But will it run Crysis?!?

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: apoppin

Hauk: Do you notice a difference in game between the different AA settings (0/2x/4x)? Since you obviously have a system that can run each of these settings smoothly, I wonder if there is any benefit to those higher levels of AA in this game in particular.

i can answer that since i run 40 FPS average at 19x12 with 4xAA/16xAF

some people say you don't need or notice it
- well, it is true in the middle of a firefight, who cares if something is aliased or not; jaggies never hurt, those bullets do

BUT, when you are walking around in-game, you can sure tell if filtering is on or not
- i would prefer to drop shaders and shadows a bit rather than mess with my AA/AF

Yea I notice the difference between 2x and 4x mainly in looking at trees, mountains, building edges, etc. Jaggies are present with 2x while 4x smooths them out. Regarding performance, 4x adds lag to panning around, just enough to notice on wide open outdoor scenes. Nothing's slowing down action though, NPC's, explosions, etc.

but the AA doesnt even get applied to some things and I thought you had to disable regular AA and use edge AA from the console to actually take care of the tree jaggies.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: toyota
but the AA doesnt even get applied to some things and I thought you had to disable regular AA and use edge AA from the console to actually take care of the tree jaggies.

AA does get applied properly to everything to the best of my knowledge (maybe you have to use nhancer with nvidia cards? not sure since I only played on ATI hardware). Edge AA is what the engine uses at higher quality settings when AA is off, to try to lessen jaggies (it isn't nearly as effective as actually turning on AA, though).

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: apoppin

Hauk: Do you notice a difference in game between the different AA settings (0/2x/4x)? Since you obviously have a system that can run each of these settings smoothly, I wonder if there is any benefit to those higher levels of AA in this game in particular.

i can answer that since i run 40 FPS average at 19x12 with 4xAA/16xAF

some people say you don't need or notice it
- well, it is true in the middle of a firefight, who cares if something is aliased or not; jaggies never hurt, those bullets do

BUT, when you are walking around in-game, you can sure tell if filtering is on or not
- i would prefer to drop shaders and shadows a bit rather than mess with my AA/AF

Yea I notice the difference between 2x and 4x mainly in looking at trees, mountains, building edges, etc. Jaggies are present with 2x while 4x smooths them out. Regarding performance, 4x adds lag to panning around, just enough to notice on wide open outdoor scenes. Nothing's slowing down action though, NPC's, explosions, etc.

but the AA doesnt even get applied to some things and I thought you had to disable regular AA and use edge AA from the console to actually take care of the tree jaggies.

it just depends - you have to *stop* and take a screen shot to see AA not being applied to the center of foliage - i guess you can see it in action; there appears to be is a slight shimmer that CrossFire filtering will largely eliminate but with a performance penalty

the way i see it, 4xAA is better than 2xAA which is better than no AA at all; and i prefer to have 16xAF as there is only a tiny performance hit on my 3 Radeons

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: apoppin

Hauk: Do you notice a difference in game between the different AA settings (0/2x/4x)? Since you obviously have a system that can run each of these settings smoothly, I wonder if there is any benefit to those higher levels of AA in this game in particular.

i can answer that since i run 40 FPS average at 19x12 with 4xAA/16xAF

some people say you don't need or notice it
- well, it is true in the middle of a firefight, who cares if something is aliased or not; jaggies never hurt, those bullets do

BUT, when you are walking around in-game, you can sure tell if filtering is on or not
- i would prefer to drop shaders and shadows a bit rather than mess with my AA/AF

Yea I notice the difference between 2x and 4x mainly in looking at trees, mountains, building edges, etc. Jaggies are present with 2x while 4x smooths them out. Regarding performance, 4x adds lag to panning around, just enough to notice on wide open outdoor scenes. Nothing's slowing down action though, NPC's, explosions, etc.

but the AA doesnt even get applied to some things and I thought you had to disable regular AA and use edge AA from the console to actually take care of the tree jaggies.

it just depends - you have to *stop* and take a screen shot to see AA not being applied to the center of foliage - i guess you can see it in action; there appears to be is a slight shimmer that CrossFire filtering will largely eliminate but with a performance penalty

the way i see it, 4xAA is better than 2xAA which is better than no AA at all; and i prefer to have 16xAF as there is only a tiny performance hit on my 3 Radeons

doesnt AF get disabled or overridden when Very High settings are used though?

 

[Candymancan21]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
Hah. Doom 3 at least playable in the same generation. Far Cry in hindsight is a good indication that Crysis is no gaffe. Crytek's first game couldn't play until the next generation of hardware.

Yea with Farcry, i remember the system i had i think, it was a Athlon 2500+ Barton with like 512mb of memory and a 9700pro. Its sorta like having a 8800GTS compared to whats out now. I couldnt play farcry very well but once i upgraded to the brand new Athlon64 3000+, and a 6800GT farcry was very playable.


I didnt notice a fps diff between 0AF and 16AF in crysis i dont even know if the game is allowing AF to work or not. I also didnt notice a diff between 0AA and 2AA in Crysis with 1680x1050 to me it looked the same. However on Crysis Warhead i deff notice the Jaggies without AA, you can tell by alot of objects shimmering when you walk.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

O wait, I forgot to include FEAR and Serious Sam 2. They had amazing visuals.

 

[apoppin]

doesnt AF get disabled or overridden when Very High settings are used though?

You can force it in the Control panels

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: toyota

but the AA doesnt even get applied to some things and I thought you had to disable regular AA and use edge AA from the console to actually take care of the tree jaggies.

Vegetation aliasing can be taken care of by forcing TrAA/AAA from the control panel and there?s not much performance hit for doing so.

I use 1760x1320 with 2xAA and TrSS on my GTX285 and it generally runs okay, even in the snow parts.

 

[BFG10K]

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.

This is a really inaccurate comment. Check out something like Call of Juarez, or the Stalker titles. Even CoD 5 is taxing during some of the larger battles, and I need to drop back to 1600x1200 with 4xAA to keep the framerate fast.

Also Clive Barker?s Jericho murders cards if you try to run 4xAA. As an example, 1920x1440 with 2xAA is faster than 1600x1200 with 4xAA, and 4xAA performance is still a bit pokey on my GTX285 during the bigger battles.

I experienced around a 30% performance gain overall when moving from the GTX260+ to the GTX285, so there?s a definite demand for performance much greater than that of the 4770.

And if you run super-sampling, even games that are ten years old will see very large performance gains.

[Edited for grammar]

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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.

This is a really inaccurate comment. Check out something like Call of Juarez, or the Stalker titles. Even CoD 5 is taxing during some of the larger battles, and I need to drop back to 1600x1200 with 4xAA to keep the framerate fast.

Also Clive Barker?s Jericho murders cards if you try to run 4xAA. As an example, 1920x1440 with 2xAA is faster than 1600x1200 with 4xAA, and 4xAA performance is still a bit pokey on my GTX285 during the bigger battles.

I experienced around a 30% performance gain overall when moving from the GTX260+ to the GTX285, so there?s a definite demand for performance much greater than that of the 4770.

And if you run super-sampling, even games that are ten years old will see very large performance gains.

[Edited for grammer]

Stalker just ran on an outdated poorly optimized engine. You can't deny that we have more GPU power than games take advantage of. For some reason though, people just like upgrading even when there is nothing to take advantage of. What is the point of having a beastly gaming rig when there are no games?

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Stalker just ran on an outdated poorly optimized engine. You can't deny that we have more GPU power than games take advantage of. For some reason though, people just like upgrading even when there is nothing to take advantage of. What is the point of having a beastly gaming rig when there are no games?

Did you even read what I posted?

 

[artchildaug]

Do you think GTA4 will run smoothly on my cheap rig?

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: artchildaug
Do you think GTA4 will run smoothly on my cheap rig?

Welcome to the forums. You've got a quad; you should be able to get by just fine.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Stalker just ran on an outdated poorly optimized engine. You can't deny that we have more GPU power than games take advantage of. For some reason though, people just like upgrading even when there is nothing to take advantage of. What is the point of having a beastly gaming rig when there are no games?

Did you even read what I posted?

Yes, that's why I replied.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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.

This is a really inaccurate comment. Check out something like Call of Juarez, or the Stalker titles. Even CoD 5 is taxing during some of the larger battles, and I need to drop back to 1600x1200 with 4xAA to keep the framerate fast.

Also Clive Barker?s Jericho murders cards if you try to run 4xAA. As an example, 1920x1440 with 2xAA is faster than 1600x1200 with 4xAA, and 4xAA performance is still a bit pokey on my GTX285 during the bigger battles.

I experienced around a 30% performance gain overall when moving from the GTX260+ to the GTX285, so there?s a definite demand for performance much greater than that of the 4770.

And if you run super-sampling, even games that are ten years old will see very large performance gains.

[Edited for grammer]

Stalker just ran on an outdated poorly optimized engine. You can't deny that we have more GPU power than games take advantage of. For some reason though, people just like upgrading even when there is nothing to take advantage of. What is the point of having a beastly gaming rig when there are no games?

BFG, yes, with enough filtering turned on, you can bog down modern GPUs with a large number of games. The thing is, with my 8800GTS 320mb, I have been forced to run games without AA at 1920x1080. I leave AF at 16X and everything else at maximum quality.

The thing is, I barely notice AA on my setup, if at all. I game on a 46" HDTV from about 12' away.

Without AA cranked up, I stand by my above statement. You should realize that my GPU is heavily overclocked as well; it's probably equivalent to an 8800GTX in most cases where I'm not memory limited.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Stalker just ran on an outdated poorly optimized engine. You can't deny that we have more GPU power than games take advantage of. For some reason though, people just like upgrading even when there is nothing to take advantage of. What is the point of having a beastly gaming rig when there are no games?

Did you even read what I posted?

Yes, that's why I replied.

Perhaps you didn't understand it then

STALKER, Clear Sky DX10.1 is a modern completely updated engine that is extraordinarily taxing on ANY single GPU. You can add several other titles to this ever-growing list

The thing is, I barely notice AA on my setup, if at all. I game on a 46" HDTV from about 12' away.

You can also wear sunglasses and pretend you don't notice that your GPU is really slow and outdated

 

[scooterlibby]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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.

This is a really inaccurate comment. Check out something like Call of Juarez, or the Stalker titles. Even CoD 5 is taxing during some of the larger battles, and I need to drop back to 1600x1200 with 4xAA to keep the framerate fast.

Also Clive Barker?s Jericho murders cards if you try to run 4xAA. As an example, 1920x1440 with 2xAA is faster than 1600x1200 with 4xAA, and 4xAA performance is still a bit pokey on my GTX285 during the bigger battles.

I experienced around a 30% performance gain overall when moving from the GTX260+ to the GTX285, so there?s a definite demand for performance much greater than that of the 4770.

And if you run super-sampling, even games that are ten years old will see very large performance gains.

[Edited for grammer]

Stalker just ran on an outdated poorly optimized engine. You can't deny that we have more GPU power than games take advantage of. For some reason though, people just like upgrading even when there is nothing to take advantage of. What is the point of having a beastly gaming rig when there are no games?

So true. Stalker taxes the hardware, but at a level not proportional to the visuals. New engines were always a big draw for me buying new games and hardware, but lately it has been sad. Source, while admirably used in L4D, is laughably dated. Cryengine 3 does not seem too exciting and idTech5, if released a year ago, might have been mind blowing, but from what Carmack has said, don't expect your high end components to do you any good, because they're not aiming to push that envelope. The only thing mildly exciting for me is the DX11 implementation of Frostbight in the upcoming BF titles, and maybe if some other games play with Dunia. I really liked Dunia. Overall, though, these are underwhelming times.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: scooterlibby

So true. Stalker taxes the hardware, but at a level not proportional to the visuals. New engines were always a big draw for me buying new games and hardware, but lately it has been sad. Source, while admirably used in L4D, is laughably dated. Cryengine 3 does not seem too exciting and idTech5, if released a year ago, might have been mind blowing, but from what Carmack has said, don't expect your high end components to do you any good, because they're not aiming to push that envelope. The only thing mildly exciting for me is the DX11 implementation of Frostbight in the upcoming BF titles, and maybe if some other games play with Dunia. I really liked Dunia. Overall, though, these are underwhelming times.

Well said.. :thumbsup:

 

[alcoholbob]

Stalker Clear Sky is not even remotely close to Crysis on the highest settings. The DX10 lighting was just terribly implemented. You know there's a problem when framerate goes down by 60% turning on a single toggle and the game is still unimpressive visually.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
I don't see the point in getting a bleeding edge rig when there are no games to take advantage of it! I'm so sick of multi-platform. What happened to Half Life 2, Doom 3, and Far Cry fighting each other for the graphical crown? Now we have no exclusives and no games with eye popping visuals.

Mostly this.

 

[Hardball]

Hauk,

I am going to be building a rig similar to the one you've benched here on Crysis, the only difference being I am going for GTX 285 Sli, not the Tri-Sli. My question is could you run your benchmarks with just Sli and not Tri-Sli. I am really curious to see how much of a drop-off there will be going from 3 cards to 2. Thanks.

 

[AzN]

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.

It's so true. We got mostly console ports now. Crytek now signed with console so bye bye pushing graphics.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Yes, that's why I replied.

The problem is that your reply didn't address most of what I posted.

You can't deny that we have more GPU power than games take advantage of.

Of course I can; I did it in my post and cited multiple examples, yet you ignored most of what I said.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

The thing is, with my 8800GTS 320mb, I have been forced to run games without AA at 1920x1080. I leave AF at 16X and everything else at maximum quality.

Right, but the point of better performance is so that you can turn on extras like AA. And even without AA, I sincerely doubt you can run games like Crysis or Stalker Clear Sky maxed out at 1920x1200. I certainly can?t on a GTX285.

Like I said earlier, I experienced large performance gains by moving from a GTX260+ to a GTX285 in over 40 games I tested. I also used a 4850 which is still much faster than your 8800 GTS, yet it absolutely crawled compared to the GTX260+ and the GTX285.

The fact is, most people have no idea just how far apart these cards really are. There?s plenty of performance gain available, and plenty of games to take advantage of it.

You know where my GTX285 review lives, so feel free to check the results for yourself.

You should realize that my GPU is heavily overclocked as well; it's probably equivalent to an 8800GTX in most cases where I'm not memory limited.

I doubt that very much but even if so, a 8800 GTX is considered mid-range these days.

 

[Atechie]

Now try ArmA2...and cry