• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Finaly, it can play crysis

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 😛
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
zerocool84 said:
Have you played or seen any screen shots of the game???
Click to expand...

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.
 
ZipSpeed said:
Out of curiosity, does Crysis truly demand the best to run or is it simply an unoptimized game?
Click to expand...
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.
Skurge said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
This guy has 3 cypress (HD5970 + HD5850 in Tri-Fire)

tei2480.jpg


http://www.overclock.net/ati/629076-trifire-5970-5850-broke-100-avg.html
 
zerocool84 said:
Have you played or seen any screen shots of the game???
Click to expand...

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...
 
Last edited:
^--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.
 
Warhead definitely looks worse than Crysis. Warhead has tons of crappy looking pop in when you walk around, way worse than Crysis.
 
Qbah said:
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 😀
Click to expand...

He needs a 5870 not a 5850. It doesn't match well with the 5970s.
 
dguy6789 said:
Warhead definitely looks worse than Crysis. Warhead has tons of crappy looking pop in when you walk around, way worse than Crysis.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Skurge said:
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
Click to expand...

SSAA not really needed with Crysis at 2560x1600

You can get away with 2xSSAA at 1080p or 1200p res with a 5970
 
dguy6789 said:
Warhead definitely looks worse than Crysis. Warhead has tons of crappy looking pop in when you walk around, way worse than Crysis.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top