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

[Creig]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
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.....

Unfortunately, some games also require the settings to be turned down because they're poorly coded. Not having seen Crysis firsthand, I can't say whether or not this is the case here. But given EA's track record I wouldn't doubt it to be at least partially responsible for the reason even bleeding edge computers are struggling with it. All you have to do is look at Half-Life 2 to see a perfect example of a game with good visuals, good AI and yet runs amazingly well on old hardware. THAT is goal software developers should be shooting for.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

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)

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

3. The whole point of this post was to say that I had a hard time believing that a computer with my specs has a hard time running a new game. No it isnt SLI and no it isnt a Q6850 Penryn overclocked to 6.0, but it is still better than average.

4. I myself am not 14, never said I was, whoever asked me that question.

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.

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

7. No, I don't think one game is going to destroy PC gaming....again, it was an exageration for emphasis.

##Why oh Why do you find so many "Sarcastic" replies to posts and most of the sarcastic posts have nothing to do with the original question.

8. I do not work for sony, microsoft, nintendo, etc... and the last thing I want is for PC gaming to die, but I have been playing online FPS game competitively for 10 years and I hear and see a lot of my online friend complaining that its horrible that they can't play a certain game because their hardware is out of date already.

Anyway, thanks for the replies even if some of them were very rude.

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.

They haven't eliminated half. They simply removed 98/99ths from being able to play at max settings to enable 1/99th to play in all glory. Point is, you're so caught up on max settings that you seem to fly completely over the fact that there is very playable framerates to be had at lower settings.

I played the Jericho demo on my mobile 8400GS at 640x480 with 4x AA and it still looked gorgeous.

I simply don't see the problem. Turn down the settings and you'll be able to play just fine. Then when you get new hardware, dust off the box and see it in its full glory. Hell I played Call of Duty on a Geforce 4MX 420. I didn't upgrade to this laptop till DirectX 9 became a requirement. I had Half-Life 2 had been out for 4 years until i got a Direct X 9 capable piece of hardware! You'll live without that extra 2-4x of AA. I've never really seen a difference past 8x AA or AF and usually just do 4x.

 

[panfist]

Do you guys have to snap at this poor kid?

keysplayr2003 said pretty much all there is to be said. Thread over. If you guys want to fight go play some video games.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: v3rax
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

This just shows you how big of a flippin moron you are. That took me litterally 15 seconds after googling crysis mod. Gee, imagine that a CRYSIS FORUM.

BTW, I was perfectly calm and never called you any names or anything - just rebuffed your ignorant, naive statements. Your rediculous over-exageration, over and over, makes you look like you are 14 yo. But since you have resorted to name calling, I went ahead and did the same. Even though I also gave you what you needed, I only did it to prove that you are everything I thought you were.

v3rax has been warned. And now it's your turn. No personal attacks. And please stop provoking the guy. End this now, both of you. - Thanks.

Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr2003

 

[AMDZen]

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.

Thats another point I was going to make as well, since he goes on and on about how he is in CAL and other such "professional" gaming leagues for various PC games, namely FPS's and yet this is the first time he's seen this? Like Crysis is something new? Rediculous.

Luckily I read your post before delving into that point or I would of needed to write another page

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: thecoolnessrune

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)

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

3. The whole point of this post was to say that I had a hard time believing that a computer with my specs has a hard time running a new game. No it isnt SLI and no it isnt a Q6850 Penryn overclocked to 6.0, but it is still better than average.

4. I myself am not 14, never said I was, whoever asked me that question.

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.

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

7. No, I don't think one game is going to destroy PC gaming....again, it was an exageration for emphasis.

##Why oh Why do you find so many "Sarcastic" replies to posts and most of the sarcastic posts have nothing to do with the original question.

8. I do not work for sony, microsoft, nintendo, etc... and the last thing I want is for PC gaming to die, but I have been playing online FPS game competitively for 10 years and I hear and see a lot of my online friend complaining that its horrible that they can't play a certain game because their hardware is out of date already.

Anyway, thanks for the replies even if some of them were very rude.

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.

They haven't eliminated half. They simply removed 98/99ths from being able to play at max settings to enable 1/99th to play in all glory. Point is, you're so caught up on max settings that you seem to fly completely over the fact that there is very playable framerates to be had at lower settings.

I played the Jericho demo on my mobile 8400GS at 640x480 with 4x AA and it still looked gorgeous.

I simply don't see the problem. Turn down the settings and you'll be able to play just fine. Then when you get new hardware, dust off the box and see it in its full glory. Hell I played Call of Duty on a Geforce 4MX 420. I didn't upgrade to this laptop till DirectX 9 became a requirement. I had Half-Life 2 had been out for 4 years until i got a Direct X 9 capable piece of hardware! You'll live without that extra 2-4x of AA. I've never really seen a difference past 8x AA or AF and usually just do 4x.

At low settings this game looks WORSE then many other games who are playable on current hardware... But you make perfectly valid points...

 

[Hacka]

I run crysis perfect with an amd5400 and 8800gtx superclocked with 4gb ram

VERY high settings on a 28" monitor 1920x1200

crysis video i made
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yk_EWFaJNw

 

[JAG87]

20 fps is not perfection, thats about 40 fps away from perfection.

 

[v3rax]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: v3rax
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

This just shows you how big of a flippin moron you are. That took me litterally 15 seconds after googling crysis mod. Gee, imagine that a CRYSIS FORUM.

BTW, I was perfectly calm and never called you any names or anything - just rebuffed your ignorant, naive statements. Your rediculous over-exageration, over and over, makes you look like you are 14 yo. But since you have resorted to name calling, I went ahead and did the same. Even though I also gave you what you needed, I only did it to prove that you are everything I thought you were.

Calm? Maybe.... Sarcastic and demeaning YES.

isgust;:laugh::roll: It is very apparent that you are one of these guys that scans the forums looking for oportunities to make everyone else feel ignorant due to your superior inteligence. Not that I feel or am ignorant, its just you didn't even seriously get the whole point of my OP, you just used it as an oportunity to act like an ass.

I was making an observation, that APPARENTLY is a bit of an issue or this thread wouldnt have 84 replies already. You assume you know me and make snide remarks about what I DON'T know, when all along you are trying to make yourself look like Johnny computer guru and bash me for having an opinion.

You may not like someones opinion or agree but you don't have to make them out to be an idiot just because you dont agree with it.

Go back an re=read YOUR OP and tell me you weren't snotty and "holier than thou" in your tone.

I thought forums were suppose to be #1. To get help and advice, #2. To report findings or show others things that might help, 3. To have questions answered, 4. To voice opinions without being ridiculed.

One thing I have noticed on all forums is that there is always at least ONE "Computer Know-it-all" that seems to get a kick out of try to show off his superior inteligence at the expense of others.

 

[Hacka]

Originally posted by: JAG87
20 fps is not perfection, thats about 40 fps away from perfection.

sry to inform you.... fraps takes at LEAST 10fps away during recording.


i play 49 fps with high settings

 

[CrystalBay]

This situation really pleases me. The fact that us PC gamers have been getting miserable console ports for the past months has renewed my faith in Certain game developers.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: v3rax
OK, I realize that software companies are writing games that will look good with next generation hardware. But I think it is absolutley ridiculus that I can barely run the "Crysis" demo with my $4000 computer!!!

I have a Q6600 OC to 3.4ghz, 8800GTX, 2gb PC6400 ram OC to 1000, and if I put the game on optimal settings I get an average of 16 FPS in fraps?? WTH is that??

If I turn the settings down to medium, my FPS will average 35 FPS

What gives? Im not gonna go out and spend $2,000 on Dual 8800 Ultra and a Quad Extreme just so I can run this game at optinmal settings.

And although I know a lot of gamers are Adults with jobs, how in the hell is a 14 year old kid who has a $700 HP suppose to play this game?

Aere the software companies getting WAY ahead of themselves? Do they think we can all afford a $1000 video card?

Are they going to destroy PC gaming by creating games people can't even afford to play?

Im sorry if I put this post in the wrong area, but I sure would like some feedback.

Thanks

I certainly hope the 14 year old kids DO NOT play this game...

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I blame ATI/AMD, their inability to apply any competetive pressure on nVidia has created the current stagnation in highend GPU's and allowed game developers to catch up. nVidia has had no motivation to release new highend parts until now. I truly beleive that if ATI had trumped the 8800 series, nVidia would have already responded with new highend parts.

I think the release of the 8800GT is a very good sign, that nVidia has great confidence that they can release highend parts that will significantly improve on the performance of the GT. Otherwize obsoleting their entire line with a $250 midrange part would be an unsound financial move at this point. I think nVidia wants to bury ATI and as soon as the market is saturated with 8800GT's and the prices start to drop (after the holidays), nVidia will release the good stuff in the $500+ price point.

 

[CrystalBay]

Good point GD, their competitive pressure seems to be price point at this juncture. So actually people will start to get even more performance for dollar , if things keep going the way they are....

 

[speckedhoncho]

I have yet to try Crysis with a setup similar to the OP's, but even older games (Heroes V) with all the eye candy turned on and at 1920x1080 grinds to a halt when I pan the camera around the map. I'd have to assume that developers are scrambling to keep up with the mult-core design on the GPU in addition to the CPU.

I really wish Nvidia's & ATI's streaming processor GPU's could track the number of SP's being used and give stats. Or do they? Or does the GPU handle the SP issue itself?

If a game has a low SP usage, that would explain alot.

BTW, just noticed that as of my posting, there were 88 replies. Ohhh karma, where am I!

 

[SergeC]

Feedback: if you actually spent $4000 on that computer, you're an idiot. That is all.

 

[speckedhoncho]

Originally posted by: SergeC
Feedback: if you actually spent $4000 on that computer, you're an idiot. That is all.

Right. I spent only 2200 on my set up and that's with expensive cooling.

I coworker had a friend who wanted a top of the line system but couldn't build one himself. He spent over $3K going with Dell.

But even at $2200 or whatever, with a Q600, GTX Ultra/OC'ed, etc, you'd think games this fall wouldn't struggle, but it really depends not only on the FPS accepability but also on background processes. I'm curious as to what the OP is running in the background or what system drivers are installed.

 

[videogames101]

and btw, i can get better performance then that with the rig below, you've got problems if your only getting 15 fps... debug!

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
I think the release of the 8800GT is a very good sign, that nVidia has great confidence that they can release highend parts that will significantly improve on the performance of the GT. Otherwize obsoleting their entire line with a $250 midrange part would be an unsound financial move at this point. I think nVidia wants to bury ATI and as soon as the market is saturated with 8800GT's and the prices start to drop (after the holidays), nVidia will release the good stuff in the $500+ price point.

You're probably right on...

 

[jonmcc33]

Originally posted by: taltamir
crytek made a shitty inefficient engine... it is their fault... and I don't feel sorry for them.

It doesn't look THAT good even on max settings. It is not playable on ANYTHING...

Get 2 more gigs of ram... but it wouldn't help THAT much... its mainly just a laggy game. Hopefully they can do some more optimizations in the future and make it faster.

Cocain is a hell of a drug. There's nothing wrong with the engine. The fact that it plays smooth at 30FPS is proof of that. Don't think you know much about advanced 3D graphics to be honest.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: v3rax
OK, I realize that software companies are writing games that will look good with next generation hardware. But I think it is absolutley ridiculus that I can barely run the "Crysis" demo with my $4000 computer!!!

I have a Q6600 OC to 3.4ghz, 8800GTX, 2gb PC6400 ram OC to 1000, and if I put the game on optimal settings I get an average of 16 FPS in fraps?? WTH is that??

If I turn the settings down to medium, my FPS will average 35 FPS

What gives? Im not gonna go out and spend $2,000 on Dual 8800 Ultra and a Quad Extreme just so I can run this game at optinmal settings.

And although I know a lot of gamers are Adults with jobs, how in the hell is a 14 year old kid who has a $700 HP suppose to play this game?

Aere the software companies getting WAY ahead of themselves? Do they think we can all afford a $1000 video card?

Are they going to destroy PC gaming by creating games people can't even afford to play?

Im sorry if I put this post in the wrong area, but I sure would like some feedback.

Thanks

Well, you must be doing something wrong then, unless you are trying to run an insane resolution. I'm running the game on a $700 system at 1024x768 medium settings and I get about 35-45fps. Game looks stunning. As soon as the prices come down a little, I'm going to replace my X1950Pro with an 8800GT, which is only going to cost me an extra $100, and will likely double my framerate or let me pump up the details and resolution.

Funny thing is, the video card I upgraded to cost $135 (not $1000), and upgrading my entire system to what it is now only cost me $50 after selling my old hardware. Went from an AMD Opteron 144 rig with 1GB of mem and an ATI AIW to an Intel E2140 OC'd to 2.9, 2GB of RAM, Vista, and the X1950pro.

 

[v3rax]

Originally posted by: SergeC
Feedback: if you actually spent $4000 on that computer, you're an idiot. That is all.

I realize there are a lot of replies here and you probably didn't read through all of them, but I already replied and explained that the $4,000 was an exageration in order to emphasize my point. I actually built the system myself for around $1200.

As far as calling me an idiot? Whats up with that?

 

[eklock2000]

All bashing/flaming aside...

I think it's a little too early to be knocking Crysis performance. There have got to be some optimizations that Nvidia will implement over the next month and many are reporting poor multi-core usage when running the demo. FPS are already slightly increasing with the Beta releases.

It's not too far fetched to think that maybe the Crysis folks are releasing a not so polished demo, 1. to work out the last few bugs, and 2. to encourage ppl to buy new hardware (that they don't need yet) in anticipation of the game.

The verdict is still out in my book. Thread indicates that it's indeed a "hot topic"

Peace,

EK2K

 

[Hacka]

you think people dont need to buy new hardware ? lol

 

[eklock2000]

Originally posted by: Hacka
you think people dont need to buy new hardware ? lol

All's I'm saying is not until everything is optimized...