M17x Benchmarks thread !!!

OpenCL. (10chars)

 

or
the game makers could say to hell with it and keep making things as they are and ati would be force to do something(not a likely plan, but there all the same)

 

I'm going to be reading this whole thread, but just a simple question... will a QX9300 and 280 SLI able to run Crysis all maxed out on 1900x1200?

 

lol, how many people still play Crysis? But to answer your question, it can as long as AA is 2x or lower.

 

At Very high in the GPU benchmark of crysis at 1920x1200 your looking at around 27fps . Some may say its playable but a mixture of high/very high would be better over all.

 

Wow that game is brutal...

I never rly played Crysis because my Athlon Dual Core wuth 8800GTX cant really handle the game in anything else but medium... I rly wanted to checkout the game in the highest setting.,

 

yeah, that's not an option on a laptop right now..as much as people wish it to be.

maxed is very high/motion blur full/ max AA/AF max resolution @1920x1080 playing stock and not over clocked

 

I have seen the game on max settings and I don't really see what's so amazing about it... I've seen games with higher quality graphics that aren't that demanding so it begs the question - bad programming?

 

Maxxed out like what john is talking about the game is jaw dropping visually but very few desktops can even run it like that and again that would be with AA and AF maxxed out . forget a laptop doing that for atleast 4 more years if even that soon .

 

I know that it is jaw dropping visually maxed out but the same can be said for many other games as well.

 

next up...batman

 

I just have it at 1920x1080 all on enthusiast but with motion blurr off as it makes me motion sick.

I get 27+fps so im happy

 

I'm quite pleased with how the M17x runs Crysis. I run it at 1920x1200 with all very high settings except for AA and low postprocessing and it runs 30+ fps at all times. AA/AF aren't that big of a deal to me especially in Crysis, because the game already looks amazing without it.

 

i got 32 fps with an np9262 and was not pleased after seeing how the game is suppose to played at 70 plus fps maxed out.
but good as laptops go though

 

Looking at your desktop setup I'm assuming that's where you got 70+ maxed out? That's quite a setup you've got there.

 

yep. seen crysis from both worlds... high end laptop and high end desktop

 

I agree with that statement but i think Crysis makes your jaw drop just a little further is all .

 

Crysis still looks better than the majority of games on just high. Once you play the game, you've played the game. You can make it perform better and look better, but in the end it becomes just a boring game, or tech show, however you look at it.

 

I haven't played past the first level. Got bored too fast.

 

I've never played Crysis. I need to see what all the fuss is about.

 

Everyone says crysis is only good because of the graphics and yes, it does have amazing graphics but I also think it is a fun game. I don't know why you guys are getting bored of it so fast, I've played for about 8 hours so far in the single player and I'm definitely not bored of it

 

I manage to stay entertained with crysis

have played it all the way through like 4 times now haha

 

you have to play it on super hard and not be running around like rambo on steroids...rotflmao

 

I dont pretend to be skilled at FPS games, I just like running around and killing things and feeling haha

Helps that I am easily entertained

 

dont have to be skilled to try...

 

This game is very easy even at the hardest level.... if you want hard games try CoD series on veteran or Ninja Gaiden, thats hard.

 

mine is due for delivery sept 7 and just closing a deal on my M17 to give me the new specs listed below

it look like the deal will close soon it will be my M17 system plus a new 500gb 7200rpm hard drive from the raid 0 array out of my new sept 7 th delivery date M17x and the 2.66ghz cpu 6mb l2 cache will go as well ill get the qx9300 plus 2 x 120gb ocz vertex turbo ssds
oh i cant wait to see this baby fly just ordered another 4gb ram for $113 australian dollars

so come sept 12 i will have


M17x
QX9300 extreme
SLI(TM) Dual 1GB GDDR3 NVIDIA(R) GeForce(R) GTX 260M
8gb 1066mhz ddr 3 ram
2 x 120gb OCZ ssd vertex turbo in raid 0
1 x 500gb hd
17.0 " Beyond HD 1200p WUXGA (1920x1200) CCFL Display with TrueLife TM

UNLEASH THE POWER!!!!! how do you guys think this system will score????????

 

Looks like a nice set up you have there Ducati .You should see some good numbers out of , especially once you start cranking on the CPU .

 

can someone point me in the direction of the overclocking guide for the QX9300??

 

Well, I don't really care how good or bad Crysis might be, but it is without a doubt a good future-proofing benchmark test.

I'm not even that interested in acing the game on my laptop, but at least running that game under an engine that burdens the PC like there's no tomorrow, will give me a good idea of just how well that same PC will thrash a majority of new releases over the course of the next two-years. As someone already mentioned, it's a tech-show, which can show case the longevity and relevance of current tech.

Although I do think that Cryostasis with its quirky yet super-demanding PhysX and soft-particle engine would probably challenge machines even more. Any of you super-laptop owners try out the playable demo of Cryostasis yet? What was the performance like, on average?

As for AA and AF at 'true HD resolutions'. Why would one want this feature on a resolution higher than 1024p? The whole benefit to having AA was to smooth out jagged edges on basic HD (720p) and sub-HD resolutions on large displays. The way I see it, Crysis at 1080p, hardly has any jags. Hell, 'r_useedgeaa 2' does a better job of smoothing out the jaggies in the foliage than actual anti-aliasing.

 

I tried cryostasis and it was a slide show. You need a second GPU, not for sli, but for physx. Physx seems awfully pointless when it taxes the GPU so much you need an additional GPU dedicated only to Physx... the shader effects and textures aren't even impressive, it's just poorly optimized.

 

been there and done that. cod 4 and 5

that's a real good one for physx. it's optimized fine, it's just not for laptop gpus is all. you would have to play with physx disabled.

 

I wrote a guide

Overclocking (noob edition)

 

A decent CPU and a good second GPU are fine enough. There's people with X9000 and dual 8800s that are able to max out the game without the frame rate taking too much of a hit. We have a member in the M1730 lounge, Erntstig, who got some very decent results with this game running at 1680x1050p, maxed out.

Regarding the textures:
These are not this game's strengths. Same thing can be said about Killzone 2, which people are going crazy over - terrible textures, but very easily overshadowed by the amazing lighting, post-process effects and above all else, animation. In the same respect, with Cryostasis, it's the volumetrics and post-process elements that push the cards, topped by the amazingly demanding PhysX. The moment you deactivate physx, and hardware physx, which are the most taxing elements, your entire 'slide-show' will most likely become a 60 FPS experience. This whole thing about the game being badly optimised is a basic idea that's been blown -way- out of proportion. I would say that it is badly optimised, but not on grounds of the poor textures or low frame rates with PhysX, or any of that other stuff, because as already stated, people with a strong CPU and decent pair of graphics card, have this game running at a relatively decent rate. It is very demanding, because it is in fact, 'very demanding'.

As for the PhysX element in this game:
Well, it might seem pointless, but that is why this is doing certain things and requires an equally decent CPU to boot because there's stuff happening in this game that trumps that Havok engine, completely. PhysX is supposed to run through your GPU, but also offset tasks to the CPU that are better suited to the CPU, and this is one of those few games that benefits from a CPU with decent speed.

The water physics isn't impressive though, because it didn't look realistic enough to me - seemed more like a thicker bluish liquid. But once again, it's something that drags the cards, and that can give you an idea of how well your cards might handle future games that utilise PhysX on such a level.

 

ive managed to get this score so far

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/4678/test3p.jpg

will be added to my sig

 

Nice, I got the same exact configuration coming, can't wait to benchmark it

Can you do me a favor and run HD Tune on your SSD raid?

 

3.06 is pretty good. Not many people getting that.

 

FINALLY

P12027
CPU: 12764
GOU: 11800
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=1366651

I can get both higher, this was my first run with these clocks, so I know it will go up

I heart A02 lol - got me up it 3180 from 3150 on CPU and VERY much eliminated stutter

 

thanks and am still testing.
Xeneize>yes you can also try this as its free and works good

http://forums.legitreviews.com/about21729.html

 

Ahh I didn't realize that.... what did you do, increase the multiplier?

 

Good job. Which driver are you using?

 

yeah x11.5 , i hear you can go higher but am comfortable at 3gig

that reminds me i was running the 175.85 driver

 

Cool thx, are you running SSD in RAID 0?

 

ohh yeah

 

Can we get an HD Tune screenie? pretty please?

 

i dont have it anymore id prefer the AS SSD Benchmark

 

The 186.61 drivers, i dont know if I will bother playing with the Dox or not

 

Looks like Drake might have some real competition on his hands now .

 

oh yeah, who might that be?

 

Scook9 . Looks like he is slowly approaching drakes scores .