Dissappointed with my first build :( Further upgrade?

[imported_KINGPIN]

So i basically built a new system a week ago, and the first game i tested on it was crysis.

These are my system specs

E8400 + ocz vendetta 2 cooling
P5q Pro Asus mobo
2gb Ddr2-800 ocz gold
bfg 8800gt oc
vista 64bit
wd 640gb caviar
enermax 420watt psu (29A on 12V)

I ran crysis evrything high/very high at 1152x864 with 2xFsaa and it ran "ok" but with a lot of sttuttering.

When i reached the snow level, i had to turn everything down and turn off fsaa. it still ran just "ok" with some sttuttering here and there.
I also tried turning AA off, but it looks way better than aa on.

i guess i was expecting too much from the 8800gt. Now im thinking of returning it and getting 4870 + 650watt corsair psu + 4gb extra memory

i game on 19inch monitor.

the only game that would benefit from this upgrade is just crysis. everything else i can probably run very high. Dont know if i should pull the trigger.

 

[angry hampster]

Yeah you're expecting too much. Very high + AA is a killer in crysis. Run it on high and keep the AA on, but run at native resolution.

 

[imported_KINGPIN]

native res is 1440 x 900. wouldnt it perform better on a lower res tho

 

[Insomniator]

I accidentally voted yes but wouldn't do it.

 

[mpilchfamily]

No need to upgrade. Crysis is a system killer even on high end systems. But if you want Crysis to be more playable then you will need to go to extreams. Such as tri SLI, a quad core CPU, and about 4 gigs of RAm. Which of course will require a much larger PSU. But you have a great mid range system right now.

 

[RockinZ28]

Go to DX9 mode if you haven't tried that already. You can get tweaked DX9 cfgs that will look just about as good as very high DX10 with less fps drops. DX10 improvements are minimal, and not worth the performance hit. And if you're willing, overclock your card manually to gain a few more much needed fps.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: KINGPIN
So i basically built a new system a week ago, and the first game i tested on it was crysis.

These are my system specs

E8400 + ocz vendetta 2 cooling
P5q Pro Asus mobo
2gb Ddr2-800 ocz gold
bfg 8800gt oc
vista 64bit
wd 640gb caviar
enermax 420watt psu (29A on 12V)

I ran crysis evrything high/very high at 1152x864 with 2xFsaa and it ran "ok" but with a lot of sttuttering.

When i reached the snow level, i had to turn everything down and turn off fsaa. it still ran just "ok" with some sttuttering here and there.
I also tried turning AA off, but it looks way better than aa on.

i guess i was expecting too much from the 8800gt. Now im thinking of returning it and getting 4870 + 650watt corsair psu + 4gb extra memory

i game on 19inch monitor.

the only game that would benefit from this upgrade is just crysis. everything else i can probably run very high. Dont know if i should pull the trigger.

Fu** Crysis. It's a stupid 5 hours game and that is all. Why does everyone buys hardware stuff just for Crysis?? Get a 4870X2, play Crysis maxed out and then... what?? Then you'll think that any other game out there would have worked just fine at 1440X900 on an 8800 GT.

The only thing I'd change in your system, would be to add another 2 gb of ram. For Vista, 2 gb doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[Genx87]

I have to ask why you didnt go with 4GB right off the bat? Decent but not top of the line ram can be had for 80 bucks in 4GB increments. 2GB IMO is the bare min for Vista and if you are doing serious gaming not enough. 2GB was great in WinXP in 2005.

 

[coolpurplefan]

2GB is great with XP in 2008.

 

[imported_apocalypse]

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
2GB is great with XP in 2008.

Crysis hit 2050MB of memory usage in the alien warship level when I was playing, in game counter, not overall system memory used.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Crysis is a pretty lame game to me. But, if it's that important of a game to you, then do it and have a fast rig that'll last you a while. If you're just using Crysis as a bench, then I'd keep what you have.

 

[Avalon]

4GB of memory for Crysis, and I honestly would have only considered a 4850 or better. Don't use any very high settings, and keep it on DX9 mode. It should run alright, but you're never going to get fantastically smooth framerates from that game for a while. It just eats video cards for breakfast.

 

[badnewcastle]

I would swap the PSU for sure and get at least 4gb with Vista 64. As for the GPU... I don't know, I haven't made the jump from my 8800GT that's OC'd. I play w/mostly very high/enthusiast with crysis and warhead it's playable and enjoyable no AA and at 1650x1080 w/dx9 tweaks. None of the single gpu's solutions will get you above 30-33 FPS in DX10 Very high. The dx9 tweaks look pretty much as good as dx10.

 

[SorryImLate]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I have to ask why you didnt go with 4GB right off the bat?

I was just going to ask the same thing.

Also you system isnt bad at all i would just definatly buy alot more RAM first. If Crysis is the only game your having problems with then i wouldnt worry about it unless you just have to play it. Im sure most other games will play just fine with your system.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
Yeah you're expecting too much. Very high + AA is a killer in crysis. Run it on high and keep the AA on, but run at native resolution.

 

[SorryImLate]

Originally posted by: apocalypse

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
2GB is great with XP in 2008.

Crysis hit 2050MB of memory usage in the alien warship level when I was playing, in game counter, not overall system memory used.

Extra 512mb..

 

[A554SS1N]

I'd wait for next gen cards for a bigger performance difference - most games aren't like crysis anyway and will run great.

 

[imported_KINGPIN]

thanks for replieng every1.

the only reason i have 2gb and 420watt psu was because it was from my previous build (figured i dont really NEED more than 420 because im only running 1 8800gt)

and the 8800gt i got for a good deal @ 99. i can still return it tho.

i tried other games like FEAR, hl2 ep 2 and they ran great. its just that i dont often spend money on games (usually borrow them or torrent them) and when i do spend 50 on a game and put it in a newly built system i expected it to atleast run decently.

figured im not the only one with this problem, people with 2 8800gtxs are having trouble running at super high with anything more than 4fsaa (1900x1080)

i would probably keep what i have for now, around christmas prices will probably drop then i can sell my 8800 for 4870.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: KINGPIN
native res is 1440 x 900. wouldnt it perform better on a lower res tho

Yea but native will look better and you won't need AA. Play in DX9. DX10 doesn't really add much.

 

[videogames101]

8800gt fails compared to 4850, upgrade lulz

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: apocalypse

Originally posted by: coolpurplefan
2GB is great with XP in 2008.

Crysis hit 2050MB of memory usage in the alien warship level when I was playing, in game counter, not overall system memory used.

is that in your main rig with vista business or your laptop with xp?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

No, I don't think a whole upgrade is worthwhile. Although in actuality I think an HD4870 would run just fine on your 420W Enermax power supply. Are there any SLI drivers, that work, for your motherboard? If so, then a couple of 8800GTs would be faster than a single HD4870 in Crysis, and it would be cheaper.

 

[imported_KINGPIN]

4850 is like $80 more than 8800gt and only 15% performance increase. not worth it imo (if you already have 8800gt)

im just waiting till 4870s are around 200ish

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: KINGPIN
4850 is like $80 more than 8800gt and only 15% performance increase. not worth it imo (if you already have 8800gt)

im just waiting till 4870s are around 200ish

How's that possible? With recent drivers improvements, the HD 3870 has been getting closer to the 8800GT, the performance difference can be as high as 15%, something that was twice as higher when it debuted, and the HD 4850 is already 50% average faster than it, so it means that the HD 4850 is between 30-35% faster average than the 8800GT which is 15% slower than the 8800GTS and 20% slower than the 9800GTX and 25% slower than the 9800GTX+ and sometimes the latter one trade some blows against the HD 4850.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
9800GTX+ and sometimes the latter one trade some blows against the HD 4850.

Here is where you are wrong. The 9800GTX+ is a very good match for 4850, winning in some games, loosing in just a couple of others. Saying that it "sometimes trades some blows against the 4850" is just wrong: there isn't a clear winner between those two cards really, only if one is cheaper then the other, otherwise they're equal.