|
|
| » 139 posts by user blppt |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20690 |  blppt (139) Jul 28, 2008 - 10:20 am
| GTA4 is generally considered to look and run better on the PS3 (partially due to the ability to install to the PS3 hard drive), but in general, you are correct that up till now, the X360 ports generally look slightly better than the PS3 counterparts.
The 360 gets online exclusives for GTA4 though. The PS3 doesnt. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20672 | blppt (139) Jul 17, 2008 - 11:59 am
| Not really the same....it would be more like the XP being beaten by the P4, then the A64 comes out and still gets beaten by the P4 for it to be similar.
See the A64 came out, then Intel went to Core 2, then AMD "responded" (notice the quotes) with the still slower Phenom/Barcelona. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20672 | blppt (139) Jul 16, 2008 - 08:06 pm
| Turns out it didnt really matter anyways....the Phenom is disappointing, TLB bug or fixed...
Here's hoping they get it right next time...nobody expected the AMD-ATI 4850/70 to kick so much ass at such a great price, either. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20650 | blppt (139) Jul 16, 2008 - 02:54 pm
| I never expect any OS to be 100% stable, but it SHOULD be more stable than XP due to the drivers no longer running on the kernel level.. In reality however, it crashes far more often for me than either XP32 or XP64. Thats the irony of the situation. Nor have I once been able to recover from video or sound driver errors as MS promised.
Hell, MS ditched DS3D/Hardware for the sole reason of increasing stability in Vista.
Again, I dont expect to recover from ALL errors, but I havent been able to recover from ANY. And Vista, IME, has crashed far more often for me than XP, for which I used to regularly exceed 100 day uptimes.
Thats why I dont consider Vista x64 or 32 to be as stable as XP currently. Hopefully that will change. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20650 | blppt (139) Jul 11, 2008 - 10:19 am
| | Maybe so, but the point was that moving the drivers out of the kernel area and into user space was SUPPOSED to make Vista more stable in the face of poorly written drivers, but I have yet to have a recoverable crash in Vista (since it crashes far more than XP, its annoying). Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20650 | blppt (139) Jul 11, 2008 - 05:18 am
| | Security yes, Stability, hell no. Although that could be more Nvidia-Creative-(insert driver maker here) than MS's fault....still, the whole point of moving drivers out of the kernel level was SUPPOSED to increase stability. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20648 | blppt (139) Jul 10, 2008 - 05:06 am
| "There's also the issue of how much power such a setup would su*k down and how much heat it would generate. "
LOL, I was thinking that too...
"According to their source, the processor was modified to survive a nuclear attack, "
Makes me worried that my case would be as hot as a PWR with a Larrabee video card in it. ;-) Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20650 | blppt (139) Jul 10, 2008 - 05:03 am
| Crysis, ironically, does not seem to be that SYSTEM MEMORY-intensive....running the 64bit build through benchmarks, the game (using the "r_displayinfo 1" command) never reached 1GB ram usage on my system.
Oh, and for those concernded about the 2.5-3.25GB ram limit of XP, theres always XP x64, which is pretty darn good IMHO. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20601 | blppt (139) Jun 27, 2008 - 01:25 pm
| "They did do one major change. They decided to screw over the platform that made them. This year there is no PC version. First time ever."
Actually, in the SNES/Genesis era, there wasnt a PC version of Madden either for a while (was it 96 or 97 the first Madden PC came out?)
Honestly, I'm not going to miss Madden PC that much. They had been trotting out the same tired old graphics the past few years anyways. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20136 | blppt (139) Mar 25, 2008 - 10:17 am
| But seriously..anybody interested in dropping $1200 on two 9800GX2s is going to want to see the 'Very High' settings in Crysis, IMHO. Honestly, since the article is about the 9800GX2 SLI setup, I doubt there would be much dissent over not including the relatively low end 8800GT in the writeup.
Still, thanks for the review! Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19968 | blppt (139) Mar 13, 2008 - 07:39 am
| The point being that the mere possibility after all the mistakes Sony made, of the PS3 overtaking the 360 in the future (remember, GT and MGS haven't even been released yet) is just astounding.
I'm not saying anything is definite. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19968 | blppt (139) Mar 13, 2008 - 05:29 am
| Boy, MS had such a long time to bury the PS3 thanks to some odd Sony decisions, AND MS having the best online service, AND having such a long head start, AND having Halo as an exclusive, AND finally getting a simultaneous release of the GTA franchise...
AND yet, they may still blow it and lose to PS3. Thats just really, really sad. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19341 | blppt (139) Jan 31, 2008 - 06:28 am
| Guess there are a lot more enthusiast machines out there than most people think, since Crysis has been on these lists for a while now.
Either that, or people are buying it to see how quickly they can melt their Intel "Extreme" Graphics chip.
"Crysis? Nah, I'm not worried. I have Intel EXTREME graphics! Did you hear that? EXTREME! That means it should be great for Crysis." Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19036 | blppt (139) Jan 10, 2008 - 12:49 pm » Edited on Jan 10, 2008 - 12:56 pm
| Hrm, either the 32bit vista version is MUCH slower or something is not right with one of our systems....I shouldnt even be able to match your framerates, nevermind exceed them. Remember, I only have one GTS, granted its overclocked, but still....AND I'm using 2x AA in my benches.
Maybe your SLI setup isnt working right with the game? Thats the only thing I can think of..
I'm running the latest WHQL drivers, the 169.25 btw.
Edit: By any chance, are you running your drivers in "multi-display performance mode"? I have found that can significantly degrade performance. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19036 | blppt (139) Jan 10, 2008 - 10:43 am » Edited on Jan 10, 2008 - 10:49 am
| What AA settings & resolution are you using? You certainly should at least be matching my fps (if not totally decimating them with SLI) unless you are using a much higher res & high aa settings.
I see you are also running the 32bit version; based on my understanding, the 64bit version gives a significant boost since the 64bit version has no need to stream in textures like the 32bit engine.
Then again, it would be another $100 at least plus several hours of reconfiguring your new windows installation to upgrade to 64bit to play a $50 game with an extra 5fps. :(
Edit: Or does MS give you the 64bit upgrade for free? I forget how they do that with Vista; I've always only run the 64bit version. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19036 | blppt (139) Jan 09, 2008 - 11:18 am
| | Like others have mentioned before, crysis is strange in that it is fairly playable with relatively (to other games) low framerates....however, I dont think I broke 10s before the patch in DX10 mode and those settings. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19036 | blppt (139) Jan 08, 2008 - 09:53 pm » Edited on Jan 08, 2008 - 10:03 pm
| I dont have old numbers (version 1.0.xxx), but here are the current: (EDIT: gpu bench in \Bin64 folder)
(DX10, very high, 2xAA, 1280x1024)
Play Time: 140.84s, Average FPS: 14.20
Min FPS: 10.70 at frame 457, Max FPS: 14.31 at frame 355 Average Tri/Sec: -8976268, Tri/Frame: -632099 Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.45
(DX9, with very high hack, 2xAA, 1280x1024)
Play Time: 104.44s, Average FPS: 19.15
Min FPS: 13.42 at frame 157, Max FPS: 22.91 at frame 66
Average Tri/Sec: -12315254, Tri/Frame: -643094
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.43
I can tell you with absolute certainly I was nowheres near 14fps in DX10 before the patch. It is a noticable difference in game. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=19036 | blppt (139) Jan 08, 2008 - 04:09 pm
| Definite performance boost. DX10 was unplayable at Very High, 2xAA on my system at 1280x1024, but with the patch, its about as fast as dx9 mode was with the very high hack and 2xAA. dx9 mode is even faster now, too.
Specs:
Athlon 64 X2 6400+
GF 8800GTS/640 @ 600core/900mem
4GB DDR2-800
Vista x64
Running the 64bit exe. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=18738 | blppt (139) Dec 13, 2007 - 11:14 am
| Agreed 100%....3 friggin $600 video cards (and the small nuclear reactor required to run them) and you still cant play Crysis DX10 at a decent framerate with 4xAA. Normally, i wouldnt care, but at least at 1280, the jaggies really get to me with AA off.
Hopefully like the article said, the next Crysis patch will provide a decent bump in performance... Flag this | Edit this post |
|
