Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

Benchmark Results: Crysis

by

Though we still haven't seen the sort of hardware that makes Crysis playable with Ultra Quality settings, it’s high time we upped the ante a bit and used Very High options. Also, in the past, we’ve noticed very I/O-limited scores, which did a fairly poor job reflecting performance due to a constant hammering our reference system's VelociRaptor. This time we’ve switched to Intel’s second-gen SSD.

Right off the bat, we see a single Radeon HD 4870 X2 outperforming the GeForce GTX 285. But perhaps more interesting is that, with one ATI card, the Phenom II scores first place at 1680x1050, followed by the Core 2 Quad. The Core i7s and Core i5 follow after. One Nvidia single-GPU flagship yields fairly similar results across the board.

Adding SLI to the equation again shoots Nvidia to the top of the pile, as ATI simply can’t get as much scaling from a pair of Radeon HD 4870 X2s. Even more bizarre is that the ATI gets zero benefit from CrossFire on the two fastest systems with only one card installed.

Shifting over to 2560x1600 sees a single GeForce GTX 285 dip under 20 fps across all five systems, and one Radeon HD 4870 X2 sits just above that 20 fps mark. Fortunately, CrossFire and SLI both boost performance substantially, getting all of our dual-card setups up around 30 fps.

The most interesting result here is the Core i7-920, which establishes an advantage most likely attributable to its twin 16-lane PCI Express 2.0 links. If you reference back to our analysis of PCI Express connectivity, you’ll see that the results map over almost perfectly, despite the fact we were running High Quality settings there. Notice also that the AMD platform isn’t getting hammered as hard here, almost certainly a result of our switch to an SSD, which doesn’t penalize AMD as severely for the performance of its storage controller.

Let’s get the easy one out of the way first: at 1680x1050, a single GeForce GTX 285 delivers comparable performance across all five platforms. The same holds true at 2560x1600, with the exception of Intel’s Core 2 Quad-based platform, where the Nvidia card falters.

Adding SLI helps Nvidia catapult into the lead from a fairly sizable deficit at both tested resolutions and on all three compatible platforms. But while 1680x1050 becomes playable, 2560x1600 almost certainly remains out of reach, even with almost $800 worth of GPU muscle under the hood.

Our single-card tests all favor ATI’s Radeon HD 4870 X2, though again the Core 2 Quad and Phenom II machines out-score the trio of Nehalem-based configurations.

CrossFire does help the Core i7-870 and Core i7-920, but it does little for the Core i5-750 at either resolution. Beyond that, though, ATI's technology scales very poorly compared to SLI here. This wouldn’t be as disconcerting in an older title if it wasn’t a trend we’ve observed in every game thus far, save S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Fortunately, even at 1680x1050 with 4xAA, you’re still looking at fairly-playable performance.

Share:
9
Comments
Read more
X
Submit

Comments
Read the comments on the forums
wild9 08/09/2009 14:55
Hide
--1+

Interesting..whilst the Phenom II is a refined core rather than a new design, it still seems able to hold it's weight. It's also apparent that even the fastest Core i5's and i7's are getting some great results not from nVidia cards, but from AMD/ATI.

wild9 08/09/2009 14:58
Hide
-1+

^ Source: single-card configurations, i.e. what most people can afford.

david__t 08/09/2009 15:08
Hide
-1+

"Running at 1680x1050 represents a solid baseline for mainstream gamers, while 2560x1600 serves as today’s Holy Grail."
With so many people attaching their PCs to 1080p TVs why do we consistenly see a lack of 1920x1080 resolution results? Besides, many people still use top quality 17" & 19" monitors with 1280x1024 resolutions.

Anonymous 08/09/2009 15:46
Hide
-1+

@up:

At 1280x1024 you sure as hell don't need Tri SLI 285 or CrossfireX 4870x2. In fact single 4850 will do.

madogre 08/09/2009 17:02
Hide
-1+

This makes me rethink my whole i5/i7 upgrade at the first of the year.
I'm guessing my Q6600 @3.6 is alittle faster then the Q9550 used in the tests.

Anonymous 08/09/2009 19:46
Hide
-1+

Maybe a i5 and 2x4770 GPU might do some good at a very low price?

kasperg 17/09/2009 08:31
Hide
--1+

the Q9550 was only clocked @ 2.83GHz, they should atleast used the Q9650 or OC the Q9550 to 3.4GHz like the PII 965

Anonymous 14/12/2009 22:43
Hide
-0+

Well. Hello There. I want to share with you guys. Hello there!

Anonymous 29/12/2009 05:41
Hide
-0+

@kasperg
then why not clock the i7 920 to 4GHz and all of the others accordingly?

Best offers

Newsletters


OK