Finaly, it can play crysis

[Skurge]

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/powercolor_hd5970_lcs/8.htm

Overclocked to 1Ghz core, it takes crysis down at 2560x1600

 

[Qbah]

AAx2 - still not enough And 30FPS is "okay" at best.

Not to laugh at the HD5970, as there's nothing faster than that available. But the Crysis limit hasn't been reached yet

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Yeah. I was pretty excited when I read that...but then I saw that it was 34fps average, with only 2xAA. Bump it up to 8xMSAA, and we'll see how it suffers.

 

[PingviN]

Wow. That's a massive overclock! I would love to see power the consumption of that beast!

 

[Skurge]

agreed bou 2xAA, I would rather like to SSAA

normal AA doesnt make that big a difference to me in crysis, foliage is still jaggy as hell

 

[Ben90]

And its Crysis Warhead. We need the original game/patch

 

[Skurge]

I still haven't seen any benches with 3 or more 5870s.

 

[ZipSpeed]

Out of curiosity, does Crysis truly demand the best to run or is it simply an unoptimized game?

 

[zerocool84]

Out of curiosity, does Crysis truly demand the best to run or is it simply an unoptimized game?

Have you played or seen any screen shots of the game???

 

[Skurge]

Yeah, it packs in virtually every feature your graphics card can muster (expect Dx11, but crysis 2 will see to that) and throws in massive draw distances aswell.

 

[ZipSpeed]

Have you played or seen any screen shots of the game???

I haven't played it yet but all I'm asking is whether something comparable can be achieved with lesser hardware and better optimizations, or in fact, the game engine is optimized and truly demands a beast of a system.

 

[MrK6]

Out of curiosity, does Crysis truly demand the best to run or is it simply an unoptimized game?

Both. But "unoptimized" isn't a bad thing as I mean it; they simply just didn't leave out any details to get frames up. If you want maximum settings, they give you maximum settings. Considering the game is going on three years old, there still isn't anything else out that looks as good overall.

agreed bou 2xAA, I would rather like to SSAA

normal AA doesnt make that big a difference to me in crysis, foliage is still jaggy as hell

Edge AA ftw. It's interesting that the cards take such a huge hit from 2X AA. Edge AA looks much better and has very little performance penalty. I can run the game maxed at 2560x1600 with 2x Edge AA and average 25-30FPS.

 

[Tempered81]

This guy has 3 cypress (HD5970 + HD5850 in Tri-Fire)

http://www.overclock.net/ati/629076-trifire-5970-5850-broke-100-avg.html

 

[zerocool84]

This guy has 3 cypress (HD5970 + HD5850 in Tri-Fire)

http://www.overclock.net/ati/629076-trifire-5970-5850-broke-100-avg.html

WOW nice

 

[solofly]

Have you played or seen any screen shots of the game???

I bought this game shortly after its release (that's original Crysis, not Warhead) and only now I am able to max it out at the resolution I play which is 1920x1200...

 

[Qbah]

This guy has 3 cypress (HD5970 + HD5850 in Tri-Fire)

http://www.overclock.net/ati/629076-trifire-5970-5850-broke-100-avg.html

75 AVG at AAx8 1920x1200 all Enthusiast? Excellent! Now this is absolutely playable and this is what I would call maxed Crysis Not a single "but" from me for this score

 

[wiretap]

^--that's around what I got (maybe I was a little less, I forget) when I had my overclocked quad-SLI GTX 295 COOPs + 4GHz i7.. but the electric bill was taking a beating.. lol.

 

[Sylvanas]

And its Crysis Warhead. We need the original game/patch

Why? Crytek said Warhead was a slightly more optimized and better performing game than the original with the same visuals. No use benching the 'old' stuff.

 

[dguy6789]

Warhead definitely looks worse than Crysis. Warhead has tons of crappy looking pop in when you walk around, way worse than Crysis.

 

[MJinZ]

75 AVG at AAx8 1920x1200 all Enthusiast? Excellent! Now this is absolutely playable and this is what I would call maxed Crysis Not a single "but" from me for this score

He needs a 5870 not a 5850. It doesn't match well with the 5970s.

 

[OS]

Warhead definitely looks worse than Crysis. Warhead has tons of crappy looking pop in when you walk around, way worse than Crysis.

i don't know about popping objects, but the cut scene character animations in warhead does not look as good as crysis, it almost seems like they got sloppy or rushed in the skeletal animation in warhead and some scenes the characters look "floppy" where as crysis it looks very good.

 

[x3sphere]

agreed bou 2xAA, I would rather like to SSAA

normal AA doesnt make that big a difference to me in crysis, foliage is still jaggy as hell

SSAA not really needed with Crysis at 2560x1600

You can get away with 2xSSAA at 1080p or 1200p res with a 5970

 

[cbn]

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/powercolor_hd5970_lcs/8.htm

Overclocked to 1Ghz core, it takes crysis down at 2560x1600

That is a rare case where stock clocked HD5970 equalsa pair of HD5870s in Crossfire.

I just wished they measured power consumption for that 1010 Mhz Overclock.

Guru of 3d measured 380 watts for stock cooled HD5970 @ 935 Mhz.

 

[alyarb]

Warhead definitely looks worse than Crysis. Warhead has tons of crappy looking pop in when you walk around, way worse than Crysis.

this. warhead is hardly "optimized" compared to crysis. it's practically the same game with cheaper parameters (specifically shadows and draw distance) in the cvargroups and some new particle assets. crysis comes out of the box with a better looking, more GPU-intensive config, and that is why it runs slower than warhead out of the box. both games can be configured with just about any quality/speed settings you desire; the difference is in the stock configs.

my biggest complaint with cryengine2 is doing seriously ambitious physics on x86. that is just slow as pigshit. but yeah people don't understand draw distance is what makes crysis. for its age, it's made a great environment to make huge, fun custom maps. as long as you have the frame buffer (and system RAM) for it, you can make whatever you want, no matter how vast and dense the vegetation/buildings and it will look amazing. if you don't have the memory for it, then there will be severe compromises to draw distance.


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/594924/14.jpg

this is what a wharf covered in trucks and shipping containers will look like from a height of 100 meters on a system with 2GB RAM and 256MB VRAM rendered with the stock v.high config. just ahead of its time, significantly. nothing on the far side of the canal is rendered except a couple buildings and cranes. several wooden mooring platforms are not shown. with the right LODs and configs with a high enough resolution/filters, crysis can look as good as any game for any time period (as long as you have a *nice* machine with plenty of RAM/VRAM for that time period)... within reason.

 

[CP5670]

I thought Crysis both looked and ran better than Warhead. Warhead has a reduced draw distance for vegetation and has an annoying system of loading map content dynamically, which often makes the game stutter when you enter a new area. This is especially noticeable in the train level.