I get over 60 fps running UT3 and Gears maxed out at 1680x1050 on my computer. It looks way better than Crysis on medium which gets me less fps.
You' re still basing your argument on the idea that Gears looks better than Crysis. Having Crysis on medium is not fair. As I said the game is starved for more CPU proccessing power. Crysis does not scale well by lowering the settings for this reason.
Crysis just has more going on. Crysis has more adanced AI, physics, environmental effects, animations... Graphics are not the only thing that taxes a PC. The game also has a far greater draw distance than either Gears or UT3.
Technologically speaking Crysis is almost a generation ahead of UT3 or Gears.
I understand what you' re saying. UT3 does do a good job of being graphically efficient. I' m saying that it' s not a fair comparison. I could say that Mario Galaxy is more GPU efficient than Halo 3, would that impress you?
The more complex a game is, the less efficient it becomes. That' s basic.
So what happens when the 9900 range arrives and you can get >60fps in Crysis?
I doubt it. The GTX 280 (9900GTX) will be like a 9800GX2 in terms of raw performance. An GTX 280 sli might be powerful enough but Crysis doesn' t like multiple cards. Besides like I was saying Crysis needs a stronger CPU. Maybe with Intels next gen chips Crysis might have a chance. Crysis is so bottlenecked by the CPU that we might even see a decrease in performance, as the CPU chokes even more to feed the GPU.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce--9800-gtx-sli-review-bfg/7 Do you see how the 9800gtx sli and 9800GX2 perform the same accross all the resolutions? That' s because there' s a CPU bottleneck. You can expect the GTX280 to perform the same for Crysis. Any other game will be able to take advantage of the extra power though. The performance of a GTX 280 should be very similar to a 9800GX2 in most games.
< Message edited by agent ghost -- 19 May 08 0:48:57 >