My $600 8800GTX and Quad core barely run Crysis!! WTF!!

[onlyCOpunk]

Originally posted by: Matte979
You need to put things in perspective.

With the UT3 engine and the COD4 engine you can just stay with an old card as they are not really using the latest bells an whistles as they have to run on consoles which have the performance of last gen top cards. Thats why you get so high performance in those engines.

UT3 and COD4 are the Audi or BMW of game engine, still good performance option. But if you got SLI GTX it does not really benefit you as they dont need it.

Crysis is the Ferrari of game engines, the Crytek2 engine so superior to any other engine when it comes to capability and graphics so it will require a ferrari of a PC to have the highest setting, that said it scales very well, you are just not at the top high end for this game with your card, its one year old and a new card was just released that has close to your cards performance for about 250$. This is the PC gaming market its so much more dynamic than the console market people can play the same game in different levels compared to consoles where one size fits all, thats why PC game is and will be superior to console gaming in that respect.

Concerning Crysis, I run crysis with 1900XTX and it still behaves and looks way better than the UT3 engine or the COD4 engine with the same card. Am I mad that I paid 500 bucks for my card two years ago? not really. I got 2 years out of it and games are cheaper on the PC so I save about 10 bucks a game plus I use my computer for other stuff, if I would only use it for gaming I would get a console instead. But for me the cost of gaming is my graphics card which is about 500 every 2 years. I play about 20-30 games during that period so compared to consoles I save about 200 to 300 as the games are cheaper on PC, which means my card cost me about 200$ over 2 years which is less than 10$ a month. I pay 50$ for my cell phone a month so I think 10$ a month is a pretty sweet deal specially as I havent counted the money I could get if I sell my card on ebay.

You have to accept not playing on max in most game the last year but you still generally have great performance, and timing is critical you should always buy when a new generation comes out it will give you the longest time to get back your investment.

The idea that PC gaming is expensive is just not correct if you do the math. And if you want to you can still buy midrange cards and a consoles will actually be more expensive for the same graphics due to more expensive games and accessories.

Consoles are simpler but for that you sacrifice performance, which will be more evident as newer games come out that will all run and look much better on a PCs.

You still have a kick ass computer compared to a console.

hey hey hey, no need to bring consoles into this cluster f--- of a topic.

 

[Demoth]

For a lot of gamers, consoles are the way to go. For FPS and sports sims, they now have all the power and graphical functionality needed at a low cost. MS and Sony are selling consoles at a loss for market share which is a win for the consumer.

However, there are certain generes consoles are not too great for, primarily RPG type games with the ability to player mod. I've gotten far more life out of Oblivion on my $500 self built system then any console player because I have the option of downloading many well made player made mods that not only add huge amounts of content, but also improve graphics by a lot (texture mod) and make the game far more enjoyable for me (customized auto attribute allocations, etc.)

Consoles also have a sweet spot tech wise for a year and a half and then a mid range home PC will surpass them. With the 8800/2900, computers are close to Xbox/PS3. Two card generations along and the picture changes. Also consoles today have much lower RAM that will limit certain types of future games.

As far as DX10 games upcoming, you simply got to accept the fact that Nvidia got greedy and is holding back major advancements until ATI puts out some competition. This means current cards are all short term investments for people who want to play future high end titles at high res and max settings.

Personally, I'm going to stick with my 7900GT until a true DX10 comes out. However, I tend to prefer good graphics in a deep RPG over slightly better graphics while obsessing over FPS.

The problem right now is not CPU power or RAM, it's all GPU. An AMD 3500 with 2 gigs of DDR PC3200 would likely run Crysis maxxed fine if it had a card 2 generations in the future.

For mid-range buyers, your looking at a good 6 months before something like a 9800GTS in the $300 range. Hopefully, this gen will be built to try and keep people on the PC platform rather then just competative with the other guy.

PC gaming is at a low point. You have MS pushing out a inferior Vista with a beta DX10 combined with inexperienced developers coding this crap combined with AMD offering late products that can barely compete with Nvidia. Top this all off with a lack of any cutting edge games worth looking forward to (for many at least).

 

[MrUniq]

It's fascinating how a game comes out that challenges hardware and it deflates everyone's e-penis. How "gamers" who buy the largest and fastest and brag on forums and trade 3dmark scores somehow cannot believe they have to play at "lower" resolution or turn down some settings...geez. I don't consider them gamers..more fascinated with hardware than the actual games. Not talking about you v3rax or all 8800 GTX owners, but there are alot of those guys out there. I can kind of see where someone did say they want to experience the game at full spec now rather than wait for new cards...but I say..enjoy the game anyway b/c it's still the best looking game out there even on medium/high specs. People just have to get over themselves and realize hardware depreciates no matter how much it costs...by end of next year 8800 GTX performance will be midrange. In 2005 I drooled at the x1900XT while I still had a 9800pro...now I have better.

 

[CrystalBay]

Stop crying and hug your console......

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: v3rax
I think it is absolutley ridiculus that I can barely run the "Crysis" demo with my $4000 computer!!!

Lower your expectations (resolution and image quality). Problem fixed. Please pay the receptionist at the door.

 

[tigersty1e]

I agree with the OP.. partly.

This computer gaming industry will forever be like this. DX9 compared to DX10 is so minscule that it's a joke. And don't even get me started with DX10.1

What they should do is take the older platforms (like DX9) and make it more efficient. You know how console games look better after the system has been out? They become more efficient at using what they have. Computer game developers have become spoiled to just focus on eye candy without regard to making the code efficient.

And to make matters worse is the increase in monitor size. 2-4 years ago most of the "enthusiasts" were still on 1280 x 1024.

Now most of us game on 1680 x 1050 at least.

But if anything, GTX owners should be happy. This card came out 1 year ago and still reigns supreme. Even if some of you bought it 3 months ago, you knew you were buying a 9 month old card.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: v3rax
But I think it is absolutley ridiculus that I can barely run the "Crysis" demo with my $4000 computer!!!

LOL! Pwned!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Wow check out these great PM's I got from a user = At4500 Another new user

Die a slow and painful death, c*nt
Shut the fuck up i love you**t, before you get your face bashed in and cut to shreds

Isn't that cute

:laugh:

 

[CrystalBay]

GO Toker go

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Oblivion didn't run very well on the vast majority of computers when it first came out. It happens...buy the game, play it at a lower res with medium-settings. An year from now, if/when you buy a newer GPU, play through it again. Or buy it a year later - everybody wins.

Consumers constantly demand out-of-the-world graphics and expect the game to run on their 2MP monitors with maximized details and 8x MSAA at a rock-solid 60FPS - it doesn't work that way. You can have aesthetically pleasing graphics, everything-and-the-kitchen-sink technological tour-de-force graphics or a little bit of both. Crysis has both and you have to pay the price for that with subpar performance on current-gen hardware.

There is no pleasing consumers. Make a game that runs on everything from a 6600GT to a 8800GTX, the high-end owners complain that they have all that horsepower with nothing to put it to good use. Make a game that taxes the GTX, the 6/7-series owners start complaining. Just play the damn game at Medium settings - it's not like Crysis looks butt-ugly at Medium details.

 

[taltamir]

... don't run at max settings!

 

[CrystalBay]

^^^^Thats right Bro, I'm running it at medium right now and i'm happy^^^ Thank you CRYTEK, and Cmon EPIC make these babies go WAHHHHH.

 

[biostud]

I like games that can scale and still look good on lower settings.

 

[Keysplayr]

"6. I just don't understand why the developers create games that eliminate half the PC gaming world from being able to play."

You really don't know the answer to this? hehe.

It's so half the PC gaming world will have to upgrade. Get them to spend more money.. More... more.... more.... more..... more..... gimme.... da..... money...... slober..... drool..... fixation..... must.... have..... new..... mercedes.... 560SEL......

LOL.

 

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: CrystalBay
^^^^Thats right Bro, I'm running it at medium right now and i'm happy^^^ Thank you CRYTEK, and Cmon EPIC make these babies go WAHHHHH.

Im sorry but Crysis was made to be played at max settings, to play the game at 800x600 with medium settings is just pointless, the game deserves at least a 1680x1050 res with everything maxed out, if you cant play it at that then leave off until you can.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: v3rax
OK,OMG!, LOL, I regret that I even started this post now.

1. No, my computer didn't cost $4000, I built it for $1500 (It was an exageration to empasize my point)

Thats a bit much for an exageration. You could of made your point with less

2. Yes, I paid $600 for my GTX because that is what they cost 6 months ago.

You still got ripped off

5. I realize that games get better and better and require better hardware to run them if you want to be able to play them maxed out, but take the new UNREAL Tourney 3 for instance, it runs awesome on max setting on my sons computer with a 8600GT and a P4D and cheap ram.

Exactly, so live with those games or go get a Wii. Crysis is not the be all end all of PC gaming much less FPS's. The new Painkiller just released looks good if you liked the first.

6. I just don't understand why the developers create games that eliminate half the PC gaming world from being able to play.

Eliminating half the PC gaming world from being able to play at FULL SETTINGs isn't eliminating them from playing. You can still play it, it comes down to choice.

You seem to have the mentality that only the best is good enough for you, I hope your not teaching your kids the same kind of mentality.

BTW, what is the .cfg mod? (Oh wait, someone is going to tell me to do a search instead of just taking 2 minutes to tell me.) So I guess Ill go search now.

Google is indeed your friend, 2 minutes to tell you how to do it versus Google which takes 30 seconds. Suprising that you don't immediately take the latter since your obsessed with having the best and fastest of everything (or so it seems).

Seriously though, take the other posters advise that said to sell your GTX and quick. Sell it on eBay and do it NOW. Then live without your PC for 2 weeks and get the new GTS which will undoutedely spank the GTS in specs, or buy a 250$ GT now which when OC'd will practically match the GTX in every stat - and wait until the 9000 series, or the reported 8900 Dual core series comes out and sell the GT

 

[nefariouscaine]

I gotta chime in - I didn't spend that much time playing it but it seemed to me to be perfectly playable at "high" setting (not maxed out) with out additional AA or AF at 1920*1200 - and looked great

This is with my card clocked to 620/2025 - cpu at 3.0ghz and 2 gigs of ram running a paltry 750mzh at CAS4 as I do yet another RMA with Crucial (I try to push my ram too far too often but Crucial Rocks for RMA's)

I'm sure I could push the detail a little if I ran it at 1680*1050

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: CrystalBay
^^^^Thats right Bro, I'm running it at medium right now and i'm happy^^^ Thank you CRYTEK, and Cmon EPIC make these babies go WAHHHHH.

Im sorry but Crysis was made to be played at max settings, to play the game at 800x600 with medium settings is just pointless, the game deserves at least a 1680x1050 res with everything maxed out, if you cant play it at that then leave off until you can.

Then don't buy it.

They have repeatedly said it would be some before the game could be played in all its glory.

I for one, am happy that they push hardware in this fashion. Far Cry is still one of the best looking games on the PC.

And for Christ's sake THE RETAIL GAME IS NOT EVEN OUT YET!

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: nefariouscaine
I gotta chime in - I didn't spend that much time playing it but it seemed to me to be perfectly playable at "high" setting (not maxed out) with out additional AA or AF at 1920*1200 - and looked great

This is with my card clocked to 620/2025 - cpu at 3.0ghz and 2 gigs of ram running a paltry 750mzh at CAS4 as I do yet another RMA with Crucial (I try to push my ram too far too often but Crucial Rocks for RMA's)

I'm sure I could push the detail a little if I ran it at 1680*1050

Same here but this is with my Geforce 8800 GTS 320 at 1680x1050 with all of the DX9 very high DX10 hacks! Everything is on High at least though. Even shadows because it makes the game seem real and like your in a actual movie! I get about 30 fps.

 

[v3rax]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: v3rax
OK,OMG!, LOL, I regret that I even started this post now.

1. No, my computer didn't cost $4000, I built it for $1500 (It was an exageration to empasize my point)

Thats a bit much for an exageration. You could of made your point with less

2. Yes, I paid $600 for my GTX because that is what they cost 6 months ago.

You still got ripped off

5. I realize that games get better and better and require better hardware to run them if you want to be able to play them maxed out, but take the new UNREAL Tourney 3 for instance, it runs awesome on max setting on my sons computer with a 8600GT and a P4D and cheap ram.

Exactly, so live with those games or go get a Wii. Crysis is not the be all end all of PC gaming much less FPS's. The new Painkiller just released looks good if you liked the first.

6. I just don't understand why the developers create games that eliminate half the PC gaming world from being able to play.

Eliminating half the PC gaming world from being able to play at FULL SETTINGs isn't eliminating them from playing. You can still play it, it comes down to choice.

You seem to have the mentality that only the best is good enough for you, I hope your not teaching your kids the same kind of mentality.

BTW, what is the .cfg mod? (Oh wait, someone is going to tell me to do a search instead of just taking 2 minutes to tell me.) So I guess Ill go search now.

Google is indeed your friend, 2 minutes to tell you how to do it versus Google which takes 30 seconds. Suprising that you don't immediately take the latter since your obsessed with having the best and fastest of everything (or so it seems).

Seriously though, take the other posters advise that said to sell your GTX and quick. Sell it on eBay and do it NOW. Then live without your PC for 2 weeks and get the new GTS which will undoutedely spank the GTS in specs, or buy a 250$ GT now which when OC'd will practically match the GTX in every stat - and wait until the 9000 series, or the reported 8900 Dual core series comes out and sell the GT

www.YouNeedaProctologist.com to pull the CORNCOB out of your ass.

As I stated in my 1st "reply" I exagerated the numbers to make a point that IMO----IMO-----IMO, its disheartning to know that I can't play a game at full settings on a computer that cost as much as my daughters car. AMDZen, you need to practice your ZEN and learn to read between the lines and lighten up for heavens sake.

Regardless of all the above replies which I appreciate, respect, and acknowledge that everyone has their opinion and most posters made good points for or against my OP, I still stand by my OP when I say, Its a shame that a person pays high dollar for a computer that can run game A very well, then 3 months later Game B comes out and he can't play it unless he turns all the bells and whistles off.

So he waits until the new 100,000GTX2 comes out to run Game B but by that time, Game C has come out and Game B doesnt look so good anymore so he has to wait again, and again...its a stupid viscious cycle.

As far as the poster who said "serious gamers" don't worry about high settings, well, I agree, and I am a serious gamer who plays COD2 competitively on CAL, TWL, CEVO, and TGL and although COD2 looks great on DX9 I play it with DX7 because its easier to see the enemy with lower settings and higher FPS is always better for online play.

So, this isnt about me having to HAVE THE BEST or complaining because I can't see every little blade of grass with my 8800GTX, its the principle of the whole thing.

I think its sad that whether its the consumers fault for always wanting and buying BETTER stuff, or the developers fault for making games that require better hardware or the hardware companies fault for making bigger and better every 6 months, that the majority of "PC Gamers" will never be able to play next gen games on full settings to experience it in all it glory. Sure, maybe in 3 years when you can b uy a 9900GTX2 or whatever next years card is for $100 then you can play Crysis on full settings but by then the game will be dead and we'll be talking about another game that most people can't experience in full glory.

As I said before, I play competitively online and I have hundreds of friends that do as well and 90% of them will not be able to play a lot of the newer gamews on full settings because they sijmply can't afford it and never will be able to.

So yes, I think PC GAMING is becoming a Rich mans hobby.

AMDZen google this "sarcastic ass hole" and BTW, I did Google .cfg mod before I asked what it was and didnt get any results that explained it, so forgive me for asking on a FREAKING FORUM thats suppose to be where people ask for help and advice...duh

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Read forum rules and guidelines before posting again.
Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr2003

 

[dingetje]

crysis pfff...it's just a rehashed farcry....just a pretty shooter...not worth upgrading my machine for it

 

[nZone]

he's probably turn everything on high quality in nVidia 3D settings. Like 16xQ Aniso and 16x FSAA and the rest of the settings on HIGH quality. And he probably plays on 1028x768 res.

 

[DarthV]

Originally posted by: v3rax
So yes, I think PC GAMING is becoming a Rich mans hobby.

You must be new to PC gaming. It's always gone on cycles. At first it was heavily tied to your CPU. I remember trying the original Doom on my roomate's 386 and wishing for something faster. I bought a 486 dx2-66 and it ran great. The cycle now is more tied to 3d accelerated video. Ahhh the days of the original voodoo cards, then voodoo2 (and SLI) then on to the TNT and TNT2Ultras.

Guess if you only played mine sweeper, you'd never have to worry about upgrading, but in the last 8 years or so, if you wanted to be able to play the newest FPS games, you were going to have to upgrade every 12-18 months.

Game studios know how the cycle works and plan to be on the edge when their new software is released. This will not change. No game studio would want to release a game that uses and engine that is considered dated. Not to mention that the vast majority of their sales will be to people that aren't gaming on 24-30" LCDs. 1280x1024 is probably the sweet spot that they are aiming for.

Crysis won't be the first game that will need all the eye candy turned down at max resolution. Or the last.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: DarthV

Originally posted by: v3rax
So yes, I think PC GAMING is becoming a Rich mans hobby.

You must be new to PC gaming. It's always gone on cycles. At first it was heavily tied to your CPU. I remember trying the original Doom on my roomate's 386 and wishing for something faster. I bought a 486 dx2-66 and it ran great. The cycle now is more tied to 3d accelerated video. Ahhh the days of the original voodoo cards, then voodoo2 (and SLI) then on to the TNT and TNT2Ultras.

Guess if you only played mine sweeper, you'd never have to worry about upgrading, but in the last 8 years or so, if you wanted to be able to play the newest FPS games, you were going to have to upgrade every 12-18 months.

Game studios know how the cycle works and plan to be on the edge when their new software is released. This will not change. No game studio would want to release a game that uses and engine that is considered dated. Not to mention that the vast majority of their sales will be to people that aren't gaming on 24-30" LCDs. 1280x1024 is probably the sweet spot that they are aiming for.

Crysis won't be the first game that will need all the eye candy turned down at max resolution. Or the last.

And thank god for that. Games with unachievable graphics are what drive the graphics companies to innovate and create new silicon that can run those games, which gives the game designers more room to push the envelope, requiring graphics companies to come out with better, newer chips, which.....

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SteelSix

Originally posted by: JAG87
bro, relax, its EA...

plunk 49 bucks on the orange box, its the best money you can spend. leave crysis on the shelf until EA has released all the patches needed to fulfill at least half of the things they promised.

Agreed!!! :thumbsup: Valve knows how to make a game that runs well out of the box

How can you summarily slam EA when 1) Crytek developed and created the game, and 2) the game isn't even out yet?? Demanding patches for a game not yet released is expecting a bit much I think.

As to Valve, I love their stuff, but I seem to recall a HL2 stuttering problem...

1) Everything EA touches turns to shit. Take BF2 for example. Its developed by Dice but I still have to download a 500mb patch (hmm 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.41).

2) EA always promises great games but releases unfinished cut-down games and then decides to release 4 expansions to come somewhat close to what was promised to the customer.

As for Valve, I seem to recall that problem too, and I also recall steam updating 3 days later fixing that problem in about 4 minutes.

I think I made my point.