Heppu Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Here is my bench: Statistics Average FPS: 60.83 Duration: 37.09 sec CPU Usage: 24% System memory usage: 51% Video memory usage: 62% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 960 (85 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 50 Detail Distance: 50 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra Video Driver version: 180.48 Audio Adapter: SoundMAX HD Audio Intel Pentium III Xeon -suoritin (i7 [email protected]) With [email protected] seconds benchmark i got 38-44 average fps, 31-33 to be lowest. In those tests, i drove car around at high speed and take some hits on objects. Traffic density was 100. It's not a cigar but i have to setle on this now:( thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdswine666 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) My results, Statistics Average FPS: 65.45 Duration: 37.08 sec CPU Usage: 32% System memory usage: 62% (6Gb DDR3 1600Mhz) Video memory usage: 98% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1600 x 1200 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High Reflection Resolution: High Water Quality: Very High Shadow Quality: High View Distance: 25 Detail Distance: 37 Definition: Off VSync: Off Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT (SLI) Video Driver version: 181.22 Audio Adapter: Speakers (Realtek High Definition Audio) Intel® Core i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz ( 3.8GHz) Yet to see it go below 50 fps when playing. Edited February 3, 2009 by jdswine666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Just benched my new cards on patch 2. Without SLi: Statistics Average FPS: 49.39 Duration: 37.25 sec CPU Usage: 71% System memory usage: 41% Video memory usage: 91% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Low Water Quality: Medium Shadow Quality: High View Distance: 65 Detail Distance: 65 Definition: Off VSync: On Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Video Driver version: 181.22 Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: benchmark.cli With SLi: Statistics Average FPS: 52.54 Duration: 37.34 sec CPU Usage: 72% System memory usage: 42% Video memory usage: 82% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Low Water Quality: Medium Shadow Quality: High View Distance: 65 Detail Distance: 65 Definition: Off VSync: On Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Video Driver version: 181.22 Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: benchmark.cli CPU overclocked to 4.2GHz and 285s on factory clocks in both cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Just benched my new cards on patch 2. Without SLi: Statistics Average FPS: 49.39 Duration: 37.25 sec CPU Usage: 71% System memory usage: 41% Video memory usage: 91% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Low Water Quality: Medium Shadow Quality: High View Distance: 65 Detail Distance: 65 Definition: Off VSync: On Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Video Driver version: 181.22 Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: benchmark.cli With SLi: Statistics Average FPS: 52.54 Duration: 37.34 sec CPU Usage: 72% System memory usage: 42% Video memory usage: 82% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Low Water Quality: Medium Shadow Quality: High View Distance: 65 Detail Distance: 65 Definition: Off VSync: On Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Video Driver version: 181.22 Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: benchmark.cli CPU overclocked to 4.2GHz and 285s on factory clocks in both cases. Mmm , well i thought you would get a good boost from the 2 x GTX 285. Could i ask you to run a benchie with HIGH - HIGHEST - VERY HIGH - VERY HIGH - VERY HIGH - 100 - 100 ? Here it is my benchie with patch 1.0.2 at 1680 x 1050 , driver 185.20 , Qx9650 at 4 Ghz and GTX 280 at stock clocks (ASUS GTX280 TOP 670 - 1460 - 2430): Statistics Average FPS: 61.09 Duration: 37.22 sec CPU Usage: 70% System memory usage: 73% Video memory usage: 64% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Very High Water Quality: Very High Shadow Quality: Very High View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 Definition: Off VSync: Off Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Video Driver version: 185.20 Audio Adapter: Alto-falantes (2- Razer Barracuda AC-1 Gaming Audio Card) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: benchmark.cli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Just benched my new cards on patch 2. Without SLi: Statistics Average FPS: 49.39 Duration: 37.25 sec CPU Usage: 71% System memory usage: 41% Video memory usage: 91% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Low Water Quality: Medium Shadow Quality: High View Distance: 65 Detail Distance: 65 Definition: Off VSync: On Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Video Driver version: 181.22 Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: benchmark.cli With SLi: Statistics Average FPS: 52.54 Duration: 37.34 sec CPU Usage: 72% System memory usage: 42% Video memory usage: 82% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Low Water Quality: Medium Shadow Quality: High View Distance: 65 Detail Distance: 65 Definition: Off VSync: On Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Video Driver version: 181.22 Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: benchmark.cli CPU overclocked to 4.2GHz and 285s on factory clocks in both cases. Mmm , well i thought you would get a good boost from the 2 x GTX 285. Could i ask you to run a benchie with HIGH - HIGHEST - VERY HIGH - VERY HIGH - VERY HIGH - 100 - 100 ? Here it is my benchie with patch 1.0.2 at 1680 x 1050 , driver 185.20 , Qx9650 at 4 Ghz and GTX 280 at stock clocks (ASUS GTX280 TOP 670 - 1460 - 2430): Statistics Average FPS: 61.09 Duration: 37.22 sec CPU Usage: 70% System memory usage: 73% Video memory usage: 64% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Very High Water Quality: Very High Shadow Quality: Very High View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 Definition: Off VSync: Off Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 Video Driver version: 185.20 Audio Adapter: Alto-falantes (2- Razer Barracuda AC-1 Gaming Audio Card) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: benchmark.cli I will copy your bench settings and see what happens. Are you using any commandline tweaks, I am having some trouble at the moment? The Ultras just ran with no real problems unless I created them but the 285s keep getting what appears to memory problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Are you using any commandline tweaks, I am having some trouble at the moment? The Ultras just ran with no real problems unless I created them but the 285s keep getting what appears to memory problems. Thanks, -availablevidmem 1.6 is the only command im using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Pretty much the same result as before, re-installed the 185.20 driver too to try and pretty much get a good comparison. So far your single 280 is pwning my 285s. Statistics Average FPS: 46.49 Duration: 37.73 sec CPU Usage: 75% System memory usage: 41% Video memory usage: 67% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: High Render Quality: Highest Reflection Resolution: Very High Water Quality: Very High Shadow Quality: Very High View Distance: 100 Detail Distance: 100 Definition: Off VSync: On Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285 Video Driver version: 185.20 Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio) Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHz File ID: benchmark.cli Still having a lot of problems with the new set up. Crashes galore. Just noticed the vsynch as well, was supposed to be off. WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Just noticed the vsynch as well, was supposed to be off. WTF? Yes i noticed that too, weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 (edited) Pretty much the same result as before, re-installed the 185.20 driver too to try and pretty much get a good comparison.So far your single 280 is pwning my 285s. Its strange, ive just run a benchmark with the Qx9650 at 3.67 Ghz + 181.22, and i got 57 FPS, thats 11 FPS over your rig at 4.2 Ghz. StatisticsAverage FPS: 57.02Duration: 37.27 secCPU Usage: 68%System memory usage: 72%Video memory usage: 64%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighRender Quality: HighestReflection Resolution: Very HighWater Quality: Very HighShadow Quality: Very HighView Distance: 100Detail Distance: 100Definition: OffVSync: OffHardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280Video Driver version: 181.22Audio Adapter: Alto-falantes (2- Razer Barracuda AC-1 Gaming Audio Card)Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHzFile ID: benchmark.cli Qx9650 AT 3.83 gHZ. StatisticsAverage FPS: 58.86Duration: 37.20 secCPU Usage: 69%System memory usage: 72%Video memory usage: 66%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighRender Quality: HighestReflection Resolution: Very HighWater Quality: Very HighShadow Quality: Very HighView Distance: 100Detail Distance: 100Definition: OffVSync: OffHardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280Video Driver version: 181.22Audio Adapter: Alto-falantes (2- Razer Barracuda AC-1 Gaming Audio Card)Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHzFile ID: benchmark.cli Edited February 3, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I deleted the farclip tweak (3500) and got almost 2 extra FPS hehe (confirmed in 3 bench runs), Qx9650 at 3.67 Ghz. StatisticsAverage FPS: 58.87Duration: 37.20 secCPU Usage: 69%System memory usage: 69%Video memory usage: 64%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighRender Quality: HighestReflection Resolution: Very HighWater Quality: Very HighShadow Quality: Very HighView Distance: 100Detail Distance: 100Definition: OffVSync: OffHardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280Video Driver version: 181.22Audio Adapter: Alto-falantes (2- Razer Barracuda AC-1 Gaming Audio Card)Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHzFile ID: benchmark.cli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) Getting better results now, tweaking the -memrestrict. Basically just using resolution multiplied by (VRAM x 2) eg 1920x1200x2048. Needs a little fine tuning but it's given good results so far. The R* Toronto figures tended to be higher and limited the FPS more harshly. I can however watch my memory usage creep up on my G15 keyboard display, a definate memory problem for sure now. My results have all been using a Farclip multiplier of 4, double the standard games setting of 2. This will show the whole map clearly form the air. StatisticsAverage FPS: 51.13Duration: 37.63 secCPU Usage: 74%System memory usage: 36%Video memory usage: 34%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighRender Quality: HighestReflection Resolution: Very HighWater Quality: Very HighShadow Quality: Very HighView Distance: 100Detail Distance: 100Definition: OffVSync: OnHardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285Video Driver version: 185.20Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio)Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHzFile ID: benchmark.cli StatisticsAverage FPS: 51.49Duration: 37.15 secCPU Usage: 73%System memory usage: 42%Video memory usage: 35%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1920 x 1200 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighRender Quality: HighestReflection Resolution: Very HighWater Quality: Very HighShadow Quality: Very HighView Distance: 100Detail Distance: 100Definition: OffVSync: OnHardwareMicrosoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 285Video Driver version: 185.20Audio Adapter: Speakers (SoundMAX Integrated Digital HD Audio)Intel® Core2 Extreme CPU X9650 @ 3.00GHzFile ID: Benchmark.cli Again it is showing vsynch as on when it is off in my settings. Edited February 4, 2009 by pinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GammaRaptor Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 My crappy benchmark (needs a better graphics card !) Statistics Average FPS: 26.02 Duration: 37.55 sec CPU Usage: 75% System memory usage: 82% Video memory usage: 38% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1440 x 900 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Medium Reflection Resolution: Medium Water Quality: Low Shadow Quality: Low View Distance: 1 Detail Distance: 1 Definition: On VSync: On Hardware Microsoft® Windows Vista" Ultimate Service Pack 1 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS Video Driver version: 180.84 Audio Adapter: Speakers (SigmaTel High Definition Audio CODEC) Intel® Core2 CPU 6700 @ 2.66GHz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 StatisticsAverage FPS: 51.13 Looking good, you should get at least 62 FPS after you do all fine tuning with the Qx9650 at 4.2 Ghz, considering the GTX 285 is like 10% faster than my GTX 280. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frost_Bob Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Hardware Cpu : Intel Pentium D CPU 925 3.00GHz MotherBoard : Asus P5WD2 Deluxe MEM : 3 gig V/C : ATI Radeon HD 3400 Series 512 Megs Sound : Realtek HD Audio O/S : Windows XP Pro SP3 Statistics Average FPS: 13.45 Duration: 37.54 sec CPU Usage: 82% System memory usage: 47% Video memory usage: 53% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 800 x 600 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Medium View Distance: 30 Detail Distance: 30 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Professionnel Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: ATI Radeon HD 3400 Series Video Driver version: 6.14.10.6903 Audio Adapter: Realtek HD Audio output Intel® Pentium® D CPU 3.00GHz File ID: benchmark.cli Nopatch, lastest driver ATI 9.1. ... Youpie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0adrunn3r Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 @ Thales100 & Pinky For a laugh, I thought I'd benchmark my slightly lesser rig (with -availablevidmem 2.0) at the same settings just to see what happened StatisticsAverage FPS: 54.26Duration: 37.21 secCPU Usage: 58%System memory usage: 58%Video memory usage: 59%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighRender Quality: HighestReflection Resolution: Very HighWater Quality: Very HighShadow Quality: Very HighView Distance: 100Detail Distance: 100Definition: OffVSync: OffHardwareMicrosoft Windows XP ProfessionalService Pack 3Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260Video Driver version: 181.20Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [EC00]Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q6700 @ 2.66GHzFile ID: Benchmark.cli My only question is why are the video memory usages showing in all our benchmarks as being so low? In theory we're all using way above the available memory just to get these settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 @ Thales100 & Pinky For a laugh, I thought I'd benchmark my slightly lesser rig (with -availablevidmem 2.0) at the same settings just to see what happened StatisticsAverage FPS: 54.26Duration: 37.21 secCPU Usage: 58%System memory usage: 58%Video memory usage: 59%Graphics SettingsVideo Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)Texture Quality: HighRender Quality: HighestReflection Resolution: Very HighWater Quality: Very HighShadow Quality: Very HighView Distance: 100Detail Distance: 100Definition: OffVSync: OffHardwareMicrosoft Windows XP ProfessionalService Pack 3Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260Video Driver version: 181.20Audio Adapter: SB X-Fi Audio [EC00]Intel® Core2 Quad CPU Q6700 @ 2.66GHzFile ID: Benchmark.cli My only question is why are the video memory usages showing in all our benchmarks as being so low? In theory we're all using way above the available memory just to get these settings. I think this is thankfully because Rockstar made the GFX settings suitable to in game demands, whereas the benchmark is pants and not really a good representation of in game requirements. Therefore it hardly stresses the GPU's memory because there really isn't much going on in the screen, no real amount of detail just action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnipeFrenzy Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) Playable and works great on multiplayer. Also Video Card is a 512mb/GDDR3, Also because of mobo my video card is locked at x4 PCI-E Slot ( so when i get a new mobo and use the full x16 i will see more improvement ) Statistics Average FPS: 23.00 Duration: 36.96 sec CPU Usage: 83% System memory usage: 92% Video memory usage: 77% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1024 x 768 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: Very High Reflection Resolution: Medium Water Quality: High Shadow Quality: Medium View Distance: 34 Detail Distance: 36 Definition: On VSync: On Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT Video Driver version: 178.24 Audio Adapter: Sound Blaster Audigy Intel® Core2 Duo CPU E4600 @ 2.40GHz Edited February 4, 2009 by SnipeFrenzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think this is thankfully because Rockstar made the GFX settings suitable to in game demands, whereas the benchmark is pants and not really a good representation of in game requirements. Therefore it hardly stresses the GPU's memory because there really isn't much going on in the screen, no real amount of detail just action. Good lord, why do you guys persist with this benchmark "tool", then? It's pile of crap! Run some fraps benchmarks and post those results. Much more reliable. Even though, with this game much will depend about time of the day, weather, part of the town ect. What I did was save somewhere and run amok around that area for multiple times, loading the game in between runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think this is thankfully because Rockstar made the GFX settings suitable to in game demands, whereas the benchmark is pants and not really a good representation of in game requirements. Therefore it hardly stresses the GPU's memory because there really isn't much going on in the screen, no real amount of detail just action. Good lord, why do you guys persist with this benchmark "tool", then? It's pile of crap! Run some fraps benchmarks and post those results. Much more reliable. Even though, with this game much will depend about time of the day, weather, part of the town ect. What I did was save somewhere and run amok around that area for multiple times, loading the game in between runs. You can actually use one of your own clips for benchmarking too. This came straight from the mouth (keyboard actually) of R* Toronto. Only thing is it won't give you a comparison to anyone else, which is why we persist with the crappy one that came with the game. It is the only fixed benchmark we all have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 It is the only fixed benchmark we all have. I wholeheartedly agree, but you see that results on various machines vary a LOT. Also, the actual benchmark result has little to no bearing on the gameplay itself. This is why I think that people should run fraps in some set part of town. Like near the first safehouse, noonish, clear weather using a cop car (since there is always one parked inside walking distance). Run around, make multiple benchmarks on various settings and post your min, max, avg framerates. Those results would be a lot more significant and have actual bearing on the game itself. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 It is the only fixed benchmark we all have. I wholeheartedly agree, but you see that results on various machines vary a LOT. Also, the actual benchmark result has little to no bearing on the gameplay itself. This is why I think that people should run fraps in some set part of town. Like near the first safehouse, noonish, clear weather using a cop car (since there is always one parked inside walking distance). Run around, make multiple benchmarks on various settings and post your min, max, avg framerates. Those results would be a lot more significant and have actual bearing on the game itself. IMO. Yep, I agree. I am tempted to try and make a proper benchmark clip then post it up here for all to use, that way they can see what FPS they will really get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 What is life without temptation? It will be limited to 30 seconds, right? It should last a bit longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (edited) @ Thales100 & Pinky For a laugh, I thought I'd benchmark my slightly lesser rig (with -availablevidmem 2.0) at the same settings just to see what happened Looking excellent, its a bit strange the low CPU usage you got, 58 %, since me and pinky, running also c2 quads at 4 Ghz+ , get around 70 % . Your VRAM usage cant be read as only "58 %", since youre using a multiplier of x 2 (in the commandline as -availablevidmem 2.0). Edited February 4, 2009 by thales100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 What is life without temptation? It will be limited to 30 seconds, right? It should last a bit longer. I may be able to splice a couple together in the video editor, if not I will make it an intense 30 seconds. Although a lot of my captures are shorter due to the screen size and settings anyway. One can but try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I am tempted to try and make a proper benchmark clip then post it up here for all to use, that way they can see what FPS they will really get. Looking good, btw the benchies you have posted, are you running one GTX 285 or SLI ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinky Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I am tempted to try and make a proper benchmark clip then post it up here for all to use, that way they can see what FPS they will really get. Looking good, btw the benchies you have posted, are you running one GTX 285 or SLI ? SLi at the moment. May try single again later today now I have that memory problem under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I am tempted to try and make a proper benchmark clip then post it up here for all to use, that way they can see what FPS they will really get. Looking good, btw the benchies you have posted, are you running one GTX 285 or SLI ? Isn't one GTX285 still a SLI, per se? Also, as I have never tried the video editor thingy, does everything get rendered in those clips? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thales100 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Isn't one GTX285 still a SLI, per se? No, you mean the GTX 295. The GTX 285 is very similar to the GTX 280. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0adrunn3r Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 @ Thales100 & Pinky For a laugh, I thought I'd benchmark my slightly lesser rig (with -availablevidmem 2.0) at the same settings just to see what happened Looking excellent, its a bit strange the low CPU usage you got, 58 %, since me and pinky, running also c2 quads at 4 Ghz+ , get around 70 % . Yeah, never noticed that. Just tried a couple more benches and they are all the same. If the bench is measuring total CPU usage, rather than just that of the game, then I think we're possibly seeing the difference between the very streamlined XP SP3 (13 processes & 95mb on startup) that I use for gaming and Vista Ultimate that you both use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkey82 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Yeah, never noticed that. Just tried a couple more benches and they are all the same.If the bench is measuring total CPU usage, rather than just that of the game, then I think we're possibly seeing the difference between the very streamlined XP SP3 (13 processes & 95mb on startup) that I use for gaming and Vista Ultimate that you both use. Vista has been proven to be better for gaming on modern machines. All of the games I tried performed better under Vista (I'm talking about XP SP3 compared to Vista SP1, both 32 bit). I don't think Vista can pose such a drag on their systems. Regardless of 700 MB RAM footprint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now