Recommendations!

[Kezzer]

I run far cry @ 1280x1024 with everything on high apart from 2 which are on ultra high and very high with 4 x AA and 4 x AF and it runs fine

[Nomadd]

re: "Have you tried running Far Cry with the recalled 1.2 patch and SM3 enabled?"

Yep, and TBH, the 1.2 SM3 didn't make that much difference, as the game seemed plenty smooth enough on the settings I was using. I had everything set to it's highest value in game, and with 4xAA and 8xAF is was super smooth eveywhere at 1024x768. Even at 1280x1024, it was still very smooth, and those few times it did 'slow down' it was still running at ~50fps according to Fraps. It's just when you are used to it at 65-85fps, you just want to stick with that, hence my decision to drop to 1024x768. It still looked absolutely stunning, especially the water on it's highest setting.

I'd only add that I running on a powerful rig - P4@3.5 and 1GB of RAM - so I knew the main performance 'lag' was going to be the graphics card - any graphics card. I notice Kezzer gave settings which he says FOR HIM run 'fine'. And that's the problem, I guess, what someone thinks is 'fine' is always going to be subjective, me included. All I will say is that FarCry is very, very playable on any of the current next gen. cards, which is more than I can say for it on my old GF4 Ti4600 - again, IMHO. :-)

Nomadd

[daddyorchips]

When testing out the XT PE on Far Cry, I found 1280x1024 4x/16 was a sweet spot, though it certainly dropped down much lower than 50fps when I hit the levels towards the end of the game.

**SPOILER** My machine was running at mid to high 20s on reaching the end of the Dam level for instance, when you're surrounded by a dozen rocket launching giant mutants on the way up to the volcano. **END SPOILER**

I think this was a CPU limitation though. I think my rig is pretty powerful too - have just jumped ship from a P4 to a AMD64 3400+ and 1gb ram - so it goes to show that even today's powerhouses can struggle with what games like Far Cry have to throw at it...

[Nomadd]

re: "so it goes to show that even today's powerhouses can struggle with what games like Far Cry have to throw at it..."

And my opinion of CryTek is still slightly clouded by the rubbish they released for years before FarCry. Having finished FC (twice, now) I can't say I thought it was that great a game, certainly not up to the hype it received - which I think is more down to it's eye candy. I also don't believe (cue flames!) that the CryEngine is THAT good. There is no reason at all, IMHO, why rigs like yours and mine shouldn't run these games at blazing speeds. I think we'll see this shortly with the release of Doom3 and HL2 - that is, pretty games that DO run super-smooth all the time at decent settings. Or at least that's what I'm living in hope of - my wallet won't stretch to a dual SLI PCIe setup! :-)

Nomadd

[ToMmEh]

i agree, the crytek engine isnt the best out there, and looking at the benchmarks for doom 3 you can blatently see that systems like your 2's should be getting constantly high fps, so 60 or so on those res'.

and thanks to this thread i am now totally confused as to which card to buy next friday

oh well, ill just go by whats in stock at the time i suppose :/

[Hanners]

Interesting... I too run at resolutions no higher than 1280x1024 (tft max res), favourably with 4xAA and 8/16xAF.

Hanners, what basis do you personally have for preferring the XT over the GT? I had a wonder over to your site and to read your GT review, and you seem to place it in a very good light. However, I couldn't locate an XT review... Have you tested one of these cards in your system and found it to be the better one?

What games would you say you've seen the GT running faster on Nomadd? I'm going to be testing UT2k4, Far Cry, Thief3, BF: Vietnam and Ground Control 2 (off the top of my head). And I'd like to run these at 4x/16, 1280 etc!

I'm going more by what I've read elsewhere... Sadly I haven't had the opportunity to try out an X800 XT for myself yet.

Certainly (as you may have spotted from my review) the 6800GT is an absolutely fantastic card - I don't think I've been so impressed with a video card upgrade since I first got hold of a Voodoo 1. Having said that though, the X800 XT has a massive amount of raw power and does seem to edge it out in most of the benchmarks I've seen, particularly with AA and AF enabled.

Of course, as other have mentioned, it all depends on what you're doing and what you'll be playing - If you're going to be a Doom 3 nut and little else, then there's no doubt that a 6800 is the way to go. However, ATI still seem to hold the advantage in shader-intensive titles, so when (if?! ) Half-Life 2 rolls around we may well see a reverse in fortunes.

To be honest, you'd do great with either card... If you didn't already have an X800 XT I'd probably have said 'go for the 6800GT', but seeing as you already have the best and stumped up the money for it, why change it now?