|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Crysis If this is going to be a thorough GPU review, then it must include Crysis. We all know about it, so let's just get right to it, shall we?
(click for larger version) Considering the whooping that the 4870X2 laid upon the GTX-280 in our review last summer, I was very curious to see how the 4850X2 fared. Looking at the above chart, the 4850X2 tends to split the difference between the 4870X2 and the GTX-280. Most importantly, the 4850X2 beats the GTX-280 across the board, especially at 8xAA.
(click for larger version) At "Very High", the 4850X2 opens up the lead on the 280 by a considerable margin, often having a higher average frame rate than the 280's max frame rate. 1920x1200 gets rough on both cards, showing 1680x1050 to be the sweet spot. Nothing touches the 4870X2 here, though. Crysis Warhead Next up, we are going to look at the next chapter in the Crysis story; Crysis Warhead. Warhead promises to address some of the performance concerns that Crysis brought about, so I am anxious to see if these promises hold any water.
(click for larger version) Warhead definitely tells a bit of a different tale, and in this case the 4850X2 and the GTX-280 are nearly identical performance-wise. The GTX-280 runs a few frames ahead at the lower settings, but is almost identical at the most common gaming settings.
(click for larger version) At the Enthusiast setting, the 4850X2 pulls ahead a little bit, however, for some reason at 1680x1050 2x and 4xAA settings there are some interesting frame drop issues. It was not a fluke, as I retested and verified that the results were repeatable. What makes it odd is the fact that higher resolutions and higher AA settings did not have the same problem. Other than this, the 4850X2 consistently runs a higher average frame rate.
|
||||||||||||||||||
