But will it run Crysis?!?

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Seriously, everyone is FINE with a $99 graphics card. There is no need for anything better, and Crysis is not worth $900+ just to see it run in all its glory. Seriously.

:Q

Hell, if I had a monthly salary of 10000 $ I would have owned a GTX 295 sexto SLI, a phase change cooled i7 at 5 ghz, a 60inch display and so many more idiotic and useless things.

If one wants and can buy a triple SLI 285 rig, I don't see what is wrong with that. A 99$ can play most of the games, but 3X285 plays everything better. If money is not an issue why not get something like that? I just don't understand. He's not selling his house to get that system, he just has money to burn.

And the thing is, nobody asked what they thought of the price tag. Just what performance is.
Not to berate the OP for spending that money. That's the same thing as calling him a fool for the money he spent on his hobby. Some people have it, and spend it. Some have it and don't. I don't know why I need to explain this over and over again to SB.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I don't know why I need to explain this over and over again to SB.

You actually don't need to. My posts are quite reasonable. Like I said, there are some external factors with you.

 

[vj8usa]

Originally posted by: Candymancan21
Im glad i already beat crysis and warhead lol. I get headach's and my eyes hurt when the fps stays in the 40's and 30's on games like these. My system could only manage a 40fps average with high setting and 2xAA. The snow levels just made me pop veins.... Id almost cosnider getting another 4890 and better psu for crossfire but for one game i already beat its not worth it.

I didnt even play crysis until i got my 4890 lol the 4850 was so slow

That's odd, I found low framerates to be far more tolerable in Crysis/Warhead than in other shooters. I think it was the motion blur, or maybe the frame times were really consistent or something. At any rate, I could get by fine even at 20FPS, and 30FPS felt very smooth to me. Granted I could definitely feel a difference when I played it on my friend's rig at 40+ FPS, but I played through the entire game on my own rig at 20-30FPS and it didn't bother me. There are some games out there that I can't bear to play at under 40FPS though.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I don't know why I need to explain this over and over again to SB.

You actually don't need to. My posts are quite reasonable. Like I said, there are some external factors with you.

Back OT for us both eh?

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Very good, so you can now finally play Crysis, a game you have already beat, on very high settings. While I definitely appreciate and respect this feat wholeheartedly from a hardware enthusiast standpoint, this has got to be the biggest waste of money I have ever seen from a value standpoint. Surely you will benefit from the performance in future games, but you could have gotten something way better if you had waited it out until those games are actually on the market.

I really feel as though the PC games market has stagnated in terms of graphics and performance. Crysis-based games are the only ones which truly push the envelope. For everything else, even cheap cards like the 4770 will do the trick for $99 or less.

Who's got poopie pants?

Translated: "I cannot afford a rig like this, so you shouldn't be able to either."
Sour grapes.

OT: Congrats on a killer rig dude. You'll probably be ready for anything that comes down the pike for the next year. Maybe more.

Keys, I make very good money, probably more than you. We've already been over this.

The only reason you post crap like this is because you're paid to by NV.

Seriously, everyone is FINE with a $99 graphics card. There is no need for anything better, and Crysis is not worth $900+ just to see it run in all its glory. Seriously.

Hey no worries anyone. And I was just kidding with you Sickbeast. Your comments are appreciated and valid to a high degree. While mainstream graphics cards would work for everyone, some people just wanna have more. Yea I like to dominate game settings but it's more a hobby I suppose. Ever watch those vintage car auctions and the crazy sums rich dudes pay for cars? I shake my head at it; but it's not unlike what I'm doing with hardware, spending chunks of cash (within my means) on stuff that certainly falls into the luxury catagory.

I usually run two cards, but wanted to try three gpus from both camps. I've had 4870 X3 too but didn't have time then to fully test/play with it. I take care of my hardware and sell it typically within a year. I spend ~$2,000 a year keeping my rig up to date. I'll sell those 285's for the next best thing. Rumors show ATI will be out the gate first with DX 11 but I'll probably wait until both camps release flagships.

:beer:

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: vj8usa
By the way, Hauk, do you have GTA4? I'd like to see how your hardware handles it - it's the one game that gives me the most grief in terms of performance (even more so than Crysis, but that's because of my CPU), and I heard it absolutely flies on i7 rigs. It's also got a convenient built in benchmark.

I don't unfortunalty but may try soon.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: Candymancan21
Im glad i already beat crysis and warhead lol. I get headach's and my eyes hurt when the fps stays in the 40's and 30's on games like these. My system could only manage a 40fps average with high setting and 2xAA. The snow levels just made me pop veins.... Id almost cosnider getting another 4890 and better psu for crossfire but for one game i already beat its not worth it.

I didnt even play crysis until i got my 4890 lol the 4850 was so slow

That's odd, I found low framerates to be far more tolerable in Crysis/Warhead than in other shooters. I think it was the motion blur, or maybe the frame times were really consistent or something. At any rate, I could get by fine even at 20FPS, and 30FPS felt very smooth to me. Granted I could definitely feel a difference when I played it on my friend's rig at 40+ FPS, but I played through the entire game on my own rig at 20-30FPS and it didn't bother me. There are some games out there that I can't bear to play at under 40FPS though.

I play shooters two ways, with careful movements, planning, and sniping, or balls to the wall charging using close range weapons. Playing Crysis previously, I found myself moving carefully in and out of scenes, almost thinking about what demand will be placed on the system. Also wanted to enjoy the visuals. It is more fun at 60 fps though, that I know now. Oh and 4xAA is quite smooth so far. Snow and boss scenes though.. we'll see..

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Very good, so you can now finally play Crysis, a game you have already beat, on very high settings. While I definitely appreciate and respect this feat wholeheartedly from a hardware enthusiast standpoint, this has got to be the biggest waste of money I have ever seen from a value standpoint. Surely you will benefit from the performance in future games, but you could have gotten something way better if you had waited it out until those games are actually on the market.

I really feel as though the PC games market has stagnated in terms of graphics and performance. Crysis-based games are the only ones which truly push the envelope. For everything else, even cheap cards like the 4770 will do the trick for $99 or less.

I doubt very much that anyone running tri-SLI GTX285's is looking for bang for the buck.

 

[guy93]

I got mine at 2.67

 

[Candymancan21]

Originally posted by: vj8usa

Originally posted by: Candymancan21
Im glad i already beat crysis and warhead lol. I get headach's and my eyes hurt when the fps stays in the 40's and 30's on games like these. My system could only manage a 40fps average with high setting and 2xAA. The snow levels just made me pop veins.... Id almost cosnider getting another 4890 and better psu for crossfire but for one game i already beat its not worth it.

I didnt even play crysis until i got my 4890 lol the 4850 was so slow

That's odd, I found low framerates to be far more tolerable in Crysis/Warhead than in other shooters. I think it was the motion blur, or maybe the frame times were really consistent or something. At any rate, I could get by fine even at 20FPS, and 30FPS felt very smooth to me. Granted I could definitely feel a difference when I played it on my friend's rig at 40+ FPS, but I played through the entire game on my own rig at 20-30FPS and it didn't bother me. There are some games out there that I can't bear to play at under 40FPS though.

I dont think its was the motion blur, i played most of crysis hiding behind tree's and walls in stealth mode, recharging, stealth mode ect. I try to find how they patrol and sneak up and grab them, instead of going guns blazing. I played warhead on Delta mode, and Crysis on Normal i might replay crysis on Delta also, but i wish my fps was higher might have to tweak the High details down a little to stay in the 50+ range i dunno

I dunno what it was, like fallout3 for example outside my fps didnt tank quite as much as crysis did of course but i could handle 40fps on my 4850. Crysis tho i just got headache's and my eyes hurt after 3 hour of playing and most of the time "in the jungle" i did have fps in the 44 range. I only saw 30's once i got the snow levels. I refused to play the game at medium details tho which im sure i coulda gotten 50-60fps average. Crysis is much much more smooth and easier on the eyes when its in the 50+ fps. Thats another thing to note is people say you cant tell the diff between 30 and 60fps but i can, and i can easily. I get headach's in other games too if the fps is down in the 30's bioshock is another one. It only seems to affect me in certain games.

At least it wasnt like my 4850 which got like 22fps average lol, i didnt even bother going past the first level on crysis last year with that card.

I have a LCD monitor but it felt like i was using a CRT with 60hz

 

[QueBert]

Originally posted by: Hauk

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Hauk

1920 x 1080 Very High 2x AA = 57 fps avg

Impressive! I'll bet this looks sweet playing at 1080P 2xAA everything max. I'd say your rig can finally "run crysis" Haha!

Originally posted by: Hauk

IQ settings I've used in the past and find work well:
1920 x 1080 VH Shaders & Post Processing all others High, 2x AA = 67 fps avg

Not much visual difference in this and the above setup I bet (aside from the extra 10 fps).

So do you kick back in the living room with a bluetooth mouse/keyboard and play this on a 50" LCD with surroundsound?

Easy to get lost for a few hours..

What size is that LCD? I would think sitting that close to it would be hell on eyes after a few hours. I'd like to get a screen that big but the distance seems so small

 

[alcoholbob]

If you can afford Tri SLI you might want to consider one of these babies:

http://images.anandtech.com/gr...090808151933/17331.png

Get you ready for the next Crysis-type game ^^

 

[nOOky]

I think the OP overestimates Crysis' value in the marketplace. While many wonder if they can play it at higher settings, fewer people actually play the game. I remember back to other games that drove gpu/sales quite a bit, Quake 3, Unreal, etc. the list is long. I have never upgraded my system to play Crysis, but I sure did to up the fps in Quake 2 and 3, as did many of my online friends. Even Doom 3/Quake 4/Far Cry generated enough hype to encourage people to upgrade. I just don't believe the hype, except on forums such as this.

 

[apoppin]

Arguably Crysis/Warhead is/are still the best looking game(s) - "value" in the market aside
- and it is certainly pretty demanding on a PC and one most tech sites will not ignore for benchmarking

i upgraded just to upgrade to something nice on sort of a budget with TriFire; getting 40+ FPS average on Very High, at 19x12 in Crysis with 4xAA was just a bonus

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

I don't see the point in getting a bleeding edge rig when there are no games to take advantage of it! I'm so sick of multi-platform. What happened to Half Life 2, Doom 3, and Far Cry fighting each other for the graphical crown? Now we have no exclusives and no games with eye popping visuals.

 

[alcoholbob]

Hah. Doom 3 at least playable in the same generation. Far Cry in hindsight is a good indication that Crysis is no gaffe. Crytek's first game couldn't play until the next generation of hardware.

 

[alcoholbob]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
I don't see the point in getting a bleeding edge rig when there are no games to take advantage of it! I'm so sick of multi-platform. What happened to Half Life 2, Doom 3, and Far Cry fighting each other for the graphical crown? Now we have no exclusives and no games with eye popping visuals.

I know what you mean, it's like we're stuck resorting to some multiplatform shooter that's not-surprisingly tied to STEAM and the only token attempt of flexing the computer muscle is upping the anti-aliasing/aniso filtering

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Astrallite

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
I don't see the point in getting a bleeding edge rig when there are no games to take advantage of it! I'm so sick of multi-platform. What happened to Half Life 2, Doom 3, and Far Cry fighting each other for the graphical crown? Now we have no exclusives and no games with eye popping visuals.

I know what you mean, it's like we're stuck resorting to some multiplatform shooter that's not-surprisingly tied to STEAM and the only token attempt of flexing the computer muscle is upping the anti-aliasing/aniso filtering

Very sad, but true.

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: QueBert
What size is that LCD? I would think sitting that close to it would be hell on eyes after a few hours. I'd like to get a screen that big but the distance seems so small

It's a 40". Was going to get a 32" 1080p, but here was this thing just coming out for a bit more. I was concerned about the size but it seems okay. It's pushed back on the desk and I sit back a ways.

Well I gotta run now, need to take some aspirin..

 

[frythecpuofbender]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
I don't see the point in getting a bleeding edge rig when there are no games to take advantage of it! I'm so sick of multi-platform. What happened to Half Life 2, Doom 3, and Far Cry fighting each other for the graphical crown? Now we have no exclusives and no games with eye popping visuals.

Well if those rumors about a new XBOX360 in 2010 are correct:
500GB HD mandatory, 1GB Ram, double gpu horsepower, slightly higher CPU clock.
backwards compatible to play all games in 1080p or as NEXBOX with higher res, textures etc, than you can bet your ass that CRYTEK will utilize this for CRYSIS2 and the game there will be no need to dumb down the game.
I'm not even sure if they would do a dumbed down version in the first place (like id did with RAGE, where they basically altered the game on all platforms because of the XBOX).

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: frythecpuofbender

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
I don't see the point in getting a bleeding edge rig when there are no games to take advantage of it! I'm so sick of multi-platform. What happened to Half Life 2, Doom 3, and Far Cry fighting each other for the graphical crown? Now we have no exclusives and no games with eye popping visuals.

Well if those rumors about a new XBOX360 in 2010 are correct:
500GB HD mandatory, 1GB Ram, double gpu horsepower, slightly higher CPU clock.
backwards compatible to play all games in 1080p or as NEXBOX with higher res, textures etc, than you can bet your ass that CRYTEK will utilize this for CRYSIS2 and the game there will be no need to dumb down the game.
I'm not even sure if they would do a dumbed down version in the first place (like id did with RAGE, where they basically altered the game on all platforms because of the XBOX).

I doubt it. Microsoft says the 360 is not even through half it's lifespan yet, so we can enjoy those console ports well into the next decade!

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1386...l?tag=TOCmoreStories.0

 

[frythecpuofbender]

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42919/118/
Well Steve Ballmer talked a bit too much and now they backtrack to not hurt their sales. But believe what you will.

 

[mhouck]

Originally posted by: Hauk
Ah Crysis, you bittersweet wallet buster. We've all come to know you.

Love it or hate it, Crysis was arguably the most driving title in gaming history. Some proudly talked about their new equipment, while others upgraded quietly. And some gamers (you know who you are) claim to have never made a purchase decision based a single game known as Crysis.

I first played Crysis on a GTX 260 SLI rig with high settings at 1920x1200. Today I have an x58 i920 @ 3.75 and GTX 285 Tri-SLI. Sitting at work today, I decided I'm going to play Crysis again. Reviving the ritual, I ran some benchies and am pleased to annouce I can now run Crysis!

Some benchmarks for fun. The next time I do this, it will be with whatever top of the line bullshit I can waste my money on. Will there ever be 100+fps 1920x1080 on Very High? Time will tell. That's of course if anyone will give a rat's ass to go back and bench this game we call Crysis.

Cheers.. :beer:


1920 x 1080 High No AA = 73 fps avg

1920 x 1080 High 2x AA = 70 fps avg

1920 x 1080 Very High no AA = 59 fps avg

1920 x 1080 Very High 2x AA = 57 fps avg

1920 x 1080 VH Shaders & Post Processing all others High, 2x AA = 67 fps avg

1920 x 1080 High 4x AA = 70 fps

1920 x 1080 Very High 4x AA = 56 fps

And what do the lowest settings and res produce..
800 x 600 Low no AA = 132 fps avg

Hauk: Do you notice a difference in game between the different AA settings (0/2x/4x)? Since you obviously have a system that can run each of these settings smoothly, I wonder if there is any benefit to those higher levels of AA in this game in particular.

 

[apoppin]

Hauk: Do you notice a difference in game between the different AA settings (0/2x/4x)? Since you obviously have a system that can run each of these settings smoothly, I wonder if there is any benefit to those higher levels of AA in this game in particular.

i can answer that since i run 40 FPS average at 19x12 with 4xAA/16xAF

some people say you don't need or notice it
- well, it is true in the middle of a firefight, who cares if something is aliased or not; jaggies never hurt, those bullets do

BUT, when you are walking around in-game, you can sure tell if filtering is on or not
- i would prefer to drop shaders and shadows a bit rather than mess with my AA/AF

but that is just me

Last year, BFG10K and i did a little work together on Crysis and charted the effects of AA, AF and individual settings on performance and the image quality. i can PM the link to you if you like

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Hauk: Do you notice a difference in game between the different AA settings (0/2x/4x)? Since you obviously have a system that can run each of these settings smoothly, I wonder if there is any benefit to those higher levels of AA in this game in particular.

i can answer that since i run 40 FPS average at 19x12 with 4xAA/16xAF

some people say you don't need or notice it
- well, it is true in the middle of a firefight, who cares if something is aliased or not; jaggies never hurt, those bullets do

BUT, when you are walking around in-game, you can sure tell if filtering is on or not
- i would prefer to drop shaders and shadows a bit rather than mess with my AA/AF

Yea I notice the difference between 2x and 4x mainly in looking at trees, mountains, building edges, etc. Jaggies are present with 2x while 4x smooths them out. Regarding performance, 4x adds lag to panning around, just enough to notice on wide open outdoor scenes. Nothing's slowing down action though, NPC's, explosions, etc.