Still haven't bought this, won't until its some amazing deal if I ever. I will continue to vote with my wallet on their actions at release and all the FUD that was spread previous. They put PC gamers in the backseat, well they are in mine now.
Still haven't bought this, won't until its some amazing deal if I ever. I will continue to vote with my wallet on their actions at release and all the FUD that was spread previous. They put PC gamers in the backseat, well they are in mine now.
well the 9800 for physx will do you no good here just like in 99.99% of other games. your q6600/gtx280 is well over twice as fast that laptop would be.My twin brother and I got the special edition for $30 at launch. I preordered on EA's site over a year earlier, but it was worth it.
Now, my twin bro now lives onthe other side of the country and I can't simply answer my own question, so I will ask here:
Should I play Crysis 2 on my C2Q6600 CPU GTX280 GPU + 9800GT PPU system or go for DX11 on my new Alienware M11x r3 with 1GB GT540m? Keep in mind, I'd be gaming at 720p.
well the 9800 for physx will do you no good here just like in 99.99% of other games. your q6600/gtx280 is well over twice as fast that laptop would be.
no matter how much vram, you will not be playing with DX11 ultra and hi res texture pack on a gt540m. that gpu itself is too slow to do that even at 1280x720. technically a gts540m does not even meet the minimum requirements just to play Crysis 2 at all.
Nothing one can do! Extremism is part of forum lore. Now, nVidia is cheating. Good grief!
the original Crysis was not demanding at all on low settings and looked like total crap. Crysis 2 looks almost as good on its lower(lol, they call it high) settings as it does on extreme. so in other words the baseline card needed for Crysis 2 is much much faster than what was needed just to play the original game. the gts540m will certainly play the game on lower settings and res since its just barely below requirements. I would much rather play it on the gtx280 though since performance and settings would be much better.Yeah, not worried about max settings. The 280 wouldn't do all that either. But why did they make it for game consoles that were easily out-classed by a 7800GT at the time and NOT aim for PC hardware that easily out-classes it? Hmm. So it's not even possible to water it down to console-levels on PC? Strange. They put so much work into squeezing it onto a console and it limits their potential customers to not include that work on the PC version as well.
That said, it meets the requirements for the original Crysis, and Crysis 2 has been well-known to run better than the original on the same hardware due to being aimed at DX8-class consoles, so I wasn't expecting requirements to be higher for anything but the new enhancements.
Its actually rather sad when you think about it. But the AMD crowd has always been known for conspiracy theories, it just used to be contained to the CPU side. Seems like things are creeping over to this sub-forum now too.
There's 5 different processors and 3 different mobo's listed in, what I assume is, the system specs part of the graph. Do they test all cards in multiple systems and avg. the results? Or, do they test the cards on different systems and then just combine the results on one graph?
Can we even compare the results on the graph with each other, never mind other sites?
Its actually rather sad when you think about it. But the AMD crowd has always been known for conspiracy theories, it just used to be contained to the CPU side. Seems like things are creeping over to this sub-forum now too.
what the heck are you talking about? you made a comment saying that Nvidia was cheating. what does my reply to your comment have to do with Intel???I doubt we can. But nvidia fanbois are posting this stuff and marketing with it, hence my comment.
The average joe, like myself, is just going to look at these hilarious scores, of for example the GTS450 having higher scores than the 5770 yet still being lower on the graph lines. And toyota chiming in with a comment that really cant be understood at all, try to r e a d what im writing man, dont let your intel bias blind you.
You just know Nvidia cheated or optimized purely for their own hardware when you see the 460 SE! beating the 6850... haha, hilarious.
yes how dare them. maybe you should complain to AMD for "cheating" for trying to optimize games like Call of Pripyat, Dirt 2, or Dragon Age 2 for their own hardware too.
edit what post? I have no idea what you are talking about. just like you made no sense saying something about Intel in your reply to what I said. what did anything have to do with Intel?The mere fact that you edited your last post (the one above this, lets not get confused) is what i was pointing out. Your comment as quoted by yourself is nowhere near what im talking about.
What exactly are you mumbling about, really?
Dirt 2 benchmark scores:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx_590_review/28
Call of Pripyat benchmark scores:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx_590_review/25
Dragon Age 2 benchmark scores:
http://www.techspot.com/review/374-dragon-age-2-performance-test/page4.html
So, can you understand my point about crysis2 and Nvidia paying 2million for 10% increase? We know the standard 580 is the fastest card in a non VRAM issue setting. Some games, a very few at that, F1 among those, favor the AMD architecture, but generally speaking.
So Whats with a "high res dx11 patch" for crysis 2, if it doesnt make use of high res? That my whole point and you added absolutely 0 to it with your sarcastic "amd bought these games" comment. Im not even sure you thought that trough at all. And look what happens straight after that, fanbois swarm the place.
I doubt we can. But nvidia fanbois are posting this stuff and marketing with it, hence my comment.
The average joe, like myself, is just going to look at these hilarious scores, of for example the GTS450 having higher scores than the 5770 yet still being lower on the graph lines. And toyota chiming in with a comment that really cant be understood at all, try to r e a d what im writing man, dont let your intel bias blind you.
The mere fact that you edited your last post (the one above this, lets not get confused) is what i was pointing out. Your comment as quoted by yourself is nowhere near what im talking about.
What exactly are you mumbling about, really?
Dirt 2 benchmark scores:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx_590_review/28
Call of Pripyat benchmark scores:
http://alienbabeltech.com/main/gtx_590_review/25
Dragon Age 2 benchmark scores:
http://www.techspot.com/review/374-dragon-age-2-performance-test/page4.html
So, can you understand my point about crysis2 and Nvidia paying 2million for 10% increase? We know the standard 580 is the fastest card in a non VRAM issue setting. Some games, a very few at that, F1 among those, favor the AMD architecture, but generally speaking.
So Whats with a "high res dx11 patch" for crysis 2, if it doesnt make use of high res? That my whole point and you added absolutely 0 to it with your sarcastic "amd bought these games" comment. Im not even sure you thought that trough at all. And look what happens straight after that, fanbois swarm the place.
the original Crysis was not demanding at all on low settings and looked like total crap. Crysis 2 looks almost as good on its lower(lol, they call it high) settings as it does on extreme. so in other words the baseline card needed for Crysis 2 is much much faster than what was needed just to play the original game. the gts540m will certainly play the game on lower settings and res since its just barely below requirements. I would much rather play it on the gtx280 though since performance and settings would be much better.
Didn't it all start here at Kit Guru last year? - they started a rumor that Nvidia was delaying Crysis for DX11 and that turned out to be wrong.Do you know as fact nVidia paid 2 million dollars or simply believing in speculative conjecture and rumor mongering?
Maybe i should write crap like thisOne of KitGuru’s cohorts was at the Multiplay i29 event on 24th November 2006 when several people involved in Crysis, including Sebastian Spatzek were asked a ton of questions about the (then) new game. Just prior to the main onstage demo, the question was asked “Why the delays and why does the game now seem so slow on normal hardware compared to the earlier builds that beta-ed their way into the market. Anything to do with recent sponsorship deals?”. The reply was a wry smile and a gentle shrug of the shoulders. Not sure that you can read anything definitive into that, except to say that the game did come out long after it was expected and it ran like a pig on most set-ups. Strangely, with Zardon’s Tri-SLi nVidia uber-rig it worked fine. Coincidence?
AMD later worked with the devs to implement MSAA in-game in the GotY of Batman AA. Obviously it cost AMD time and money also - they were just later to get into the game than Nvidia was.Only in cases like Batman:AA where a feature is disabled simply because the card detected isn't from brand x and it is brand y instead are bad for consumers.
How did you get it to finally work?Ran the benchmark three times.
gee you should really oc those 3 gtx580 cards some more for 1920x1080.
How did you get it to finally work?
i just now got a copy of Crysis 2 D/L'ing now
i am one of those people who can wait
:whiste: