Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

4850 in crossfire , Crysis ....

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 11, 2008 4:29:15 PM

the 2 4850s in crysis are extremely slow .
Crossfire at 1680*1050 and high settings , no AA or AF
28 Frames Average
Single card at the same settings
24-25 Frames Average

That is extremely low , even worse that a single 8800GT, I'm using the 8.6 drivers, and I did try the 8.7 beta.
A shocking 4 fps gain in the crossfire is what pisses me off the most.

The toms hardware benchmarks with some old beta drivers got a 37fps average with the same settings, and tweaktown had a 49fps avg with CF.

I give you toms hardware & tweaktown are testing with a 9650 @ stock , vs my E8400 @ 3.2 ,
but come on .. 13 fps less in single card and 20+ in CF .. thats highly unrealistic.

I'm using crysis 1.21 and am currently reinstalling windows since the hard sisk has
a months old really really crappy and slow version of vista,

I don't even know if there could be anything i could do but to wait for 8.7, try again on my clean installation and compare benchmarks with other games & 3dMark , but has body experienced such lower frames in crysis than benchmarked and promoted with the 4850 singe or CF ?

More about : 4850 crossfire crysis

July 11, 2008 11:22:30 PM

How much ram do you have? Vista use 1+gb at any given time, and Crysis hogs 2+gb after a while of gameplay. Pagefile usage from hdd could cause such slowdowns.
July 11, 2008 11:59:15 PM

2 Gigs 800 , at 5-5-5-16 .. i was gonna go for 4 but budget got tight (it really is like 30 or 40 extra bucks but I bought the whole computer off some nearby computer mall cause i needed it asap)
Crysis reports around 800-900MB of ram used .. idle at desktop , sidebar shows 500, so I'm not sure, but i don't think its the ram.
I can also OC the ram timer to 4-4-4-12 and see what i get.
I formatted and am also checking vantage results for single and crossfire as we speak, if they're ok, and all the other games are fine compared to the website benchmarks, then screw crysis , I'm just using it to bench .. and maybe play for a week, i got it for free anyways from a friend who said it was gay ..
Related resources
July 12, 2008 2:16:10 AM

Your 3.2 ghz C2D processor that you are using is not sufficient for Crysis, the game practically requires a min 3.5-4ghz dual core in order to not bottleneck your gpus.

Quad, you can likely get away with 3.2-3.6ghz with the extra helper threads for physics and whatnot.

You have to understand that dual gpu setups have a higher CPU overhead than single gpu setups, and a slow cpu or pci-express lane will really gimp 4850 crossfire.

Expect to need at least dual pcie 2.0 x16 lanes and a 3.2-3.5ghz processor at least in order to feel the potential of those gpus. If your motherboard can handle it then overclock your e8400 to at least 3.6ghz and see if you gain any improvements.
July 12, 2008 12:49:26 PM

Ive been looking at a similar(ish) rig lately... What mobo are you using for the cf?

If what you say is true and the 4850's stink with Crysis.... Then i hope they do much better with other games. Do you ever experience major dips below the 20's in fps? I have noticed sometimes that if the gpu is being bottlenecked that no matter what resolution its set at, you cant get above that fps barrier. And also that the fps doesnt take as many big dips, but that was just my experience with it. So at the least, could you play around a bit with the resolutions? My theory is just that setting it all to high raised the cpu requirement, but resolution should be 100% gpu stuff.
July 12, 2008 1:17:39 PM

Crysis is ****.


For a (relatively) brand new game engine - its optimisations for multiple GPUs is criminal.



The COD4 engine is an example of how multi-gpus can be done.



Shame on you Crytek.
July 12, 2008 3:05:09 PM

Amiga500 said:
Crysis is ****.


For a (relatively) brand new game engine - its optimisations for multiple GPUs is criminal.



The COD4 engine is an example of how multi-gpus can be done.



Shame on you Crytek.

Crytek is found by 3 Turkish brothers in Germany. The small company simply don't have the funding and support to optimize their game for everything. Sli/cf isystems are rare, and every peny and manpower they put into it means cutting back on something else. Single gpu ran reasonably well considering the raw graphical load. It's what they put their limited resources on.

Infinity Ward, owned by Activiation, is the exact opposite. It's unfair to compare them.
July 12, 2008 5:45:47 PM

dagger said:
Crytek is found by 3 Turkish brothers in Germany. The small company simply don't have the funding and support to optimize their game for everything.


WHAT?!?!


Cryengine 1 => FarCry (another GPU killer)

with all that money they built...

Cryengine 2 => Crysis



As George Bush once said:

"Fool me once... shame on you... fool.... uhhh... can't get fooled again"
July 12, 2008 6:57:11 PM

Amiga500 said:
WHAT?!?!


Cryengine 1 => FarCry (another GPU killer)

with all that money they built...

Cryengine 2 => Crysis



As George Bush once said:

"Fool me once... shame on you... fool.... uhhh... can't get fooled again"



Far Cry sold one million copies, Crysis 1.5 million, and CoD4 sold over 10 million and still going strong. Not to mention overhead for small studios are just higher than major coporations.

Besides, Far Cry graphics is still among the best even in today's standard. Simply being graphically intensive is not the same as poorly optimized. Something like Assassin's Creed and Lost Planet are examples of poorly optimized games. Compared to similarly looking games, they get lower fps. Crysis is currently peerless in graphics, so there is nothing to compare it aginst.
July 12, 2008 11:28:45 PM

Amiga500 said:
Crysis is ****.


For a (relatively) brand new game engine - its optimisations for multiple GPUs is criminal.



The COD4 engine is an example of how multi-gpus can be done.



Shame on you Crytek.



Well, I am running 2 x 9800 GTXs in SLI, and the performance almost doubles from a single card when I use SLI. At 1900 x 1200, high settings, no AA, I get 23 - 25 FPS with one card and 42 - 45 FPS when using SLI. So Crysis SLI performance is fine, seems that CF may not scale as well as SLI in this game.
July 13, 2008 12:53:55 AM

True , Crysis is extremely good with SLI for some reason , I mean really good ...
Unfortunately Crossfire doesn't match that ..

The good news is I did reinstall the OS, did some stuff with the rams , ran it all clean, Crysis has seen much improvement
I'm now running 40-42FPS at high/Very high water and PP as opposed to 29-31 on a single card, not much improvement but acceptable for CF at crysis.
I haven't retried the benchmark yet but I'm sure ill be bumped up to at least 40 at high ,since am getting over 40 at high+(water and PP) ingame as opposed to crap(didn't have fraps open) while playing the game 2 days ago) ,
Very high is playable at 24-27 , but screw it.

BTW, the Cat 8.7 beta drivers are amazing, i got bumped up in vantage GPU score from 9000 to 11000 !,however, even with the new drivers, the screen still flickers heavily in all tests, and gets very messy in the flag physics test when in crossfire.

As for the OC, you're right , I got a P45 board, so shouldn't be that atrocious , I'll grab some 40$ cooler and OC to at least 3.6. This stock cooler is a joke , it has a heatsink that's half the size of all the normal processors be it pentium, daul or quad, It's less than an inch high ffs.

Bottomline , the extremely slow frames that i posted before were because windows was **** so sorry i wasted your time, on the other hand, Crysis still really doesn't do crossfire justice , For most of the other titles, 4850s in crossfire are well in the range of a GTX280, and beating it in some.
Lets just hope the samething doesn't happen in Crysis Warhead, although I'm not that exited anymore.

Some one was asking if he should get the 4850s , theres absolutely no cons for these cards, they're brilliant , crossfire is no trouble putting off 1.5-1.9x the performance in most games, just Crysis is gay.

July 13, 2008 12:58:27 AM

mosdapwn said:

As for the OC, you're right , I got a P45 board, so shouldn't be that atrocious

Lol, it all makes sense now. P45, due to its pcie2.0x8 in cf mode, bottlenecks horribly. Technically, this applies to everything, but the heavier the game is, the larger the bottlenecking effect becomes. And Crysis would be the one.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1472/7/page_7_benchma...
July 13, 2008 1:17:15 AM

dagger said:
Lol, it all makes sense now. P45, due to its pcie2.0x8 in cf mode, bottlenecks horribly. Technically, this applies to everything, but the heavier the game is, the larger the bottlenecking effect becomes. And Crysis would be the one.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1472/7/page_7_benchma...

Holy **** dude ... Most of the other games work fine though , but this is stuff to worry about ...
do you think I should exchange the board for an X48 ? , I'm not seeing that much effect on other games but crysis , but you're definitely making a point here .
July 13, 2008 1:21:07 AM

mosdapwn said:
Holy **** dude ... Most of the other games work fine though , but this is stuff to worry about ...
do you think I should exchange the board for an X48 ? , I'm not seeing that much effect on other games but crysis , but you're definitely making a point here .

It affected all games, just not as badly as Crysis. You can really see a pattern there, the heavier games tend to be more affected.
July 13, 2008 1:36:48 AM

Lol, I'm a bloody idiot , now i know why the hell they painted the other pcie slot orange, and i thought it was decorative , didn't occur to me they made more new boards with x8 slots ...
Neways , thanks for the heads up, i know the dude at the shop and i only bought it thursday, so he'll let me pay 30 extra bucks and get the X48 , better than to see that slot speed crap get back to me in other future games.
July 13, 2008 4:21:29 AM

mosdapwn said:
Lol, I'm a bloody idiot , now i know why the hell they painted the other pcie slot orange, and i thought it was decorative , didn't occur to me they made more new boards with x8 slots ...
Neways , thanks for the heads up, i know the dude at the shop and i only bought it thursday, so he'll let me pay 30 extra bucks and get the X48 , better than to see that slot speed crap get back to me in other future games.



When you do get it back, make sure you compare your AA performance in CF to non AA.

I'm pretty certain that inspite of the "cf scaling" problem you have, you should be able to get at least 2x MSAA at High settings without a performance hit at 3.6ghz on your C2D

You'll have to try it yourself, but i've seen the 4850s scale quite well in a number of benchmarks with AA enabled.
January 23, 2009 7:40:44 AM

I would like to vouch for the performance of the HD4850 in crossfire. I think it really depends on the support provided by the games themselves. In Crysis warhead the performance with or without crossfire is roughly the same (I can only get about 25fps at 1920x1080 everything maxed no AA). However, for CoD4, the performance difference is quite substantial. Without crossfire just when you start a new game, I get around 120fps (1920x1080 everything maxed no AA). With crossfire I get around 250fps for the same resolution and settings. Then again, on the other hand, for a game like Oblivion the fps hovers at around 60fps with or without crossfire. My setup:

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 at stock speed
GPUs: Gigabyte HD4850 1GB RAM, factory overclocked to 700MHz
MB: Gigabyte P45 UD3P
PSU: Corsair VX-750
RAM: 2GB @ 1066MHz

I believe there's still scope for further performance increase once I explore the overclocking options available.

I anyone has any advice for me that would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

!