• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

4890 3dmark scores posted

this is useful to us how? last i recall i dont play a numbers game
 
Erm, Vantage is not totally useless....though I admit the '06 score is a pointless inclusion. Still, it's gonna need a 20% OC just to catch my 192sp GTX260. But using the performance preset wasn't the best idea imo (think my card beats a 285 at this setting, which doesn't hold true for gaming)
 
16K on 3dMark. Not bad...I get just a bit higher with 4850 crossfire (stock)
 
It is not totally useless, if we can compare it to a HD 4870 1GB score, we could guess the performance difference since it's the same architecture.
 
alg7_munif said:
It is not totally useless, if we can compare it to a HD 4870 1GB score, we could guess the performance difference since it's the same architecture.
Click to expand...
well until we see it benchmarked in actual games then it doesnt really matter.
 
mastrdrver said:
Is this more useful? More scores including Crysis and FC2:

http://www.ocheaven.com/news_view.asp?gid=8362
Click to expand...
if they are real then yes. if you look at the actual settings they used then then scores are not super impressive. my 192sp gtx260 easily gets better than what they got in Crysis. the 4890 easily kicks my butt in FC 2 but they also have a better cpu.

Crysis
4790 got 33.79 fps at 1680x1050 DX10 High settings no AA. well I got 43.62 for 192sp gtx260

4790 got 31.51 fps at 1680x1050 DX10 High settings 8x AA. well I got 35.74 for 192sp gtx260

I do find it odd that in Crysis they only lose 2 fps each time going from no AA to 8x AA at each and every resolution they tested at.
 
Yea, the change in adding AA is interesting. Looks like they didn't loop Crysis but did with FC2.:confused:
 
cannondale06 said:
if they are real then yes. if you look at the actual settings they used then then scores are not super impressive. my 192sp gtx260 easily gets better than what they got in Crysis. the 4890 easily kicks my butt in FC 2 but they also have a better cpu.

Crysis
4790 got 33.79 fps at 1680x1050 DX10 High settings no AA. well I got 43.62 for 192sp gtx260

4790 got 31.51 fps at 1680x1050 DX10 High settings 8x AA. well I got 35.74 for 192sp gtx260

I do find it odd that in Crysis they only lose 2 fps each time going from no AA to 8x AA at each and every resolution they tested at.
Click to expand...

You got 35.74fps with 8xaa at 1680x1050 DX10 high settings using the bench gpu map?
 
DeadSkull said:
You got 35.74fps with 8xaa at 1680x1050 DX10 high settings using the bench gpu map?
Click to expand...
yes. I lost 8fps by going from no AA to 8x AA.

Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 35.74



also I got way better minimum framerate results in Far Cry 2 at 1920x1080 with 8x AA than they did at 1920x1200 even if you factor in the 10% screen size difference. they got 18fps minimum and I got 33fps.
 
cannondale06 said:
yes. I lost 8fps by going from no AA to 8x AA.

Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 35.74



also I got way better minimum framerate results in Far Cry 2 at 1920x1080 with 8x AA than they did at 1920x1200 even if you factor in the 10% screen size difference. they got 18fps minimum and I got 33fps.
Click to expand...

I guess that sounds about right, with no AA using assault_harbor map got 40 some fps with my GTX 280.

How intense is assault_harbor gpu wise compared to the gpu_test / island overfly?
 
As I said in another thread though, there's something wrong about that Crysis benchmark; the fps are the same regardless of which res they're running it at. Could be a CPU bottleneck, considering they're running the i7 920 at stock speeds( 2.7ghz ) and Crysis really likes alot of CPU power.
 
Raap said:
As I said in another thread though, there's something wrong about that Crysis benchmark; the fps are the same regardless of which res they're running it at. Could be a CPU bottleneck, considering they're running the i7 920 at stock speeds( 2.7ghz ) and Crysis really likes alot of CPU power.
Click to expand...
actually it doesnt. once you get above 2.6 to 2.8 or so on a Core 2 cpu there will be basically no improvement with a card like a 4870 or gtx260.
 
Beta drivers..lol. Its like when Nexus stealthily benched i7 in games without Intels approval. Nexus got some really crappy numbers (compared to Yorkfields) and Intel was really pissed because not all the drivers were yet installed /out.
 
cannondale06 said:
actually it doesnt. once you get above 2.6 to 2.8 or so on a Core 2 cpu there will be basically no improvement with a card like a 4870 or gtx260.
Click to expand...

Odd, because I gained 5-6 fps on v.high settings when I used my 9800GX2 and upped my qx9650 from 3.00ghz to 3.8ghz. Granted, it was only at 1600*1200, but still.

Also, how would you explain the benchmark having the exact same fps in both 1280*1024 and 1920*1200, 33fps with no aa, 31fps with 8x? A cpu bottleneck is the only thing that makes sense.
 
Raap said:
Odd, because I gained 5-6 fps on v.high settings when I used my 9800GX2 and upped my qx9650 from 3.00ghz to 3.8ghz. Granted, it was only at 1600*1200, but still.

Also, how would you explain the benchmark having the exact same fps in both 1280*1024 and 1920*1200, 33fps with no aa, 31fps with 8x? A cpu bottleneck is the only thing that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I said a card like the 4870 or gtx260. your 9800gx2 is a much stronger card. the stronger the gpu the more cpu you need to keep it fed. oh and no I cant explain their Crysis results.
 
cannondale06 said:
I said a card like the 4870 or gtx260. your 9800gx2 is a much stronger card. the stronger the gpu the more cpu you need to keep it fed. oh and no I cant explain their Crysis results.
Click to expand...

their crysis result are totally off chart..

I got 44fps average when I did the exact same test while they having 33fps?

lol...I laugh..

but the Crysis Warhead one does show a very impressive number increase compare to my result which is 5-10fps increase..
 
The results are probably skewed because they're testing a card a month before its actual release.
Don't even bother looking at numbers until the official reviews are posted.
 
shansoft said:
their crysis result are totally off chart..

I got 44fps average when I did the exact same test while they having 33fps?

lol...I laugh..

but the Crysis Warhead one does show a very impressive number increase compare to my result which is 5-10fps increase..
Click to expand...

What are you 8xaa numbers like with CF on and off?
 
cannondale06 said:
yes. I lost 8fps by going from no AA to 8x AA.

Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 35.74



also I got way better minimum framerate results in Far Cry 2 at 1920x1080 with 8x AA than they did at 1920x1200 even if you factor in the 10% screen size difference. they got 18fps minimum and I got 33fps.
Click to expand...

Just to let you know.. there is no 8xAA with nVIDIA cards under Crysis. It defaults to CSAA 8x which uses only 4 samples (it's slightly better than 4x MSAA but nowhere near 8x MSAA).

ATi boards, on the other hand, default to 8x MSAA (which is more demanding on the GPU etc).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top