Want to play Crysis at 1600x1200 @ 60 fps?

[CottonRabbit]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit

Originally posted by: pcslookout
Wow on a GTX 280! :Q having to go all the way down to 1024x768 with no AA, and DX9 just to play the last few levels of Crysis on high to very high detail settings Oh my god that sucks.

Eh, I'll just say this is not the case with everyone...

Explain please?

I think the Crysis performance topic has been beaten to death. Anyways, I noticed no game breaking fps drop on a GTX260 on a high/very custom config at 1680x1050 going into the ice levels. I don't have hard numbers because I don't have time to reinstall it, but I'll just say that I played through the whole game at the same quality level and at the same resolution just fine.

 

[CP5670]

You probably got performance in line with what I said. The only thing is that everyone has a different idea of what acceptable framerates are, and many people aren't that bothered by the sub-30 drops during the big fights as long as it runs well most of the time otherwise.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: CP5670
You probably got performance in line with what I said. The only thing is that everyone has a different idea of what acceptable framerates are, and many people aren't that bothered by the sub-30 drops during the big fights as long as it runs well most of the time otherwise.

I have noticed that Crysis seems to run pretty well at a bare minimum of 20 to 25 fps but that is mainly only when I am just walking around. Once you start shooting you better have a buffer or else the frame rates go to low. I prefer 30 fps + myself on average.

 

[Zenoth]

With my system I get around 35+ outdoors and 40+ to 45+ indoors, including during battles, but I play at 1024x768 (CRT and refresh rates restrictions oblige, and GPU oblige as well). I wouldn't even want to throw a resolution like 1920x1200 at my G80 GTS, the poor thing would BLEED, I'm fine at lower resolutions, and I need high Hz anyway, or else it's headache time after thirty minutes of play.

 

[lifeobry]

To play it at 60+ frames constant @ very high, dx10 and 4xAA you do need a very high end system, fact. anyone claiming 50 fps at those settings with a non SLI/crossife system + core i7 is fooling themselves.

i have to add i loved Crysis. everything about it was just amazing and it's definitely one of my favorites. it's the little things like the way the camera moves, picking up ammo manually, being able to see your feet and arms, etc. etc. that add up to an incredible expereince. oh yeah, and the graphics...

can't wait till a few years when i can max it out

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: lifeobry
To play it at 60+ frames constant @ very high, dx10 and 4xAA you do need a very high end system, fact. anyone claiming 50 fps at those settings with a non SLI/crossife system + core i7 is fooling themselves.

i have to add i loved Crysis. everything about it was just amazing and it's definitely one of my favorites. it's the little things like the way the camera moves, picking up ammo manually, being able to see your feet and arms, etc. etc. that add up to an incredible expereince. oh yeah, and the graphics...

can't wait till a few years when i can max it out

:thumbsup:

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
With my system I get around 35+ outdoors and 40+ to 45+ indoors, including during battles, but I play at 1024x768 (CRT and refresh rates restrictions oblige, and GPU oblige as well). I wouldn't even want to throw a resolution like 1920x1200 at my G80 GTS, the poor thing would BLEED, I'm fine at lower resolutions, and I need high Hz anyway, or else it's headache time after thirty minutes of play.

I wish I could run Crysis at 1024x768 as well but I have a a NEC MultiSync 20WMGX lcd monitor. Native resolution is 1680x1050 any other resolution really doesn't look that great. I have the Geforce 8800 GTS 320 and I tried it on DX10 and DX9 on just High. Very High in DX10 brings it to its knees. I expected that at 1680x1050. I get pretty good frame rates with all details on high in DX9. Playable somewhat with around 20 to 22 fps. Though it drips down to around 18 to 15 fps during a firefight or turning to the water. So it really isn't that playable. I prefer to have at least 20 to 25 fps in Crysis and this is hitting below that by a good amount. I expected that though. Even the Geforce 8800 GTS 640 I doubt would be playable at these settings. Even if it was it would not be during heavy fight scenes or the ice levels.


What detail settings do you have your Crysis on ? Do you run it in DX9 or DX10 ?

 

[Zenoth]

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Zenoth
With my system I get around 35+ outdoors and 40+ to 45+ indoors, including during battles, but I play at 1024x768 (CRT and refresh rates restrictions oblige, and GPU oblige as well). I wouldn't even want to throw a resolution like 1920x1200 at my G80 GTS, the poor thing would BLEED, I'm fine at lower resolutions, and I need high Hz anyway, or else it's headache time after thirty minutes of play.

I wish I could run Crysis at 1024x768 as well but I have a a NEC MultiSync 20WMGX lcd monitor. Native resolution is 1680x1050 any other resolution really doesn't look that great. I have the Geforce 8800 GTS 320 and I tried it on DX10 and DX9 on just High. Very High in DX10 brings it to its knees. I expected that at 1680x1050. I get pretty good frame rates with all details on high in DX9. Playable somewhat with around 20 to 22 fps. Though it drips down to around 18 to 15 fps during a firefight or turning to the water. So it really isn't that playable. I prefer to have at least 20 to 25 fps in Crysis and this is hitting below that by a good amount. I expected that though. Even the Geforce 8800 GTS 640 I doubt would be playable at these settings. Even if it was it would not be during heavy fight scenes or the ice levels.


What detail settings do you have your Crysis on ? Do you run it in DX9 or DX10 ?

I've simply set everything in-game (options) at their highest values, except that I turned A-A off, of course, and I'm using only 4xA-F. That's on DirectX 9, with no third-party tweaks, or no manual tweaks to make it look "like DX10".

I've done those tweaks before, and at the same settings I went from 35+ outdoors to only 20+, so while increasing the visual quality was possible above what the in-game settings allowed the performance would certainly drop below acceptable levels (for me at least).

And, curiously (or not, I'm not sure, I think it depends on the maps, or the optimizations) the game generally performs noticeably faster on-line than off-line (single player Vs. multi-player). I haven't tested with FRAPS or anything to confirm my claims, but I'm pretty certain that it does feel generally smoother, faster, than in single player mode.

 

[pcslookout]

Thanks it is going to take a very powerful video card to be able to play Crysis just at 1680x1050 in DX10 with all details on very high 4x AA and 16 AF. I don't think we will get this kind of video card until a year or two from now sadly. Though I do hope they release even a greater DX10 detail settings in a few years from now. Like Ultra High settings that would be cool if it looked like the demo videos before Crysis came out! I know it would require even more power but hey what is another year to wait when you already had to wait so long to play Crysis in all of its glory!

Have you ever seen a game require as much power as Crysis has ?

 

[skace]

With a Quad Core Intel, 8GB of ram, and 2 8800GTs, I ran Crysis on medium because I do not like anything ever dropping below 30 FPS. I question some of the numbers other people throw around but since I can't actually prove them wrong, all I can say is hmmm, doubt it. Machines that will run Crysis flawlessly at 60 FPS throughout the course of the game are few and far between (or non existent). I can't wait until they do exist though.

 

[Zenoth]

I'd estimate that such GPU's will be there in a two years period, more or less perhaps. The end problem is always the resolution though. It is possible to attain 60+ in DX10 with 4xAA and 16AF, but you got to play below 1280x1024, which many enthusiast either refuse to do or just can't since their LCD's native res is something along the lines of... well, of too much for Crysis to run at 60FPS.

The only way I can think of that is possible to do so at high resolutions on today's LCD's is to get Tri-SLi, Quad-SLi or CrossFireQuad-CrossFire using the X2 ATi variants (4870X2 x 2, or 4870X2 x 4). But such systems are well beyond even the most dedicated enthusiasts' financial capabilities. Those who have such setups usually get their cards free from some groups or something along those lines, or they just happen to have a money-growing tree in their backyard.

Basically, Crysis is just a game that happens to be a demonstration (perhaps not on purpose, who knows) of what's going to be the standard in about two or three years from now, perhaps even on the next generation of consoles too. And I do remember reading that CryTek plans on increasing the graphics quality dramatically over the next Crysis titles (it's a trilogy, let's not forget that, and Warhead don't count, as what I read was referring to the big releases, true sequels of the original), they talked about "cinematic quality levels".

I can hardly imagine anything better looking than Crysis, but I also said that I could hardly imagine anything looking better than Perfect Dark back in the days, I also said it for Halo, and then for Half-Life 2 and then for FarCry... it's always happening over the years, we always end up attaining new levels of "realism" in graphics quality and even perception. The $1000 question is: where will it stop?

 

[sticks435]

Ok, so this turned into a Crysis pissing match. Notice the topic? 1600x1200. 60fps. Nothing about 1024x768 or 45fps or 30fps. It was mainly a commentary on the cost of the Mach V more than anything, I just used Crysis to highlight the fact that to reach a fps and resolution most consider "acceptable" it costs a s*&t-ton of money.

 

[Blurry]

Originally posted by: Zenoth
The $1000 question is: where will it stop?

I hope it never stops.