Benchmark Results: Crysis
Crysis is getting old, and the updated stand-alone Warhead expansion is supposedly more efficient. Yet we decided to “chase the dream” of smooth gaming at 2560x1600 and super-high details once more.
It appears that Nvidia finally fixed its drivers, reducing the 3-way SLI penalty for Crysis at 2560x1600 pixels. Four graphics processors still stumble over each other at this setting, however.
With AA enabled and AF forced through the drivers, the GTX 295 is still unplayable at a resolution of 2560x1600. This is one of the few places Radeon HD 4870 X2 graphics in CrossFireX shines, but the winning result has little significance.
Current page: Benchmark Results: CrysisPrev Page Benchmark Results: COD World At War Next Page Benchmark Results: Far Cry 2
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Good job. (but none of these cards are in my budget)Reply
I’m looking at page 9 on the power usage charts – I have to say the GTX295 is very impressive it’s power consumption isn’t that much greater then the GTX280. And what’s very impressive is it uses 40% less power in SLI then the HD4870X2 does in Crossfire., meaning if I already owned a pretty decent PSU say around 700-800 watt’s I wouldn’t have to worry about getting it replaced if I were planning on SLIing the GTX295.Reply
I would have liked to have seen some temperatures in there somewhere as well. With top end cards becoming hotter and hotter (at least with ATI) I wonder if cheaper cases are able to cope with the temperatures these components generate.
BTW any chance of doing some sextuple SLI GTX295 on the old Intel Skulltrail?
JeanLucBTW any chance of doing some sextuple SLI GTX295 on the old Intel Skulltrail?Reply
Not a chance: The GTX 295 only has one SLI bridge connector. NVIDIA designs its products intentionally to only support a maximum of four graphics cores, and in doing so eliminates the need to make its drivers support more.
I'd like to see a board that takes up 3 slots, and use both the 1st and the 3rd slot's pcie connectors to power 4 gpu's on one board. Perhaps with the second pcie being optional - so in case of not fitting the card at all, one could fit it with reduced bandwidth. That way they'd have a basis to make some proper cooling. Perhaps a small h2o system, or a peltier coupled with some propler fan and heatsink.Reply
ie. a big 3x3x9" box resting on the expansion slots, dumping warm air outside.
edit: more like 2x3x9" actuallyReply
"...Radeon HD 4870 X2 knocked the GeForce GTX 280 from its performanceReply
thrown." --> "throne"? or am I just misunderstanding the sentence?
So the conclusion should read:Reply
Congrats on quad-sli, though, for anything that doesnt already get 100+ fps with a single GX2, you're welcome to throw in a second and get at most a 10-20% increase, unless of course you want to get an increase to a game that doesnt already have 100 FPS (crysis), in which case you're screwed - dont even bother with it.
Why test with AA and AF turned on with such high end cards? Anyone who pays +$400 * X wouldn't be playing any game with AA AF turned off or with low res. display. (If I'd pay $800 for graphics cards, I'd have of course had a display with no less than 1920x1200 resolution. Not even 1680x1050)Reply
And I'm a little disappointed with the scaling of all solutions. They still don't scale well.
The performance per watt char is exactly what I wanted to see (it would be even better with some temps listed though). Thanks THG, This will help things along nicely.Reply
duzcizgi, don't forget about the real hardcore players (those who play tournaments for example), who prefer to play with the lower graphics settings and ensure > 100 FPS.Reply