Tom's Hardware > Forum > Games General > PC Gaming > Good Crysis Settings With GTX 260

Good Crysis Settings With GTX 260

Forum Games General : PC Gaming - Good Crysis Settings With GTX 260

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Word :    Username :           
 

Hey All,
I Have an EVGA GTX 260 and a Q9550 and i just bought Crysis Warhead. I put all the settings on Enthusiast and AA on 16x. So i played it and got like 10-25 FPS. I honestly expected more. Is it because i put AA on, or are the enthusiast setting too much. What would you recommend so that i could get 30-40 FPS or more?

Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.

Lower AA or switch it off.

------------------------------ Q9450 |Corsair XMS 4GB DDR 800 | ABit IP35 Pro | HD 5850 | Audigy 2 | Seasonic S12 550 | Cooler Master Centurion 532 | NEC LCD2690WUXi and Planar PX2611w | WinXP

Peace on Earth by means of the destruction of all life on Earth.
Reply to jaguarskx

wat resolution are u playing at and how can a gtx 260 play with 16aa and max settings

Reply to darthvaderkenneth

Turn off AA and run at 1280x1024

Reply to gamerk316

Unfortunately, at the highest settings Crysis is probably still the most graphically intensive game out and even a GTX 280 isn't really capable of providing a perfect game experience. You'll need to tweak your settings a bit, but at the minimum you should be able to run all High without antialiasing quite well.

Reply to Heyyou27

Like everyone else.......AA off or 2x. With it off and your card you get your FPS the way you want. Crysis with no AA still looks pretty darn good, especially if you can play enthusiast settings.

Reply to trialsking

well, im running 1680x1050, so i would like to run all enthusiast, so that i can get the most out of my game. I payed $300 for that card, so im not compromising on quality!! but yea i guess AA isnt that important. so would 2x be enough?

Reply to falconzfan007

Again, 1280x1024, no AA, all high/very high. If FPS is good, try 2x AA or upping resolution.

Reply to gamerk316
- 0 +

16x AA??!???! do you REALISE how useless, yet how performance taxing that is?

Reply to spuddyt
- 1 +

falconzfan007 wrote :

well, im running 1680x1050, so i would like to run all enthusiast, so that i can get the most out of my game. I payed $300 for that card, so im not compromising on quality!! but yea i guess AA isnt that important. so would 2x be enough?

 

If you want to run 1680x1050 (which you make sound like is a very small res, when it is not) and all enthusiast then you need to make sure to not run ANY AA if you want those kind of frames and I would OC the proc/mem/vid card and make sure that your system is in tip top shape as far as the OS goes. Make sure to tweak vista in anyway that you can to squeeze that performance out.

 

Your system should be able to handle those settings fine, but dont expect get sit around 40 FPS, expect more like 15 - 50 fps depening on the area and situation. My system, which doesnt have as good of a proc as yours, but all else is pretty similar and runs 1440x900 with everything on gamer except texture quality, shader quality, and volumetric effects on enthusiast and I average around 25 - 35 FPS or so, but there are areas where I get up to 60 fps and other where I dip to 20. Just be ready for those situations.

 

You seem to be expecting a bit to much from your system imo...either that or Crysis....

 

Best,

 

3Ball

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by 3Ball on 09-23-2008 at 10:18:37 PM
------------------------------ ASUS P5Q Pro P45 Motherboard
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.40ghz w/ (8.5x400mhz, 1.2125v, Zalman 9500 & 24+ Hours Prime95 Stable)
6gb G. Skill DDR2 6400 @ 800mhz w/ (5-5-5-15: 2T, 2.04v)
EVGA GTX275 @ 660mhz/1550mhz/2400mhz
Reply to 3Ball
- -1 +

What do you all have against 1280x1024?

Reply to gamerk316
- 1 +

gamerk316 wrote :

What do you all have against 1280x1024?



In this case we have all been talking about widescreen resolutions, which 1280x1024 is not (4:3 aspect ratio on a 16:10 monitor :non: ), but 1440x900 is the widescreen equivalent to it. As you can see...I am running at 1440x900 as I stated above, so in theory... I personally have nothing against 1280x1024 and am sure others dont as well, but everyone loves native res (myself included)! Sometimes it just cant be ran with all bells and whistles...which is where me and you agree. ;)

Best,

3Ball


Message edited by 3Ball on 09-23-2008 at 10:15:27 PM
------------------------------ ASUS P5Q Pro P45 Motherboard
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.40ghz w/ (8.5x400mhz, 1.2125v, Zalman 9500 & 24+ Hours Prime95 Stable)
6gb G. Skill DDR2 6400 @ 800mhz w/ (5-5-5-15: 2T, 2.04v)
EVGA GTX275 @ 660mhz/1550mhz/2400mhz
Reply to 3Ball

3Ball wrote :

If you want to run 1680x1050 (which you make sound like is a very small res, when it is not) and all enthusiast then you need to make sure to not run ANY AA if you want those kind of frames and I would OC the proc/mem/vid card and make sure that your system is in tip top shape as far as the OS goes. Make sure to tweak vista in anyway that you can to squeeze that performance out.

Your system should be able to handle those settings fine, but dont expect get sit around 40 FPS, expect more like 15 - 50 fps depening on the area and situation. My system, which doesnt have as good of a proc as yours, but all else is pretty similar and runs 1440x900 with everything on gamer except texture quality, shader quality, and volumetric effects on enthusiast and I average around 25 - 35 FPS or so, but there are areas where I get up to 60 fps and other where I dip to 20. Just be ready for those situations.

You seem to be expecting a bit to much from your system imo...either that or Crysis....

Best,

3Ball




Oh, well i dont know, cause a lot of my friends run 1920x1200, so i thought thats what most of the gamers use. Maybe i overestimated the GTX 260, but i thought it was capable of playing the new crysis on Enthusiast, with frames to spare. i also happen to have my Q9550 Overcloced to 3.6 GHZ so it is SCREAMING fast, so i thought i could do it. But lets say i wanted to get smother frame rates for a better gameplay, would it be worth it to drop down to gamer settings? Because if the quality is way less, then i dont want to do it!

Reply to falconzfan007

spuddyt wrote :

16x AA??!???! do you REALISE how useless, yet how performance taxing that is?




haha yea i guess now i see, i just wanted to try it in the begenning to see if it made any difference but not really.... so do u think 2x would be good?

Reply to falconzfan007
- 0 +

falconzfan007 wrote :

Oh, well i dont know, cause a lot of my friends run 1920x1200, so i thought thats what most of the gamers use. Maybe i overestimated the GTX 260, but i thought it was capable of playing the new crysis on Enthusiast, with frames to spare. i also happen to have my Q9550 Overcloced to 3.6 GHZ so it is SCREAMING fast, so i thought i could do it. But lets say i wanted to get smother frame rates for a better gameplay, would it be worth it to drop down to gamer settings? Because if the quality is way less, then i dont want to do it!

 

Try putting it on 1680x1050 with no AA and then all settings on gamer except Shader Quality, Texture Quality, Physics, Post Game Processing, Volumetric effect and sound quality. See how those settings work out for you. The most tasking settings are object quality and shader quality, but shader quality is the most responsible for the beautiful graphics that the game has. If the frames are good and you think that you have some to spare...try your luck with 2x AA.

 

Thats what I would do...just play with it until you get your balance, but know the shader quality will be the biggest image quality setting. Just get in the game and change it from Enthusiast to gamer and then back again and you will see what I am talking about.

 

Oh and P.S. The most widely used LCD monitor by a typical gamer is still around a 4:3 aspect ratio 19" LCD, which has a max res of 1280x1024 and that seems to be the most commonly used res. Just thought I would point it out for future reference. I just went to a LAN here at my university and there were 30 of us there. Only 1 other guy had a widescreen monitor and it was a 24" with the 1920x1200 res that you speed of, then there was my 20" with 1680x1050, 2 CRT monitors that were 17 - 19" and the rest were all 19" LCD's.

 

Best,

 

3Ball

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by 3Ball on 09-26-2008 at 04:42:11 AM
------------------------------ ASUS P5Q Pro P45 Motherboard
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.40ghz w/ (8.5x400mhz, 1.2125v, Zalman 9500 & 24+ Hours Prime95 Stable)
6gb G. Skill DDR2 6400 @ 800mhz w/ (5-5-5-15: 2T, 2.04v)
EVGA GTX275 @ 660mhz/1550mhz/2400mhz
Reply to 3Ball

3Ball wrote :


Oh and P.S. The most widely used LCD monitor by a typical gamer is still around a 4:3 aspect ratio 19" LCD, which has a max res of 1280x1024 and that seems to be the most commonly used res. Just thought I would point it out for future reference. I just went to a LAN here at my university and there were 30 of us there. Only 1 other guy had a widescreen monitor and it was a 24" with the 1920x1200 res that you speed of, then there was my 20" with 1680x1050, 2 CRT monitors that were 17 - 19" and the rest were all 19" LCD's.

Best,

3Ball



that cant be right, is it? the reason why I bought 24" because all the bench mark seem to aim at 1600 and 1900, so i assume that all gamer play at 1900 res.

Reply to magicbullet

I keep forgetting about 1440x90; that probably what i will run when i get bigger than my 17inch.

I want the best looking settings without causing FPS drops; that typically means AA/High resolutions are a luxury for me.

Of course, I've been competing in TWL/CAL for years now, so maybe its been drilled in that steady FPS = Good...

Whats the point of 19x16 if you get 15 FPS? I never understood that...

Reply to gamerk316
- 0 +

magicbullet wrote :

that cant be right, is it? the reason why I bought 24" because all the bench mark seem to aim at 1600 and 1900, so i assume that all gamer play at 1900 res.



I do not have any real statistical information to backup my claims other than my example. When I went to quakecon the story was the same. Most people their had 19" LCD monitors. Up until recent there were still games that didnt even support widescreen resolutions and many games max res was around 1600x1200, so I doubt that the average gamer is going to be running a 24" monitor.

Up until about a week ago I was the only one of my friends to even own a widescreen monitor, but 2 of my friends had their 19" LCD monitors go out on them around the same time and they both picked up 22" with 1680x1050, so still not 24" and we are all pretty avid gamers and hardware enthusiasts. So like I said...I cannot back it up with true statistical information and I suppose I could be wrong, but I know that most reviews include 1280x1024 still and for a while that was what they used on the most regular basis as well as just what I have seen on a personal level.

Best,

3Ball

------------------------------ ASUS P5Q Pro P45 Motherboard
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.40ghz w/ (8.5x400mhz, 1.2125v, Zalman 9500 & 24+ Hours Prime95 Stable)
6gb G. Skill DDR2 6400 @ 800mhz w/ (5-5-5-15: 2T, 2.04v)
EVGA GTX275 @ 660mhz/1550mhz/2400mhz
Reply to 3Ball

3Ball wrote :

I do not have any real statistical information to backup my claims other than my example. When I went to quakecon the story was the same. Most people their had 19" LCD monitors. Up until recent there were still games that didnt even support widescreen resolutions and many games max res was around 1600x1200, so I doubt that the average gamer is going to be running a 24" monitor.

Up until about a week ago I was the only one of my friends to even own a widescreen monitor, but 2 of my friends had their 19" LCD monitors go out on them around the same time and they both picked up 22" with 1680x1050, so still not 24" and we are all pretty avid gamers and hardware enthusiasts. So like I said...I cannot back it up with true statistical information and I suppose I could be wrong, but I know that most reviews include 1280x1024 still and for a while that was what they used on the most regular basis as well as just what I have seen on a personal level.

Best,

3Ball



Well when you go to Lan parties and such, people sometimes arent even ALLOWED to bring 24 inch monitors because of the lack of space.

Reply to falconzfan007
- 1 +

falconzfan007 wrote :

Well when you go to Lan parties and such, people sometimes arent even ALLOWED to bring 24 inch monitors because of the lack of space.

 

That was not the case at quakecon, lans at my university, or just lans with groups of people (that i know) so that really doesnt mean much in my scenario, but I suppose that could be a good point if that were the case, but once again I still dont think that 24" monitors are the norm. I dont know a single person who has one. Atleast on a personal level. Like I have said before...I could be wrong.

 

Just when I walk into a room with 30 monitors and 25 of them are 19" LCDs, then I walk into a room with 300 monitors and about 200 of them are 19" LCD's and a reviewer who once said (granted it was a year or 2 ago) that they like to test at 1280x1024 because it is the most commonly used resolution...it leads me to believe that it is in fact the case.

 

Best,

 

3Ball


Message edited by 3Ball on 09-27-2008 at 11:14:40 PM
------------------------------ ASUS P5Q Pro P45 Motherboard
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.40ghz w/ (8.5x400mhz, 1.2125v, Zalman 9500 & 24+ Hours Prime95 Stable)
6gb G. Skill DDR2 6400 @ 800mhz w/ (5-5-5-15: 2T, 2.04v)
EVGA GTX275 @ 660mhz/1550mhz/2400mhz
Reply to 3Ball

you're a plain idiot if you want to run crysis warhead with... " 1 6 x " antialiasing... Let me say it again: :o SIIIIIIIXTEEEEEN
By the way, that setting should even be available by how meaningless it is in terms of quality advantage and hyper performance loss compared to 4x.

Now lower that to 4 which will be more than enough, or 2 or nothing...

Maybeeee... you've mistaken AA with AF (anisotropic filtering) which can be raised up to 16x at little cost, even if not recommended because even the very distant sights will look pixelated or sharpened in excess. 8x should be maximum for that, if not just 4x for some games.

A tip: try playing without AA but at a higher resolution. Anyway, don't bother, don't sweat expecting very smooth performance at max detail, max resolution out of the most demanding engine released yet. :non:

Reply to thartist

thartist wrote :

you're a plain idiot if you want to run crysis warhead with... " 1 6 x " antialiasing... Let me say it again: :o SIIIIIIIXTEEEEEN
By the way, that setting should even be available by how meaningless it is in terms of quality advantage and hyper performance loss compared to 4x.

Now lower that to 4 which will be more than enough, or 2 or nothing...

Maybeeee... you've mistaken AA with AF (anisotropic filtering) which can be raised up to 16x at little cost, even if not recommended because even the very distant sights will look pixelated or sharpened in excess. 8x should be maximum for that, if not just 4x for some games.

A tip: try playing without AA but at a higher resolution. Anyway, don't bother, don't sweat expecting very smooth performance at max detail, max resolution out of the most demanding engine released yet. :non:




yea i figured that 16 AA was ridiculously high, but im still getting some lag with out any AA, and enthusiast settings...!

Reply to falconzfan007
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Games General > PC Gaming > Good Crysis Settings With GTX 260
Go to:

There are 439 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
  • 01:00 impreza won the Freshman badge
  • 01:00 raulkm won the Uniformed badge
  • 01:00 letus won the Uniformed badge
  • 01:00 pmiddy won the Uniformed badge
  • 01:00 MarcieMark won the Uniformed badge
  • 01:00 kaypeezee won the Uniformed badge
  • 04:06 xyz001 won the Sophmore badge
  • 01:00 scione won the Freshman badge
  • 01:32 aford10 won the Home Brew badge
  • 01:00 Kevinator won the Uniformed badge