I wish I could participate on my 98 Monster 🙁

Pretty glitchy / jerky and it quit's with an error.

Result:

This is me

2600k @ 4.4Ghz
Gigabyte Z77X-UD5H
Sapphire Vapor-X 7970 Ghz Edition
32Gb Crucial @ 1600/1.35v
15.7 catalyst
Win 8.1

So does Crysis require SSE2? If not, I have a cunning plan...

obobskivich wrote:

This was actually faster/easier than some "actual" benchmarks. I dig it. :exclamation: :happy: […]
Show full quote

This was actually faster/easier than some "actual" benchmarks. I dig it. 😲 😀

Results:

crysis dx10.png

I couldn't help myself - had to crop! 😊

I'm currently waiting on new memory, so this will be a neat benchmark of what kind of improvement that makes (assuming I remember to run it again 🤣 ). CPU is at stock settings, including SpeedStep, so that's why you're seeing 800MHz in the window on the desktop. CPU-Z doesn't appear to graph clocks, like GPU-Z does, so I don't know what it was doing while running. 😊

I may also have to try playing the demo too... 🤣

As far as "slowest possible" - I'll see if there's any chance this will start on GeForce FX. 😈

Is that a 290X? You should checkout catalyst 15.7. Your card should be wayyyy more than 2 fps ahead of my 7970GE/sandy bridge.

Tested on my Main PC.... no OC on it

Will add when i finish my P4 and AthlonXP builds as well.

I also had to run 64 bit, as 32 crashed on me. The results seem....very underwhelming. Then again, I'm very disappointed with the FX-8350. I'm jumping over to an i7-4790K as soon as I have the cash.

.

obobskivich wrote:

blank001 wrote:

Is that a 290X? You should checkout catalyst 15.7. Your card should be wayyyy more than 2 fps ahead of my 7970GE/sandy bridge.

Yes. It's been pestering me for a driver update for a day or two now - I'll probably get around to it eventually (nothing I'm actually playing has any trouble, and I don't like to update things just for the sake of updating things/just for benching - if it ain't broke, don't fix it, and all that). 😊 As far as "way more than 2 FPS ahead" - there's been a 295X2 posted, and it "only" got ~10 FPS (~13%) higher than my 290X. I'm guessing there's some other bottleneck (CPU perhaps?) that it's running into on these systems.

We're doing the GPU benchmark, so you wouldn't expect it. I wish I understood the architecture better, but I suspect crysis isn't leveraging the newer tech in the cards.

Also, I get exactly the same result with 64 and 32 bits.

blank001 wrote:

I'll definitely join. I would like to compete in the XP-32bit and W8.1 segment of the competition.

Should be fun finding the slowest system that will run it. Seeing how long it took my Pentium with 7600 GT, the benchmark could run hours on a really slow system 😊

ZanQuance wrote:

But can it run Crysis?
Nope!
Half-way through the benchmark:

That sucks.
Does this happen every time?

obobskivich wrote:

This was actually faster/easier than some "actual" benchmarks. I dig it. 😲 😀

As far as "slowest possible" - I'll see if there's any chance this will start on GeForce FX. 😈

FX 🤣 That would be a lag fest 😀 The specs mention 1 GB of memory, so should be to difficult to whip together a P4 with a FX.

seob wrote:

Just ran the bench in windows7 64-bit, 1920x1080 all high, But i get a strange overall average of 1929,5 fps while low is at 15,61 and high at 22,23.

Likely an issue with the decimal point. Are you in a country that uses the comma and not the dot? It's likely 19.295. The benchmark has stats on the top left while you're running, so you can compare it that way as well.

calvin wrote:

So does Crysis require SSE2? If not, I have a cunning plan...

Not sure. But let us know!

Here's mine. 😀

Addes some more with different settings to compare.

Very High, 64-bit:

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 6848,5

Very High, 32-bit:

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 7470

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 6572,5

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=8xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 6783

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=16xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 6788

High:

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 9398

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 9137

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 9204

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=8xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 9203,5

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=16x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 9193,5

Run #1- DX10 1920x1080 AA=16xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 9202

DX 9.0c is Geforce 6, I'm not sure if FX will run.

I'm going to attempt this on my A64 venice rig. It's basically perfect for minimum specs.

Here's a shot of my rig. Only overclock is the memory. default is 1600, atm I have it at 2000 and still have to play with timings some more, again.

blank001 wrote:

DX 9.0c is Geforce 6, I'm not sure if FX will run.

I'm going to attempt this on my A64 venice rig. It's basically perfect for minimum specs.

I don't want to know how long that benchmark will run 😁

32bit:

And 64bit:

philscomputerlab wrote:

blank001 wrote:

DX 9.0c is Geforce 6, I'm not sure if FX will run.

I'm going to attempt this on my A64 venice rig. It's basically perfect for minimum specs.

I don't want to know how long that benchmark will run 😁

I know, it'll be painful, but it must be done. The 754 3200+ is a little too fast for minimum specs actually. I need a AXP 2800+. The 7800gs is perfect because it's about 6800GT/ultra speed, which is apparently the minimum and 9.0c.

Trying to get it going my notebook but it crashes 🤣

calvin wrote:

So does Crysis require SSE2? If not, I have a cunning plan...

The min specs claim Athlon XP, so I'm guessing no. I see what you're saying here. The slowest CPU you could run is basically the slowest CPU you can get in an universal AGP motherboard. So the new question is, what is the slowest cpu/clockspeed you can run with a 9.0c card?

This is my main machine

Windows Vista
4 GB of RAM
Q9550
Radeon 7850

Not too bad. The benchmark is VERY jerky though

I might add that the demo is a non-trivial file size

philscomputerlab wrote:

Trying to get it going my notebook but it crashes 🤣

Well, now I don't feel so bad 😉 it crashes every time on win7 32-bit, I might boot into XP or win7 64-bit and give it a go.
My current rig is a Core2 e8400 @3ghz on a XFX X790i ultra with 8gb ram @1333, and a GTX460 @800-gpu/1000-mem/1600-shader, crashes at stock gpu speeds also, w/latest drivers (<-culprit most likely).