When can we expect the next ATI/NVIDIA cards?

Well the 4870x2 is coming out in mid august, but you need a monster PSU to run it (about same as gtx280 I think).albi321

The 4870X2 is supposed to use approximately 95 watts more than the 280 on load, so no, not about the same.

theres no single videocard that exists that can max crysis on very high at a good res... its not the cards fault the game is poorly optimized...h575309

No, it isn't.

theres no single videocard that exists that can max crysis on very high at a good res... its not the cards fault the game is poorly optimized....warhead should be much betterh575309

[QUOTE="h575309"]theres no single videocard that exists that can max crysis on very high at a good res... its not the cards fault the game is poorly optimized...JP_Russell

No, it isn't.

Stop trying to defend a merely average game with a really badly coded engine.codezer0

I'm not defending anything, I'm pointing out that what he said is untrue. Crysis's performance is standard for the visuals it offers, therefore it is not poorly optimized.

[QUOTE="codezer0"]Stop trying to defend a merely average game with a really badly coded engine.JP_Russell

I'm not defending anything, I'm pointing out that what he said is untrue. Crysis's performance is standard for the visuals it offers, therefore it is not poorly optimized.

I guess we shall if that's the case when Warhead comes out.

whats the minium your psu should be to run the 4870x2? and do you need 1 6pin plug and an 8 pin or do you neeed 2 8pins?f-a-d-3

One 6-pin and one 8-pin is necessary in order to run the HD4870 X2.

I'm not defending anything, I'm pointing out that what he said is untrue. Crysis's performance is standard for the visuals it offers, therefore it is not poorly optimized.

Get the 9800GX2. It is cheaper then the GTX 280, and it runs Crysis better then either the 280 or the 4870.

You can buy a 9800GX2 for $300 or cheaper which is an amazing price for such an amazing graphics card.

[QUOTE="albi321"]Well the 4870x2 is coming out in mid august, but you need a monster PSU to run it (about same as gtx280 I think).JP_Russell

So how did you come to the conclusion that the R700 is going to use 300w?
It has a TDP of 250w, so expect a realworld load of ~200-230w.

It's reasonable to suspect GTX and 4000 series refreshes may be in line for late this year. Can't really say when their next full-fledged series will be; not anytime soon, that's for sure. I'd say no earlier than late Q1 next year.JP_Russell

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

I'm not defending anything, I'm pointing out that what he said is untrue. Crysis's performance is standard for the visuals it offers, therefore it is not poorly optimized.

Jamiemydearx3

Just because it can be optimized further doesn't mean it's poorly optimized. If Warhead runs even better, then that still means Crysis was standardly optimized, while Warhead will be excellently optimized.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"][QUOTE="albi321"]Well the 4870x2 is coming out in mid august, but you need a monster PSU to run it (about same as gtx280 I think).LordEC911

So how did you come to the conclusion that the R700 is going to use 300w?
It has a TDP of 250w, so expect a realworld load of ~200-230w.

I'm going by Anandtech's preview of the 4870X2.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3354&p=8

The GTX 280 used almost 100W less on load. Mind you, it isn't a finalized look, just a preview, which is why I said "supposed to use."

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]It's reasonable to suspect GTX and 4000 series refreshes may be in line for late this year. Can't really say when their next full-fledged series will be; not anytime soon, that's for sure. I'd say no earlier than late Q1 next year.LordEC911

That's what I meant. Not sure if a die shrink technically counts as a refresh, but yeah, I meant any kind of intermediate lineup for both nVidia and ATI before they ever come out with their next series of cards. So, late this year and/or early next year for the first refreshes/die shrinks, eh? Sounds good.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

[QUOTE="h575309"]theres no single videocard that exists that can max crysis on very high at a good res... its not the cards fault the game is poorly optimized...codezer0

No, it isn't.

What, do PC gamers just get inherent throbbing boners at the thought of a new game that can turn that multi-$$$ investment sitting on their desk into a $200-joe-blow-special? And now Crytek is whining using the piracy card to say that they won't be making Crysis exclusive to Windows pc's anymore. Well boo **** hoo. They've nobody to blame but themselves with having a game engine that is so bad, even top-end systems NOW with overclocked quads and SLI'd GTX 280's can still have problems playing the game fluidly at a resolution worth a damn.

Exactly, the game is average at best on a content level. People were so awestruck with the graphics that they ignored the actual meat of the game. For those who say the game was not poorly optimized;crytek released the game at a point where a small part of PC gamers could even run the game, not to mention the development that leaned towards nVidia cards. As for they're switch to consoles, its like me saying:

"I like to drive cars, but people who drive cars get in accidents sometimes. Therefore, I will buy a motorcycle, a plane, a boat, and still drive the car."

Because of piracy (a part of PC gaming that will never go away, they knew their game was going to get pirated) they must now develop for other platforms, but still develop for the PC.

For those who say the game was not poorly optimized;crytek released the game at a point where a small part of PC gamers could even run the game

xboxdudeman800

Evidentally, you don't understand what "optimized" means in gaming. Once again, for the visuals provided, the game runs absolutely normally. Do I think the game would have benefitted from lower settings below the "low" setting in order to allow a greater number of people to play the game? Absolutely; I think Crytek did in fact make a mistake in not doing so. But that's not optimizing, that's simply downscaling. Optimization refers only to the visuals-performance ratio, to how well they optimize the code to allow for acceptable or better performance at a given level of graphical fidelity; not how large of a demographic can run the game acceptably. Personally, I think the game could have done with two lower settings, titling them "very low" and "low," with the current low being medium, the medium being high, the high being very high, and the very high being ultra high.

[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"]

For those who say the game was not poorly optimized;crytek released the game at a point where a small part of PC gamers could even run the game

JP_Russell

Evidentally, you don't understand what "optimized" means in gaming. Once again, for the visuals provided, the game runs absolutely normally.

Evidently, you don't understand that "optimizing" the game to what you call a "normal" level is unacceptable. The designers knew that it would be a demanding game, and they didn't try to make the game run as best as possible. They just put out the game and hoped the hardware to catch up quickly.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

[QUOTE="h575309"]theres no single videocard that exists that can max crysis on very high at a good res... its not the cards fault the game is poorly optimized...codezer0

No, it isn't.

Thank you. I've been saying this about Crapsis all along.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

Evidentally, you don't understand what "optimized" means in gaming. Once again, for the visuals provided, the game runs absolutely normally.

xboxdudeman800

Evidently, you don't understand that "optimizing" the game to what you call a "normal" level is unacceptable.

No, I do understand that. As I said in the rest of my post which you conveniently left out, I think Crytek should have had lower graphics settings to allow people with much lesser hardware to play the game with acceptable performance (using those lower settings). I don't think it was okay that they didn't do so, as it could only have helped their game's and their own reputation while bolstering their sales by allowing a larger audience to play their game.

The designers knew that it would be a demanding game, and they didn't try to make the game run as best as possible.

xboxdudeman800

They made it run fine for the level of visuals it had. A better way to word that would be "they didn't provide lower, less performance intensive graphics settings to allow people with older hardware to run it acceptably on the lowest settings."

They just put out the game and hoped the hardware to catch up quickly.

xboxdudeman800

No, they put the game out with higher maximum graphics settings than systems of the time could handle (but that also gave a level of graphics far, far beyond every other game out there at max settings, and whose performance levels were standard for said level of graphics) on purpose to prolong the game's appeal (by making the game capable of giving visuals people wouldn't still be impressed by a year down the road). Their error was that they didn't downscale the game enough on the low end by giving lower settings that gave less impressive visuals for better performance in order to allow more players be able to even play the game. It's got nothing to do with optimization, it was simply a poor design decision.

[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"]

They just put out the game and hoped the hardware to catch up quickly.

JP_Russell

No, they put the game out with higher maximum graphics settings than systems of the time could handle

????

the 4870x2 shall run far better then the pre-build you know 280GTX ? as gain +15FPS since it first hardware in most of game
so waiting the driver to adapt to 4870x2 CF Vs Tri sli 280GTX for majority of game & price i may never go Tri sli 280gTX If next YEAR there is something 2x better for 400$ that re-leash else id may in possible way get 2 280gTX and still i wish we people would no have to spend around 420$ per video card to up to X3 To Get the Absolute gameplay .
if nehalem is giving us +20fps in 1920x1200 vs any Dual core & quad core current on market id rather go for it then go 3x 280gTX
cause i don't switch from a cpu if it not give +25% Boost. to 40% boost and if it was possible. +100% Boost.
example 4600x2 socket am2 : 2.4ghz give like 40fps ? and if the E8600 give OC to 4.2Ghz. 70fps ? isn't it obvious it worth
changing it ? if with the same video card it obtain this! how ever. it why benchmark is here there is no lies apparently in those

(off topic about benchmark)
and there nothing more stupid then fake representation it legal in usa. but it illegal in canada (fake representation)
is selling a product that not working like it shown on TV & SAYS
it as to work a bit If not working at all it illegals and there for Banned by the minister of industry & that stuff of sellings
Like 9 minute marinator ? Try ur self see if it taste Exatly same as if you put hmm porkchops marinated in 9 minute ? then BBQ IT right away ? or let it 24 hour. to 48 hour. i can tell you after 24 hour it taste far better then the 9 minute marinator ;)marcthpro

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"]

They just put out the game and hoped the hardware to catch up quickly.

xboxdudeman800

No, they put the game out with higher maximum graphics settings than systems of the time could handle

????

What do you mean, "????" I don't think I can simplify that sentence fragment beyond what it is. In case you're thinking it, no, that is not the same thing as what you just said, not after putting it into context with the rest of my sentence, which you have conveniently left out, again.

[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"][QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

[QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"]

They just put out the game and hoped the hardware to catch up quickly.

JP_Russell

No, they put the game out with higher maximum graphics settings than systems of the time could handle

????

What do you mean, "????" I don't think I can simplify that sentence fragment beyond what it is. In case you're thinking it, no, that is not the same thing as what you just said, not after putting it into context with the rest of my sentence.

JP let it go. You lost.

Crapsis is a poorly optimised game. You claim they should have anticipated gamers with lower end systems but they did, hence, the "low" settings option but it still runs like crap for what it looks like (like crap). Crytek should have taken advice from Valve.

Maybe how ever Crysis is #1 Graphic game on market yet releash .
it what they wanted to aim even knowing we can' acess it
they offer us it like a porche or a jaguar ? you wan't it ? Go on ebay. and put the 350,000$!
well for pc instead of paying 1000$ you have to pay 3000$ for run your so call-ed Crapsis at ALL VERy high with standable FPS ACCORDING GURU3d.com TRI SLI 280GTX TEST ON QX9750 not overclockeds. apparently!
but tha tonly if you play on wide screen 1920x1200 +
you can run cryiss for 1000$ build all very high at 1280x1024. i tell you .
but who want to play 1280x1024 when 1080P ? it only a Quesiton of Budget.!

and the budget is not by 10x more expensive then other thing like a car
car you have them from 500$ all rusty to shiny Ferrari enzo Extremes
think how much it worth ? 50,000$ ? ahh ? nah. something like 350,000$!
everyone as there vice and a way to spend money
but the best way is to avoid to pay overpriced thing like if you can buy the Very same video card at 99$ instead of 400$ AT dell.com where would you buy as a logic of mathematic & siences? dell Or NEWEGG ? your choice !

JP let it go. You lost.

tequilasunriser

Uh-huh. And your solid argument to support this claim has convinced me of it. Oh, wait.

Crapsis is a poorly optimised game. You claim they should have anticipated gamers with lower end systems but they did, hence, the "low" settings option

tequilasunriser

I didn't say they didn't anticipate lower end systems, I said they didn't downscale far enough on the low end to allow enough lower end systems to run the game. Every single setting in the game, including low, gives appropriate performance for how it looks. They simply needed to give even lower settings beyond that which also performed appropriately for their visuals.

but it still runs like crap for what it looks like (like crap).

tequilasunriser

Incorrect. Crysis on low looks slightly better than Far Cry maxed out, and runs slightly worse. Sounds about right, to me. And I'd hardly say it looks like crap; it's comparable to about medium settings in most other contemporary games. But if that's crap to you, very well, that's your opinion.

I didn't say they didn't anticipate lower end systems, I said they didn't downscale far enough on the low end to allow enough lower end systems to run the game.

JP_Russell

????

[QUOTE="Jamiemydearx3"]

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

I'm not defending anything, I'm pointing out that what he said is untrue. Crysis's performance is standard for the visuals it offers, therefore it is not poorly optimized.

JP_Russell

Just because it can be optimized further doesn't mean it's poorly optimized. If Warhead runs even better, then that still means Crysis was standardly optimized, while Warhead will be excellently optimized.

What are you talking about? Crysis was optimized for *** for ATI and/or crossfire users. I have two HD4850s, and get the performance of an 8800GTX. if not, maybe SLIGHTLY higher. i turned off crossfire, exact same frame-rate.

Crysis does NOT work well with ATI cards or Crossfire cards that well, maybe with Nvidia and SLI, sure, but even then the game doesnt give you the performance it can give you IF it was better optimized.

[QUOTE="marcthpro"]the 4870x2 shall run far better then the pre-build you know 280GTX ? as gain +15FPS since it first hardware in most of game
so waiting the driver to adapt to 4870x2 CF Vs Tri sli 280GTX for majority of game & price i may never go Tri sli 280gTX If next YEAR there is something 2x better for 400$ that re-leash else id may in possible way get 2 280gTX and still i wish we people would no have to spend around 420$ per video card to up to X3 To Get the Absolute gameplay .
if nehalem is giving us +20fps in 1920x1200 vs any Dual core & quad core current on market id rather go for it then go 3x 280gTX
cause i don't switch from a cpu if it not give +25% Boost. to 40% boost and if it was possible. +100% Boost.
example 4600x2 socket am2 : 2.4ghz give like 40fps ? and if the E8600 give OC to 4.2Ghz. 70fps ? isn't it obvious it worth
changing it ? if with the same video card it obtain this! how ever. it why benchmark is here there is no lies apparently in those

(off topic about benchmark)
and there nothing more stupid then fake representation it legal in usa. but it illegal in canada (fake representation)
is selling a product that not working like it shown on TV & SAYS
it as to work a bit If not working at all it illegals and there for Banned by the minister of industry & that stuff of sellings
Like 9 minute marinator ? Try ur self see if it taste Exatly same as if you put hmm porkchops marinated in 9 minute ? then BBQ IT right away ? or let it 24 hour. to 48 hour. i can tell you after 24 hour it taste far better then the 9 minute marinator ;)albi321

He's french i believe.

[QUOTE="h575309"]theres no single videocard that exists that can max crysis on very high at a good res... its not the cards fault the game is poorly optimized...JP_Russell

No, it isn't.

Crysis is fail in terms of optimization.

whats the minium your psu should be to run the 4870x2? and do you need 1 6pin plug and an 8 pin or do you neeed 2 8pins?f-a-d-3

I wouldn't try to run it with anything less then 620-700W high quality PSU.

How the heck did Crysis hate get into this thread?

How can you call Crysis a average game when compared to every other shooter out there. It is a refreshing experience.

Anyway, I wouldn't expect new cards for a while, like late 2009.

[QUOTE="f-a-d-3"]whats the minium your psu should be to run the 4870x2? and do you need 1 6pin plug and an 8 pin or do you neeed 2 8pins?domke13

I wouldn't try to run it with anything less then 620-700W high quality PSU.

What are you talking about? Crysis was optimized for *** for ATI and/or crossfire users. I have two HD4850s, and get the performance of an 8800GTX. if not, maybe SLIGHTLY higher. i turned off crossfire, exact same frame-rate.

Crysis does NOT work well with ATI cards or Crossfire cards that well, maybe with Nvidia and SLI, sure, but even then the game doesnt give you the performance it can give you IF it was better optimized.

xid32

Your performance isn't normal.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=20 - 2 4850's getting 36.4 FPS, 8800GTX getting 22.2.

So it's not the game, something somehow is causing a hold-up on your end.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

[QUOTE="h575309"]theres no single videocard that exists that can max crysis on very high at a good res... its not the cards fault the game is poorly optimized...domke13

No, it isn't.

Crysis is fail in terms of optimization.

No, it isn't. I've already explained why.

How the heck did Crysis hate get into this thread?

lettuceman44

Some guy ignorantly called Crysis unoptimized, I corrected him, a bunch of people who simply have a grudge against Crysis because they don't like it hopped on the ignorance bandwagon of scewing what the real problem is with Crysis's performance into one of poor optimization.

How can you call Crysis a average game when compared to every other shooter out there. It is a refreshing experience.

lettuceman44

Hey, whether or not it's good is one's own opinion, that's fine if they don't like Crysis. That's just no reason to go pointing out problems that don't exist or distort things around out of what can only be described as hatred for a stinking video game.

[QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

[QUOTE="h575309"]theres no single videocard that exists that can max crysis on very high at a good res... its not the cards fault the game is poorly optimized...JP_Russell

No, it isn't.

Crysis is fail in terms of optimization.

No, it isn't. I've already explained why.

Well sorry then i must have missed your **** explanations. I bet it was something like "Crysis runs great for the way it looks".

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"][QUOTE="domke13"][QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

[QUOTE="h575309"]theres no single videocard that exists that can max crysis on very high at a good res... its not the cards fault the game is poorly optimized...domke13

No, it isn't.

Crysis is fail in terms of optimization.

No, it isn't. I've already explained why.

Well sorry then i must have missed your **** explanations. I bet it was something like "Crysis runs great for the way it looks".

Then how about you give me a good reason why they're "**** explanations?" Everyone has yet to counter any of my arguments, any of them, effectively. The counter-arguments have been limited to what can be paraphrased as "lulz tats stoopid u lose."

How the heck did Crysis hate get into this thread?

How can you call Crysis a average game when compared to every other shooter out there. It is a refreshing experience.

lettuceman44

[QUOTE="lettuceman44"]

How the heck did Crysis hate get into this thread?

How can you call Crysis a average game when compared to every other shooter out there. It is a refreshing experience.

codezer0

This is where you fail my friend. This is where your argument falls flat onto its face.

Clearly you've never played Crysis MP - Gamers that are unable to run Very High/DX10 are restricted to DX9 servers, where trees are not destructible. This effectively eliminates the "tree cutting" advantage of higher-end gamers. There's also DX10 servers where trees are destructible.

I'm sorry.