radeon 4850 Crysis performance?

[rogue1979]

My 13-year old son is running a 9600GT and a 2180@3.2GHz.

It's barely cutting the mustard in Crysis, 1024 x 768 AF @ 16X no AA. It manages to average about 45fps at these settings with a few details set to medium. He says it's fine, but I can see lots of jaggies.

My question is will a 4850 be able to run 1152 x 768 at 2X AA and keep the average fps at the same levels? He has a 19" crt trinitron and has no desire for a flat screen, so 1152 x 768 is the sweet spot (we both still rock on some older games that use lower resolutions).

Is a C2D 1MB cache cpu @ 3.2GHz going to limit the 4850 significantly, or is it good enough?

Thanks for your opinions is advance.

 

[Adam8281]

I'm not an expert, but I would think he could run the game just fine. For the past 2 days I've been running Crysis with an HD4850 at 1680x1050 resolution with all graphics options set to "high," and 4xAA, and it is smooth - haven't had any choppiness. I'm not running fraps though, so I don't know exactly how many fps I'm getting. Also, I haven't made it to the "ice level" which, from what I've heard, is more graphics intensive than the rest of the game. But anyways, if Crysis is very smooth on high for me at a 22" resolution, I'd think you'd run it wonderfully at 1152x768.

As far as the CPU limitation, I'm not sure. I'm using an E8400.

 

[RussianSensation]

If you son is happy with the game why spend the extra $? Hardware gets cheaper all the time. In 6 months you'll be able to get him a much faster card for $200 when he really asks you for one

Crysis (Rescue) - 1024x768 (4AA/16AF)
GTX 280 = 28.5
4870 = 28.4
4850 = 24.6
9600GT = 16.1

Crysis (Harbor) - 1024x768 (4AA/16AF)
GTX 280 = 34.6
4870 = 29.2
4850 = 27.6
9600GT = 21.5

Looks like for Crysis you are really looking at GF11 / R800 graphics processors for playability (the above benches are DX10 though Very High).

Also I wouldnt' recommend upgrading for 1 game only.

 

[Seggybop]

I have an E2180 at 3.5ghz and a 4850. I have Crysis set to DX9 Very High and 2XAA at 1680x1050 and get ~20FPS, which is fine for me.

 

[shangshang]

You can get a big performance increase if you don't use AA. In Crysis, even 2xAA will hit your hard, and personally, I didn't notice any better eye candies without AA.

BTW, I ran Crysis at 1600x1200 with Medium settings with my 8800GT "ok". 90% of the time, it runs smooth. But during certain scenes, there are laggies, but I'm ok with it. And I had no problem with the Ice level (which IMO is a stupid and aethetically poor-looking level).

But I will never play Crysis again though. I thought the last level was so anticlimatic that it left me wondering "is that it?". Farcry was the real deal. Crysis didn't live up to the hype.

 

[rogue1979]

Thanks for the opinions so far.

Looks like for Crysis while slightly better, the 4850 is struggling also.

I guess since my son hasn't complained yet, I can wait longer since the 9600GT easily handles all the other game he plays.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Seggybop
I have an E2180 at 3.5ghz and a 4850. I have Crysis set to DX9 Very High and 2XAA at 1680x1050 and get ~20FPS, which is fine for me.

dear god... a shooter at 20 fps? do you actually HIT anything? i played crysis on DX9 with medium-low settings at the lowest resolution possible back when I had a 7900GS... i killed everyone with melee because 1. it did more damage. 2. it wouldnt miss as much due to lag.

The plot was mediocre at best, really, a crappy game overall. 6 hours of average plot and terrible graphics that could potentially look awesome on a 4000+$ machine built with hardware that came out a year after the game was released.

 

[TridenT]

Do not upgrade.

You will NOT see a significant performance increase.

 

[postmortemIA]

wow crysis must be paid by nvidia and ati...

why even bother with that game if you need to upgrade your whole system?

 

[Hugh H]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
wow crysis must be paid by nvidia and ati...

why even bother with that game if you need to upgrade your whole system?

No kidding. I am amazed at the number of people upgrading just because Crysis has made them feel they have an outdated rig (Hi, my name is Hugh, I was one of those people). I don't recall any other game causing such a stir... Nvidia, Ati, Intel all must love Crytek.

 

[User5]

Hmm, my 4850 is running crysis on my hdtv.. im actually playing it on a controller, as i only insist on kb/m for multiplayer fps.

Anyway, im playing it at 1920x1080, High settings, and 4X/16x.. if you are playing any game with 0X or 2X with a 4800 card you are just silly btw..

I get a good 25-35 fps. I'll admit, its a fluctuation at times when theres a bit going on, but for the most part its quite smooth, and being perfectly honest.. the gameplay is NOT this games selling feature. The visuals are, and even just roaming around crysis can be quite enjoyable just enjoying the visuals. Framerate will also be MUCH smoother and less prone to spastic framedips than the average fps on a console.

 

[jimmyzaas]

From my previous experience, Crysis plays like crap on the last level with the Boss fight. I hit 15 fps or less using 1280x800 2x FSAA DX9 High on a 8800GT XXX. That was a while back though without any patches.. maybe things have improved now.

If you need to test your card, I suggest that final level. Everything else was pretty smooth up to that point.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: jimmyzaas
From my previous experience, Crysis plays like crap on the last level with the Boss fight. I hit 15 fps or less using 1280x800 2x FSAA DX9 High on a 8800GT XXX. That was a while back though without any patches.. maybe things have improved now.

If you need to test your card, I suggest that final level. Everything else was pretty smooth up to that point.

My curiosity is whether that level is CPU or GPU limited. The "flight sim" level was nuts as well.