Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis on GTX 560 Ti

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 14, 2011 5:17:13 PM

Enabling anti-aliasing above 2x (i.e. 4x, 8x) drops fps to unplayable (something below 25) in Crysis. All other settings are on Very High, resolution: 1920*1080.

Specs: Intel Core i7-2600, MSI NGTX-560 Ti OC, 8GB Corsair 1333 MHz DDR3 RAM.

Any ideas? This is ridiculous, Crysis should run maxed out on this config.

More about : crysis gtx 560

May 14, 2011 5:53:56 PM

crysis should run well on that setup between 30ish and 45 ish fps but thats with no anti aliasing. if you add aa the average fps will drop quite a bit.
m
0
l
May 14, 2011 6:13:37 PM

Hmm... is it that consumptive? All other games run 30+ fps completely maxed out. Of course, I know how notorious Crysis is for its graphics consumption, but it's been 4 years since then - and still no AA possible? lol...
m
0
l
Related resources
May 14, 2011 6:37:48 PM

well i have a 5870 and i get 30-45 fps 2 with no aa @1080p
crysis wasn't particularly well coded and doesnt work as well as it should. but if your getting what i get then you cant really expect much more. basically your getting what you should be getting.
most of my other games run at 60+fps including crysis 2
m
0
l
May 15, 2011 8:03:34 PM

Even though it has been 4 years since Crysis has been released, it is still fairly stressful on a powerful PC. The only game more stressful than Crysis which is currently used in benchmark reviews is Metro 2033.
m
0
l
May 15, 2011 11:11:51 PM

HEXiT said:
well i have a 5870 and i get 30-45 fps 2 with no aa @1080p
crysis wasn't particularly well coded and doesnt work as well as it should. but if your getting what i get then you cant really expect much more. basically your getting what you should be getting.
most of my other games run at 60+fps including crysis 2


That makes sense, because I also get great fps from all other games. The only game that ever gave me lags was DA2, but the driver update fixed that.

Thanks for your feedback, everyone, I'll just consider Crysis badly optimized :D  By the way, as far as I know, same goes for Metro 2033...
m
0
l
May 16, 2011 1:49:06 AM

Enabling anti-aliasing above 2x (i.e. 4x, 8x) drops fps to unplayable (something below 25) in Crysis. All other settings are on Very High, resolution: 1920*1080.

Specs: Intel Core i7-2600, MSI NGTX-560 Ti OC, 8GB Corsair 1333 MHz DDR3 RAM.

[b said:
Any ideas? This is ridiculous, Crysis should run maxed out on this config.]Enabling anti-aliasing above 2x (i.e. 4x, 8x) drops fps to unplayable (something below 25) in Crysis. All other settings are on Very High, resolution: 1920*1080.

Specs: Intel Core i7-2600, MSI NGTX-560 Ti OC, 8GB Corsair 1333 MHz DDR3 RAM.

Any ideas? This is ridiculous, Crysis should run maxed out on this config.
[/b]

says who? you?

there is still not enough gpu horsepower in the world to play crysis smoothly max out (16xAA 16xAF 1080p upwards)

Thanks for your feedback, everyone, I'll just consider Crysis badly optimized By the way, as far as I know, same goes for Metro 2033. said:
Thanks for your feedback, everyone, I'll just consider Crysis badly optimized By the way, as far as I know, same goes for Metro 2033.


nope it's just that you don't understand pc graphics, uhh modernwarfare 2 must be very optimized for you?
m
0
l
May 16, 2011 2:24:55 AM

Yeah look at my spec and sometimes Crysis can bring my frames into the 40's with 8xAA and 16xAF @ 1080p. But for most of the game I set vsync and its locked at 60 fps, silky smooth.
m
0
l
May 16, 2011 7:41:50 AM

wh3resmycar said:
says who? you?

there is still not enough gpu horsepower in the world to play crysis smoothly max out (16xAA 16xAF 1080p upwards)



nope it's just that you don't understand pc graphics, uhh modernwarfare 2 must be very optimized for you?


Yeah, says me, since Crysis doesn't look better than Mass Effect 2 or Crysis 2 for me yet sucks way more graphics power.

I don't understand PC graphics - sure, and do you? I look at how good the game's visuals look to me and judge based on that, as compared to other games. I guess that's more than enough to everyone.

Not enough GPU horsepower? That's why I call the game badly optimized... there're better looking games out there that take way less resources. Though I think it's wrong... take a 6990 and it should max it.

What's with Modern Warfare 2? I didn't play it yet, but I've heard that it's considered an example of a low-spec "simple" good graphics... is that what you're referring to? Like, every game that looks good and doesn't consume as much as Crysis is bad in your opinion? Then I suggest you get help.
m
0
l
May 16, 2011 9:51:33 PM

Yeah, says me, since Crysis doesn't look better than Mass Effect 2 or Crysis 2 for me yet sucks way more graphics power.
said:
Yeah, says me, since Crysis doesn't look better than Mass Effect 2 or Crysis 2 for me yet sucks way more graphics power.


LOL, a big LOL. this is what happens when someone with not a little sense of programming criticizes a software. this is what people get.

thank you, you made my day.





m
0
l
May 17, 2011 3:01:18 PM

What are you talking about, you blind or something? What exactly is there about Crysis programming that SUDDENLY overpowers the way it looks - i.e. worse compared to certain other games?
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 9:27:40 PM

What are you talking about, you blind or something? What exactly is there about Crysis programming that SUDDENLY overpowers the way it looks - i.e. worse compared to certain other games? said:
What are you talking about, you blind or something? What exactly is there about Crysis programming that SUDDENLY overpowers the way it looks - i.e. worse compared to certain other games?


worse compared to console ports? lol wtf. you win sir, you win. may i have whatever it is you're smoking?


m
0
l
May 17, 2011 9:45:19 PM

WTF? Why do you care whether it's a port or designed for PC, if the graphics are better?! I don't care whether Mass Effect 2 was ported or designed for PC (as far as I know, the second... or a very good port) - graphics are better and consume less. That's the only criteria. Why the hell do you care that Crysis wasn't designed for consoles, if it's so consumptive and the visuals don't match the consumed resources?

I'm smoking sense right here... have some.
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 9:52:00 PM

Thats because Crysis Has DIRTY, FILTHY engine code. It isnt you or your rig, its that game. Try running crysis warhead, you will *** your pants at how much better optimized it is than its predecessor. They cleaned up the engine between the development of the two games. Still, a very demanding game, unnecessarily imo.
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 9:54:56 PM

And Metro 2033 has ample reason to be as demanding as it is. It has some very very resource draining effects in DX11 like tesselation and advanced depth of field on top of the standard very high volumnetric lighting.
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 9:58:04 PM

I know! That's exactly what I'm saying! I've heard that about Warhead from my friend, I'll install it tomorrow. About metro 2033: I know, it's amazing, but some things are silly... sometimes you max out some parameter and don't see any visual difference, yet the fps drops.
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 10:00:29 PM

Well, alot of things are effect driven, and thats what metro does well. The motion blur and such makes for a better cinematic experience. Its just too bad Maximum Console ruined everyones wet dream of Crysis 2.
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 10:04:44 PM

Yep... I think that there CAN be games designed specifically for PC that look great, yet don't need a rig much more powerful than mine to max them out. But that won't be possible if they focus on consoles and totally forget about how to make games for PC :) 
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 10:07:49 PM

the PC market is one of " cant run it? throw more power at it!." I am in no way bashing PC or console, but PC games should take advantage of the evolved set of features that are given to them that makes them superior, and give us some damn eye candy! theres no optimizing if SOMEONE can run it. and they gain recognition for a crazy good looking game that people buy to test out their rigs.
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 10:10:43 PM

Thinking the same... consoles are different market and such, but they corrupt the PC game manufacturers in exactly the way you described - if someone can run it, it's a go!
m
0
l
May 17, 2011 10:42:38 PM

WTF? Why do you care whether it's a port or designed for PC, if the graphics are better?! I don't care whether Mass Effect 2 was ported or designed for PC (as far as I know, the second... or a very good port) - graphics are better and consume less. That's the only criteria. Why the hell do you care that Crysis wasn't designed for consoles, if it's so consumptive and the visuals don't match the consumed resources?


I'm smoking sense right here... have some. said:
WTF? Why do you care whether it's a port or designed for PC, if the graphics are better?! I don't care whether Mass Effect 2 was ported or designed for PC (as far as I know, the second... or a very good port) - graphics are better and consume less. That's the only criteria. Why the hell do you care that Crysis wasn't designed for consoles, if it's so consumptive and the visuals don't match the consumed resources?


I'm smoking sense right here... have some.


lolerskates.

Thats because Crysis Has DIRTY, FILTHY engine code. It isnt you or your rig, its that game. Try running crysis warhead, you will *** your pants at how much better optimized it is than its predecessor. They cleaned up the engine between the development of the two games. Still, a very demanding game, unnecessarily imo. said:
Thats because Crysis Has DIRTY, FILTHY engine code. It isnt you or your rig, its that game. Try running crysis warhead, you will *** your pants at how much better optimized it is than its predecessor. They cleaned up the engine between the development of the two games. Still, a very demanding game, unnecessarily imo.


and you were somehow able to actually see crysis' source code and determined it's filthy?

simple thing really, i'll give you a clue - scale. in a programming sense each entity you see in your screen requires resources. and a more complex entity will require more resources.

compare scene complexity between crysis and other games out there, unless you know what complexity means, you'd get my point. (but apparently you wouldn't, that reference to meffect2 ruined it already, the first meffect is still more visually compelling)

so judging from the standpoint of the 2 of you, optimized/"clean" code is equals less visuals .

Try running crysis warhead, you will *** your pants at how much better optimized it is than its predecessor. They cleaned up the engine between the development of the two games. Still, a very demanding game, unnecessarily imo. said:
Try running crysis warhead, you will *** your pants at how much better optimized it is than its predecessor. They cleaned up the engine between the development of the two games. Still, a very demanding game, unnecessarily imo.


cleaned up, like degrade the distant textures a bit, unless you're so keen on "reading" the source code you failed to notice it.

filthy code, now that made my day.

m
0
l
May 17, 2011 11:01:59 PM

umm, i was stating that the first version of crytek's build was obviously not as efficient as it could be, especially seeing that warhead was made off of an updated version of the same engine and ran way better. I dont see how telling me somethign about ME2 is a substantial argument, because i thought ME2 although a good game, was not exactly a glowing example of technical prowess, and said nothing about it before this post. Scale? yes crysis had alot of scale that is very noticable, i did not degrade anything like that, i was merely letting the starter of the thread know that he needs to look further than just his GPU or CPU for why a game might run badly. Thank you for talking down to someone that just wanted some answers and not some guy looking down his nose at him just because he might not understand some things about PC graphics. Right out of the gate you started criticizing the poster instead of trying to help him get to the bottom of his issue. Replying to someones post with a snarky comment isnt how you help someone.
m
0
l
May 18, 2011 8:16:44 AM

I kind of suspected that it's Crysis code, anyway, so that was to clasrify. @wh3resmycar - "so judging from the standpoint of the 2 of you, optimized/"clean" code is equals less visuals ." - BS. Optimized code means running Crysis (looks like any other modern FPS) on the machines that max out these "any other modern FPS" without a problem. Just installed Crysis Warhead - 8x AA with everything else maxed out, mimimum lags.

P.S. Scene complexity? Gimme a break... ME2 has that and more than Crysis. BTW - ME1 was only better as far as planet landscapes and cutscene movies went :D 

Anyway, thanks for the help, those who really helped, and thanks for the laughs, wh3resmycar... didn't know there're still such stubborn and blind people out there =)
m
0
l
May 18, 2011 2:59:35 PM

amk-aka-Phantom said:


I'm smoking sense right here... have some.


this made my day gonna use this all time
m
0
l
May 19, 2011 5:33:43 PM

umm, i was stating that the first version of crytek's build was obviously not as efficient as it could be, especially seeing that warhead was made off of an updated version of the same engine and ran way better. I dont see how telling me somethign about ME2 is a substantial argument, because i thought ME2 although a good game, was not exactly a glowing example of technical prowess, and said nothing about it before this post. [b said:
Scale? yes crysis had alot of scale that is very noticable, i did not degrade anything like that, i was merely letting the starter of the thread know that he needs to look further than just his GPU or CPU for why a game might run badly. ]umm, i was stating that the first version of crytek's build was obviously not as efficient as it could be, especially seeing that warhead was made off of an updated version of the same engine and ran way better. I dont see how telling me somethign about ME2 is a substantial argument, because i thought ME2 although a good game, was not exactly a glowing example of technical prowess, and said nothing about it before this post. Scale? yes crysis had alot of scale that is very noticable, i did not degrade anything like that, i was merely letting the starter of the thread know that he needs to look further than just his GPU or CPU for why a game might run badly.
[/b]


well aren't you the one who said it has "filthy code"? care to show proof? sure crysis warhead does run just "a bit faster". again you never noticed how "blurred" the distant textures are didn't ya?

and the mass effect 2 was not in referenced to you.


Thank you for talking down to someone that just wanted some answers and not some guy looking down his nose at him just because he might not understand some things about PC graphics. Right out of the gate you started criticizing the poster instead of trying to help him get to the bottom of his issue. Replying to someones post with a snarky comment isnt how you help someone. said:
Thank you for talking down to someone that just wanted some answers and not some guy looking down his nose at him just because he might not understand some things about PC graphics. Right out of the gate you started criticizing the poster instead of trying to help him get to the bottom of his issue. Replying to someones post with a snarky comment isnt how you help someone.


well first of all, this is what you need to run crysis/warhead buttersmooth, a simple google search will lead you to something similar

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-review/14

now if you happened to have bought a i7-2600 without even knowing how to use google, i'd like to give you a little bashing here and there, just for fun.


I kind of suspected that it's Crysis code, anyway, so that was to clasrify. @wh3resmycar - "so judging from the standpoint of the 2 of you, optimized/"clean" code is equals less visuals ." - BS. Optimized code means running Crysis (looks like any other modern FPS) on the machines that max out these "any other modern FPS" without a problem. Just installed Crysis Warhead - 8x AA with everything else maxed out, mimimum lags. said:
I kind of suspected that it's Crysis code, anyway, so that was to clasrify. @wh3resmycar - "so judging from the standpoint of the 2 of you, optimized/"clean" code is equals less visuals ." - BS. Optimized code means running Crysis (looks like any other modern FPS) on the machines that max out these "any other modern FPS" without a problem. Just installed Crysis Warhead - 8x AA with everything else maxed out, mimimum lags.


link above says you're lying. now if smoking "sense" gave you that effect, good for you. well you might've missed that i'll post it again

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-590-review/14

take note that the benchie above only employs 2xAA, i wonder hmm, and somehow you're running it "minimum lag" (indicating you must be running it way above 30fps).

and again, you are misinformed by the term "optimized code".


P.S. Scene complexity? Gimme a break... ME2 has that and more than Crysis. BTW - ME1 was only better as far as planet landscapes and cutscene movies went

Anyway, thanks for the help, those who really helped, and thanks for the laughs, wh3resmycar... didn't know there're still such stubborn and blind people out there = said:
P.S. Scene complexity? Gimme a break... ME2 has that and more than Crysis. BTW - ME1 was only better as far as planet landscapes and cutscene movies went

Anyway, thanks for the help, those who really helped, and thanks for the laughs, wh3resmycar... didn't know there're still such stubborn and blind people out there =



omg, still masseffect 2 looking better than crysis? i wonder how many people think the same way. again you don't (and i believe you never will) understand scene complexity. start by understanding this term, might help you in the long run "view distance".


again, no ut3 engine based game looked/will look better than cryengine2.

ignorance is a bliss.
m
0
l
May 19, 2011 5:37:31 PM

oh and btw, if you actually believe mass effect's single corridor levels are way way more complex than crysis', you sir R A GOD.
m
0
l
May 19, 2011 7:02:42 PM

1) I bought i7-2600 because in the country I live in, it's a pain in the ass to find ANY top Sandy Bridge... I was looking for 2600K/2500K for about a month and then settled with 2600 - don't plan on OC, anyway. So think twice before you make any stupid assumptions.

2) Since I was used to gaming on GMA 950, a little bit of stuttering is interpreted as lag-free for me :D  But really, it IS quite smooth - I don't care about your link... I lowered it to 4x, though - 8x stutters a lot in the jungle

3) All that Crysis has is a lot of plants, a lot of which still look detailed even from a great distance... lol, that's not what I call good visuals. Close-up most plant textures look blurred, anyway. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, has quite detailed levels, though the graphics is simpler - but there the developers actually made something beautiful out of simpler graphics. Can't say the same about Crysis (unless we're talking snow levels, where ME2 loses a bit)

4) Stuff your scene complexity somewhere far... I don't care how complex the scene is, I care only how beautiful it is :D 

Maybe ME2 doesn't have the amount of objects Crysis has on the scene, but it's worked out much better.
m
0
l
May 22, 2011 4:52:05 AM

amk-aka-Phantom said:
1) I bought i7-2600 because in the country I live in, it's a pain in the ass to find ANY top Sandy Bridge... I was looking for 2600K/2500K for about a month and then settled with 2600 - don't plan on OC, anyway. So think twice before you make any stupid assumptions.

2) Since I was used to gaming on GMA 950, a little bit of stuttering is interpreted as lag-free for me :D  But really, it IS quite smooth - I don't care about your link... I lowered it to 4x, though - 8x stutters a lot in the jungle

3) All that Crysis has is a lot of plants, a lot of which still look detailed even from a great distance... lol, that's not what I call good visuals. Close-up most plant textures look blurred, anyway. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, has quite detailed levels, though the graphics is simpler - but there the developers actually made something beautiful out of simpler graphics. Can't say the same about Crysis (unless we're talking snow levels, where ME2 loses a bit)

4) Stuff your scene complexity somewhere far... I don't care how complex the scene is, I care only how beautiful it is :D 

Maybe ME2 doesn't have the amount of objects Crysis has on the scene, but it's worked out much better.


i believe you missed his point by a large margin. and you just proved him right without even knowing it probably. the fact that crysis is more complex means that the gpu has to do more work outputting details for every piece of complexity which is harder to do that outputting Beautiful scenes. that complexity is in your case seen as poor coding but the only way to know is to actually see the code.

have you ever actually coded anything? I have and it is very easy to code a program to run poorly but the only way to know that the program is programed poorly and that its not just a really hard task to complete is to look at the code.

very simple example from a freshman CS class
finding the prime numbers in a range. you can divide the number being examined by 1 to the number or from 1 to half the number or you can divide it by 1 to the square root of the number. all of these choices will yeild the same results by the last is by far faster. if the number is 10000 the first choice has 10000 iterations while the second has 5000 and the third has 100. thats an example of poor coding but the only way to know is by examining the code.
m
0
l
May 22, 2011 7:14:42 AM

I've coded enough myself to know that... notice, I wasn't the one who said that Crysis has filthy engine code, I just agreed with that, because I don't find any other explanation on why Warhead works better with all the same visuals.

Yes, Crysis is more complex, but not complex enough to strain the GPU that much... it's been 4 years and an average-high GPU still can't max it out?
m
0
l
May 22, 2011 9:48:17 PM

Yes, Crysis is more complex, but not complex enough to strain the GPU that much... it's been 4 years and an average-high GPU still can't max it out? said:
Yes, Crysis is more complex, but not complex enough to strain the GPU that much... it's been 4 years and an average-high GPU still can't max it out?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shZzYkpl5Nk

feel free to message me up when you find something comparable, if you'd still insist mass effect2 is "Way more prettier" than what's on the link, you've won the internets.

again, there's no way a graphics engine as old as ut3 can produce graphics with more visual aesthetics than cryengine2. you can use your eyes for that.

sure crysis/cryengine is pushing 4 years old, but the engine behind masseffect2 is what, pushing 6 or 7?


[b said:
I've coded enough myself to know that... notice, I wasn't the one who said that Crysis has filthy engine code, I just agreed with that, because I don't find any other explanation on why Warhead works better with all the same visuals.

Yes, Crysis is more complex, but not complex enough to strain the GPU that much... it's been 4 years and an average-high GPU still can't max it out?]I've coded enough myself to know that... notice, I wasn't the one who said that Crysis has filthy engine code, I just agreed with that, because I don't find any other explanation on why Warhead works better with all the same visuals.

Yes, Crysis is more complex, but not complex enough to strain the GPU that much... it's been 4 years and an average-high GPU still can't max it out?
[/b]

and yet you still failed to understand what scene complexity means.





m
0
l
May 22, 2011 11:59:12 PM

warhead works better because it uses lower rez textures. not enough to impact the game visuals to a noticable level but smaller all the same.

there is currently a hack out that enables you to import crysis textures into crysis 2
and compared side by side you will see what i mean. the crysis 1s are a little sharper which in turn leads to higher gpu demands.
if this holds true then you should be able to hack the crysis textures and replace them with the crysis 2 textures and thus lower overall system demands.
m
0
l
May 24, 2011 6:00:40 PM

^ i would love to see a link for that.

m
0
l
May 24, 2011 7:07:31 PM

"and yet you still failed to understand what scene complexity means."

That's like the third time you say that, how about you explain already? 'Cause otherwise it just looks like bad trolling.
m
0
l
May 25, 2011 8:51:22 PM

amk-aka-Phantom said:
"and yet you still failed to understand what scene complexity means."

That's like the third time you say that, how about you explain already? 'Cause otherwise it just looks like bad trolling.



I think he means "post complexity".
m
0
l
May 31, 2011 9:44:46 AM

I dont think it is smart to discuss about this guys :D . Crysis 1 is far more complex in graphics, however the textures are much less dark, makeing them seem less natural someitmes, therefore people think crysis 2 or mass effect 2 looks better.
The truth is, apart from Metro 2033, crysis 1 is the most stresfull game, and the coding is a bit off, but just a bit.
Im sure of this as, after all crysis warhead runs smother. Now in my cash, i got a q6600@3ghz, 4 gb ram ddr2 on a 32 bit vista, and a 560ti. I run crysis at 1900x1200, all very high, and 4 AA. (i have oced 560Ti, the gigabyte ultra durable version).

Now i have only noticed a small drop in fps (under 35) when using the scope on an area that is very very far.

Now i dont understand how u overpower ME2 on crysis, since you cant even AA ME2 on an nVidia card :D .
m
0
l
May 31, 2011 2:09:12 PM

You can AA ME2 on nVidia card... force it through nVidia control panel. Not sure if it has any visual effect, though =) By the way, do AMD cards have AA option displayed in ME2 graphics settings? Just wondering...

I don't "overpower" ME2 over Crysis, I'm just saying that ME2 got away with simpler graphics because they were used to craft something beautiful, unlike Crysis. Or even ME1... visit Virmire in ME1 - its jungle looks much prettier than jungle in Crysis. Now, seeing as Crysis has a boring storyline and stresses the machine heavily, I label it as a "worse" game :D  Not the case with Warhead, though - Crytek corrected a few things there.

And I still didn't hear any explanation of "scene complexity"! Let me guess: is it when you fill the landscape with a load of useless objects that players aren't even likely to notice, yet it slows down their machine? ;) 
m
0
l
May 31, 2011 2:45:24 PM

amk-aka-Phantom said:
You can AA ME2 on nVidia card... force it through nVidia control panel. Not sure if it has any visual effect, though =) By the way, do AMD cards have AA option displayed in ME2 graphics settings? Just wondering...

I don't "overpower" ME2 over Crysis, I'm just saying that ME2 got away with simpler graphics because they were used to craft something beautiful, unlike Crysis. Or even ME1... visit Virmire in ME1 - its jungle looks much prettier than jungle in Crysis. Now, seeing as Crysis has a boring storyline and stresses the machine heavily, I label it as a "worse" game :D  Not the case with Warhead, though - Crytek corrected a few things there.

And I still didn't hear any explanation of "scene complexity"! Let me guess: is it when you fill the landscape with a load of useless objects that players aren't even likely to notice, yet it slows down their machine? ;) 

You don't have a bleeding edge computer, so why do you expect to be able to utilize bleeding edge settings? From your sig your rig is a nice budget mid-range build, so you can expect to run the most intense games at mid-high settings with excellent framerates which you should be able to get. Don't stick a game on enthusiast settings if you don't have an enthusiast quality rig.
m
0
l
May 31, 2011 8:40:59 PM

That's the whole point... no other game can give my rig that trouble (except Metro 2033, which I haven't tried yet but I know it won't max out, well, at least that's a recent game!). I don't believe that a game that looks like Crysis would require anything more than my rig to max out, had it been made properly...

By the way, what was the point of quoting my post? I don't recall mentioning any bleeding-edge settings in that particular post... I think this thread's focus has shifted to something else now :) 
m
0
l
June 6, 2011 12:16:44 AM

bad drivers? I have a core 2 duo e8400 @ 3.6ghz and a gtx 260 core 216 and I can play crysis at 1920x1080 on all high (max water and textures) with 2xaa @a solid 20fps.

I would think your setup should run a little smoother...
m
0
l
June 6, 2011 12:49:25 AM

nocturnal7x said:
bad drivers? I have a core 2 duo e8400 @ 3.6ghz and a gtx 260 core 216 and I can play crysis at 1920x1080 on all high (max water and textures) with 2xaa @a solid 20fps.

I would think your setup should run a little smoother...


most wouldnt consider 20 fps a solid frame rate....

m
0
l
June 6, 2011 7:18:14 AM

Okay, end of argument... =) I just played Just Cause 2 - it runs at 30-50 fps all the time with all the settings maxed out fully, and it looks WAY better than Crysis - no doubt about that.

Drivers are most recent, of course. And yes, 20 fps isn't so great - I could tolerate that on integrated Intel GMA 950, but not anywhere else.
m
0
l
June 7, 2011 3:54:50 PM

Well imo crysis is still the "best" graphics out there and thats why it still requires alot of gpu horsepower to run it maxxed out.

What other games have nearly everything destructable, have every single piece of shrub move differently with the wind and move fluidly as you move through them with your body? It is the most realistic game out there. No game does that. BC2 comes close with some destruction but still not as much.
m
0
l
June 7, 2011 6:17:12 PM

well i dunno what game you played but only certain trees and buildings can be blown up a few walls here and there. its not nearly as destructible as people think.
as for every shrub moving differently not quite my friend. when you move past certain plants they do move like low hanging palms but most you walk up to and through like in any other game they dont move out the way, there just visual textures with no real environment presence. there are a few demos out where they show off the physx of the game but there not actual in game for most of them there just engine tech demos .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6-e1Ze_ATg crysis the hype
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3loX0bRE_8&feature=rela... what was released... as you can see there not quite the same visualy.
m
0
l
June 7, 2011 6:48:21 PM

Hmm I see very realistic foliage movement in the videos unlike ANY other videogame. And since no other games even include realtime moving foliage like crysis I would say it would require more hardware than every other game that doesn't have it.
m
0
l
!