Can this comp run crysis in 1680 x 1050? maxed

z999

Distinguished
Jul 13, 2008
155
0
18,680
probably.... considering that maxed means w/o AA and I think it could be a bit jumpy at times. I have 4870 and it runs in that res on high. I would consider getting a quad core because crysis and other games are starting to adapt to it.
 

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780
Yes and no; on all Very High without antialiasing you'll probably be able to get a alright framerate at that resolution, but with antialiasing the performance won't be stellar. Crysis Warhead's updated engine does actually perform quite a bit better than the original Crysis, and I have been very happy with the boost I've seen with my single overclocked 8800GTX.
 

americanbrian

Distinguished
WHAT???

Excuse everyone here talking rubbish. A 3.33GHZ CPU + 4870x2 WILL RUN CRYSIS AT GIVEN DETAILS NO PROBLEM.

I have a Q6600 oced to 3.4 GHz (roughly what you have specced. and an 8800GT at stock. It runs maxed out 1680x1050 Crysis without the AA @ 30-50FPS (30 min 50 odd max)

The 4870x2 will crank Crysis HARD at 1680x1050. NO Problem.

 

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780

Lol, right; what are you doing, counting the frames? :sarcastic:

There's no way you're running Crysis on all VERY HIGH at 1680x1050 on an 8800GT with a framerate as you're describing. Your CPU is strong no doubt, but the results you're describing are only achievable on a 4870 X2 or GTX 280.
 

Matt87

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2008
125
0
18,680
All right thanks for the reply's :) But im now confident ill be able to handle Crysis. I saw some benchmarks with a similar system running Crysis in dx10 with all very high settings + 4aa in 1680 x 1050 or more with good fps
 

americanbrian

Distinguished
heyyou27

Show the benchmarks that show that I am not.

I run the DX 10 hack from XP, saving resources your vista rig uses.

i haven't seen crysis on XP benchmarks anywhere. Also my q6600 @3.42 isn't a standard either.

Put up or shut up.

True, I don't have the FPS displayed but I know I am not less than 30. I run wiht no jumpy crappiness etc. I have been gaming fps's for a LONG time and I can see when the framerates drop.

Maybe I am not hitting 50 FPS, thats a guess. but I stay above 30.

 

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780
Here are benchmarks from Crysis Warhead, which runs better than the original on a QX9770 at 3.6GHz, 4GB of 1600MHZ DDR3, with a GTX 280, GTX 260, Radeon 4870X2, and Radeon 4870.

1223691181qgs4G0OCMj_3_6.gif


Not only is the CPU faster than yours, but all of the cards they tested are faster than your 8800GT, and it's at the same resolution you claimed to be running. These were what they considered to be the highest playable settings on each card, but as you can see even the GTX 280 didn't get away with everything at the max.

Now I'm sure you'll respond saying your 8800GT runs Crysis better than all of their hardware did, but how about you try running fraps instead of guessing what your framerate is.
30.gif
 

Avenger_K

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2007
425
0
18,780
Instead of guessing, how about going into the console, typing in r_displayinfo=1, coming back here and posting your FPS? Crysis is one of those games that runs well even with a lower framerate, so what feels like 60 FPS may actually be 30 FPS.
 

Matt87

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2008
125
0
18,680



Even on youtube they have benchmarks with higher results of fps using the hd 4870 x2 fully maxed out on Very High settings accept "AA" on 1680 x 1050.... When did they run that card before cata 8.9 ?
 

americanbrian

Distinguished
None of what you posted is relevant.

All those systems will be running VISTA, and they are all using AFx16 dumbass. AND its not even from the same game.

I will check out the numbers when I get home today.

And as mentioned those benchies look a little suspect with regards to the driver versions.

 

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780
I'm sure HardOCP is really messing with the numbers, or their test setup is completely messed up, because they don't know how to properly benchmark games, but you obviously do. Maybe if they followed your method of looking at the image and guessing, all of these cards would have a higher framerate. :pt1cable:

Also, you must be a dumbass if you honestly think anistrophic filtering is going to hurt performance on a GTX 280. I know it's in Vista, but their CPU is faster than yours, as well as EVERY GPU setup they used on a more recent and optimized version of Crysis.

You know, you may be getting better results for your card then benchmarks from other sites have shown, but your original claim of "30-50 odd fps" on all Very High, XP or not was ****, unless of course that 50 is when you're in a small room or looking at the ground or something. :sarcastic:
The whole point was they weren't even running the max on a GTX 280 with a faster CPU on a newer more optimized version of Crysis and they still didn't get performance as amazing as you were claiming.
 

Heyyou27

Splendid
Jan 4, 2006
5,164
0
25,780
There's no need to "flame" anyone; you made a mistake and admitting it is a lot better than what some would do. Your results sound a lot better at 1280x1024, and I'm sure your 3.4GHz monster helps you get those results.