: 28.69 FPS
GPU Test 2: 22.89 FPS
CPU Test 1: 1034.53 PLANS/S
CPU Test 2: 115.93 STEPS/S
Feature Test 1: 987.87 Gtexels/S
Feature Test 2: 9.83 Gpixels/S
Feature Test 3 44.44 FPS
Feature Test 4: 22.87 FPS
Feature Test 5: 33.19 FPS
Feature Test 6: 62.92 FPS

GPU Score 8822, CPU Score 29,564

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=211611
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 3, 2008 10:19:57 PM

Reserved for Thogrom




PS. o nice :D 
a b U Graphics card
July 3, 2008 10:31:07 PM

Yeah I don't think you'll experience much micro-stutter at 1680x1050, it would need to be a games setting and resolution where the single card would struggle to produce consistenly above 30fps where it would becoming recordable, and likely only when that would be below 20fps that it would be noticeable, because you'd need that point where the second card was unable to render that 1 frame in it's expected time frame portion of the 60fps workload.
July 3, 2008 10:56:04 PM

Now get some 4870s in CF on an X38/X48 and show the comparison :) 
July 3, 2008 11:55:55 PM

Be my guest, everyone is just as eager to see as you are :x
July 4, 2008 12:12:55 AM

zipz0p said:
Now get some 4870s in CF on an X38/X48 and show the comparison :) 


oh come now ovaltine u obviously have the cash to spare, plz, oh pretty please!!!! :lol: 
July 4, 2008 12:23:51 AM

=P

I think this is the last GPU upgrade i'll be doing until earliest next spring ^^

THG finally posted a 4870 review with DDR5 talk

Also in today's newsreel, Nvidia will have dx10.1 support by Q1 2009 they claim. Guess my prediction was right, i'd expect to see a similar newsreel stating Windows Vista becoming the mainstream desktop OS by Q4 2008 as well :p 
July 4, 2008 12:33:11 AM

CGs for having more money then brains.

For that price you could of had Quad 4850s! Then maybe you would have some impressive scores.
July 4, 2008 12:34:33 AM

Yea, except that AMD's software doesn't support Quadfire in the 4800 series.

I mean sure, I coulda gone with crossfire 4870s - but by the time I bought an x48 board it would've been more expensive in the longrun for the exact same performance :o 
July 4, 2008 12:42:34 AM

roadrunner197069 said:
CGs for having more money then brains.

For that price you could of had Quad 4850s! Then maybe you would have some impressive scores.


CG's???

what are those?

July 4, 2008 1:05:29 AM

ovaltineplease said:
=PWindows Vista becoming the mainstream desktop OS by Q4 2008 as well :p 



that has to be a joke, take up of vista is laughable
July 4, 2008 1:17:08 AM

rangers said:
that has to be a joke, take up of vista is laughable



It absolutely is, but by Q4 it'll be standard and mainstream - latest Q1 2009
July 4, 2008 1:33:19 AM

What incredibly unimpressive results. The MIN and AVG FPS are pathetic, and these were to be the make of cards that could run Crysis singly.

While you did a service by providing these results and I thank you for your hard work, it just demonstrates how stagnant and unresponsive NVidia has become.

A fast GeForce 8 can run any game except Crysis pretty much any way you want, the 9's only confirmed that claim. What are these X's supposed to do?
July 4, 2008 1:36:53 AM

Well, honestly - going from 8800 GT SLI to gtx260 SLI I get almost 4times the framerate at the same resolution/IQ settings

On a comparison, I could run 8800 GT SLI in 1680*1050 16xAF, 2xAA - for most levels up to Assault harbour I was doing okay at min 12-max 40 fps.

But on the gtx260s, I just finished playing through assault harbour on 1680*1050, 16xAF 4xAA and it was liquid smooth and no hitching ****.

The gtx260s don't bottom out like the 8800 GTs in SLI did - I don't get hitches or lags when panning the screen over large areas like I did on my 8800s in Crysis at times.

I'd say overall, its a much better experience - benchmarks never really tell the whole story; but its the only standardized test I can give you short of frapsing hours of gameplay and finding someone to host it :p 

I'll update this over time whenever something new comes out like Stalker: CS - I might fraps some CoD4 with 16QAA/TRAA and see how that taxes it. If anything right now I really feel like I lack a selection of games that will really tax these GPUs other than Crysis :p 
July 4, 2008 1:46:17 AM

No, i'm saying that AMD hasn't gotten 4 single cards to work properly let alone scale on their 790 FX platform

I'm quite hopeful for 4870x2 quadfire on Intel x48 though; i'm eager to see how that scales because its supposed to be upwards of 180% scaling for a single GPU unlike 130- 140% for Crossfire 4870s - so maybe the Quadfire 4870x2 will have some nice scaling as well
July 4, 2008 2:02:49 AM

Yeah, it looks like the 4800 X2s are going to kick ass. I sure hope so, AMD could use the boost, and Nvidia could use a little kick to get them moving again. Still, looks like you've got some very nice cards on your hands. That's a pretty cool overclock - stock heatsinks and fans, right?
July 4, 2008 2:04:56 AM

ovaltineplease said:
Be my guest, everyone is just as eager to see as you are :x


No cash for that... quitting my job next week and going to grad school :/ 

I am thinking about selling my EP35-DS3R and MSI 8800GT and stepping up to a nice P45 board with a 4850, though. I want to be able to get more than 3.4GHz out of my Q9450 and the 4850 is just... well... for fun :) 
July 4, 2008 2:44:58 AM

the 4850 is a big step up from an 8800 GT; much better AA performance

Once AMD gets their software sorted out it should be good at overclocking too even with the single slot cooler - 4850 chips should have a ton of headroom on their clocks
July 4, 2008 3:18:49 AM

World in Conflict Benchmark

1680*1050, all in-game settings maxed

Nvidia control panel settings:

Override application antialiasing - 16xQ

Antialiasing transparency - Multisampling

Trilinear and Anisotropic filtering optimization enabled
Single display performance mode
Vsync forced off

Min fps 22, max fps 101; avg fps 43

I don't imagine this is CPU bound at these settings, but its hard to say really; the lows happen at the typical low spots that everyone has surely seen running this benchmark : during the nuke and during the tactical aid spam towards the end.

Soooo yea, anyways - it was nice to be able to enable 16QAA and AA transparency in WiC

I'm trying to figure out how to make a stressful CoD4 benchmark with 16QAA and AA transparency, but I don't really know how to work fraps all that well :p 
July 4, 2008 11:20:02 AM

48xx did poorly in Crysis just like 38xx
a b U Graphics card
July 4, 2008 11:49:54 AM

Really nice OTP, looks good. Nice OCs and no heat problems. Awsome. When the newer games come out, youll be all set. Glad you like em
July 4, 2008 2:17:06 PM

Yup congrads enjoy em:) 
July 4, 2008 7:29:40 PM

Hey thanks for posting this - I have my 260's on the way.
July 4, 2008 7:30:36 PM

I also had to push the fan bays forward with my 2 9800GTX's in my Antec 900 - looks kinda funky, but I got used to it.
July 4, 2008 9:19:20 PM

scooterlibby said:
I also had to push the fan bays forward with my 2 9800GTX's in my Antec 900 - looks kinda funky, but I got used to it.


not enough room for the Hdd cages?
July 4, 2008 11:47:39 PM

well, the antec 900 is designed a little oddly really; its actually not really all that bad looking because its still flush with the borders of the case.

I do find that the drive bays cramp it a bit. It woulda been nice if the case had been designed with those drive bays already moved forward and the top/bottom borders flushed to that

Ah well, its really a non issue I find so far; thankfully the newer antec 900s already have wire-routing holes cut along the backplate of the motherboard tray which reduces a lot on the clutter factor of the original antec 900~
July 6, 2008 8:10:52 PM

ovaltineplease said:
So, I got my gtx260s today and I thought i'd do some benchmarks and let you know what I think of them.

Thus far i'm very happy with the purchase, but my one and only complaint is the cards are ENORMOUS, but I still managed to fit them in my Antec900 with only having to shuffle forward the fan bays.

Heat production seems par normal at 40% fan speed in evga precision 60-70 degrees - I liked the software package which was included with these cards: Fraps, Precision Utility and 3dMark Vantage Advanced is available as a download from EVGA.com once you register your graphics cards.

A rather major thing I wanted to note about my benchmarking experience in Crysis - I have so far experienced zero visible microstutter which is a typical issue of SLI mode cards. So far, so good; I will note when/if I do have microstutter issues however.

Relevant system specs:

Intel e8400 wolfdale @ 4050mhz, 4gb corsair ddr2, 7200rpm WD SATA hdd, EVGA 750I SLI FTW motherboard, Vista 64 bit

1000 watt thermaltake toughpower cable management, 86A power supply

I'm going to do stock clocked results in Crysis first, overclocked Crysis and stock-clocked vantage results will be posted in a little bit; i'm not going to overclock for vantage just cause it could lead to misleading numbers for something that is not totally representative of true gameplay anyways. I'm also not taking the time to do screenshots, i'm just going to post logs and if verification is really that important, i'll do that up later.

Nvidia control panel settings:

Force 16x Anisotropic filtering, Single-display performance mode, Trilinear optimization, Anisotropic sample optimization all enabled. Vsync forced off, other settings Nvidia defaults.


Stock clocked:

Crysis, 1680*1050; Very High, 0xAA, 16xAF

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 63.18s, Average FPS: 31.66
Min FPS: 19.76 at frame 1335, Max FPS: 41.62 at frame 931
Average Tri/Sec: -10950508, Tri/Frame: -345902
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.65
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 61.33s, Average FPS: 32.61
Min FPS: 19.76 at frame 1335, Max FPS: 42.38 at frame 916
Average Tri/Sec: -10771551, Tri/Frame: -330324
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.78
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 61.08s, Average FPS: 32.75
Min FPS: 19.76 at frame 1335, Max FPS: 44.60 at frame 61
Average Tri/Sec: -10823947, Tri/Frame: -330539
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.77
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 61.40s, Average FPS: 32.57
Min FPS: 19.76 at frame 1335, Max FPS: 44.60 at frame 61
Average Tri/Sec: -10770232, Tri/Frame: -330644
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.77
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min -19.76 fps, Max 41-45 fps, Average 32-33fps


Crysis, 1680*1050, Very High, 4xMSAA, 16x AF

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 76.16s, Average FPS: 26.26
Min FPS: 17.10 at frame 694, Max FPS: 34.22 at frame 891
Average Tri/Sec: -8629397, Tri/Frame: -328597
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.79
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 72.61s, Average FPS: 27.54
Min FPS: 17.10 at frame 694, Max FPS: 34.69 at frame 871
Average Tri/Sec: -8633355, Tri/Frame: -313437
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 72.01s, Average FPS: 27.77
Min FPS: 17.10 at frame 694, Max FPS: 34.74 at frame 76
Average Tri/Sec: -8664793, Tri/Frame: -311996
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.94
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 72.27s, Average FPS: 27.67
Min FPS: 17.10 at frame 694, Max FPS: 34.74 at frame 76
Average Tri/Sec: -8671914, Tri/Frame: -313365
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.93
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min -17.10 fps, Max - 34-35 fps, Avg 26-27fps



Crysis, 1680*1050, Very High, 2xMSAA, 16xAF

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 73.93s, Average FPS: 27.05
Min FPS: 17.57 at frame 1334, Max FPS: 35.89 at frame 871
Average Tri/Sec: -9053086, Tri/Frame: -334654
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.74
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 71.52s, Average FPS: 27.97
Min FPS: 15.93 at frame 1910, Max FPS: 35.91 at frame 894
Average Tri/Sec: -8930102, Tri/Frame: -319326
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.87
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 70.91s, Average FPS: 28.20
Min FPS: 15.93 at frame 1910, Max FPS: 36.27 at frame 886
Average Tri/Sec: -9007670, Tri/Frame: -319383
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.87
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 71.38s, Average FPS: 28.02
Min FPS: 14.73 at frame 1938, Max FPS: 36.27 at frame 886
Average Tri/Sec: -9002637, Tri/Frame: -321319
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -2.85
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min - 15-17fps, Max 35-36 fps, Avg 27-28 fps Note: Weird anamoly with 4xAA vs 2xAA - 2xAA min fps was lower by a couple frames than 4xAA min fps; go figure.


Crysis, 1680*1050, High, 4xAA, 16xAF

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 50.93s, Average FPS: 39.27
Min FPS: 22.50 at frame 1365, Max FPS: 52.27 at frame 934
Average Tri/Sec: -25587256, Tri/Frame: -651621
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 47.64s, Average FPS: 41.98
Min FPS: 22.50 at frame 1365, Max FPS: 60.42 at frame 121
Average Tri/Sec: -27260394, Tri/Frame: -649333
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 47.25s, Average FPS: 42.33
Min FPS: 22.50 at frame 1365, Max FPS: 61.86 at frame 109
Average Tri/Sec: -27466720, Tri/Frame: -648856
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 47.24s, Average FPS: 42.34
Min FPS: 22.50 at frame 1365, Max FPS: 61.86 at frame 109
Average Tri/Sec: -27514862, Tri/Frame: -649873
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.41
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Min fps - 22.50, Max fps 60-61 fps, Avg Fps 41-41 fps Note: another anamoly, in timedemo 1 max fps was 52.27 which brings timedemo 1's average down to 39.27 fps. I would say this is probably not totally unrealistic and that the 62fps maxes are more anamalous than the 52 fps max maybe - anyways, thats the results.


In Crysis, seems the biggest hit to max FPS comes from "Very High" settings, and there is a difference of 5 min fps between 1680*1050 Very High 4xAA and High 4xAA - i'd say between Very high 4xAA and High 4xAA, High 4xAA is more playable by that standard.


More to follow shortly.


What are your motherboard settings to run 4ghz stable?
July 6, 2008 9:32:44 PM

i'll pull up my voltages for you, give me a few minutes

Its surprisingly low as a matter of fact.

Motherboard is 750i evga

Brb
July 6, 2008 9:44:02 PM

vCore 1.375v
fsb 1.20v
mem 1.90v (default)
nforce spp 1.40v
nf200 1.25v

factory mem timings, I haven't loosened them up - didn't see a need to thus far~

FSB 1800 mhz
mem 800mhz

Unlinked bus/mem ratio settings, the memory is at default ddr2-800mhz; I haven't seen a need to upgrade to 1066 ram yet anyways.

Ram is corsair xms2, its not dominator ram but its very acceptable imho

Anyways, thats about it.

I could probably go a bit lower on the vcore, but its still not that high for this much of an OC. When I ran it at 3.6ghz I went with 1.20vcore, but I gave it a bit more juice for 4.05ghz
July 7, 2008 2:32:21 AM

I'm doing some CoD 4 benchmarks, i'll update this as I go along:

Same platform settings with 4.05ghz cpu, gpu is at stock clocks for these tests.

I might do an overclocked test later on.

Settings: 1680*1050, 16xAF, 16x Quality anti-aliasing, Transparency multisampling enabled, all in-game setting maxed

Recording was done with fraps and full level is recorded.

First level run through was "Blackout", i'll also do a benchmark for "War Pig" and "All Ghilied Up" when I get to those levels as I had uninstalled the game a while back :p 

"War Pig" will be done because its probably one of the most action packed levels in the game, tons of characters on screen at once and lots of explosions/etc.

"All Ghilied Up" will be done just because its a standard bench.

I chose to do a benchmark of "Blackout" as it is fairly intense level with many characters onscreen at varying points, and more than enough action intense areas in the latter half of the level to get a good sense of min frame rates with 16x Quality Anti-Aliasing enabled

Min - 52 fps
Max - 405 fps
Avg - 135 fps

I'd say 405 is more incidental than the norm, but since its in the benchmark, so be it. Obviously gameplay is very smooth with no hitching.

I'll post more results later, regarding the other levels I talked about
July 7, 2008 3:02:36 AM

"All Ghilied Up"

All ingame settings maxed, 16xAF, 16xQ anti-aliasing, Multisample transparency antialiasing enabled, 1680*1050

Min - 64 fps
Max - 302 fps
Avg - 116 fps

"War Pig"

Min - 57 fps
Max - 405 fps
Avg - 133 fps
July 12, 2008 11:11:28 PM

Man, your setup is kickin! It makes my humble 8800GT and 3.2GHz overclock on my Q9450 look bad!

Thanks for the benchmarks, it's nice to have more than just websites posting benchmarks, and it's good to see a 4GHz E8400 in action. Incidentally, I think it'd be interesting to see some numbers without any overclock, just to see what it's doing for your performance - especially in a game like WiC.
July 13, 2008 1:25:47 AM

It'd crash and burn I think, WiC is cpu bottlenecked at anything less than 2560*1600x16Q AA+16xAF lol

Anyways, i'll test it out at stock clock and post some results in a few minutes.

at 4.05 ghz the e8400 is an incredible buy, but it'd be nothing without the evga 750I to back it up; stability is a big deal to me and this board delivers; at least so far.
July 13, 2008 1:44:18 AM

Okay, at 3.00ghz C2D - gpu clocks set at default with evga precision.

All in-game settings maxed, 1680*1050 is my native/max resolution.

Nvidia control panel settings

16x Quality Antialiasing
Multisample transparency antialiasing
High Quality Texture mode
Single display performance mode
Vsync forced off

3.0ghz stock gpu clock, 576/1242/1000

Min 15, Max 84, Avg 33

3.0ghz gpu overclock to 666/1436/1107 memory (evga gtx260 FTW speeds):

Min 16, Max 84, Avg 33

I run at the max possible detail settings that I can force in Nvidia control panel and in-game in order to max the gpu and try to make it as much the deciding factor as possible - but its pretty apparent that at least at 1680*1050 its cpu bound with 3.0ghz in my setup, unlike my previous suspicion; nonetheless being able to put up those detail settings without the gpu array being the deciding factor is admittedly nice.

I'll edit it an overclocked cpu+gpu benchmark in a second, just for double confirmation of my previous results.

edit:

4.05ghz C2D, stock gpu clocks

Min 18, Max 98, Avg 41

4.05ghz previous OC-ed gpu clocks

Min 20, Max 95, Avg 40

I did 3 benchmarks at each gpu settings just to be certain - but i'd say its largely cpu bound as far as minimum frame rates are concerned. It does look like in some situations the gpu dependancy overtakes the cpu bottleneck - hence the difference in max frame rate between the 2 cpu clocks. I'd say for all intensive purposes, cpu is more of a factor at least in my eyes. I'd bet at least a dollar that a 3.5ish ghz quad core would surely overtake this setup with a similar gpu array at least in minimum frame rates.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
July 13, 2008 1:48:14 AM

cool... i'm wondering about this stuff to
July 13, 2008 2:10:40 AM

Just got my GTX260's in SLI. I'm too lazy to benchmark, but am playing Crysis DX9 Very High hack, all settings very high, 1920x1200, playable and beautiful. I'm really waiting for Crysis Warhead, Far Cry 2, Project Origin, and STALKER Clear Sky to test some of the newer games coming out. Everything else in the FPS genre that I have, COD4, ETQW, TF2, were pretty maxed out with the two 9800GTX's I previously had. I still have a really annoying SLI problem with ETQW sometimes, though.
July 13, 2008 2:11:06 AM

Oh yes, and most importantly, they do look purty in the Antec 900.
July 13, 2008 2:37:12 AM

heh, I have the same case and I agree :p 

Race Driver: Grid, I did the Lucasoil Sports Cup 1st race Pro Muscle; 3 lap benchmark.

All possible nvidia control panel quality settings maxed (MSTRAA, 16xQ AA, VH Quality textures, 16x AF), all in-game settings maxed, 1680*1050 res

4.05ghz cpu, 666/1436/1109 gpu clocks

Min 52, Max 105, Avg 75


Scooterlibby, glad to hear you like them - are you running your X2 6400 at stock clocks or is it overclocked?
July 13, 2008 10:10:15 PM

Wow, thanks for the stock WiC results. I'm a little surprised the frame rates did not drop more, actually. The average framerate took quite a dive, though.

Doesn't the 750i chipset only support 2x PCI-e 1.0 x16 slots instead of dual PCI-e 2.0 x16 like the 790i? I wonder if that ever becomes a bottleneck. It seemed to be for the P45 chipset with CF 4850s, so with more powerful cards, it seems like it might. Not sure how to test that, short of overclocking your PCI-e bus.
July 14, 2008 5:22:57 PM

ovaltineplease said:
heh, I have the same case and I agree :p 




Scooterlibby, glad to hear you like them - are you running your X2 6400 at stock clocks or is it overclocked?


I'm running it stock right now because i have a stock fan. But I have a Zalman 9500a on the way that may give me a little headroom. The other problem is (see motherboard in sig below) my Phoenix Bios doesn't seem to have any OC options, other than to 'load an OC profile.' Called Asus and they seemed to have no idea what that is or how to use it either, so I'm stuck with using non-BIOS OC software like Asus' AI Boost. I get BSODS now using that with anything more than a 5% dummy overclock.
July 14, 2008 5:42:41 PM

that rots :/ 

I take it you can't jump the voltage settings or fsb on the board like oldschool boards huh...

I'm sure you've tried this, but is there a newer bios from the manufacturer perhaps that might open up more options?
!