So you only have PCI slots and want to game?

Actually the fps does drop below 14, only when the fight starts or i get to very very demanding areas(when the loading happens), but just walking around or fighting one guy or 2 guys, the performance is great.

Anyways, here are 2 more photos at 1280x1024, high, to medium to low settings.




Crysis runs so much better now, not to mention all my games, because not only is my computer bottleneck free, but using the ati 9.1 drivers and i finally fix my IRQ's so they are not shared anymore, help performance big time. I am in standard pc mode btw. So i can change the IRQ settings.

Crysis runs normal now, no pausing, no stutter, no lag, or anything.
 
Crysis has a benchmarking tool in Bin32 folder called Benchmark_GPU.bat. Why not run that for us General and post the output here? I bet he will just ignore this request like he always does and post more screenshots of absolutely zip going on at the time.
Click to expand...

Tha General said:
Actually the fps does drop below 14, only when the fight starts or i get to very very demanding areas(when the loading happens), but just walking around or fighting one guy or 2 guys, the performance is great.

Anyways, here are 2 more photos at 1280x1024, high, to medium to low settings.

Crysis runs so much better now, not to mention all my games, because not only is my computer bottleneck free, but using the ati 9.1 drivers and i finally fix my IRQ's so they are not shared anymore, help performance big time. I am in standard pc mode btw. So i can change the IRQ settings.

Crysis runs normal now, no pausing, no stutter, no lag, or anything.
Click to expand...

Enough said.
 
Rivatuner can be adjusted in 1Mhz incriments too, I just said to do 10Mhz because otherwise it would take forever, and when you see artifacts, 10Mhz away from that point is about where you want to be. It also allows you to adjust fans but on the 8400GS, the one I have at least, the fan controller isn't adjustable.

ATI's artifact detection is outdated as it uses methods to "stress" cards that are a cake-walk for newer cards. As much time as it may take, 3Dmark is among the best ways to tell. You can easily just run one of the Shader 3 benches, no need to do the entire round. It will surface more fleeting artifacts that will only show up after a little bit.

In conclusion, Rivatuner is the best of the best.
 
Alright i will do that. I have to run the test again, but when i seen the results, the results are inaccurate. You can't base evidence of someone's fps from using the gpu tool. Because its benchmarking by showing the whole island, obviously someone is going to get less performance.
Its really a tool not for your GPU-, but too see how powerful your gpu is overall.
So it really don't matter what it says, i get double the performance to what it showing. Nevertheless, i will post the results later.
 
Tha General said:
\
Its really a tool not for your GPU-, but too see how powerful your gpu is overall.
So it really don't matter what it says, i get double the performance to what it showing. Nevertheless, i will post the results later.
Click to expand...


that made absolutely no sense.


And the tool does this to give an even playing field, not variable results based on a different test. The results you get are what you have. Just as if a person with a pci e 7900gtx ran it those are his results. You can't dispute them.

Frankly 14 fps isnt playable to anyone without kadaracks(i think i spelled that right, probably not though) Its sketchy, and it jumped around a bit, if you do think 14 fps is really good, maybe you should go to your local lan area and play a more current card and make the settings identicle to your own. You're going to say to yourself "I can see the future." Because that's how big the difference is. You know those old movie reels didnt even move as slow as 14 fps.
 
Tha General said:
Alright i will do that. I have to run the test again, but when i seen the results, the results are inaccurate. You can't base evidence of someone's fps from using the gpu tool. Because its benchmarking by showing the whole island, obviously someone is going to get less performance.
Its really a tool not for your GPU-, but too see how powerful your gpu is overall.
So it really don't matter what it says, i get double the performance to what it showing. Nevertheless, i will post the results later.
Click to expand...

They are not inaccurate, because all it is doing is giving you an average FPS over time. And that benchmark is not designed to stress your system. The Benchmark_CPU.bat and Benchmark_CPU2.bat are designed for that. They are on the ice level with alot of physics going on. Those benchmarks will even bring the most powerful cards to their knees.

That is the FPS you should be using as your benchmark. It is what people/tech sites use. You should use this to compare between your 2400 and GeForce 6200. When you get your 8400gs, you should run it against this and compare it again. Thats the point of a benchmark.

Anyway, what are your numbers?
 
No, thats wrong. Way wrong, they are benchmarking by looking at the entire island, thats why its low fps. I get a avarage of really 10-31fps. 14-20 by walking around, around 25 in certain areas and 30+ looking down or upward. Anyways, that gpu tool sucks lol.
peace, it was fun to view tho, looks great at 1280x1024 medium to low settings.
 
Quit your BS. WTF do you mean "looking at the entire island"? That would probably be less than 5 FPS if you were lucky.

You are a liar, plain and simple.
 
Tha General said:
No, thats wrong. Way wrong, they are benchmarking by looking at the entire island, thats why its low fps. I get a avarage of really 10-31fps. 14-20 by walking around, around 25 in certain areas and 30+ looking down or upward. Anyways, that gpu tool sucks lol.
peace, it was fun to view tho, looks great at 1280x1024 medium to low settings.
Click to expand...

10-31 fps is not an average. Did you do Math at school?

You are in denial about your performance. 7.5fps average is what your system achieves. If you used FRAPs to benchmark your gameplay you would get a similar result.

Anyway thats about expected on a P3/PCI based solution, my P4 averages 14 and around 17 if i overclock.

Personally I dont think that 8400gs is going to help much. Your P3 is bottlenecking your performance I would be surprised it made any difference at all.

If you really must keep your P3, fine - anything before 2007 should run fine. But running around different message boards screaming "guys! guess what..my p3 runs crysis at 10-30fps!!". That is ridiculous.
 
1280x1024 High Physics, Shader Medium, Post medium, Texture medium, object on low, water on low, sound on low, volumetic effects on medium, game effects on low, 13+ -------->



Right after i took that shot and zoom out of zoom mode, my fraps went up to 16. The tool is inaccurate as i said.
Btw a little boost is all i need for my last PCI card for my P3. The evga core is at 567, memory at 500, 1000mhz, 8.8gb of memory bandwidth as i am told by evga, and 512MB. I am not sure on the pixel and texture fillrate, but i am pretty sure its way above my 2400hd which is 2.1
 
Tha General said:
No, thats wrong. Way wrong, they are benchmarking by looking at the entire island, thats why its low fps. I get a avarage of really 10-31fps. 14-20 by walking around, around 25 in certain areas and 30+ looking down or upward. Anyways, that gpu tool sucks lol.
peace, it was fun to view tho, looks great at 1280x1024 medium to low settings.
Click to expand...

They? Who is they? haha that benchmark comes with Crysis. The Developers of the game provided it as part of the install.
 
Um you know what i meant. I get between 14-31fps, however it does drop to 10 when there are a ton of enemies on screen. Nevertheless, i am going to buy that computer from the link early next month. Should be a nice rig , can't wait!
peace
 
no one ever said Crysis was perfect. IMO it is poorly optimised and the game is extremely short, and Warhead even shorter.

If The General or anyone is happy with 7fps, his rig and gaming experience then thats fine with me
 
electromagnetic, keep gaming with pci. If you use pci and you are happy with the performance, keep gaming with the cards. I know i am :)

Btw, what card are you looking forward to getting next? You never did answer me on that one.
 
That would be fine if PCI equivalent cards cost less. but they cost 3-5x more so it makes absolutely no sense. Waste your money, fine.

Electromagnetic, ya that's still going to be a problem with a PCIe 8400GS because the 8400GS sucks. But for the same $80-100 you could get a 9800GT or HD 4830 that would run any game comfortably (MUCH better than any PCI card) for the same price.

To buy a PCI video card for a new computer is flat out stupid and stubborn. There's absolutely no redeeming factor besides the fact that you can say "I'm different, I'm using ancient technology while everyone else is using something else" which seems to be the draw for the General.
 
I'm going to wait for one of the newer PCI cards to come out near me, wont order online. Staying with my 6200 for a while though.

My PC only has PCI & PCI Expressx1 slots no PCI Express x16, but if your getting a computer with PCI Express x16 slots just get one of those for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Daniel Sims
GPUs are so bulky now that Asus is using gyroscopes to detect sagging
2
Replies
36
Views
287
harm9963
harm9963
midian182
Amazon restricts some Nvidia RTX 50 and AMD Radeon 9070 GPU sales to Prime members
Replies
6
Views
115
poohbear
P
midian182
Game developers warn GeForce RTX 4000 and 3000 owners to roll back Nvidia drivers
2
Replies
37
Views
474
All2surreal
A

Latest posts

Back