Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis problems

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • Crysis
  • Systems
Last response: in Systems
Share
February 12, 2008 8:53:59 PM

I cant play crysis on anything higher than medium. My specs are:
MSI K9N SLI Platinum mobo
PNY 8800 GTS 320 MB video card
Mushkin 550 watt power supply
AMD Athlon 64 X2 600+ processor
G. Skill 4GB (2x 2GB) ram
2 x Western Digital Caviar 250 GB hard drive
Lite-On SATA DVD burner

I have seen people claim to play on high with worse systems.
Are they all talk or am I doing something wrong?

More about : crysis problems

February 12, 2008 9:20:26 PM

I can't play Crysis on all High on my system. Well, I can, but sans 30 FPS isn't really playable as it were.
February 12, 2008 9:24:41 PM

hawkspur said:
I can't play Crysis on all High on my system. Well, I can, but sans 30 FPS isn't really playable as it were.


Wow, all you need is more ram and that would be the computer I wish I had.

Related resources
February 12, 2008 9:46:44 PM

What resolution?
February 12, 2008 9:51:08 PM

wesley_huddleston1 said:
1024-768


wow something is wrong there

My 7600GT can play on medium at that resolution (20 fps)

have you tried the latest drivers?
February 12, 2008 10:00:04 PM

turboflame said:
My 7600GT can play on medium at that resolution (20 fps)

Play... 20FPS... I beg to differ :kaola: 

@OP: What framerates are you getting? Because if it isn't playable for you doesn't mean it is performing worse than others, "playable" is extremely subjective.
a b B Homebuilt system
February 12, 2008 10:19:37 PM

Completely agree with Randomizer. For me, avg 15FPS is playable. Ugly as heck and generally not enjoyable, but "playable". For others, any dip below 60FPS on Very-High settings is grounds for a complete system upgrade.

As it stands, I averaged 25FPS on the demo at medium to high settings with the system in my sig at 1680x1050 and was perfectly happy with it.

-Wolf sends
February 12, 2008 10:30:54 PM

Problem is most likely Vista...
February 12, 2008 10:42:57 PM

vtr99 said:
Problem is most likely Vista...

Mmmk...

@Wolfshadw: I prefer to have 30fps min, although in crysis 25FPS min is ok since it isn't really fast-paced. Other games you need 100FPS min :D 
February 12, 2008 11:36:47 PM

I do have vista but i have to reinstall crysis now cause i just switched to 64 bit
February 13, 2008 12:14:22 AM

Crysis plays better with XP on the same hardware, and you can get the DX10 hack to make it look just as good. Vista is the new Windows ME, only worse.... It's a resource hog! I had Vista on 3 of my 7 home systems, and really tried to like it. After switching my new laptop to XP it runs twice as fast. I also noticed my desktops run much better after switching back to XP, especially on games. The Crysis graphics hack proves DX10 is a scam. Do a Google search for Vista game problems...
February 13, 2008 12:17:48 AM

DX10 vs DX9 very high is not the same, close, but not the same. DX10 is not a scam, it's implementation is simply terrible thanks to DX9.

Most of the game problems you find are actually ancient, I found that XP is really not any faster than vista as long as you have more RAM for vista and run DX9.

And vista is NOT the new ME, you obviously never used ME or you would know that vista is much more stable. In fact, everything is more stable than ME.
February 13, 2008 1:15:01 AM

with DX9 I get an avg 25 fps on high
with DX10 I get an avg 15 fps on high
with DX10 I get an avg 8 fps on very high
February 13, 2008 1:25:13 AM

What about DX9 very high (hacked)?
February 13, 2008 1:27:35 AM

randomizer said:
What about DX9 very high (hacked)?

haven't tried it yet

February 13, 2008 1:37:29 AM

vtr99 said:
Crysis plays better with XP on the same hardware, and you can get the DX10 hack to make it look just as good. Vista is the new Windows ME, only worse.... It's a resource hog! I had Vista on 3 of my 7 home systems, and really tried to like it. After switching my new laptop to XP it runs twice as fast. I also noticed my desktops run much better after switching back to XP, especially on games. The Crysis graphics hack proves DX10 is a scam. Do a Google search for Vista game problems...

Enough said
February 13, 2008 1:41:48 AM

i can run all high (atleast for the first half, second half isnt as fun) @ 1920x1080 with a rare dip below 15 fps, but mostly at an avg of 25ish or more.
February 13, 2008 1:42:38 AM

errr i forget specs were not in sig opteron 170 @2.6 2 gigs ram, 8800gt 715/1750/1000 win xp
February 13, 2008 2:36:24 AM

randomizer said:
DX10 vs DX9 very high is not the same, close, but not the same. DX10 is not a scam, it's implementation is simply terrible thanks to DX9.

Most of the game problems you find are actually ancient, I found that XP is really not any faster than vista as long as you have more RAM for vista and run DX9.

And vista is NOT the new ME, you obviously never used ME or you would know that vista is much more stable. In fact, everything is more stable than ME.


I have been building and programming computers for many years. So yes, I had plenty of experience with ME. I simply meant that Vista is not better than the OS it was to replace (XP). Given Vista is more secure, so secure I have made good money setting up home networks where people previously had no problem with XP. I have changed more systems back to XP in the last 9 months that I have built with Vista. Vista is essentially a bloated OS with far too many useless processes for my taste. I average 3 to 12 system builds a month. I hold multiple MS, and Cisco certs. I have run my own small business systems & networking company for close to 20 years, and manage a large server environment as my main job. There are a few areas where Vista has an edge, but they are few and far between.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page...

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page...
February 13, 2008 2:38:43 AM

Theres still no way you can compare vista to ME. Yet people do it all the time. Vista is more bloated, but much more stable. I couldn't even shut down on ME after a month.
February 13, 2008 3:36:53 AM

ME has a lot in common with Vista when it comes to being accepted, and as a highly questionable improvement over the OS it was supposed to replace. MS has already moved back the date XP was supposed to be taken off the market a number of times. In my opinion Vista is the most hated OS in history, and makes ME look rather successful in comparison. A quick Google search makes this easy to confirm. Another point in XP's favor is that SP3 gives it a 10% speed boost further extending it's performance lead. Vista SP1 does nothing for performance.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=...

http://www.informationweek.com/windows/showArticle.jhtm...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZAZ_enUS242U...
February 13, 2008 4:14:54 AM

6.2 million hits :lol: 

Honestly, I LOVE vista in comparison to ME, I just couldn't do anything with ME, and it's only real benefit over 98 was native USB flash drive support (no need to find that tiny driver CD). System restore was dysfunctional, and it was rock stable for about 45 mins before you got a program that "performed an illegal operation". I'm sure it sold better, but that doesn't make it actually better.

I haven't tried SP3, not sure I want to since my system is running fine now.
February 13, 2008 4:25:09 AM

randomizer said:
In fact, everything is more stable than ME.











Anna Nicole was more stable than Win ME!

Off the point but I agree with your statements about Vista. A lot of people tried it out when it was released or have read stories about it's problems and I agree it did have issues but most of them have now been worked out.

Of all the things that vtr99 linked the most recent was November, in fact the first 5 results in the Google search were from March, April and July 2007. Everyone knows Vista wasn't perfect when released and in fact very little software is, ever seen a game patch released a week after the game is. XP was hated when it was released, it was a resource hog and wasn't stable.

"On October 25, the day it shipped the new OS, Microsoft posted multiple bug fixes, compatibility updates, and enhancements on its Windows Update Web site--more than 18MB of them, all told. The same day, Microsoft's Knowledge Base support site also listed hundreds of confirmed bugs found in Windows XP, most of which still don't have patches or solutions. And the company's general-purpose Windows XP newsgroup continues to receive thousands of new posts every day."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,68796-page,1-c,xp/art...
February 13, 2008 4:50:13 AM

I suppose some people are hooked on the eye candy Vista has to offer, but from a speed and functionality standpoint it's no contest. Even when it comes to security, SP3 and an app like Zone Alarm Security Suite makes XP far more secure than Vista. This is especially true when you consider all the reporting engines built into Vista that you are supplying CPU cycles, memory, and bandwidth to give away your private information for free. Others will argue these can be defeated with Vista Lite, but again why would anyone rather have all the roadblocks Vista puts up?
February 13, 2008 5:13:37 AM

This is way off topic now, but oh well. I don't like the eye candy of vista, the GUI is slower. I prefer the quick responsiveness of XPs GUI. When is the official SP3 supposed to be out? All I see is stuff on RCs and betas.
February 13, 2008 4:52:54 PM

Actually I like beta builds 3180 and 3205 better than RC1 (3264), 3300, or the final version. Starting with RC1 it adds dialogs and features that remind me of Vista. I also don't care for the file blocking aspects, but the 10% speed boost is real. There is no official date, but the final version should be released in a few weeks. Another similarity to Vista is that SP3 will add kernel modules containing encryption algorithms that can be accessed by third-party developers. As usual, you will be promted to agree to this loss of privacy before installing.
February 13, 2008 9:13:28 PM

Uh-oh, UAC is seeping into XP. I think I'll avoid this then, unless those betas are stable or the prompts can be permanently disabled. I don't care much for security because I know that if someone really wants to break into my PC, windows isn't going to stop them.
February 13, 2008 9:39:53 PM

Crysis is that demanding, plus you only have 320 available video memory, and it's an AMD system
February 13, 2008 10:07:14 PM

wesley_huddleston1 said:
with DX9 I get an avg 25 fps on high
with DX10 I get an avg 15 fps on high
with DX10 I get an avg 8 fps on very high


I get 25-35 FPS @ 1280x1024 on XP with everything on "Very High", overclocking both CPU and GPU helps in Crysis a lot.
February 13, 2008 10:27:53 PM

So 1024x768 should be almost playable then? :kaola: 
February 14, 2008 1:44:54 AM

well all those specs were with no AA. I forgot to mention that before.
February 14, 2008 1:53:28 AM

i play crysis on high everything and i play perfectly smooth with stuff running in the background so i dont know why yours doesnt
!