When will playing Crysis at 2500x1600 be feasible?

[Rubycon]

Unless you like slide shows and that is just walking around. Even the menu is pokey. Single 8800Ultra but still. Lower rez plays gorgeous but doesn't look nearly as nice as native rez.

 

[TecHNooB]

Rubycon, you have an 8800 Ultra?? Shame on you!

 

[apoppin]

couple more years
-for a single GPU solution

i am basing this somewhat on FarCry and how long it took to play it completely maxed out ... of course, Tri-Sli/Xfired X2s will make it feasible earlier

 

[chizow]

If you're willing to spend another $1000-1200 on 2 more Ultras, $250-300 on a 780i Tri-SLI board and $200-300 on a $1000W+ PSU you can get pretty close to playable frames @ 2560 at High settings.

For single-card, I'd say at least 2 years (2010) if we see two more generations of new GPU architectures. Takes about 2 years for a new GPU architecture which typically doubles performance from previous parts. Will need about 4x performance of the Ultra, so new GPU architecture sometime in 2008, and another in 2010. If R700/G100 come out this year you might be able to do 2560 with lower settings and even get decent frame rates at higher settings with CF/SLI.

Crysis certainly looks amazing though, just have to wonder how much other games will catch up by then when there's hardware capable of running it in all its glory.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: TecHNooB
Rubycon, you have an 8800 Ultra?? Shame on you!

I don't know, it's an OK board.

Originally posted by: chizow
If you're willing to spend another $1000-1200 on 2 more Ultras, $250-300 on a 780i Tri-SLI board and $200-300 on a $1000W+ PSU you can get pretty close to playable frames @ 2560 at High settings.

For single-card, I'd say at least 2 years (2010) if we see two more generations of new GPU architectures. Takes about 2 years for a new GPU architecture which typically doubles performance from previous parts. Will need about 4x performance of the Ultra, so new GPU architecture sometime in 2008, and another in 2010. If R700/G100 come out this year you might be able to do 2560 with lower settings and even get decent frame rates at higher settings with CF/SLI.

Crysis certainly looks amazing though, just have to wonder how much other games will catch up by then when there's hardware capable of running it in all its glory.

That will never happen. I need a PCI-E 8X slot for my hard drive controller. Video boards must be single solution. 1280x800 plays like butter and even if there is some jaggies from scaling it's OK from a playability standpoint.

Most of the other games play absolutely fine at 2560x1600, however.

By the time single boards catch up there will be a new engine, Madpickle.com or whomever is making 3DMark now will have version 2016 that will bring those systems to their knees and PC's will require a transfer switch
on the power supply or dedicated 50A 240VAC line like an electric range. A program called kilowattmark will come out and kilowattmarks will reflect the speed of the spinning disc in the meters. Which may spin so fast it shatters
like some CD's do. :laugh:

 

[SonicIce]

Oh, the disadvantages of an LCD . You can look how long it took other games to become playable at that res. Remember when FarCry came out and we were in the same situation because everyone had a 9800 Pro? Then the 6-series came out and made the game playable on very high. You still couldn't play at nearly 2560x1600 though. Skip ahead a few years... An 8800GTX is the first card capable ot playing FarCry at 2560x1600 on max.

Well I think the 8-series is the 9800 Pro of today. So it's going to be a few years and generations of cards before Crysis is playable at 2560x1600 on max.

 

[hooflung]

I would say in the next 6 months they will patch proper SLI/Xf support and multiple cpu support in. The graphics just aren't that good to be so hoggish. There should be plenty of headroom for improvement on current tech. Whether they will invest time into doing it is the big question. Lets home they pull a U-turn and fix what we got.

 

[JAG87]

Right now with two 8800 GTX SLI at 2560x1600 with no AA, I get around 25-30 fps. My predictions are:

Geforce 9 series single will be able to do 2560x1600 with no AA at around 25-30 fps.

Geforce 9 series SLI will be able to do 2560x1600 with no AA at around 50-60 fps.

I am afraid we wont see this resolution running decently with AA until Geforce 10. If history holds true (next gen = previous gen SLI performance), a single Geforce 10 will do 2560x1600 with no AA around 50-60 fps. Turn on 4x AA and it will dip to 30 fps. Put two of them in SLI, and we should get around 60 fps with 4x AA. So were looking at 2009 for playable frames at 2560x1600 with 4xAA.

 

[Fenixgoon]

eventually crysis will be playable maxed out - it's just a matter of time and advancement in GPUs. that's been the case since the graphics prowess-wars started

 

[jonks]

70 millions years

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/10/15

 

[Xavier434]

The 9800 will be coming out really soon. It probably won't play Crysis at that resolution with the greatest of ease though.

 

[n7]

Heh, i ran Crysis @ 2560x1600 on my GTX.

Granted, no AA, & medium settings for most things IIRC.

But it was do-able...just didn't look even close to as nice as high settings.

I've only gotten about haflway thru though...have heard things get bad toward the end for fps.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: n7
Heh, i ran Crysis @ 2560x1600 on my GTX.

Granted, no AA, & medium settings for most things IIRC.

But it was do-able...just didn't look even close to as nice as high settings.

I've only gotten about haflway thru though...have heard things get bad toward the end for fps.

the very end murdered my system.. but otherwise ran fine

 

[Zenoth]

The last level has been badly optimized. I opened it in SandBox 2 and according to my somewhat experienced skill with that editing tool I could see many areas where there were a number of scripts running that the player never see going on. A number of sounds being played outside of the actual action and the player's earing radius. There's also animations from different character models that you never get to see in a couple of rooms. Small things like that, but in the end I counted around 40+ "left out" things that other levels don't have.

Some of those things cost on CPU cycles and audio processing power, along with the GPU processing power to some extent, and in the end I'm sure that it can cost around 10 to 15 FPS depending on the resolution and in-game settings. Simply put, I think they might have had to rush the last level to meet the deadline.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: hooflung
I would say in the next 6 months they will patch proper SLI/Xf support and multiple cpu support in. The graphics just aren't that good to be so hoggish. There should be plenty of headroom for improvement on current tech. Whether they will invest time into doing it is the big question. Lets home they pull a U-turn and fix what we got.

Only really popular games with SERIOUS performance problems get such patches.
It takes a lot of man-hours to completely rework a game engine like that and then make a big patch for it. But if they make the effort then: Yes, the performance improvement is nice.

I cant think of any games I currently own with patches like that.
Even Elder Scrolls 3 and 4 only got little fixes for performance, it was the advancement of GPU's that saw the biggest bumps.