But will it run Crysis?!?

[palladium]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

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.

I certainly can use more GPU power for my Company of Heroes, a 2-year old game. During large combat scenes I get frame rates in the low-mid 20s, and that is with my GTX280 OCed to 680/1460/1230. I play at 19*12 4xAA, everything maxed out. Pretty sure my core i7 @3.7 isn't bottlenecking.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Crysis came out 2 years ago and nothing comes close to its graphics. The reason being that we don't have many AAA PC exclusives anymore that aren't MMO's.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
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.

Agreed. I got a copy of the game with my 4870. I installed it and played for a while, then uninstalled it and shelved the game. I wasn't impressed with the way it looked or how it played. Crysis is still a gorgeous game with good gameplay. I haven't been truly impressed by a shooter since it came out. Fallout3 came close, but Crysis certainly has the edge on visuals.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: 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.

Glad I am not forced to run at 1920x1200 or higher resolution yet then. I need some extra safety net room so I can run at least 4x AA and 16x AF with all graphics on highest details.

Looks like we still have a long way to go for Crysis and a few other games to run at high resolutions with maximum details plus minimum 4x AA and 16x AF.

 

[zCypher]

lol, that's insane.

Just being able to run my desktop at 2048x1152 on my new screen and I'm in awe. I remember when playing games in 1024x768 was a big deal if it was over 30fps! I used to keep it in lower res and quality so that it'd be playable. I could still play under 30fps, but it became unbearable at about 15fps.

The way I see it, when you can get hardware to run the toughest game at ridiculous speeds, along will come another game that will bring that system to a crawl. hehehe

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Glad I am not forced to run at 1920x1200 or higher resolution yet then.

I?m not forced either, I just choose to (2560x1600 is my native resolution).

Now, in older titles I can easily do 2560x1600 with high levels of AA (e.g. Doom 3, Painkiller), and it looks amazing. A lesser panel can?t do that.

It?s all about options, and a fast enough graphics card to push them.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Im running crysis ver 1.2 at 1280x1024 at all very high settings and its all good on my rig. I couldn't even do that when I had my two 8800gts 512's in sli.