But will it run Crysis?!?

[Hauk]

Ah Crysis, you bittersweet wallet buster. We've all come to know you.

Love it or hate it, Crysis was arguably the most driving title in gaming history. Some proudly talked about their new equipment, while others upgraded quietly. And some gamers (you know who you are) claim to have never made a purchase decision based a single game known as Crysis.

I first played Crysis on a GTX 260 SLI rig with high settings at 1920x1200. Today I have an x58 i920 @ 3.75 and GTX 285 Tri-SLI. Sitting at work today, I decided I'm going to play Crysis again. Reviving the ritual, I ran some benchies and am pleased to annouce I can now run Crysis!

Some benchmarks for fun. The next time I do this, it will be with whatever top of the line bullshit I can waste my money on. Will there ever be 100+fps 1920x1080 on Very High? Time will tell. That's of course if anyone will give a rat's ass to go back and bench this game we call Crysis.

Cheers.. :beer:


1920 x 1080 High No AA = 73 fps avg

1920 x 1080 High 2x AA = 70 fps avg

1920 x 1080 Very High no AA = 59 fps avg

1920 x 1080 Very High 2x AA = 57 fps avg

1920 x 1080 VH Shaders & Post Processing all others High, 2x AA = 67 fps avg

1920 x 1080 High 4x AA = 70 fps

1920 x 1080 Very High 4x AA = 56 fps

And what do the lowest settings and res produce..
800 x 600 Low no AA = 132 fps avg

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Hauk

1920 x 1080 Very High 2x AA = 57 fps avg

Impressive! I'll bet this looks sweet playing at 1080P 2xAA everything max. I'd say your rig can finally "run crysis" Haha!

Originally posted by: Hauk

IQ settings I've used in the past and find work well:
1920 x 1080 VH Shaders & Post Processing all others High, 2x AA = 67 fps avg

Not much visual difference in this and the above setup I bet (aside from the extra 10 fps).

So do you kick back in the living room with a bluetooth mouse/keyboard and play this on a 50" LCD with surroundsound?

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: Hauk
IQ settings I've used in the past and find work well:
1920 x 1080 VH Shaders & Post Processing all others High, 2x AA = 67 fps avg

How's the performance when you run those settings at 4xAA? Or is 1GB VRAM not enough then?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Hauk
Ah Crysis, you bittersweet wallet buster. We've all come to know you.

Love it or hate it, Crysis was arguably the most driving title in gaming history. Some proudly talked about their new equipment, while others upgraded quietly. And some gamers (you know who you are) claim to have never made a purchase decision based a single game known as Crysis.

I first played Crysis months after it came out on a GTX 260 SLI rig with high settings at 1920x1200. Today I have an x58 i920 @ 3.75 and GTX 285 Tri-SLI. Sitting at work today, I decided I'm going to play Crysis again. Reviving the ritual, I ran some benchies and am pleased to annouce I can now run Crysis!

Some benchmarks for fun. The next time I do this, it will be with whatever top of the line bullshit I can waste my money on. Will there ever be 100+fps 1920x1080 on Very High? Time will tell. That's of course if anyone will give a rat's ass to go back and bench this game we call Crysis.

Cheers.. :beer:


1920 x 1080 High No AA = 73 fps avg

1920 x 1080 High 2x AA = 70 fps avg

1920 x 1080 Very High no AA = 59 fps avg

1920 x 1080 Very High 2x AA = 57 fps avg

IQ settings I've used in the past and find work well:
1920 x 1080 VH Shaders & Post Processing all others High, 2x AA = 67 fps avg

And for kicks, low settings and lowest res possible:
800 x 600 Low no AA = 132 fps avg

not bad

i get just over 40 FPS average with Tri-Fire rig in sig
- Crysis at 19x12, all settings "very high" plus 4xAA/16xAF

it is playable

4890 CF [925/1050] gives me just over 37 average, same conditions as above
- although it will drop into the upper 20s

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Hauk

1920 x 1080 Very High 2x AA = 57 fps avg

Impressive! I'll bet this looks sweet playing at 1080P 2xAA everything max. I'd say your rig can finally "run crysis" Haha!

Originally posted by: Hauk

IQ settings I've used in the past and find work well:
1920 x 1080 VH Shaders & Post Processing all others High, 2x AA = 67 fps avg

Not much visual difference in this and the above setup I bet (aside from the extra 10 fps).

So do you kick back in the living room with a bluetooth mouse/keyboard and play this on a 50" LCD with surroundsound?

Easy to get lost for a few hours..

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: Hauk
IQ settings I've used in the past and find work well:
1920 x 1080 VH Shaders & Post Processing all others High, 2x AA = 67 fps avg

How's the performance when you run those settings at 4xAA? Or is 1GB VRAM not enough then?

Benches good but I'm betting 4xAA will suck in snow and tough scenes.

1920 x 1080 High 4x AA = 70 fps

1920 x 1080 Very High 4x AA = 56 fps

 

[apoppin]

How about forcing 16xAF in the CP ?
- it looks a lot nicer when you got the graphics cards to run AF

i am getting just over 40 FPS average with 4xAA/16xAF at 19x12, Very High
- ATi evidently tends to take less of a hit percentage-wise with filtering than GT200 does

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: apoppin
How about forcing 16xAF in the CP ?
- it looks a lot nicer when you got the graphics cards to run AF

i am getting just over 40 FPS average with 4xAA/16xAF at 19x12, Very High
- ATi evidently tends to take less of a hit percentage-wise with filtering than GT200 does

What happens if you run at 2xAA? Would be interesting to see CPU load on your trifire; if you're cpu bottlenecked or not.

 

[apoppin]

there is 1-3 frame rate improvement with No AA; it is like 1 FPS difference between 2x and 4x

8x takes a little more bite out of the bottom - and i cannot tell the difference when i am running and gunning

[i can with No AA/no AF - even in movement]

 

[SickBeast]

Very good, so you can now finally play Crysis, a game you have already beat, on very high settings. While I definitely appreciate and respect this feat wholeheartedly from a hardware enthusiast standpoint, this has got to be the biggest waste of money I have ever seen from a value standpoint. Surely you will benefit from the performance in future games, but you could have gotten something way better if you had waited it out until those games are actually on the market.

I really feel as though the PC games market has stagnated in terms of graphics and performance. Crysis-based games are the only ones which truly push the envelope. For everything else, even cheap cards like the 4770 will do the trick for $99 or less.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Surely you will benefit from the performance in future games, but you could have gotten something way better if you had waited it out until those games are actually on the market.

Or he can just get whatever's better when that comes out, and enjoy bleeding edge performance both now and in the next generation. I know if I could afford a triple 285/i7 setup, I'd be getting new hardware every generation.

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Crysis-based games are the only ones which truly push the envelope. For everything else, even cheap cards like the 4770 will do the trick for $99 or less.

I agree - for budget conscious gamers, there's a lot of performance to be had for relatively little money. My 4850's low/mid range by today's standards (I've seen them below $80 these days, which is nuts), but I can still play just about any game out there quite well, most of them at high settings. I'm just barely squeezing by in GTA4, but I don't have the heart to turn down settings to get more FPS (it's a damn good looking game once you take the scale of the environment into account).

 

[SunSamurai]

Try running that setup in Dalaran in peak hours if you really want to test system preformance. People that play MMOs know better than the Crysis croud what really rocks a CPU/GPU.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Hauk
Ah Crysis, you bittersweet wallet buster. We've all come to know you.

Love it or hate it, Crysis was arguably the most driving title in gaming history. Some proudly talked about their new equipment, while others upgraded quietly. And some gamers (you know who you are) claim to have never made a purchase decision based a single game known as Crysis.

I first played Crysis months after it came out on a GTX 260 SLI rig with high settings at 1920x1200. Today I have an x58 i920 @ 3.75 and GTX 285 Tri-SLI. Sitting at work today, I decided I'm going to play Crysis again. Reviving the ritual, I ran some benchies and am pleased to annouce I can now run Crysis!

Some benchmarks for fun. The next time I do this, it will be with whatever top of the line bullshit I can waste my money on. Will there ever be 100+fps 1920x1080 on Very High? Time will tell. That's of course if anyone will give a rat's ass to go back and bench this game we call Crysis.

Cheers.. :beer:


1920 x 1080 High No AA = 73 fps avg

1920 x 1080 High 2x AA = 70 fps avg

1920 x 1080 Very High no AA = 59 fps avg

1920 x 1080 Very High 2x AA = 57 fps avg

IQ settings I've used in the past and find work well:
1920 x 1080 VH Shaders & Post Processing all others High, 2x AA = 67 fps avg

And for kicks, low settings and lowest res possible:
800 x 600 Low no AA = 132 fps avg

I been wondering the same thing about the latest pc hardware and Crysis! Thanks for taking the time to do this!

 

[pcslookout]

nm

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Very good, so you can now finally play Crysis, a game you have already beat, on very high settings. While I definitely appreciate and respect this feat wholeheartedly from a hardware enthusiast standpoint, this has got to be the biggest waste of money I have ever seen from a value standpoint. Surely you will benefit from the performance in future games, but you could have gotten something way better if you had waited it out until those games are actually on the market.

I really feel as though the PC games market has stagnated in terms of graphics and performance. Crysis-based games are the only ones which truly push the envelope. For everything else, even cheap cards like the 4770 will do the trick for $99 or less.

Who's got poopie pants?

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: aeternitas
Try running that setup in Dalaran in peak hours if you really want to test system preformance. People that play MMOs know better than the Crysis croud what really rocks a CPU/GPU.

Saying WoW is more intensive than Crysis is wrong. WoW does not make appropriate use of CPU cores in addition to the nature of being online introducing a latency that slows performance aswell, there are several factors contributing to slow performance in WoW, which does not mean it is more of a burden on a system than Crysis.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Hauk
Today I have an x58 i920 @ 3.75 and GTX 285 Tri-SLI.]

:Q

Keeping the i920 at "only" 3.75 ghz seems like blasphemy to me. Give it more man!

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Very good, so you can now finally play Crysis, a game you have already beat, on very high settings. While I definitely appreciate and respect this feat wholeheartedly from a hardware enthusiast standpoint, this has got to be the biggest waste of money I have ever seen from a value standpoint. Surely you will benefit from the performance in future games, but you could have gotten something way better if you had waited it out until those games are actually on the market.

I really feel as though the PC games market has stagnated in terms of graphics and performance. Crysis-based games are the only ones which truly push the envelope. For everything else, even cheap cards like the 4770 will do the trick for $99 or less.

Who's got poopie pants?

Translated: "I cannot afford a rig like this, so you shouldn't be able to either."
Sour grapes.

OT: Congrats on a killer rig dude. You'll probably be ready for anything that comes down the pike for the next year. Maybe more.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Hauk
Today I have an x58 i920 @ 3.75 and GTX 285 Tri-SLI.]

:Q

Keeping the i920 at "only" 3.75 ghz seems like blasphemy to me. Give it more man!

I thought about it, or maybe grabbing one of those new steppings. Like 4GHz on a good board with those right?

 

[vj8usa]

By the way, Hauk, do you have GTA4? I'd like to see how your hardware handles it - it's the one game that gives me the most grief in terms of performance (even more so than Crysis, but that's because of my CPU), and I heard it absolutely flies on i7 rigs. It's also got a convenient built in benchmark.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: Hauk
Today I have an x58 i920 @ 3.75 and GTX 285 Tri-SLI.]

:Q

Keeping the i920 at "only" 3.75 ghz seems like blasphemy to me. Give it more man!

I thought about it, or maybe grabbing one of those new steppings. Like 4GHz on a good board with those right?

Any X58 can get that cpu of yours to 4 ghz, it's just a matter of bios tweaks and cooling.

 

[Candymancan21]

Im glad i already beat crysis and warhead lol. I get headach's and my eyes hurt when the fps stays in the 40's and 30's on games like these. My system could only manage a 40fps average with high setting and 2xAA. The snow levels just made me pop veins.... Id almost cosnider getting another 4890 and better psu for crossfire but for one game i already beat its not worth it.

I didnt even play crysis until i got my 4890 lol the 4850 was so slow

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Very good, so you can now finally play Crysis, a game you have already beat, on very high settings. While I definitely appreciate and respect this feat wholeheartedly from a hardware enthusiast standpoint, this has got to be the biggest waste of money I have ever seen from a value standpoint. Surely you will benefit from the performance in future games, but you could have gotten something way better if you had waited it out until those games are actually on the market.

I really feel as though the PC games market has stagnated in terms of graphics and performance. Crysis-based games are the only ones which truly push the envelope. For everything else, even cheap cards like the 4770 will do the trick for $99 or less.

Who's got poopie pants?

Translated: "I cannot afford a rig like this, so you shouldn't be able to either."
Sour grapes.

OT: Congrats on a killer rig dude. You'll probably be ready for anything that comes down the pike for the next year. Maybe more.

Keys, I make very good money, probably more than you. We've already been over this.

The only reason you post crap like this is because you're paid to by NV.

Seriously, everyone is FINE with a $99 graphics card. There is no need for anything better, and Crysis is not worth $900+ just to see it run in all its glory. Seriously.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Very good, so you can now finally play Crysis, a game you have already beat, on very high settings. While I definitely appreciate and respect this feat wholeheartedly from a hardware enthusiast standpoint, this has got to be the biggest waste of money I have ever seen from a value standpoint. Surely you will benefit from the performance in future games, but you could have gotten something way better if you had waited it out until those games are actually on the market.

I really feel as though the PC games market has stagnated in terms of graphics and performance. Crysis-based games are the only ones which truly push the envelope. For everything else, even cheap cards like the 4770 will do the trick for $99 or less.

Who's got poopie pants?

Translated: "I cannot afford a rig like this, so you shouldn't be able to either."
Sour grapes.

OT: Congrats on a killer rig dude. You'll probably be ready for anything that comes down the pike for the next year. Maybe more.

Keys, I make very good money, probably more than you. We've already been over this.

The only reason you post crap like this is because you're paid to by NV.

Seriously, everyone is FINE with a $99 graphics card. There is no need for anything better, and Crysis is not worth $900+ just to see it run in all its glory. Seriously.

Thats.... nice..

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Seriously, everyone is FINE with a $99 graphics card. There is no need for anything better, and Crysis is not worth $900+ just to see it run in all its glory. Seriously.

:Q

Hell, if I had a monthly salary of 10000 $ I would have owned a GTX 295 sexto SLI, a phase change cooled i7 at 5 ghz, a 60inch display and so many more idiotic and useless things.

If one wants and can buy a triple SLI 285 rig, I don't see what is wrong with that. A 99$ can play most of the games, but 3X285 plays everything better. If money is not an issue why not get something like that? I just don't understand. He's not selling his house to get that system, he just has money to burn.