Crysis

[LittleNemoNES]

Big deal! I run Oblivion with 14xSSAA 16xHQAF, all settings maxed and all beauty mods (yes all of them) @ 200 FPS

...
..
.

@ 320x240 resolution!

lol

the important question is, 'At what resolution?'

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: gersson
Big deal! I run Oblivion with 14xSSAA 16xHQAF, all settings maxed and all beauty mods (yes all of them) @ 200 FPS

...
..
.

@ 320x240 resolution!

lol

the important question is, 'At what resolution?'

Resolution no people 😉 or textures as with the guy that just upgraded from FX5200 to 8800GTX.

 

[VERTIGGO]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

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

Nothing wrong with that. But let's for a moment assume Crysis is 2x as graphically intensive, at same settings you'd be looking at 30-40fps 🙁

I've always thought Far Cry was a unique game in this respect. I'm not sure why. But it doesn't seem to benefit from the newer graphics cards like FEAR or BF2 did. Going from a 9700 mobile to X850XT to X1900XT I didn't see nearly the improvement that I did with other games like Doom3, HL2, or BF2.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: VERTIGGO

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

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

Nothing wrong with that. But let's for a moment assume Crysis is 2x as graphically intensive, at same settings you'd be looking at 30-40fps 🙁

I've always thought Far Cry was a unique game in this respect. I'm not sure why. But it doesn't seem to benefit from the newer graphics cards like FEAR or BF2 did. Going from a 9700 mobile to X850XT to X1900XT I didn't see nearly the improvement that I did with other games like Doom3, HL2, or BF2.

Far Cry is CPU limited

Resolution no people or textures as with the guy that just upgraded from FX5200 to 8800GTX.

lol I saw that -- reminds me of when I went from GeForce mx440 to 6800Ultra

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: btdvox



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"

Don't hold your breath. This is nVidia we're talking about here.

 

[Cheex]

Is it possible to reduce the resolution on a 20" from 1680x1050 like to say 1280x800 if your games don't run well?

 

[Noema]

Of course, but if it's an LCD, you aren't really 'changing' the resolution.

You can have the image scaled (ie, "blown up") so that a 1280x800 source fills a 1680x1050 resolution. The result is that the source pixels do not match 1:1 with the display's 1680x1050 pixels and thus the image is blurry (sort of an smeared look). I personally can't stand it.

The other option is not to scale and to have the display just show the source's pixels, with the rest of the screen unused, and you'd have black bars along the edges. However the result would be quite sharp since you are achieving true 1:1 mapping, ie, each of the source's pixels corresponds to an actual pixel in the display. Some monitors can do this on their own, but most of the cheaper models can only do this via software with the videocard's drivers. I used to do it with my 7800GS AGP with no problem, but I have been unable to achieve it with my 8800GTS, presumably due to nVidia's drivers.

Personally, if Crysis ends up running like crap at 1680x1050 on my 22", I'm just going to switch my 17" to be the primary display and run it at 1280x1024.

 

[Wicked Akuba]

Originally posted by: Matt2
I'm not too excited. I'll wait for G92 till I play Crysis. No matter what the devs say, my 2900XT will not run this game at 1920x1200 with any kind of high visuals.

I only get 60-80 fps in Far Cry with the visuals cranked and HDR+4xAA.

Isn't enough 60 Fps?

 

[Ackmed]

Hes talking about, he gets 60-8-fps in a 3+ year old game. And doubts he will get anywhere close to the same performance in Crysis, which is what this thread is about.

 

[Wicked Akuba]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Hes talking about, he gets 60-8-fps in a 3+ year old game. And doubts he will get anywhere close to the same performance in Crysis, which is what this thread is about.

Oh got dammit, o was sleeping so bad and made crysis=far cry :laugh:

 

[MarcVenice]

Some people are just bragging on this thread, like Matt2 for example. Congratulations on your rig and awesome monitor, but heres a newsflash, you belong into the 1% category of people who own such a rig paired with a monitor like that, who has expectations that can never be met, it's just unrealistic.

If crysis runs on high settings with 4x aa and 8x fsaa, on a 1280*1024 or perhaps on a 1440*900 monitor using a 8800gts, then 90% of the gamers will be satisfied, because that's the resolutions 90% of the gamers game at. And it means somewhat older hardware, like 1950xt's and 7950gt's will still be able to make crysis look pretty good.

 

[Ackmed]

Its not bragging. Fact is, people with higher resolutions, especially LCD's, need to keep their res. 1920x1200 doesnt look nearly as good at 1680x1050 or whatever else you want to try. And you need a faster PC, to run at a higher res. Thats just the way it is.

I got a 2405FPW the first week it came out, and its "forced" me to upgrade many times. Going SLI and Crossfire to get playable frames at 1920x1200. Crysis is going to put the hammer down at that res, especially with eye candy turned on. He said hes going to wait for the next refresh to play Crysis, which I can agree with. I bought Stalker several months ago, just after I got home from being away and half way around the world for 7 months. My machine is too slow to run it at 1920x1200 how I like it. It was "top end" (overclocked Opty and Crossfire) when I left, not now. Intel finally stepped up to the plate, and a much faster NV card is out. And now its too slow for me. So Im going to wait till I upgrade to play the game. I dont want to run at a lower res, or turn down visuals. Thats not how I like to game. So Ill just wait, but Ill have to wait even longer, because I may get sent away again. So Im holding all decisions on what I find out in the next few months.

 

[Ryland]

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:

My 2 favorite games are Halo and Far Cry which are both getting long in the tooth.

 

[manowar821]

This is why I play on a beautifully sharp and fast 19inch 1280x1024 LCD monitor... 🙂

Honestly, I've been weighing the pros and cons of getting a large 24inch wide screen LCD monitor lately... I'm still leaning toward sticking with the 19inch for a while, though.

 

[Noema]

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:

Heh...I'd rather play neither and read a book or something 😛

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Noema

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:

Heh...I'd rather play neither and read a book or something 😛

Some of us get plenty of our reading in. I average a novel per week. I take a train to work. Time to kill.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Noema

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:

Heh...I'd rather play neither and read a book or something 😛

Just finished 'High Noon', but Nora Roberts, her latest book. Just came out a few weeks ago I think. Books do rock, read 160 pages today to finish it. Was just going to read a few chapters.. but you know how that goes. Had the day off, and had other stuff to do, but whatever.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: VERTIGGO
I've always thought Far Cry was a unique game in this respect. I'm not sure why. But it doesn't seem to benefit from the newer graphics cards like FEAR or BF2 did. Going from a 9700 mobile to X850XT to X1900XT I didn't see nearly the improvement that I did with other games like Doom3, HL2, or BF2.

Far Cry is CPU limited

Far Cry sees very good gains from newer GPUs. And, as far as being CPU limited is concerned, there is some CPU scaling at 1280x1024, but not really much at the higher resolutions.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Some people are just bragging on this thread, like Matt2 for example. Congratulations on your rig and awesome monitor, but heres a newsflash, you belong into the 1% category of people who own such a rig paired with a monitor like that, who has expectations that can never be met, it's just unrealistic.

If crysis runs on high settings with 4x aa and 8x fsaa, on a 1280*1024 or perhaps on a 1440*900 monitor using a 8800gts, then 90% of the gamers will be satisfied, because that's the resolutions 90% of the gamers game at. And it means somewhat older hardware, like 1950xt's and 7950gt's will still be able to make crysis look pretty good.

Bragging? I dont think so.

My point, as well as many others has been that "playable" is a highly subjective term that has different definitions for different people.

 

[Noema]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Noema

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:

Heh...I'd rather play neither and read a book or something 😛

Some of us get plenty of our reading in. I average a novel per week. I take a train to work. Time to kill.

Heh, don't misinterpret me. I didn't mean to imply "Games, bad; Books, good". 😛 I just meant to imply that I don't care for crap games.

There's room for both good books, and bood games.

But there's no room for crappy games, and I'd rather read a good book than play a crap game. Likewise, I'd rather play a good game than read a bad book.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Am I the only one thaat sees running a game at max is kind of like a nice bonus for upgrading to next gen hardware? In '04, I was playing HL2 on a GeForce 5700LE OC'ed to 5900 speeds, and it looked good. In late '05, I got a GeForce 6800GS and thought, "Man, I bet half-Life 2 would look great with this card!" and it did. So, for me it's kind of like a bonus and a reason to relay. Play the newest games and the older games look better.
I'm not trying to force my opinion, I just want to see if anyone else agrees with me.

 

[ashishmishra]

Originally posted by: GundamSonicZeroX
Am I the only one thaat sees running a game at max is kind of like a nice bonus for upgrading to next gen hardware? In '04, I was playing HL2 on a GeForce 5700LE OC'ed to 5900 speeds, and it looked good. In late '05, I got a GeForce 6800GS and thought, "Man, I bet half-Life 2 would look great with this card!" and it did. So, for me it's kind of like a bonus and a reason to relay. Play the newest games and the older games look better.
I'm not trying to force my opinion, I just want to see if anyone else agrees with me.

Definitely, there are plenty of even older games which benefit from having faster GPUs. When I had moved to X1800XT from Geforce 6800NU, I replayed quite a few games like Far Cry, F.E.A.R. with maxed graphics, higher resolution, AA/AF, than was ever possible with the 6800.

 

[bigsnyder]

Originally posted by: manowar821
This is why I play on a beautifully sharp and fast 19inch 1280x1024 LCD monitor... 🙂

Honestly, I've been weighing the pros and cons of getting a large 24inch wide screen LCD monitor lately... I'm still leaning toward sticking with the 19inch for a while, though.

The nice thing about a 24" monitor is that if you need to step down to 1680x1050, using 1:1 pixel aspect still gives you about the same viewable size as a 20" widescreen.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I am shocked we wont need SLI just to play!

😉

People seem to think the developers are ok with selling to the top 0.5% of PC users only.

Also according to ID and epic that 70% of the high end GPU owner don't buy games but download them through BT. Sad bit is that game cost 20m to 30m to make and to break even on some major title they need to sell 1million copies.

if that were a concern crysis would be on the xbox 360 (maybe ps3 too but its security is unproven_

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven

Originally posted by: tuteja1986

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I am shocked we wont need SLI just to play!

😉

People seem to think the developers are ok with selling to the top 0.5% of PC users only.

Also according to ID and epic that 70% of the high end GPU owner don't buy games but download them through BT. Sad bit is that game cost 20m to 30m to make and to break even on some major title they need to sell 1million copies.

if that were a concern crysis would be on the xbox 360 (maybe ps3 too but its security is unproven_

That's not an accurate conclusion and certainly doesn't disprove the 70% number, unless you think the majority of people buying Crysis will all have high end GPUs. There are going to be tons of people buying Crysis with GPUs anywhere from Radeon 9700 (and even below) to X1950XT (none of which are considered high end). Obviously I dont have the data for % of overall graphics card market which HD 2900XT and 8800GTX/GTS series occupy, but I bet it doesn't even come close to 10% of the overall graphics card install base which is interested in buying Crysis.

Also, if you think Crytek doesn't want to sell 5x more copies of the game across platforms, I think you are mistaken. There are probably other reasons for not having their game on the xbox360 like lack of funds to develop across several platforms, company's basically unproven track record on the console other than their half-a** port of Far Cry and a possibility that they were paid a premium by Microsoft to be exclusive (at least for the time being) to help them push DX10 onto the PC (they realize 360 has enough A-rated titles and they dont need to convince users to buy Vista to play the latest high end game with DX10 which is a major "feature" according to them in their new OS). In due time, I wouldn't be at all suprised if Crysis was ported to consoles in 1 year.