Well, I'm finally getting around to participating in the various benchmarking threads. I'm a little underwhelmed by the performance of my 955BE. OCing the GPUs made hardly any difference, but bumping the CPU seems to have had more of an effect. Both runs shown.

Stock:

OC:

Saving this spot for later.

I am testing on both the SP Demo and the GOG updated full version.

The SP Demo is getting less that 60fps, while the full updated version is getting 80fps on my main rig at 1920x1080 4xAA Very High 64-bit DX10

64-bit also seems a decent amount faster than 32-bit.

So yeah, the SP Demo is complete crap optimization wise.

I upgraded enough parts in all my modernish PC's during the last year, so I guess a new series of benchmarks are in order.

1. Main Rig: Xeon E5450, 4GB RAM, GTX770 2GB, Windows 7 32bit (was 32.83fps @1920x1050 very high detail and 56.37fps high detail with C2Q Q9550, 4GB RAM, GTX560Ti 1GB, Windows 7 32bit):

2. Daughter's PC: Phenom II X6 1090T, 8GB RAM, GTX750 2GB, Windows 10 64bit (was 6.73fps @1920x1050 very high detail and 13.18fps high detail with Phenom II X6 1090T, 8GB RAM, GT710 2GB, Windows 10 64bit):

3. My XP Rig: Opteron 180, 4GB RAM, GTX560Ti 1GB, Windows XP SP3 32bit (was 31.34fps @1680x1050 high detail and 35.88fps @1280x1024 high detail with Opteron 180, 4GB RAM, GTS250 1GB, Windows XP SP3 32bit):

4. HTPC: C2Q Q9550, 4GB RAM, GT1030 2GB, Windows 7 32bit (no previous test results, was a C2D E8400 with HD 5450, so did not bother at that time to test it):

tayyare wrote:

I upgraded enough parts in all my modernish PC's during the last year, so I guess a new series of benchmarks are in order. […]
Show full quote

I upgraded enough parts in all my modernish PC's during the last year, so I guess a new series of benchmarks are in order.

1. Main Rig: Xeon E5450, 4GB RAM, GTX770 2GB, Windows 7 32bit (was 32.83fps @1920x1050 very high detail and 56.37fps high detail with C2Q Q9550, 4GB RAM, GTX560Ti 1GB, Windows 7 32bit):

Clip_18.jpg

2. Daughter's PC: Phenom II X6 1090T, 8GB RAM, GTX750 2GB, Windows 10 64bit (was 6.73fps @1920x1050 very high detail and 13.18fps high detail with Phenom II X6 1090T, 8GB RAM, GT710 2GB, Windows 10 64bit):

Clip_2 (3).jpg

3. My XP Rig: Opteron 180, 4GB RAM, GTX560Ti 1GB, Windows XP SP3 32bit (was 31.34fps @1680x1050 high detail and 35.88fps @1280x1024 high detail with Opteron 180, 4GB RAM, GTS250 1GB, Windows XP SP3 32bit):

Clip_2 (2).jpg

4. HTPC: C2Q Q9550, 4GB RAM, GT1030 2GB, Windows 7 32bit (no previous test results, was a C2D E8400 with HD 5450, so did not bother at that time to test it):

Clip (3).jpg

something looks off with your average FPS, it shoudn't be in the 1000's, unless your at 800x600 all low, and then maybe a GTX 1080 could break 1k in Crysis

Put a period after the first two digits. It's related to our locale settings (number format) in Windows I guess. We use, for example, 1.000,00, not 1,000.00, in where I live. 🤣

tayyare wrote:

Put a period after the first two digits. It's related to our locale settings (number format) in Windows I guess. We use, for example, 1.000,00, not 1,000.00, in where I live. 🤣

Ok that makes more sense 🤣

My Main rig Ryzen 1600, 16GB DDR4 3200, RX580 8gb 32bit kept crashing, so I did 64bit

The i5 Retro Rig, i5 3470, 4gb DDR3 1333, GTX 275

Primary XP Gamer x2 4200, 2gb ddr 500, 7900gtx sli

Pentium 4 3,06GHz @ 3,4GHz (PGA 478), P4i945GC, 2x2GB DDR2 594MHz RAM (CPU-z is wrong DRAM Frequency is 2x FSB speed, not 3:2), "Devil" R9 390X. Windows 7 x86 SP1 (all updates).
Using VSR with Custom Resolutions I did 2560x2048 test with 16xQ MSAA on top.

Avg. : 11,65 FPS
Min. : 2,3FPS
Max. : 19,34FPS

How about Windows 2000? My "low power" desktop with Athlon X2 4850e and Radeon 4550, then my main desktop with Athlon II 260 and Radeon 5670

bakemono wrote:

How about Windows 2000?

But then you can't run Crysis in the extra-heavy DX10 mode! 😀

Damm I can only just fit everything on the screen at 1280x1024 (yes I only have a 19" monitor).

Result from my "main" rig, did better than expected for a C2Q with a frankly rubbish GT710.

However seriously debating changing the GPU out for something older and "downgrading" to WinXP 64 on this, even though there is XP drivers for the GT710 I got issues with XP when I tried a dual boot setup before.

CarlHopkinsUK wrote:

Damm I can only just fit everything on the screen at 1280x1024 (yes I only have a 19" monitor). […]
Show full quote

Damm I can only just fit everything on the screen at 1280x1024 (yes I only have a 19" monitor).

Bench_GB41mQ8400.JPG

Result from my "main" rig, did better than expected for a C2Q with a frankly rubbish GT710.

However seriously debating changing the GPU out for something older and "downgrading" to WinXP 64 on this, even though there is XP drivers for the GT710 I got issues with XP when I tried a dual boot setup before.

I would, I just paid 10 dollars for an 8800GTS 512 which would blow a G710 away.

I'll get my Opty 175 + 2GB DDR400 + GTX 970 once the CPU gets here.

Here is my main "summer system".

Spec.

i7 3770 (Vanilla "non K" CPU configured to use the maximum 4 extra "turbo bins" allowed for "non K" Ivy Bridge CPUs).
Gigabyte G1 Sniper 2 Z68 motherboard with no working voltage adjustment for Ivy Bridge CPUs, otherwise I would have upgraded to an i7 3770K.
2*4GB DDR3 2133 CL 9-10-10-26 1T.
Asus DCII Geforce GTX 780 ti.

Windows 7 Ultimate with some bloat + MSI Afterburner with OSD and all monitoring modules running.
All power saving options such as all C-states and the like are active.
Windows power scheme is set to "Balanced".
Nvidia driver 391.35.

Result.

1920*1080 - No AA - VeryHigh - DX10 - 32bit.

Avarage 89.385 FPS.
Max 115.17 FPS.
Min 59.96 FPS.

The (non K) i7 3770 is not as fast as the latest generations of i7 CPUs but it holds up pretty well considering it's more than 6 years old.
A faster video card than the 5 year old GTX 780 ti would perhaps add a few FPS but I think this benchmark is mostly CPU limited at 1080p with this system.

I did cut the screenshot a bit as I run a 4k desktop.

Sure it can with GTX 1080 (not very fast tho) 😁
Low 800x600 DX9

Very High 1920x1080 DX10

That's sad, man. A PIII with a 6800GT runs circles around that machine, at least at 800x600.

@Standard Def Steve
But... that's not fair. I can't use Windows XP 🙁
At least give this poor Celeron a fair fight with Windows 7 on Pentium III.

candle_86 wrote:

CarlHopkinsUK wrote:

Damm I can only just fit everything on the screen at 1280x1024 (yes I only have a 19" monitor). […]
Show full quote

Damm I can only just fit everything on the screen at 1280x1024 (yes I only have a 19" monitor).

Bench_GB41mQ8400.JPG

Result from my "main" rig, did better than expected for a C2Q with a frankly rubbish GT710.

However seriously debating changing the GPU out for something older and "downgrading" to WinXP 64 on this, even though there is XP drivers for the GT710 I got issues with XP when I tried a dual boot setup before.

I would, I just paid 10 dollars for an 8800GTS 512 which would blow a G710 away.

Agreed! I have just sourced a GTX650 for £30, and sold the GT710 on for the same - so hopefully the change will be worth it! Il re-bench when it arrives...

Was messing with XP64 today, and as I think someone else mentioned previously im not seeing any benefit over W10.

This is the oldest platform I can safely test without fear of bad caps:

This system is still unable to play Youtube 720p60 without GPU acceleration, heh. It's also sad a 2017 CPU is barely 2x better than a 2004 microarchitecture in IPC.

GTX650 arrived and did a quick test on the same settings as before...

Quite an improvement, well worth the £30! Will be interesting to see what the switch to a X5460 will make...