np9262 Crysis Benchmark Results

I ran the Crysis benchmark today, in part to check out my new machine, but also because I was curious about how my dual-core E6850 results would compare to the quad-core Q6600 results posted by Aryantes ( http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=211255)

The bottom line is that my results with the 167.46 video drivers were virtually identical (within .5 fps) to his results using the 167.43 drivers.

So, if you'd like to see my results, just click on the link above (I'm lazy) and, for all practical purposes, you'll see them in Aryantes' numbers.

 

what link?

your link is to ayrantes benchmarks not yours

 

He means since he's lazy, you can look at Aryantes' numbers +/5 0.5 fps and get his.

 

Thanks... couldn't have explained it better myself.

 

Sweet thanks,
I really wanted to get the dual, cause of less heat..
If it performs the same in crysis with the quad then im sold.

 

UMM.. cpu doesnt change video game performance...several friends and i have tested this time and time again, as well as 3dmarks very unreliable scorees that petty much work this way...anything with 2.0 get 2k point, 2.2 2k point, 2.4 2400 points, extreme 2.8 gets 2800 points, get the point ( no pun intended)

 

Crysis is funny... since its not full optimized.

IT IS CPU INTENSIVE from my tests... and it is multi-threaded (not 100% though).

My Test Setup:
- MSI K8N Neo4
- dual core AMD Opteron 165 (1.80GHz)
- 6800GT and then 7900GT (with stable and optimized drivers)
- 2GB DDR2
- standard SATA 7200rpm drive
- XP SP2

My Tests:
- with 6800GT, stock CPU speed @ 1.80GHz
.... playable at low settings with FPS from 20-30 (laggy during intense moments)
- with 6800GT, OC'ed CPU speed @ 2.60GHz
.... very smooth with low settings with FPS from 30-40 (even during intense action)
- with 7900GT, stock CPU speed @ 1.8GHz
.... playable with low/medium settings with FPS from 20-35 (some lag during intense action)
- with 7900GT, OC'ed CPU speed @ 2.60GHz
.... very smooth, so I up'ed the setting to all Medium, FPS is stable at 20-30 (no noticeable lag at all).

My buddy did the same tests with a Q6600, stock and OC'ed... there is an increase in both performance and less lag (during intense action) with a more powerful and multi-core CPU.

It would be nicer if the game actually took advantage of the entire multi-core CPUs... because in all tests the CPU (dual and quad) were only using about 70-80% in each core.

Compared to the full 100% utilization of every core in other new games like UT3... which I must say ran well in my setups.

 

Gophn, i have ran CPU test while playing crysis @ very high physics ( I have a c2d 2.0 ghz proc.), crysis NEVER gave a threshold above 35%. Now I would imagine that a QUAD core would be (BY my math) 1/2 as intesive, so lets say never above 15%. Crysis in all reality isnt very CPU intensive at all, the game certainly isnt optimized as far as the GPU shaders is concerned but cpu usage is a non-factor in crysis. A p4 2.8 could habdle crysis physics.

 

I'm running with only DX9 mode in XP.

Which OS do you have?

 

Vista x86, though I think I believe the culprit could be the 1.1 patch which does thread MUCH better than the retail-box game. The Patch implement A LOT more fixes than the README said. It also fixed the DX10 to dx9 bug (switching from dx10 to dx9 while the memory still had dx10 crysis STILL running) created a steep performance issue. dx9 crysis on xp though could create different results as you are using a much better OS than I ..AHH vista isnt that bad, but it isnt XP sp3 good!

 

I have not done any true gaming tests on SP3... only the basic benchmarks... which showed good scores in comparison to Vista x86 and x64.

Note.. I did not patch Crysis while doing my tests.. since it was not out yet.

 

well crysis isnt very cpu intensive, really not much at all, but Im speaking in reference to the use of Vista, anyway a quadcore comparison and crysis will make absolutely NO difference at all, not 1 fps at all.