AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
I'm on a capped DL line, I didnt want to waste multiple gigs downloading it only to find out it was the wrong version and gave the 9600gt an unfair advantage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa0MjpLgJGw
Kind of hard to see at the crappy bitrate on the video. But that's 30fps avg I found on youtube... There's a couple skips, and whenever he turns at more than a crawl the screen visibly drags. That's unacceptable to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa0MjpLgJGw
Kind of hard to see at the crappy bitrate on the video. But that's 30fps avg I found on youtube... There's a couple skips, and whenever he turns at more than a crawl the screen visibly drags. That's unacceptable to me.
Well have fun being bitter and NOT playing one of the best shooters released last year. Crysis runs extremely smooth in the 20-30FPS range, heck, even around 15FPS average is playable and this is a special case because most other FPS I need at least 30 or so.
By the way, your word about something you have never experienced means nothing against the word of someone who HAS experienced it so if that someone says it's smooth and you haven't even tried the demo, then it's better for you to remain silent.
And if you need more than 30 frames to enjoy and being good at a game then you really should be a little more stoic. I really laughed at people when they said you need 60+FPS in UT2004 to be good and I could still own them getting around 20-40 frames on my 9600SE. Same with strategy games, sure better frames can make the experience more fluid and even make it a little easier to play but 50+ is certainly not needed.
Who said anything about being good at it? Lower frames actually improves performance in shooters. It's a neat trick guys used to pull when high dpi mice first came out. That's why some games have the option to autoboot players below a certain fps.
"experience more fluid"
I don't spend hundreds of dollars upgrading my rig and then 50 bucks on a game to play a choppy piece of crap so I can brag about how detailed it is. You don't think this is the case? Why are there a thousand damn youtube videos bragging "High detail Crysis on my (insert low/midrange card here)! with tag "Yeah it's only 22 fps avg, but it's totally playable there." Maybe if you can't see more than a foot in front of your face it is. Unless of course crysis uses a magical new form of rendering that doesnt use visible spectrum light. I'll admit I have been presuming that wasn't the case and thereby basing my opinion on nineteen years videogaming experience and human biology. Tell me, is that the case... because if it is, I totally admit that I was mistaken earlier.
"experience more fluid"
I don't spend hundreds of dollars upgrading my rig and then 50 bucks on a game to play a choppy piece of crap so I can brag about how detailed it is. You don't think this is the case? Why are there a thousand damn youtube videos bragging "High detail Crysis on my (insert low/midrange card here)! with tag "Yeah it's only 22 fps avg, but it's totally playable there." Maybe if you can't see more than a foot in front of your face it is. Unless of course crysis uses a magical new form of rendering that doesnt use visible spectrum light. I'll admit I have been presuming that wasn't the case and thereby basing my opinion on nineteen years videogaming experience and human biology. Tell me, is that the case... because if it is, I totally admit that I was mistaken earlier.
I also said more fun so don't sidetrack the issue.
I agree some people do it for the bragging rights but you buy a game to entertain yourself and have some fun and even if it's a little choppy and you don't get the best framerates, does it really matter if it's an excellent game and you enjoy the hell out of it?. Honestly I don't know why you keep arguing 20-30FPS is not playable in Crysis (though I understand why you would think so), I played through the entire game with those avg fps and I enjoyed it very much and thought it ran well, it could have run better sure, but I was getting spectacular visuals and enjoying myself very much so I didn't care, I was very happy with my purchase. I'm not very picky about framerate but I don't fully enjoy a shooter if I don't get around 30fps or higher (preferably much higher) but Crysis feels surprisingly smooth, it's not stuttery, it's not choppy (like say UT3 or COD4 are even at 30fps), it just feels slower but smooth nevertheless.
Anyways, what ever happened to playing games for fun? If you want to get your money's worth on your hardware play on Medium, the game runs at over 40+ fps and you still get comparable (or better) visuals to other games on the market.
I dont have fun playing a choppy game. It pisses me off. Must be a personal preference. When a game chops, that means my settings are too high.
"Anyways, what ever happened to playing games for fun? If you want to get your money's worth on your hardware play on Medium, the game runs at over 40+ fps and you still get comparable (or better) visuals to other games on the market."
My point exactly. You were able to recognize that the game wasn't perfectly smooth, but you chose to play it like that because it was worth it in your mind. Myself and every gamer I know all are exactly the opposite. Smooth UT looks better than 25fps UT3 to me.
I've got no problem with Crysis based on it's being taxing. I just read several reviews and except for the usual whores, what I got from them, is it's at best a mediocre game in every aspect except looks.
I bought Doom 3 for $60 at launch because it looked amazing. I've played that game maybe 2 hrs total. I got farcry with a videocard. The only reason I EVER used that game was for benching.
"Anyways, what ever happened to playing games for fun? If you want to get your money's worth on your hardware play on Medium, the game runs at over 40+ fps and you still get comparable (or better) visuals to other games on the market."
My point exactly. You were able to recognize that the game wasn't perfectly smooth, but you chose to play it like that because it was worth it in your mind. Myself and every gamer I know all are exactly the opposite. Smooth UT looks better than 25fps UT3 to me.
I've got no problem with Crysis based on it's being taxing. I just read several reviews and except for the usual whores, what I got from them, is it's at best a mediocre game in every aspect except looks.
I bought Doom 3 for $60 at launch because it looked amazing. I've played that game maybe 2 hrs total. I got farcry with a videocard. The only reason I EVER used that game was for benching.
My whole point is that it that a game not being able to run at max settings on your computer shouldn't stop you from trying the game, I see so many people missing out on Crysis (which by the way, really is a fun little game but that's just my opinion and GameSpot's too apparently 
) just because they have a 8800GT and can't run at max settings... I feel pity for those people for not being able to appreciate good things and get past over stupid things. Anyways, it seems you are avoiding Crysis because you think it's not a good game which is completely understandable, I'm just saying it would be very stupid to not get the game because you can't run it at max settings which is the vibe I got from your first posts.
Anyways, a pleasing experience is different for everyone, if people enjoy Crysis playing at 20-30 (regardless of whether it's smooth or not) and have lots of fun with it, what is the problem? If you need 40+ FPS to enjoy a game then yeah, I guess that's valid too, I was just trying to make people see you don't need absolutely smooth gameplay to enjoy and have fun with a game but apparently that's not the case with everyone and that's fine, maybe I did wrong not respecting everyone's desires when playing a game.
) just because they have a 8800GT and can't run at max settings... I feel pity for those people for not being able to appreciate good things and get past over stupid things. Anyways, it seems you are avoiding Crysis because you think it's not a good game which is completely understandable, I'm just saying it would be very stupid to not get the game because you can't run it at max settings which is the vibe I got from your first posts.Anyways, a pleasing experience is different for everyone, if people enjoy Crysis playing at 20-30 (regardless of whether it's smooth or not) and have lots of fun with it, what is the problem? If you need 40+ FPS to enjoy a game then yeah, I guess that's valid too, I was just trying to make people see you don't need absolutely smooth gameplay to enjoy and have fun with a game but apparently that's not the case with everyone and that's fine, maybe I did wrong not respecting everyone's desires when playing a game.
Nah, I hear it looks great even at medium... Im just not all that enthused by a games looks, and there are better fps out there in that case. My comment about not buying a card to play crysis was more an explanation of why I bought a 9600gt than why I didnt buy Crysis. It really just doesnt interest me. And that in mind, 9600gt was enough card to play what I do play. If I HAD wanted to play Crysis I would have gotten an 8800gts.
Which getting back to the OP, relates to why I recommend he get an 8800gt or 8800gts.
Which getting back to the OP, relates to why I recommend he get an 8800gt or 8800gts.
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
If you are not enthused about how game looks then why buy a brand new graphics card? :light:
Anyway Crysis feels smooth enough at 30fps than other shooters. It really is.
If you haven't played Crysis you are really missing out on one of the better games made for the PC. The story was epic and the graphics were amazing.
Anyway Crysis feels smooth enough at 30fps than other shooters. It really is.
If you haven't played Crysis you are really missing out on one of the better games made for the PC. The story was epic and the graphics were amazing.
Ok I played a little bit and ran the benches.
I get 50.10-50.20 fps avg @ 1024x768 high.
Game looks HORRIBLE. Seriously Halflife 1 looked better than that.
@1650x1080 High detail I get 30ish avg fps and game looks very nice. Most impressive is flesh detail and facial expressions. The whole throw as much jungle on the screen as we possibly can to show how many DX features we can use was old about a week after Farcry came out in my opinion. Gameplay had it's ups and downs. AI wasn't bad... enemies weren't godawful shots even on hard (like some *cough HL2 cough* games)... but it wasn't without problems. Visual cover was useless. A boat about 500 yards off saw me behind a rock behind trees behind more trees behind another rock and crouching. The whole "powers" were kind of neat, but it's been done better.
I care about games looks azn. I don't care about games that have superfluous graphical masturbation... and that's pretty much what Crytek is known for. It's neat to see the engine, and there are some elements (facial expression, skin detail, some nice particle effects) that I would love to see in games I have fun playing. But this game just isn't fun for me. It's clear they have a capable team, but it's also clear they have a graphics engine in mind and build a game to display it and not the other way around.
That said, @ 30fps avg I wouldn't call this playable. At 40fps I STILL toned down settings further to get it to where I like it. Sure at 30fps avg it played fine with nothing going on, walking through the trees, but when bullets start flying and I start having to spin around as enemies surround me, having to wait for motion blur to go away before I can aim is pretty damn retarded in my opinion. I wound up DLing some custom config to get some play time in and it worked out pretty well. Cuban's high settings had me running 50ish by my best guess @ 1680x1050. I didn't bench them though.
I get 50.10-50.20 fps avg @ 1024x768 high.
Game looks HORRIBLE. Seriously Halflife 1 looked better than that.
@1650x1080 High detail I get 30ish avg fps and game looks very nice. Most impressive is flesh detail and facial expressions. The whole throw as much jungle on the screen as we possibly can to show how many DX features we can use was old about a week after Farcry came out in my opinion. Gameplay had it's ups and downs. AI wasn't bad... enemies weren't godawful shots even on hard (like some *cough HL2 cough* games)... but it wasn't without problems. Visual cover was useless. A boat about 500 yards off saw me behind a rock behind trees behind more trees behind another rock and crouching. The whole "powers" were kind of neat, but it's been done better.
I care about games looks azn. I don't care about games that have superfluous graphical masturbation... and that's pretty much what Crytek is known for. It's neat to see the engine, and there are some elements (facial expression, skin detail, some nice particle effects) that I would love to see in games I have fun playing. But this game just isn't fun for me. It's clear they have a capable team, but it's also clear they have a graphics engine in mind and build a game to display it and not the other way around.
That said, @ 30fps avg I wouldn't call this playable. At 40fps I STILL toned down settings further to get it to where I like it. Sure at 30fps avg it played fine with nothing going on, walking through the trees, but when bullets start flying and I start having to spin around as enemies surround me, having to wait for motion blur to go away before I can aim is pretty damn retarded in my opinion. I wound up DLing some custom config to get some play time in and it worked out pretty well. Cuban's high settings had me running 50ish by my best guess @ 1680x1050. I didn't bench them though.
Worse than Halflife 1. It wasn't even CLOSE to HL 2 at that res. What size is your monitor that you think 1024x768 looks good? Windowed sure (been awhile since I've played on an 11" monitor), but scaled? It reminded me of Wolfenstein 3D.
I've already answered your second question. I even gave it it's own paragraph with spacing and everything. Read the entire post.
I've already answered your second question. I even gave it it's own paragraph with spacing and everything. Read the entire post.
I cannot relate to the Crysis phenomena...most people play through it once, maybe twice, but all in all that's probably less than 24 hours of game play...meanwhile we have games such as Orange Box and COD4 which are relative push overs when it comes to hardware requirements and they're a huge hit in terms of replay value.
I can understand it as an excuse to upgrade hardware, "well look, there's this really new game that needs it!" but seriously, how many people who come in here looking for advice (or anyone who made up their mind on their own) on hardware specifically for running Crysis are really going to be satisfied solely by Crysis to not regret the expense?
The way I see it, no matter what you do you're going to have to run Crysis on lowered settings, so you'd might as well buy a card keeping in mind the games you'll actually spend most of your time playing (if that game really is going to be Crysis then fine, you win)
I can understand it as an excuse to upgrade hardware, "well look, there's this really new game that needs it!" but seriously, how many people who come in here looking for advice (or anyone who made up their mind on their own) on hardware specifically for running Crysis are really going to be satisfied solely by Crysis to not regret the expense?
The way I see it, no matter what you do you're going to have to run Crysis on lowered settings, so you'd might as well buy a card keeping in mind the games you'll actually spend most of your time playing (if that game really is going to be Crysis then fine, you win)
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
Worse than Half Life 1? You are killing me. :laugh:
Your picture quality not looking good has something to do with your LCD not using native screen resolution. 11" monitor? Do they even exist? Oh you are being sarcastic and blowing it out of proportion. :roll:
I never said you had to answer. I can care less what YOU like.
Uh yeah 11" monitor do exist. It wasn't very long ago they were standard in fact. And windowed 1024x768 on a 20" monitor is about the size of an 11" hence the comparison.
"Your picture quality not looking good has something to do with your LCD not using native screen resolution"
You don't say. I thought there were evil gremlins that were preventing the game from looking good... or else maybe it was the work of Satan.
If you didn't care then perhaps asking, and then continuing to ask after you were answered was a poor way to show it.
By the way, what ever happened to W1zard's crackpipe now that I've pretty much confirmed his results that you brushed off as ridiculous because they didn't mesh with your uh, interpretation, of Crysis performance on a 9600gt?
"Your picture quality not looking good has something to do with your LCD not using native screen resolution"
You don't say. I thought there were evil gremlins that were preventing the game from looking good... or else maybe it was the work of Satan.
If you didn't care then perhaps asking, and then continuing to ask after you were answered was a poor way to show it.
By the way, what ever happened to W1zard's crackpipe now that I've pretty much confirmed his results that you brushed off as ridiculous because they didn't mesh with your uh, interpretation, of Crysis performance on a 9600gt?
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
It was sarcasm for someone who doesn't care about graphics quality yet who buys a card to play high settings. Kind of like you with 11" monitor but actually making sense at the same time.
11" monitors in modern day use? Since when? 17" CRT used 1024x768 resolution and so does 15" LCD. I never said I play at those settings but I could easily play it on very high since this thread was about graphic cards and Crysis. Not about Lithan hating on Crysis or what you think about the game and able to be playable, and why you think 1024x768 is like playing with 11" on your 22" LCD.
Wizard's benches are a little off (usually on the high side) from most sites. Go for very high detail and see what you can come up with.
11" monitors in modern day use? Since when? 17" CRT used 1024x768 resolution and so does 15" LCD. I never said I play at those settings but I could easily play it on very high since this thread was about graphic cards and Crysis. Not about Lithan hating on Crysis or what you think about the game and able to be playable, and why you think 1024x768 is like playing with 11" on your 22" LCD.
Wizard's benches are a little off (usually on the high side) from most sites. Go for very high detail and see what you can come up with.
Im on xp. And W1zzards benches are spot on considering that he was running the same settings and clocks as me with more cache and faster ram and got ~1.5fps more than I did... which is very reasonable.
And I've told you at least three times already, I do care about graphics... within games that are fun. I don't find this game all that fun, hence I don't care that much about it's graphics.
And I never said 11" were modern. In fact I said just the opposite.
How many gamers are on 15" lcd's these days? And how many of them are going to be playing Crysis? My point was that 1024x768 looks bad. You dont buy a game that's sold on being the best looking game available and run it at a resolution that makes it look worse than games made ten years ago. Like you just said, you probably dont play it 1024x768 VH. You just can. So what? The guy asked what card he would need to get the best experience from crysis, including the possibility of the top end single gpu ($300+). When someone says best experience... guess what, 1024x768 doesn't immediately spring to my mind. And neither does 'getting by' on 28 fps avg (which in crysis by my testing and reviews I've seen translates to <20fps min). But when I explained this you decided to go on a rant against the 9600gt once again, despite the fact that everyone agrees that buying 9600gt or 8800gs to play Crysis with would pretty damn stupid when you can afford a 8800gtx.
There wasnt a crysis phenomena. It's sales were actually much much lower than expected... though not as bad as UT3. It got mixed reviews. A few asskissing ones from the usual suspects, a number of ones that complained about the gameplay and system reqs, called it ok, then gave it 90%+ based solely on how good it looks, and then a few that trashed it for having no substance and requiring an upgrade to play above low detail settings.
Orange box on the other hand... Shit, I've yet to see a reviewer that didn't orgasm writing about it. Worst I've seen is a couple minor complaints about TF2. Hell, Portal, a 2 hr long single player only game by a handful of kids is getting called the best game ever made by a bunch of folks. But Orange Box is not a buzzworthy game apparently, so it doesn't get the attention paid that Crysis did.
And I've told you at least three times already, I do care about graphics... within games that are fun. I don't find this game all that fun, hence I don't care that much about it's graphics.
And I never said 11" were modern. In fact I said just the opposite.
How many gamers are on 15" lcd's these days? And how many of them are going to be playing Crysis? My point was that 1024x768 looks bad. You dont buy a game that's sold on being the best looking game available and run it at a resolution that makes it look worse than games made ten years ago. Like you just said, you probably dont play it 1024x768 VH. You just can. So what? The guy asked what card he would need to get the best experience from crysis, including the possibility of the top end single gpu ($300+). When someone says best experience... guess what, 1024x768 doesn't immediately spring to my mind. And neither does 'getting by' on 28 fps avg (which in crysis by my testing and reviews I've seen translates to <20fps min). But when I explained this you decided to go on a rant against the 9600gt once again, despite the fact that everyone agrees that buying 9600gt or 8800gs to play Crysis with would pretty damn stupid when you can afford a 8800gtx.
There wasnt a crysis phenomena. It's sales were actually much much lower than expected... though not as bad as UT3. It got mixed reviews. A few asskissing ones from the usual suspects, a number of ones that complained about the gameplay and system reqs, called it ok, then gave it 90%+ based solely on how good it looks, and then a few that trashed it for having no substance and requiring an upgrade to play above low detail settings.
Orange box on the other hand... Shit, I've yet to see a reviewer that didn't orgasm writing about it. Worst I've seen is a couple minor complaints about TF2. Hell, Portal, a 2 hr long single player only game by a handful of kids is getting called the best game ever made by a bunch of folks. But Orange Box is not a buzzworthy game apparently, so it doesn't get the attention paid that Crysis did.
19x12, x16AF, high on 8800U runs nicely for me, hovers around 25-28 most of the time.. only time it really drops is when it's saving, and then it's only for a split second.
And I also think those numbers are a bit on the high side.. unless they benchmarked while looking at the ground the whole time..
And I also think those numbers are a bit on the high side.. unless they benchmarked while looking at the ground the whole time..
How do you figure? Your fps for 8800U 19x12 is right about where you'd expect it to be according to their benches @ 16x12 and 20x15
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
That's not the even the point but since you like to go off subject. Yes there are people still on CRT and even 15" LCD and even hate LCD whether you like to believe it or not. Planet Earth doesn't revolve around what you have and what you like.
Crysis low sales? :laugh:
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51081
Is 1 million copies in less than 3 months considered low for PC game sales? :roll:
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12...-ut3-gets-fragged-too/
It sold <100k copies in the first month of release in the states. For as much press as it got, that's abysmal.
Compare it to D2 which sold 1.5 million copies before release. Yeah, that's low sales.
Maybe you should make a poll for crysis owners and see just how many of them have 15" monitors. Your insane obsession with trying to convince everyone that the 8800gs is a better card than it is is getting really old.
It sold <100k copies in the first month of release in the states. For as much press as it got, that's abysmal.
Compare it to D2 which sold 1.5 million copies before release. Yeah, that's low sales.
Maybe you should make a poll for crysis owners and see just how many of them have 15" monitors. Your insane obsession with trying to convince everyone that the 8800gs is a better card than it is is getting really old.
No doubt AA makes the game look a ton better... and sadly 8x AA is much much much better than 4x... and I dont think anything can run 8X AA in this game yet. But it doesn't look bad with AA @ 2x or even off. But it's pretty obvious that theres no difference between this game and every other game, sacrificing resolution for detail settings is a bad decision.
Uhh no? For a GTX, they're claiming 35.7 and 26.2 fps at 16x12 and 20x15, with 4xAA, I'm getting 25-28 with no AA..
4xAA will put the average framerate in the high teens, pulling maybe the occasional low-20's, at best.
So, yea.. I still think those numbers are somewhat optimistic.
And their C2D is running 600mhz slower to boot.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter