Two GTX 780s. Although I might have to take back what I said - they're enough in raw numbers, but there is stutter that I can't seem to get rid of. I'm going to test thoroughly to see if a single 780 will be sufficient.
Crysis is a big game that's pretty CPU bound. The minimum fps basically scales directly with CPU capability. Also the game only supports dual core, so essentially pure clock speed is the way to go.
Based on a rough guess, I'm gonna say you would need a 4770k at about 8GHz to maintain a minimum of 60 fps at 1080 in Crysis 1.
In other words, maybe in 10 years we'll see something that can pull it off.
What a disaster. I have all these other single/dual threaded games that I want to run at 120fps, and I'm hampered by the CPU with them too. For them I have 60Hz/fps to fall back one, but if I can't maintain 60fps, then the next option is all the way down at 30fps. I tried 40fps at 120Hz, which should have been fine, but Crysis didn't like that. I thought 30fps with motion blur might be marginally acceptable, but as my terrible luck would have it, the motion blur causes hitching at that framerate (don't ask me how). FRAPS kept showing the framerate spike to ~35fps every few seconds.
I'm not seeing that at all; in fact I'm seeing a complete GPU bottleneck (99% GPU load) pretty much everywhere.Crysis is a big game that's pretty CPU bound.
Crysis was way ahead for its time. Even today you'd need 2 Titans to max out the game at 60+ fps at a high resolution such as 2560x1440.
I think that may be a matter of opinion. You say "ahead of its time" and I say "piss poor optimization". I'm also one of the few who doesn't think it's aged that well in the looks department and has no business being so demanding for what it looks like now. You have to mod it to high heaven to get it to look as good as people claim it looks like.
It was ahead of it's time, I don't see how that can even be debated. Of course games today could look similar to Crysis while performing better, they have had 6 years of progress to work with. It would be rather embarrassing if it after all that time things hadn't improved.I think that may be a matter of opinion. You say "ahead of its time" and I say "piss poor optimization". I'm also one of the few who doesn't think it's aged that well in the looks department and has no business being so demanding for what it looks like now.
It was ahead of it's time, I don't see how that can even be debated. Of course games today could look similar to Crysis while performing better, they have had 6 years of progress to work with. It would be rather embarrassing if it after all that time things hadn't improved.
I don't deny Crysis was way ahead of the game, but his proof of that is that 2 Titans still can't max it out. That isn't proof of being ahead of its time, it's proof of a poorly optimized engine.
I understand what your saying, but I don't think it's all that valid to compare it to modern games. Basically all games ever made are poorly optimized when you compare them to titles released years later. The only reason Crysis stands out is because it was so far ahead of the rest. So yeah, I agree that it's unoptimized compared to a lot of games released now, but that's just how engine technology always works.I don't deny Crysis was way ahead of the game, but his proof of that is that 2 Titans still can't max it out. That isn't proof of being ahead of its time, it's proof of a poorly optimized engine.