Benchmarks Crysis WarHead, Farcry2, 3DMark Vantage, GF295sli

Crysis WarHead, Farcry2, 3DMark Vantage, GF295sli with new 23" inch

3DMark Vantage,



Farcry2,








Crysis WarHead,


Crysis Warhead Benchmark
v1.1.1.0
The benchmark started at 1/26/2009 8:40:31 PM
System Information
Operating system: Windows (TM) Vista Ultimate
System memory: 4.0 GB
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
CPU speed: 3700 MHz
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 - 0 MB
Benchmark information
Demo: Cave
Quality: Very High (tweaked)
Renderer mode: DirectX 10
Antialising mode: 16xQ
Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16×
MultiGPU support: Enabled
Boost renderer: Disabled
Use Custom Config File: No
Random .exe: Disabled



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution: 1920×1080 (HD WideScreen)
Result(1): Minimum= 37 FPS Average= 81 FPS Max= 186 FPS





Crysis Warhead Benchmark
v1.1.1.0


The benchmark started at 1/26/2009 8:47:14 PM

System Information
Operating system: Windows (TM) Vista Ultimate
System memory: 4.0 GB
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
CPU speed: 3700 MHz
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 - 0 MB
Benchmark information
Demo: Cave
Quality: Very High (tweaked)
Renderer mode: DirectX 10
Antialising mode: 16xQ
Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16×
MultiGPU support: Enabled
Boost renderer: Disabled
Use Custom Config File: No
Random .exe: Disabled



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution: 1280×768 (HD WideScreen)
Result(1): Minimum= 41 FPS Average= 88 FPS Max= 153 FPS




Crysis Warhead Benchmark
v1.1.1.0


The benchmark started at 1/26/2009 8:51:10 PM

System Information
Operating system: Windows (TM) Vista Ultimate
System memory: 4.0 GB
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
CPU speed: 3700 MHz
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295 - 0 MB
Benchmark information
Demo: Cave
Quality: Very High (tweaked)
Renderer mode: DirectX 10
Antialising mode: 16xQ
Filtering mode: Anisotropic 16×
MultiGPU support: Enabled
Boost renderer: Disabled
Use Custom Config File: No
Random .exe: Disabled



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resolution: 1600×1200
Result(1): Minimum= 42 FPS Average= 82 FPS Max= 142 FPS




also tell me what you think would like to know your input

Thanks!

Its without a doubt pointless to bench at that 1280x768 res there. Might as well delete it really.

well i just put up there because knowing my luck someone will ask

Please use better screenshots next time... like using the snipping tool or something.

Also, benchmark warhead using an outdoor level... thats where the game is mostly played and where you would like to see higher FPS.
Xtreme benchmark for Vantage makes more sense given the available highest resolution on a 23 inch

You get what you pay for. But I personally believe these games aren't worth spending so much money on the hardware itself. period.

this is what i was looking for. As i am getting 2 295's next week. Can you run the tests with the 920@4ghz to see where the bottleneck lies?

With quite a few people going quad sli, it is making me want to

I may wait until Q2/3 for the new 40nm GPU's however, to see what they can offer over this. Quad sli is horrible in many games anyway. Have you ran an extreme score for vantage? Also, try some benches at 4-4.5Ghz

WOW, Quad SLI with 2 GTX 295's now thats eXtreme GAMING, sweet, that would be like my dream PC, you must love that thing.

SWEEEEEEET!!!

I think it would be best to wait for the true dx11 "tesselation" GPUs to hit the scene before going quad-sli.

These dx10 cards are going to be outdated here very quickly!

luv2increase said:

I think it would be best to wait for the true dx11 "tesselation" GPUs to hit the scene before going quad-sli.

These dx10 cards are going to be outdated here very quickly!

Click to expand...

Riiiight. Thats what they said when the DX10 cards came out. Funny thing is that 8800GTX is still a monster card.