9600GT with Crysis at very high with AA

[Hello Moto]

Well, a lot of people found this hard to believe, besides my friends because they were there to see it work. So anyways, I just bought my new parts, here are my specs:
Vista Ultimate 32bit
9600GT Asus
2gig of ram DDR2
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66ghz
450w Power Supply
Resolution 1024x768

I can run Crysis at all settings very high and AA x16q. Framerates doesnt drop below 20 most of the time. I read it was meant to be running crysis at medium to high, so how come I can run Crysis with these settings? If you wnt me to prove it, give me the tools (as long as it is free) and i will prove it to you

 

[Darklife]

Uhh perhaps your huuuuuuuuge resolution has something to do with it?

 

[Hello Moto]

lol, i can sense sarcasm there XD thats the resolution I have on my desktop so i though i might as well do it for crysis but still, is it meant to be running this good? am i just lucky?

 

[Piuc2020]

No, your card isn't "magic".

At 1024x768, Crysis is not very demanding, people say its demanding because most people have 1680x1050 monitors or higher and want to run at native res.

You could max out Crysis on a 8500GT, it would be at 640x480... but it'd be maxed out.

 

[Darklife]

Dunno really.

I looked around for some results, this graph is with DX10 although it's at 1280 and I don't know about the detail settings.

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=18428

How are you finding Crysis anyway?

 

[Hello Moto]

Im loving it btw thanks for asking and replying

 

[fliguy84]

You're not alone Moto, I'm gaming with my trusty 15" LCD too

I've been saving money to get the BenQ E2200 Full HD monitor though.

 

[toyota]

BULLSHIT!



system in sig. I just ran the Crysis benchmark on Very High and x16Q AA at 1024x768 which is what you are claiming and got an average of 27.55 fps. my cpu is slightly better and my overclocked gtx260 is almost 3 times as strong as a 9600gt. please stop with your delusions.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
No, your card isn't "magic".

At 1024x768, Crysis is not very demanding, people say its demanding because most people have 1680x1050 monitors or higher and want to run at native res.

You could max out Crysis on a 8500GT, it would be at 640x480... but it'd be maxed out.

Actually, the most common monitor resolution is 1280x1024.

OP, that's an outstanding result. How are you measuring your framerate? Have you tried the built-in benchmarks Crysis provides - Benchmark_CPU and Benchmark_GPU?

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
No, your card isn't "magic".

At 1024x768, Crysis is not very demanding, people say its demanding because most people have 1680x1050 monitors or higher and want to run at native res.

You could max out Crysis on a 8500GT, it would be at 640x480... but it'd be maxed out.

thats not true at all. its still demanding even at 1024x768 especially on very high settings and 16x AA.

 

[Hello Moto]

it does drop below 20, but only at alot of explosions mainly

hey toyota, where did you find that quote XD did u google it?

still that guy doesnt believe me, awells, i can run it with that settings, believe it or not, it works, tahts what counts

 

[Darklife]

Originally posted by: Hello Moto
Im loving it btw thanks for asking and replying

Just wait for the endgame levels, that killed the game for me.

 

[Hello Moto]

LOL, on warhead it kept on crashing for no reason on the last mission, its like a time bomb, every 5 or so minutes it crashed, but i reinstalled it.... just have to play till the last mission to see if it crashes again, but i dont mind, i love it warhead is so better then then crysis, but it made nomad seem crappy compared to phsyco :S

 

[taltamir]

so hello moto, what monitor are you using?

also, try playing the snow levels.

 

[Hello Moto]

f1770 aoc color monitor
http://www.webshopron.hu/kepek.../AOC_Color_Monitor.jpg

pretty good, it works well, blah blah blah, but its a bit heavy and big on the bak if you know what i mean :S

cant afford a new monitor, spent my last few bucks on the 9600GT and the 2.66ghz CPU, i must say its totally worth every buck

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Hello Moto


cant afford a new monitor, spent my last few bucks on the 9600GT and the 2.66ghz CPU, i must say its totally worth every buck

well considering that in your hands it performs like an i7 and gtx280 then yeah...


are you sure you dont have AA forced off in the Nvidia control panel???


also why does your screenshot over on Steam forums say March 11 2008?

 

[Hello Moto]

i just checked, it says its on

i have no idea, maybe its the time when it was first installed? when it was first created? i have no idea. I can take another screenshot tommz and it will still say the exact same date :S

 

[fijianalky86]

lol i made a thread sort of like this....crysis with new drivers

 

[SSChevy2001]

@Hello Moto
Can you post benchmark results using Crysis Benchmarking tool?

Here's what I'm getting at 1024x768 8xAA ( no 16xQ on ATi ).

4870 1GB @ 825/3900
Windows 7 Ultimate 64

1/18/2009 12:33:32 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1024x768, AA=8x, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 48.10s, Average FPS: 41.58
Min FPS: 23.27 at frame 160, Max FPS: 54.97 at frame 890
Average Tri/Sec: -29105812, Tri/Frame: -699986
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.31
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 43.11s, Average FPS: 46.39
Min FPS: 23.27 at frame 160, Max FPS: 56.44 at frame 77
Average Tri/Sec: -31856924, Tri/Frame: -686707
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.33
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 43.00s, Average FPS: 46.52
Min FPS: 23.27 at frame 160, Max FPS: 56.44 at frame 77
Average Tri/Sec: -31917650, Tri/Frame: -686154
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.34
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1/18/2009 12:33:32 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1024x768 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 46.455


1/18/2009 12:38:26 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-harbor, Demo-Assault_Harbor
DX10 1024x768, AA=8x, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=4, Time Of Day= 5
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 4100, Recorded Time: 132.23s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 112.95s, Average FPS: 36.30
Min FPS: 23.81 at frame 3112, Max FPS: 57.14 at frame 974
Average Tri/Sec: 18456576, Tri/Frame: 508454
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.03
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 100.07s, Average FPS: 40.97
Min FPS: 23.81 at frame 3112, Max FPS: 60.24 at frame 3245
Average Tri/Sec: 19101762, Tri/Frame: 466227
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.03
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 99.92s, Average FPS: 41.03
Min FPS: 23.81 at frame 3112, Max FPS: 60.24 at frame 3245
Average Tri/Sec: 19160984, Tri/Frame: 466984
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.03
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 100.60s, Average FPS: 40.76
Min FPS: 23.81 at frame 3112, Max FPS: 60.24 at frame 3245
Average Tri/Sec: 19268656, Tri/Frame: 472775
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.03
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1/18/2009 12:38:26 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1024x768 AA=8x, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 40.92

 

[Hello Moto]

can u explain how first, never used it, i just went to properties in crysis and add some weird word to get my info. Never used this benchmark tool though

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
@Hello Moto
Can you post benchmark results using Crysis Benchmarking tool?

Here's what I'm getting at 1024x768 8xAA ( no 16xQ on ATi ).

4870 1GB @ 825/3900
Windows 7 Ultimate 64

you also have a much better cpu than his and at that res it would make several more fps difference. his slower cpu and running 16x AA would be enough to bring that 4870 to about mid to low 30 framerates. now with a 9600gt theres no way he could be getting more than 12-15 fps with those settings.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: Hello Moto
can u explain how first, never used it, i just went to properties in crysis and add some weird word to get my info. Never used this benchmark tool though

Here's the tool.
http://downloads.guru3d.com/do....php?det=1791#download

Download and extract to you HD. Then just run the exe and fill in the blanks for the benchmark. Very High only works in DX10.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Originally posted by: toyota
you also have a much better cpu than his and at that res it would make several more fps difference. his slower cpu and running 16x AA would be enough to bring that 4870 to about mid to low 30 framerates. now with a 9600gt theres no way he could be getting more than 12-15 fps with those settings.

Actually Crysis isn't really optimized for quad cores, so with some overclocking he can get close. I agree though his results are to high, but lets see.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020
No, your card isn't "magic".

At 1024x768, Crysis is not very demanding, people say its demanding because most people have 1680x1050 monitors or higher and want to run at native res.

You could max out Crysis on a 8500GT, it would be at 640x480... but it'd be maxed out.

Even at that resolution though. Very high with 16QAA? Not a fat chance.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001

Originally posted by: toyota
you also have a much better cpu than his and at that res it would make several more fps difference. his slower cpu and running 16x AA would be enough to bring that 4870 to about mid to low 30 framerates. now with a 9600gt theres no way he could be getting more than 12-15 fps with those settings.

Actually Crysis isn't really optimized for quad cores, so with some overclocking he can get close. I agree though his results are to high, but lets see.

quad cores do make very little difference but at 1024 res there will be at least 2-3 fps difference between his 2.66 older core 2 and your 3.4 newer core 2.




heres is my results with current specs in sig.

1/18/2009 12:20:00 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1024x768, AA=16xQ, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=2, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 75.24s, Average FPS: 26.58
Min FPS: 20.84 at frame 1966, Max FPS: 36.20 at frame 73
Average Tri/Sec: -18121924, Tri/Frame: -681786
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.34
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 71.88s, Average FPS: 27.82
Min FPS: 20.84 at frame 1966, Max FPS: 38.14 at frame 64
Average Tri/Sec: -18594956, Tri/Frame: -668345
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.37
TimeDemo Play Ended, (2 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

1/18/2009 12:20:00 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1024x768 AA=16xQ, 32 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Last Average FPS: 27.82