Real in game benchmarks from the major games?

Enough with the 3DMarks and cpu temperatures. Who cares? The scores are around 12k - 15k or almost 16k now, which is great. But honestly, do any of you even play games or do you just care about how high your 3D mark score is?

I've seen a comparison between a NP5796 and the OCZ Whitebook on XoticPC's forum. The NP5796 beats the Whitebook with dual cards hands down in Far Cry 2. Its averaging at least 10fps higher.

Here's a link to the thread:
http://www.xoticpcforums.com/showthread.php?p=8984&posted=1#post8984

The key thing to note here is that the single card and dual card results were pretty much the same. This is really weird and it kind of worries me.

I'm asking for some real in game benchmarks now. There is already a thread created for this but its now basically another 3DMark shoot out again.

Can we get some in game fps scores in native resolution for games like:
Call of Duty 4 (possible COD:World at War as well)
Devil May Cry 4
Mass Effect
Far Cry 2
Team Fortress 2
Gears of War
Unreal Tournament 3
Bioshock
Assasin's Creed

I hope none of you get offended by my comments about the 3DMark scores, but I'm just a little bit worried now after seeing the xoticpc comparison results.

 

I'll be posting Crysis, Cod4, Farcry 2, Fallout 3, maybe bioshock and assasins creed.. I'll try and have em all posted tonight. Gotta work til 9, so after that I'll try and fulfill your request.

 

Thanks E-wrecked.

Have you looked at the xoticpc forum link? I'm curious to see what the OCZ forum people think about this.

 

Not to sound rude or harsh any way. But I already posted a ton of in game Benchmarks on games I dont even play! I hate Crysis, seriously not my thing at all. Got it to 20FPS on Very High. The 9262 can probally get a few more FPS than the Duel 3870's but I liked the style and when the 4870's are released watch out! What does Sager have in store comming to their notebook?

Furthermore. Your going to try to convince me that the Dual 3870';s got 1 more FPS in those benchmarks......Ummm someone is fluffing the numbers.

 

Those results from Xotic PC look weird. I'm not sure if they used the FC2 hotfix from ATi. The single GPU vs single GPU comparison looks fine, but the Crossfire vs 9800M GTX looks peculiar. In runs 1 and 3, the max FPS for the 3870 x2 is definitely higher than the 9800M GTX and almost twice that of a single 3870, yet the averages are pretty much the same of a single 3870. Oddly enough, run 2 in that same comparison shows the max lower than that of even a Single 3870, yet the average is pretty much the same of a single ATi GPU solution. Either the drivers are poorly optimized for FC2 or vice versa (the latter should be resolved with this ATi Hotfix).

 

Thats what i was saying, they do look weird and it worries me. I was just about to place my order today or tomorrow.

 

but I still hadn't got the pics from your crysis test on those settings

plz show your stuff mhooper1125

 

I posted the 18FPS on Very high I just figured at that point it is academic. I will upload it in a little bit.

Also I did it WTHOUT the FSB OCed so it will go much much higher.

 

Im a slacker..sorry, but here's all I got so far. This is a Crysis benchmark. Im just still working on tweakin my sheit..so, sorry that I didnt post more.

 

Thx E-wrecked ll be awaiting for the rest of the games. Also If u get a chance to post non-overclocked results, it ll be greatly appreciated. Anyway ... thx once again.

 

will do..

oh, and to OP.. the farcry 2 comparison they show..that was before the catalyst patches. The drivers are much better now for crossfire. Remember, this is a brand new technology in these lappies.

 

Yeah, I didn't know this is the first crossfire laptop.

I'm finally going to bite the bullet and purchase this laptop tomorrow.

I'm gonna go with the crossfire setup, 4gb ram, 2 x 320gb 7,200 rpm hard drives and the T9400 cpu.

I'll probably upgrade to the QX9300 or x9100 when it gets cheaper next year. I plan on playing Bioshock, Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and Left4Dead on it, so i'm not too worried about running everything with max settings in native resolution.

 

Well, good deal. You'll love it! And, welcome to the family. If ya dont max out then you'll be fine..and really, crysis is the only game that isn't performing flawlessly when maxed I dont like gaming at the native anyhow.. I prefer 1680..where I dont have to squint to headshot someone. But, was just startin fallout 3 a bit ago.. seems **** cool for the first 15 minutes. Ill play more later. And just tried farcry2, nothin to brag about yet..but Im still tring to get into it. If there's anything I can help ya with..lemme know.

 

I was going to buy an OCZ with Crossfire, but after looking at the benchmarks, i'm not so sure anymore. 9800m GT SLI may not get that high with 3DMark06, but it looks much better at Crysis. I saw benchmarks with 40 FPS avg @ high.

 

Crytek didn't optimize Crysis for Ati's Crossfire and x2 setups and I don't think they ever will. Even ATi's desktop x2 and crossfire are doing poorly in this game and are doing no better than a single card setup. If you're not a Crysis fan, I wouldn't hold out purchasing this laptop just because Crysis didn't run well on it.

 

If Crysis was the only game (that's running on that engine), OK ; but there is Crysis Warhead, Farcry 2.. and now there is also 4850 and 4870 news. Although they can't be fast enough without a Crossfire, they might be just better.

 

Hmm, I ordered my system yesterday before the Xotic comparison was posted.

I struggled between the OCZ and the 5796 because of the ATIs, and now I am second guessing my leap of faith . . .

Also, Justin's comment at the end of the thread does not fill me with confidence

 

you guys remember when sli first came around for lappies? In-game performance netted you, ohh... maybe 10% gains. Why is that? Well, the drivers were not yet optimized and the technology had to "catch up" with gaming technology. Altho, it is really reversed...game coders had to optimize toward SLI and vise versa. There's going to be a month or so of lag time for ATI to get some optimized crossfire drivers out there for mobile rigs. Probably around the same time the 4850s, and 4870s roll around..we'll have the 3870s finally running to their full potential. Please, don't let Crysis be your benchmark for gaming performance. And FarCry2 isn't built on the Crytek engine either, it's a modded engine and it will have patches..just like Crysis to make it run smoother on new SLI and crossfire systems. Patience is a must with one-of-a-kind systems. But, from what I have seen so far..this thing is a beast. And, a single card will not compare..especially when everything is patched up and the proper drivers are being used. My 2 cents. But, alexsga, don't second guess yourself

 

By the way, E-wrecked, did you install the Crysis patches and the ATI Crossfire hotfix for the benchmark?

 

E-Wrecked did u got a chance to test out FarCry2 build in Benchmark?

 

FarCry 2

1920x1200 Ultra High Long Ranch Run:

Total Frames: 7530, Total Time: 284.03s
Average Framerate: 26.51
Max. Framerate: 38.43 (Frame:5695, 226.11s)
Min. Framerate: 12.20 (Frame:576, 29.54s)


Ran it @ 3.3 GHz.. that's it. It takes almost 5 minutes. Bleh. I'll do a couple other runs in a bit. Gonna play some fallout.

 

hmmm that crossfire setup in games just doesnt perform as well I hoped so. I get 50Fps in Ultra settings at WSXGA with 2xAA. I wonder what results 9800m GTS SLI will bring us.

 

Did you run it with the hotfix?

 

Don't loose your confidence, we mocked up the same system:

Far Cry 2, Ranch Long, Ultra High, 1920 x 1200, DX10, No overclock of GPU or CPU.

RKC-1756 Extreme (OCZNBIM17A)

T9600

4GB DDR3 1066MHz

2 x 3870 Crossfire

320GB 7200RPM

Vista Ultimate X64

Our VGA drivers

ATI Hotfix

The results we were able to get from the same system are much better. The drivers are absolutly what is causing the lower frame rates. This chassis and 2x cards have only been out there 1 month compared to the Nvidia which has been out quite some time.

We are only 7.23 FPS less than the other chassis, given some time the OCZ will meet or beat the other chassis with a driver update. With a little more work we could probably get a few more FPS out of this now.

We were able to increase the max FPS from 31.35 to 46.97

The Minimum was increased from 9.15 to 11.66

I cannot post the Far Cry 2 screen shots here but they will be available to view in our forum.

 

Hmm.. Your VGA driverS? What version did you test with?

downloading hotfix again, may have uninstalled it when running benchmarks and swapping out drivers.. There's no tellin. So, lemme install and try again.

 

Thanks for the perspective and feedback all,

I am strapped in and ready to ride your coat tails into the promised land

I am sure glad this community exists to really get this new technology off the ground!

 

I finally ordered my laptop!!!

Its in my sig.

 

yes...but aren't we looking for "average frame rate"?

 

That is exactly what I posted, The average frame rate results from all 3 runs.

 

ummmm, no... no average frame rate there. i see a min. and a max but no average. now on your forums it shows the average..22.49 frames.

 

That is correct, when i wrote this last night it was late. I listed the difference for the average (7.23FPS) but not the average of 22.49.

Gonna work on this again later and see if I can get this up a few more FPS.

 

not trying to cause waves or anything..far from it!

you give a valid comparison using a t9600 chip, which allot of people will probably go with. along with no over clocking. which gives the customer more of a realization of what his or her system will do at that given price and quality range. and some times..us lazy people like to see the number "jumping out at us" *LOL*

sorry if i sounded like i was getting on you...not my intentions at all

 

Not at all, it would be much easier to just post the screen shot with the results but I cannot post pics or links here due to reseller rules.

 

very true indeed... on both accounts

 

ok.. this is odd. I ran this after installing new catalyst driver, before running the Farcry patch. This also ran using DX9, not DX10..as DX10 wasnt available after the new driver install. Anyohw, this is ultra high, no overclocks, no FC2 patch.. Those are some nice scores. I did double check in game settings before bench run to make sure they were also set to ultra high. Crysis had a flaw with that. So, don't know how DX10 will run..but this looks good.


Settings: Demo(Ranch Long), 1920x1200 (60Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(None), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)
Loop 1
Total Frames: 13336, Total Time: 284.01s
Average Framerate: 46.96
Max. Framerate: 75.00 (Frame:897, 16.72s)
Min. Framerate: 23.96 (Frame:6059, 124.64s)

 

Considering what was just mentioned, this is pretty good. Some people say that DX10 in Far Cry 2 runs faster than DX9...until I checked this link If anything, the drivers are the main problem that's preventing us from truly seeing what these GPUs are capable of in actual gaming.

BTW, does the X9100 your friend is selling include shipping in the price?

 

Good question. I can have him PM you if you like.. I'll go ahead and do so anyways. I just re-installed that same driver.. its the DNA driver for 8.10. Only problem is that DX10 is not available for me to benchmark FC2. Lemme run another bench, just to make sure it wasn't a fluke. Also, Ill send him a PM for ya.

 

ok I think I have some kind of glitch here. I wanted to see my DX9 scores but they are waaay tooo high. I get 204fps on average in DX9

 

DNA 1920.1200 Ultra High

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranch Long

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Settings: Demo(Ranch Long), 1920x1200 (60Hz), D3D9, Fixed Time Step(No), Disable Artificial Intelligence(No), Full Screen, Anti-Aliasing(None), VSync(No), Overall Quality(Ultra High), Vegetation(Very High), Shading(Ultra High), Terrain(Ultra High), Geometry(Ultra High), Post FX(High), Texture(Ultra High), Shadow(Ultra High), Ambient(High), Hdr(Yes), Bloom(Yes), Fire(Very High), Physics(Very High), RealTrees(Very High)
Loop 1
Total Frames: 13357, Total Time: 284.01s
Average Framerate: 47.03
Max. Framerate: 73.17 (Frame:912, 16.93s)
Min. Framerate: 24.96 (Frame:6079, 124.60s)

Well.. these are my 2nd run. And yea, similar results. Now if only I could enable DX10 and maybe this can help all you naysayers when it comes to the OCZ ;P

 

no nay sayer here...and if they dont fix my gtx problem ill be asking for an exchange to the ocz whitebook! and they would still owe me money. im thinking...lol

 

Nope I forbid ya

 

man marek....i miss my baby..*sniff* *sniff*

 

What is taking so long? I already finished crysis and far cry 2

 

i think they are waiting on the new batch of 901's or at least i told them i would wait. they aid they would be in this week.

i finished warhead in a day and was sitting here looking at far cry 1 & 2 to see if im going to start playing.

 

E-wrecked, install the hotfix already!

 

you forget...your running at 1680x1050 and not 1920x1200... pal! you ain't fooling no one...*LOL*