Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Good Crysis Settings With GTX 260

Tags:
  • PC gaming
  • Gtx
  • Crysis
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
September 22, 2008 1:09:48 AM

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?

More about : good crysis settings gtx 260

September 22, 2008 4:12:27 AM

Lower AA or switch it off.
September 22, 2008 12:24:05 PM

wat resolution are u playing at and how can a gtx 260 play with 16aa and max settings
Related resources
September 22, 2008 1:17:12 PM

Turn off AA and run at 1280x1024
September 22, 2008 4:04:26 PM

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.
September 22, 2008 6:55:03 PM

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.
September 23, 2008 5:05:45 AM

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?
September 23, 2008 12:12:03 PM

Again, 1280x1024, no AA, all high/very high. If FPS is good, try 2x AA or upping resolution.
September 23, 2008 2:25:27 PM

16x AA??!???! do you REALISE how useless, yet how performance taxing that is?
September 23, 2008 4:58:16 PM

falconzfan007 said:
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
September 23, 2008 8:04:29 PM

What do you all have against 1280x1024?
September 23, 2008 8:12:06 PM

gamerk316 said:
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
September 26, 2008 12:33:41 AM

3Ball said:
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!
September 26, 2008 12:34:38 AM

spuddyt said:
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?
September 26, 2008 2:38:07 AM

falconzfan007 said:
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
September 26, 2008 4:56:52 AM

3Ball said:

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.
September 26, 2008 1:09:33 PM

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...
September 26, 2008 5:27:10 PM

magicbullet said:
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
September 27, 2008 8:36:18 PM

3Ball said:
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.
September 27, 2008 9:11:49 PM

falconzfan007 said:
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
September 28, 2008 10:55:50 PM

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: 
September 30, 2008 4:19:35 AM

thartist said:
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...!
!