Originally posted by: warbean
These drivers are a disappointment for me.
E8600, 4 gigs RAM, vista 64
178 drivers on Crysis Warhead with Geforce 260 (original, not core 216)
26.52 fps on 1920 x 1200, gamer settings, 2x AA
180 driver, same setting,
26.57 fps. (after 3 loops)
a gain of .0018%, or about 2 tenths of 1 percent. Far short of the "up to 10% gains in Crysis Warhead" claimed in the patch notes.
Originally posted by: warbean
These drivers are a disappointment for me.
E8600, 4 gigs RAM, vista 64
178 drivers on Crysis Warhead with Geforce 260 (original, not core 216)
26.52 fps on 1920 x 1200, gamer settings, 2x AA
180 driver, same setting,
26.57 fps. (after 3 loops)
a gain of .0018%, or about 2 tenths of 1 percent. Far short of the "up to 10% gains in Crysis Warhead" claimed in the patch notes.
Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Definitely NOT the new bang for your buck card. The best part of the Anandtech review o nthese drivers:
"But NVIDIA believes that their GeForce GTX 260 core 216 competes well with the similarly priced Radeon HD 4870 1GB part. Well, that's not entirely true. NVIDIA believes they have a better part, but from what we've seen in the past there are definitely reasons to pick up the 4870 1GB instead (as we have recommended in the past)."
Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Definitely NOT the new bang for your buck card. The best part of the Anandtech review o nthese drivers:
"But NVIDIA believes that their GeForce GTX 260 core 216 competes well with the similarly priced Radeon HD 4870 1GB part. Well, that's not entirely true. NVIDIA believes they have a better part, but from what we've seen in the past there are definitely reasons to pick up the 4870 1GB instead (as we have recommended in the past)."
Originally posted by: deerhunter716
They simply say there are reasons to go the route of 4870 as they have recommended. So not a thing has changed yet at all. So I take that as nvidia has a ways to go
Originally posted by: james1701
To my knowledge no other game has been able to say its been released for over a year and has not been fully conquered with a single card solution, let along a dual card setup. I think its that goes a long way about saying how much ahead of its time that game really is. Many people will bash it, call it unoptimized, when in truth are upset because they do not have the rig to run it, when in fact very few people do.
Originally posted by: james1701
Originally posted by: deerhunter716
Definitely NOT the new bang for your buck card. The best part of the Anandtech review o nthese drivers:
"But NVIDIA believes that their GeForce GTX 260 core 216 competes well with the similarly priced Radeon HD 4870 1GB part. Well, that's not entirely true. NVIDIA believes they have a better part, but from what we've seen in the past there are definitely reasons to pick up the 4870 1GB instead (as we have recommended in the past)."
ATI was talking about reworking the 4870's to get a big increase on clock and memory speeds. I don't know when it will be released, but if it does happen, that should be well above the 260 216 and start beating on the 280 would it not?
Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
According to the AT review they seem to have lost more performance then they gained. Is it that you only get these big performance jumps at certain settings? Seems like a mixed bag so far.
Originally posted by: myocardia
You must be young, because the original Far Cry was identical in every way. It was released in March 2004, but there wasn't a video card that could play it @ anywhere near maxed settings until the 8800GTX was released, over 18 months later. As a matter of fact, it still gives a $150-200 card a serious workout, with everything maxed. BTW, everything the whiners have been whining about since the release of Crysis, they said those same things about Far Cry, and for exactly the same reasons. I do agree with what you're saying, though.
Originally posted by: nRollo
I think this is the new bang for buck champ.