• MM Pinnacle 24, Core i7 920, Dual GTX 295 - Liquid Cooled Work Log (Lots of pictures)
    647 replies, posted
Couple of benchmarks: [b]Crysis Warhead[/b] [img]http://www.tehupload.com/uploads/2608b8663d11581CrysisWarhead.PNG[/img] Enthusiast Settings, 2560x1600, 0xAA Mininum Framerate: 21.2 Maximum Framerate: 57.75 [highlight]Average Framerate: 47.79[/highlight] [b]Grand Theft Auto IV[/b] [highlight]Average Framerate: 60.22[/highlight] Duration: 37.98 sec CPU Usage: 35% System memory usage: 56% Video memory usage: 100% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 2560 x 1600 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Texture Filter Quality: Highest View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 [b]World in Conflict[/b] 2560x1600, 16xQ CSAA, Everything on Highest Minimum Framerate: 18 Maximum Framerate: 200 [highlight]Average Framerate: 62[/highlight] [b]Left 4 Dead[/b] 2560x1600, 16xQ CSAA, Everything on Highest [highlight]Average Framerate: 176.32[/highlight] ------------------------------- All results are from standard games without any config tweaks. (Barring the -norestrictions command for GTA IV). Running Windows 7 Build 7068 x64 & Latest Beta nVidia Vista Drivers
Thats awesome! Quite the fps range in World in Conflict. 18 to 200 wow
[QUOTE=steven20;14454447]Thats awesome! Quite the fps range in World in Conflict. 18 to 200 wow[/QUOTE] 16xQ CSAA on a Nuke
[QUOTE=darkride196;14453641]finally someone who [b]doesn't know what they're[/b] talking about.[/QUOTE] Fixed.
[QUOTE=apwd007;14454451]16xQ CSAA on a Nuke[/QUOTE] Oh I gotcha. That makes a bit more sense to me now.
Wouldn't the only objective method of testing if one component (eg. the CPU) bottlenecks another component be to substitute in a more powerful component and check for performance gains? So, you'd need to find a CPU more powerful than the Core i7 920 to compare it to. EDIT: oh, and can you guys make your own thread about this. I really like the build so far and it is a shame to shit on it with all this incessant bickering.
[QUOTE=apwd007;14454355][b]Crysis Warhead[/b] [img]http://www.tehupload.com/uploads/2608b8663d11581CrysisWarhead.PNG[/img] Enthusiast Settings, 2560x1600, 0xAA Mininum Framerate: 21.2 Maximum Framerate: 57.75 [highlight]Average Framerate: 47.79[/highlight][/QUOTE] That would nosedive if you switch AA on.
You don't say, what the hell, I'll see what happens @ 16xQ CSAA
How much were those awesome switches? If they have multi-colored ones, I will explode!
[QUOTE=Prismatex;14454482]Fixed.[/QUOTE] You're wrong. Get over it. [url]http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-295-review-bfg/17[/url]
[QUOTE=apwd007;14454655]You don't say, what the hell, I'll see what happens @ 16xQ CSAA[/QUOTE] Or not, seems that the Benchmarking tool doesn't play to well with AA at all and causes Crysis to crash, but suffice to say, when you get past 2xAA on Enthusiast & 2560x1600, it can get pretty damn slow
did you update to 186.65 drivers? it'll help your score in warhead to go up slighlty also take a benchmark with the orginal crysis.
[QUOTE=darkride196;14455064]did you update to 186.65 drivers? it'll help your score in warhead to go up slighlty also take a benchmark with the orginal crysis.[/QUOTE] The latest driver is 185.66, which I was running. I only own Warhead so I can't do a benchmark of the original
[QUOTE=xxFoxxx;14454793]You're wrong. Get over it. [url]http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-295-review-bfg/17[/url][/QUOTE] Read more right there. When they turn on 8x AA (FO3 goes much higher), you can see more of a difference in performance between the cards. At lower AA levels, all games get more CPU limited.
[B]Absolutly Phenominal[/B]
At such a high resolution I doubt you'd need much AA to make it look better anyway no?
Can we have pictures of the benchmark from your camera while playing? I want to see your whole setup.
[QUOTE=Sasso;14457097]At such a high resolution I doubt you'd need much AA to make it look better anyway no?[/QUOTE] No because the pixels wouldn't be scaled bigger there would just be more of them so AA on a small screen by itself would be laggier than on a little screen because it has more shapes to smooth.
I really have to say... You're fucking crazy, dude! That's awesome!
[quote=reznort;14457068][b]absolutly phenominal[/b][/quote] n...nooo!!! Not again!!!
[QUOTE=Xenos;14460434]No because the pixels wouldn't be scaled bigger there would just be more of them so AA on a small screen by itself would be laggier than on a little screen because it has more shapes to smooth.[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but Sasso is correct, the higher the resloution, the less jagged edges are apparent, therefore AA is less needed. [QUOTE=Odellus;14457128]Can we have pictures of the benchmark from your camera while playing? I want to see your whole setup.[/QUOTE] Will do
That is an awesome computer, great work!
I'd like to see pics of the the hardware itself running...watercooling is something I'd like to try in the future.
Yeah, we want finished pics.
[QUOTE=apwd007;14461614]Will do[/QUOTE] yesssss
Awpd. You're insane. ... But it's a good kind of insane.
Thread needs moar finished pics
No, We need a video.
Yes, a video would be cool.
i wonder if it eeirily glow if he'd put in blue caths.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.