|
|
| » 193 posts by user blppt |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20650 |  blppt (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 (193) 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 |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=18552 | blppt (193) Dec 03, 2007 - 11:26 am
| Nope, there were no consumer-grade cards that had the required 512MB of ram at the time of Doom3s launch. If you tried running Ultra with 256, you would get numerous pauses, even though the GPU itself probably could've handled it.
The problem with Crysis seems different in the sense that our best vid cards have enough memory to run very high, just not enough gpu power. Thats my take anyways. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=18542 | blppt (193) Nov 30, 2007 - 03:32 pm
| | While Cod4 was impressive, I think Bioshock easily takes GOTY awards...the design and artwork of Rapture is simply amazing. Not to mention the voice acting, sound, and story. Crysis couldnt touch any of those IMHO despite its graphics "wonder-engine". Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=18463 | blppt (193) Nov 27, 2007 - 11:24 am
| "So IMO it's a bit of a fallacy to say 360 graphics are as good as PS3, when they're obviously not. 360 has had a year's lead, and it's pretty much maxed out already (witness the recent releases). PS3 is having it's first batch of AAA titles this year, and they're already clearly above the 360."
This is more of a reply to asdfqwerty....there have been many cases where cross-platform games have run noticeably better/smoother with the same graphics on X360 (i.e. Assassin's Creed), so to say the PS3 hardware is unquestionably superior is a bit of a stretch...
I would agree, though, that over time PS3 games should improve noticeably due to the initial daunting nature of Cell programming. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
