• Why does everyone use Crysis to benchmark?
    90 replies, posted
[QUOTE=xZippy;18073585]There's still the people that brag about getting 30 or higher fps. 30fps is shit to me. I hate seeing anything below 50fps.[/QUOTE] good to know way to derail your own thread
[QUOTE=xZippy;18073414]I don't understand this, that's all I hear about. "Yeah I got <insert specs here> and I can play Crysis full screen 1920x1200 at around 30 to 40 fps."[/QUOTE] At first I thought your post was intelligent, [QUOTE=xZippy;18073414]Which is funny, because I always considered 30-40fps to be not that good.[/QUOTE] Then I read that. 30-40 frames is perfect. Usually games lock it at thirty on counsels so the game doesn't seem weird and too fast paced.
[QUOTE=xZippy;18073585]There's still the people that brag about getting 30 or higher fps. 30fps is shit to me. I hate seeing anything below 50fps.[/QUOTE] As if you could tell a difference if that little counter wasn't on your screen.
[QUOTE='Odellus[v2];18087999']Synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark are completely useless in the real world.[/QUOTE] If you're going to challenge something, PLEASE, give us some backup? What do you mean by synthetic? And real world..? The real world of computer games?
[QUOTE='Odellus[v2];18087999']Synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark are completely useless in the real world.[/QUOTE] but 3d mark vantage give you your 3dmark vantage score!!! [editline]01:51AM[/editline] bro
[QUOTE=M_B;18088043]good to know way to derail your own thread[/QUOTE] No? I mentioned the FPS thing in my first post. [quote=TJCTakSUn] At first I thought your post was intelligent, Then I read that. 30-40 frames is [B]perfect[/B]. Usually games lock it at thirty on counsels so the game doesn't seem weird and too fast paced.[/quote] Perfect? [quote=Panda X]As if you could tell a difference if that little counter wasn't on your screen.[/quote] Yes, I can actually.
[QUOTE=xZippy;18089261]Perfect?[/QUOTE] Yeah perfect. You don't really need more than that.
It's impossible tell a difference between framerates if they're higher than your monitor's refresh rate. If your monitor updates 60 times per second, you won't be taking advantage of 23534237652837645293529345672 FPS over 70.
I think GTA IV should be the new PC benchmark.
[QUOTE=Panda X;18088061]As if you could tell a difference if that little counter wasn't on your screen.[/QUOTE] actually you should quite easily be able to tell the difference between the two framerates, something is dreadfully wrong with your vision if you cannot. however at 30fps it shouldn't be by any means unplayable. [editline]12:37AM[/editline] [QUOTE=xZippy;18089261]No? I mentioned the FPS thing in my first post.[/QUOTE] the post was about "LOL WHY CRYSIS BENCHMARK?!" not "LOL 50 FPS BETR THN 30"
totally ^ [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mui6kePQ63s[/media] vs [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxZWJ4uFcQc[/media]
Well your brain sees a flawless image at 24 fps. and above 60-70 fps is faster than the refresh rate of most monitors.
[QUOTE=lemongrapes;18093080]Well your brain sees a flawless image at 24 fps. and above 60-70 fps is faster than the refresh rate of most monitors.[/QUOTE] You're dumb. [editline]11:25AM[/editline] [url]http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm[/url] maybe? [editline]11:25AM[/editline] I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 100 FPS. Also, many films are @ 24 FPS but that isn't the same as games
[QUOTE=cheeseburg;18073952]Same I can't play them below 60 or 75 fps.[/QUOTE] Okay, how the fuck can you even NOTICE a few framerate difference between oh say 55 and 60. I honestly don't notice stuttering and framerate issues until it drops below atleast 20 FPS. Not to mention most games run animations, physics, et cetera at 60 FPS. Now you're just being fucking asinine. Also, to the above: 24 FPS video clip looked perfectly smooth to me.
[QUOTE=xZippy;18073826]I take that back, anything lower than 50fps in [i]Valve[/i] games, I hate. 40fps in World at War looks different than 40fps in Team Fortress 2. To me at least.[/QUOTE] Hey, I get 30fps on hl2 :p nah, valve made their games to be compatible with low end computers.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;18073786]30 FPS in Crysis actually looks reasonable thanks to the careful application of motion blur. It is still used as a benchmark because despite it's age, nothing has come along to really challenge it in terms of resource usage (and image quality). Far Cry 2 is comparable in terms of system usage, but has presents less options/control to the user over image quality. Whenever I here someone bragging about FPS in any game I always ask at what resolution and AA settings...they usually stop bragging at about that point.[/QUOTE] I get 250FPS in CoD4. 450 in Source games 50 in Far Cry 2. That's at all highest, with 4x AA and at 1680x1050. :smug:
[QUOTE=TJCTakSUn;18088080]If you're going to challenge something, PLEASE, give us some backup? What do you mean by synthetic? And real world..? The real world of computer games?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.hardocp.com/article/2008/02/11/benchmarking_benchmarks/4[/url] read and enjoy.
"You know what, I get 300fps on bookworm" If someone told you that, you could never tell if its a high end card or something from 10 years ago.
[QUOTE=M_B;18092279]the post was about "LOL WHY CRYSIS BENCHMARK?!" not "LOL 50 FPS BETR THN 30"[/QUOTE] Wow, way to be an asshole. You're still wrong by the way. [quote]"Yeah I got <insert specs here> and I can play Crysis full screen 1920x1200 at around 30 to 40 fps." Which is funny, because I always considered 30-40fps to be not that good.[/quote]
[QUOTE=LE0N1;18093282]Okay, how the fuck can you even NOTICE a few framerate difference between oh say 55 and 60. I honestly don't notice stuttering and framerate issues until it drops below atleast 20 FPS. Not to mention most games run animations, physics, et cetera at 60 FPS. Now you're just being fucking asinine. Also, to the above: 24 FPS video clip looked perfectly smooth to me.[/QUOTE] If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post here, and if you think that video of Crysis looks smooth, you're fucked in the head.
[QUOTE=cheeseburg;18073952]Same I can't play them below 60 or 75 fps. In css it's 75 as I play at a lower resolution for the extra 15 fps and in tf2 I play at the highest resolution which only displays 60 fps as I don't take it seriously and competitively in css.[/QUOTE] I highly doubt you can notice the difference between 60 and 75.
Crysis was the only game i could play at 25fps. Everything else no.
I compare to GTA IV. The shitty port job is so graphic intensive that it eats up memory and takes up every inch of your cpu. I can run crysis on all max with 60 fps, gta iv at max i get 50.
You would not be able to tell the difference between probably 35 and 50 if you had 40 on day, then the next day you had 55. You would notice if you switched between them mid game or whatever though.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;18103767]I compare to GTA IV. The shitty port job is so graphic intensive that it eats up memory and takes up every inch of your cpu. I can run crysis on all max with 60 fps, gta iv at max i get 50.[/QUOTE] Specs?
GTA IV is just a CPU rape game. It doesn't do much with the GPU. I had virtually no performance increase from an 8800 GT to a GTX 295. Crysis is a bit more well rounded. Fairly CPU, and very GPU intensive.
bah i7 920 here, @ 4.2, and a GTX 275. 40 average FPS with 1 GTX 275, all maxed out. Adding a second GPU pretty much made it stay @ 60 FPS. Its not all CPU dependent, but having a good one eliminates that problem. [code]Statistics Average FPS: 57.76 Duration: 37.42 sec CPU Usage: 39% System memory usage: 52% Video memory usage: 99% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1080 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Texture Filter Quality: Very High View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100[/code]
[QUOTE='Odellus[v2];18087999']Synthetic benchmarks like 3DMark are completely useless in the real world.[/QUOTE] No they are not. Unlike individual games that have each their quirks that may favor or hate certain features, a dedicated benchmark like 3Dmark is designed to fairly uniformly stress the hardware as much as possible. I'd trust 3Dmark before a Crysis bench. :P
[QUOTE='Odellus[v2];18101984']If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post here, and if you think that video of Crysis looks smooth, you're fucked in the head.[/QUOTE] I wasn't referring to that video of crysis, I agree it looks like shit because that guy is getting around 5 FPS. I was referring to that 100fps site video showing 24 FPS, which looks perfectly smooth. There's no need to be an arrogant prick, either.
[QUOTE=BmB;18109022]No they are not. Unlike individual games that have each their quirks that may favor or hate certain features, a dedicated benchmark like 3Dmark is designed to fairly uniformly stress the hardware as much as possible. I'd trust 3Dmark before a Crysis bench. :P[/QUOTE] the stress testing that 3Dmark does is purposefully unoptomized and would only apply if you were constantly renderring a cutscene at higher settings than you would be playing, for example. they're good for benchmarking, but not if you're a gamer. [editline]11:15AM[/editline] individual games are optimized entirely differently from one another, and one visual effect may perform better on your system than another visual effect, the two effects being in two different games.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.