Crysis

[ronnn]

Well I certainly hope that crysis is a very good game. Must admit to being somewhat bored with the games I have played lately.

I will wait until the game is released, before deciding on a card - as I expect it to be very demanding.

 

[Ackmed]

Me too. I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed with the frames. "No worries"? We'll see.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: bigsnyder
Only get 60-80fps? Whats wrong with that?

You think 60-80 fps in a 3+ year old DX9 game is going to be good enough for a next gen, DX10 game?

 

[cyrusm]

i think the difference between c2d > c2q will be dramatic. nothing less can be expected since its been confirmed it takes full advantage of quad cores as well as duals.
as for the rest, i think youre all overspeculating. this is half life 2 all over again. so much hype, eventually a billion articles about "will your pc run it?" "get your pc HL2 ready!". then it turned out you needed only a mediocre system.

c2d, 8800 any version, 2 gigs of ram --->>IMO<<---- will run it just fine, and if you have anything better, then it'll run even better.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: cyrusm
i think the difference between c2d > c2q will be dramatic. nothing less can be expected since its been confirmed it takes full advantage of quad cores as well as duals.
as for the rest, i think youre all overspeculating. this is half life 2 all over again. so much hype, eventually a billion articles about "will your pc run it?" "get your pc HL2 ready!". then it turned out you needed only a mediocre system.

c2d, 8800 any version, 2 gigs of ram --->>IMO<<---- will run it just fine, and if you have anything better, then it'll run even better.

That depends on what you mean by "just fine".

Just fine to me is 1920x1200 with 95% of the settings on high, 16x AF, some AA if possible, DX10 mode. DX9 games are already taking current top end hardware to run at the above settings.

If you're talking about 1280x1024, 1440x900 or 1680x1050 with some settings turned down, then I would agree with you.

At any rate, HL2 doesnt even look that good. I thought Far Cry and Doom III both looked way better than HL2.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: cyrusm
i think the difference between c2d > c2q will be dramatic. nothing less can be expected since its been confirmed it takes full advantage of quad cores as well as duals.
as for the rest, i think youre all overspeculating. this is half life 2 all over again. so much hype, eventually a billion articles about "will your pc run it?" "get your pc HL2 ready!". then it turned out you needed only a mediocre system.

c2d, 8800 any version, 2 gigs of ram --->>IMO<<---- will run it just fine, and if you have anything better, then it'll run even better.

Take full advantage of dual and quad cores? Sure, at a low res. Do you really think there will be a noticeable difference at 1600x1200+ in frames? I doubt it.

As Matt2 said, just fine is hugely defendent on the person. To some, 25fps at 1280x1024is just fine. To me, thats not even close to playable. Like Matt2, Im at 1920x1200, have been for three years. I dont think there will be a system out there that will run it at high settings for at that res. I think this game will put the hammer on all systems, just as Farcry did, and still does with todays systems at a high res. Foliage is a killer. Many games show this.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: cyrusm
i think the difference between c2d > c2q will be dramatic. nothing less can be expected since its been confirmed it takes full advantage of quad cores as well as duals.
as for the rest, i think youre all overspeculating. this is half life 2 all over again. so much hype, eventually a billion articles about "will your pc run it?" "get your pc HL2 ready!". then it turned out you needed only a mediocre system.

c2d, 8800 any version, 2 gigs of ram --->>IMO<<---- will run it just fine, and if you have anything better, then it'll run even better.

Take full advantage of dual and quad cores? Sure, at a low res. Do you really think there will be a noticeable difference at 1600x1200+ in frames? I doubt it.

As Matt2 said, just fine is hugely defendent on the person. To some, 25fps at 1280x1024is just fine. To me, thats not even close to playable. Like Matt2, Im at 1920x1200, have been for three years. I dont think there will be a system out there that will run it at high settings for at that res. I think this game will put the hammer on all systems, just as Farcry did, and still does with todays systems at a high res. Foliage is a killer. Many games show this.

The foliage in Oblivion seems to validate your point and I seem to agree with it...

 

[btdvox]

Originally posted by: cyrusm
i think the difference between c2d > c2q will be dramatic. nothing less can be expected since its been confirmed it takes full advantage of quad cores as well as duals.
as for the rest, i think youre all overspeculating. this is half life 2 all over again. so much hype, eventually a billion articles about "will your pc run it?" "get your pc HL2 ready!". then it turned out you needed only a mediocre system.

c2d, 8800 any version, 2 gigs of ram --->>IMO<<---- will run it just fine, and if you have anything better, then it'll run even better.

Depends on what processor your talking about, But have you seen Supreme commander benches? the e6850 usually comes on top everytime when comparing to the q6600 and I expecty the exact same, because games are still GPU hungry.

 

[cyrusm]

o definitely. i also wholeheartedly agree: hl2 was a big bust. the shadows just sucked, to mention only one thing.
and i meant basically looking like how it looked on the previews, but at lets say around 1280x1024 resolution. personally speaking i can live with jaggies; never been a big fan of aa and such as they make a huge performance difference.

 

[n7]

Something tells me i won't be running crysis maxed @ 2560x1600 w/ my 8800 GTX

 

[Wreckage]

I'm betting most people will be able to play the game just fine and it will still look good.

Obviously there will have to be some eye candy room for next gen cards.

I'm betting a 7xxx or 19xx card will run Crysis as well as any console.

 

[btdvox]

So you guys think with a newly built system a person wont be able to run Max at 1920X1200?

I just built a system with E6850, 8800 ultra, Raptor X, thermalright ultra 120 extreme w/ scythe s-flex , P5K Premium, 2GB Crucial tracer pc2-8500, xfi gamer sound card.

What you guys think? Reason I ask is because I bought a new 22" LCD for 282.00 (Benq 222WH) and while its a great monitor and looks awesome, I found a ACER 24" Lcd for 485.00- i dont know if i should spend 200 bucks more to get a higher res, but If I cant run everything at Max using crysis, i might as well stick with the 22"
Id rather run at 1650X1080 at max settings with some AA than at 1920 at some settings lesser and no aa.

And also I have a new Samsung LED DLP 56" which is 1080p so i plan on playing the game on that sometimes. Any advice?

 

[Ackmed]

It all depends on what you think playable is. There is next to no chance that it will run at your res of 1920x1200, with AA/AF and settings on high, at any sort of playable (to me) res.

"Just fine" is highly subjective, just as "look good" is. I dont want to muddle thru the game with low settings and crappy frames. That takes away a large part of the enjoyment of a game, the graphics. Sure graphics are not everything, but they sure help the enjoyment of it. Just like we had HDTV's, it looks better, and adds to the enjoyment.

 

[Cheex]

I, in all honesty, would rather to play a crappy game with superb graphics, than a superb game with crappy graphics...:sun:

 

[nyker96]

Whnever someone says "no worry" I'm worried ... a lot ... :]

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Cheex
I, in all honesty, would rather to play a crappy game with superb graphics, than a superb game with crappy graphics...:sun:

Obviously. But if you can have both.. its even better.

The game I play the most right now, is almost 9 years old. And looks pretty bad compared to todays games. But it has the best gameplay of all time imo. So I still play it.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: btdvox

What you guys think? Reason I ask is because I bought a new 22" LCD for 282.00 (Benq 222WH) and while its a great monitor and looks awesome, I found a ACER 24" Lcd for 485.00- i dont know if i should spend 200 bucks more to get a higher res, but If I cant run everything at Max using crysis, i might as well stick with the 22"
Id rather run at 1650X1080 at max settings with some AA than at 1920 at some settings lesser and no aa.

And also I have a new Samsung LED DLP 56" which is 1080p so i plan on playing the game on that sometimes. Any advice?

If the Acer 24" can do 1:1 pixel mapping I'd still go with that. Even if you can't run 1920x1200, you can turn off flat panel scaling and run 1680x1050 which will run the game with bars on all sides. Viewable size will be a bit smaller than a 22", but at least you'll have the option of running 1920 in current games. For most games, an Ultra at 1650 is going to be wasted potential.

I expect Crysis to be one of the first games to force me to drop some settings or possibly even resolution, but my GTS has served me well at 1920x1200 over the last 7 months.

 

[btdvox]

See thats the thing I already have a 1080p tv and dont want to spend more than 200 bucks for a 24", how would i find out if the display does 1:1 pixel mapping? Also to me I think 30-60 fps would be "playable.

 

[bigsnyder]

All LCD monitors will do 1:1 pixel mapping with the help of the video drivers if you are using DVI/HDMI. If you need 1:1 support via an analog connection, find a store display and play with the menu settings. Most store displays are using crappy vga breakout boxes to supply the feeds, so finding out if 1:1 is supported natively in the monitor is not too hard.
Check widescreengamingforum.com for some actual user feedback on various monitors.

 

[btdvox]

oh really?^ So nvidia drivers have an option for 1:1- i will be using DVI

 

[btdvox]

oh really?^ So nvidia drivers have an option for 1:1- i will be using DVI

 

[Noema]

Well, technically they can do 1:1. They've been broken for months, though some people report it now works with the new 16*.* patches.

1:1 doesn't work for me with FW163.11 on my 8800GTS Vista 64-bit.

 

[idiotekniQues]

quad core at 3.3, 4 gigs of ram and an 8800gts (only 320mb) are eagerly awaiting this game.

not so sure about this nanosuit as i would prefer more realistic gameplay but i am psyched! as said above, great graphics will not save a bad game, like doom3.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues
quad core at 3.3, 4 gigs of ram and an 8800gts (only 320mb) are eagerly awaiting this game.

not so sure about this nanosuit as i would prefer more realistic gameplay but i am psyched! as said above, great graphics will not save a bad game, like doom3.

Na, the nanosuit sounds awesome! Non-nano suiters get frozen and you can pop em so they break into glass like shards. It sounds quite fun...

 

[btdvox]

Originally posted by: Noema
Well, technically they can do 1:1. They've been broken for months, though some people report it now works with the new 16*.* patches.

1:1 doesn't work for me with FW163.11 on my 8800GTS Vista 64-bit.

Well by the time Crysis comes down if i need to lower the res from 1920 im sure they'll have it fixed by then! Awesome thanks, I think ill get the Acer 24"