Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 5:38:12 PM

which is the best combination for crysis? (for all parts, not graphic and displays only!!)

More about : crysis

a c 191 U Graphics card
April 9, 2009 5:46:24 PM

Please ask this in the Homebuilt section.
And do n`t double post.
April 9, 2009 5:48:54 PM

There is no certain combination for Crysis.
But there ARE several parts that will play it without a problem.
I assume that you want to game on ultra high settings, but what resolution are you planning on playing at?
Related resources
April 9, 2009 5:49:08 PM

SLI Nvidia high end graphic cards with an Intel i7...probably a 920 is the best performance /$$ and of course an x58 mobo with 6GB RAM kit and to top it off a proper PSU to push it all
April 9, 2009 6:11:38 PM

My system =D
April 9, 2009 6:13:15 PM

Quote:
Crysis is a joke. If your building a system around Crysis, you should see a psychiatrist.


If you build a rig for the one of the most hardware intensive game, then you will be able to play almost anything else.
a b U Graphics card
April 10, 2009 12:26:49 AM

Under more info look at my rig. Im able to run crysis @ 1920X1080 with all the setting max with 16aa avg 30fps
April 10, 2009 2:15:08 AM

quad coore, crossfire/sli, lot's of ram, nice monitor.
April 10, 2009 3:21:16 AM

invisik said:
Under more info look at my rig. Im able to run crysis @ 1920X1080 with all the setting max with 16aa avg 30fps

dude how the hell do you have you 260 oc to 730 i have sli 285 and i cant get mine to oc above 700 i have tried with nvidia software and rivatuner and to be exact my top speed it 700 my temp does not go above 63 just very unstable above 700
April 10, 2009 3:26:28 AM

Brandon00000 said:
dude how the hell do you have you 260 oc to 730 i have sli 285 and i cant get mine to oc above 700 i have tried with nvidia software and rivatuner and to be exact my top speed it 700 my temp does not go above 63 just very unstable above 700


You just answered your own question, he has a GTX 260 and you have a GTX 285. Why exactly would you think that your GTX 285 should be able to overclock more? Just because it is a faster card does not mean it can overclock more.
April 10, 2009 3:32:58 AM

boudy said:
You just answered your own question, he has a GTX 260 and you have a GTX 285. Why exactly would you think that your GTX 285 should be able to overclock more? Just because it is a faster card does not mean it can overclock more.



well the fact that the 285 starts off with a faster clock i understand that some cards do overclock better than others i just find it hard to believe a 260 can oc over a oc 285 the most you can get a 285 is like 750 i have not been able to do it thats why i was asking how you did it so i can do it myself
April 10, 2009 3:45:34 AM

Brandon00000 said:
well the fact that the 285 starts off with a faster clock i understand that some cards do overclock better than others i just find it hard to believe a 260 can oc over a oc 285 the most you can get a 285 is like 750 i have not been able to do it thats why i was asking how you did it so i can do it myself


OIC
Well just think about this: you are faster without an overclock anyway ;) 
April 10, 2009 3:46:55 AM

boudy said:
OIC
Well just think about this: you are faster without an overclock anyway ;) 


not really i cant get 700 he claims to get 730
April 10, 2009 3:47:34 AM

if that is the case why buy a 285 if you can oc a 260 more
April 10, 2009 3:48:10 AM

maybe he meant to say 630
April 10, 2009 4:28:01 AM

Brandon00000 said:
not really i cant get 700 he claims to get 730


Not Core speed-wise, but performance-wise you have the faster card
Look at the difference in specs here: http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_285_us...
and this is the GTX 260: http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_260_us... (btw on the GTX 260, the core 216 has 216 processing cores, not 192)

There are many factors that contribute to performance, but sometimes you dont even need a high overclock.

.......oh, and nice triple-posts there XD
April 10, 2009 9:25:17 AM

boudy said:
If you build a rig for the one of the most hardware intensive game, then you will be able to play almost anything else.


Precisely. Most people fail to realize this.

Okay, here's one. You didn't give a budget, but anyway.

i7 920.
Gigabyte EX58-UD3R-SLI (cheapest X58) otherwise Asus P6T
3 or 6 GB DDR3 1333/1600
Hard Drive- whatever you want. Velociraptor/SSD if you can afford.
GTX260 SLI/ GTX 295 (again cost is the deciding factor)
Antec 900
Corsair TX750
Any 24" monitor (if you're interested in Nvidia 3Dvision, get what they give you. Its a 22" Samsung 120Hz)

+1 for the above post again. Anyway, a 30MHz difference is not that much practically. You can say this is 700 and that is 730, but when you play, it might be just a 1-2 fps difference.
April 10, 2009 9:30:24 AM

invisik said:
Under more info look at my rig. Im able to run crysis @ 1920X1080 with all the setting max with 16aa avg 30fps

I don't understand why you have 6GB on a Core 2 system. 4 will do fine. 6 is kind of odd. Is it 2x2 + 2x1?
April 10, 2009 11:45:22 AM

invisik said:
Under more info look at my rig. Im able to run crysis @ 1920X1080 with all the setting max with 16aa avg 30fps


Why people use 16xAA(1920X1080) in crysis, is much better to have 4xAA and avg 50fps instead or 30fps.
I have similar system with you (q6600@3.2GHz GTX295) and I run crysis @ 1680X1050 8xAA ultra high setting avg53fps, max71, min35fps.

a b U Graphics card
April 10, 2009 1:30:01 PM

Brandon00000: you can achieve higher clocks by upping the voltage on the cards. This also will produce much more heat make sure to turn fan speed up. I used evga voltage tuner. (remember overclocking result varies from card to card)

rags_20: 2x2 2x1 is correct i had a spare of 2x1 left so i just stuck it in there lol didnt want to waste it.

michaelmk86: Thanks for the advice i just assumed 16aa was a lot better but ill give 4aa a shot.
April 10, 2009 1:56:43 PM

invisik said:
Brandon00000: you can achieve higher clocks by upping the voltage on the cards. This also will produce much more heat make sure to turn fan speed up. I used evga voltage tuner. (remember overclocking result varies from card to card)

rags_20: 2x2 2x1 is correct i had a spare of 2x1 left so i just stuck it in there lol didnt want to waste it.

michaelmk86: Thanks for the advice i just assumed 16aa was a lot better but ill give 4aa a shot.



i am aware of that i just thought evga tuner was just for evga cards the only way i have found to up the voltage on the 285 is the evga volt tuner but unfortunatly i have bfg
a b U Graphics card
April 10, 2009 2:01:48 PM

Evga v tuner is exclusive to evga cards. I believe you can bump up the voltage through rivatuner also.
April 10, 2009 2:02:55 PM

Does EVGA tuner work on ATI cards? Is there some program like that for ATI cards? Mine runs at 67C max, so I have about 15C to spare.
April 10, 2009 2:07:08 PM

No response from OP to any of the posts. OP, please state your budget.
a b U Graphics card
April 10, 2009 2:11:05 PM

You can use ati tool or rivatuner, but i would suggest just use the overclocking feature in the ati catalyst which works great.
April 10, 2009 5:12:49 PM

invisik said:
You can use ati tool or rivatuner, but i would suggest just use the overclocking feature in the ati catalyst which works great.


i have tried rivatuner ati tool evga voltage tuner not one of them worked and rivatuner and ati tool neither one have i found where it gives you the option to increase voltage any help i would be very thankful that would be awesome if i could get a 750 core clock
April 11, 2009 12:24:32 AM

^+1
You can even go 285 SLI if you want. I'd say 1000W is more than necessary. 850 should be fine. And I don't think 300GB should be enough. So get a 1 TB barracuda.
April 11, 2009 2:01:36 AM

Alright, so since you didnt give a price limit here:

Video Card: 2 GTX 275s in SLI - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
MOBO:Asrock X58 Supercomputer - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
CPU: Core i7 920 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
RAM: 6GB DDR3 GSKILL at 1333 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Case and PSU combo: Antec 1200 and a 1000W continuous PSU - http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?Ite...
Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 1.5TB - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Total: $1,966.93 with shipping

The alternative, of course, is AMD/ATI (NOTE: I will only be changing the video card, mobo, and CPU):

Video Card: 2 4890s in Crossfire - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Mobo: ASUS M4A79T Deluxe - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
CPU: Phenom II X4 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Total: $1,810.48 with shipping

NOTE: The AMD/ATI alternative would only be to save money. There is no performance gain there.

hmmm that was weird....I tried to edit my post but it just deleted it.....
April 11, 2009 2:15:32 AM

just about every configuration sucks on crysis that is mainstream...

lets see... 2 4870x2's work good and 3 GTX 285s work excelent!
quad cores offer minimal performance increase for crysis btw.
April 11, 2009 8:57:24 AM


DirectX 10, benchmark tool
April 11, 2009 9:42:50 AM

Possibly a little off topic, but seeing as this is in the graphics section...

How well can I expect Crysis to run on a Geforce 9400/9500 or 9800? I know it won't be fantastic, but I'm putting together an inexpensive midrange system and I'd like to get something it can stretch its legs on that's a bit newer than Oblivion (which oddly enough runs great on my ancient minimum-specs system...) and Crysis looked great on the machines at CES last year.
April 11, 2009 10:11:31 AM

novusbogus said:
Possibly a little off topic, but seeing as this is in the graphics section...

How well can I expect Crysis to run on a Geforce 9400/9500 or 9800? I know it won't be fantastic, but I'm putting together an inexpensive midrange system and I'd like to get something it can stretch its legs on that's a bit newer than Oblivion (which oddly enough runs great on my ancient minimum-specs system...) and Crysis looked great on the machines at CES last year.


Well considering the graph above:
9400GT 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 2fps
9500GT 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 4fps
9800GT 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 17fps
GTX280 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 30fps
GTX295 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 48fps

April 11, 2009 11:02:29 AM

michaelmk86 said:
Well considering the graph above:
9400GT 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 2fps
9500GT 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 4fps
9800GT 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 17fps
GTX280 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 30fps
GTX295 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 48fps


Ask me and I say its is NOT worth the performance sacrifice just for AA. Run it at Very High and native resolution unless you have GTX 285 SLI or 4870x2 or GTX295 or something like that.

Oh and how did you make such accurate predictions? 17fps?

Lets just say that 9400GT/9500GT are playable at 1680x1050 no AA Low
9800GT - 1680 x 1050 no AA High
GTX285 1680x1050 4xAA Very High
April 11, 2009 11:33:36 AM

rags_20 said:
Ask me and I say its is NOT worth the performance sacrifice just for AA. Run it at Very High and native resolution unless you have GTX 285 SLI or 4870x2 or GTX295 or something like that.

Oh and how did you make such accurate predictions? 17fps?

Lets just say that 9400GT/9500GT are playable at 1680x1050 no AA Low
9800GT - 1680 x 1050 no AA High
GTX285 1680x1050 4xAA Very High

I think you need to have a closer look as those benches
0xAA = no AA, this results is without AA

9800GT 1680x1050 0xAA veryhigh 17fps : that is not a prediction is from a benchmark with identical setting with the above graph

9500GT is playable at 1280x1024 no AA Low setting
9400GT is playable at 800x600 no AA Low setting

GTX285 1680x1050 4xAA Very High: 24fps(totally unplayable) and this is not prediction is from a benchmark…

April 11, 2009 12:27:18 PM

24fps may not be playable to you, but it is to me. Guess I have better eyes. And about the AA. It was just a general statement. Not based on your previous thread.
April 11, 2009 1:00:15 PM

24fps is not playable. :non: 
Note: the 24fps in crysis are from the benchmark in the first level of the game the levels that follows are mach more demanding (in terms of graphics) and the average fps from 24 will drop to 20fps and the minimum fps will be 10fps.

So everybody agree that in crysis benchmark you need to have:
35fps avg to be just playable.
50-60fps avg to be enjoyable.
100+ fps avg for perfect experience.

a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2009 2:09:51 PM

Brandon00000 said:
i have tried rivatuner ati tool evga voltage tuner not one of them worked and rivatuner and ati tool neither one have i found where it gives you the option to increase voltage any help i would be very thankful that would be awesome if i could get a 750 core clock



Well ati tool i believe is only for overclocking not voltage change and rivatuner im not to sure since i have never used it myself but i hear people using it to overclock/volt change. Im really new into voltage changing so im kinda limited on that. You might want to start a new thread people familiar with rivatuner can help you more. Evga voltage tuner should work what nvidia drivers do you have installed?
April 11, 2009 2:10:30 PM

if 24fps is playable to you then you have worse eyes.

feels weird since 35-40fps is only just playable to me.
April 11, 2009 2:44:38 PM

michaelmk86 said:
24fps is not playable. :non: 
Note: the 24fps in crysis are from the benchmark in the first level of the game the levels that follows are mach more demanding (in terms of graphics) and the average fps from 24 will drop to 20fps and the minimum fps will be 10fps.

So everybody agree that in crysis benchmark you need to have:
35fps avg to be just playable.
50-60fps avg to be enjoyable.
100+ fps avg for perfect experience.

Like I said, that is from your pov. I get 24fps on the Crysis GPU benchmark and it is perfectly playable in the first level, Contact. However I still run settings to get 40 fps avg. PS. The zero gravity levels result in lower fps than normal ones due to increased physics calculations.
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2009 3:34:33 PM

my first crysis run through was with an athlon x2 / 8600gt 256mb. played it on a mix of high/medium settings and of course no AA @1440x900 dx9. the scenery still blew me away.

April 11, 2009 4:39:13 PM

welll, when i run stalker clear sky with EVERYTHING on high, it dips down all the way to 12fps but the environment is GOREGEOUS! look at those sun rays... :) 
(totally off topic but oh well lol)
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2009 5:10:11 PM

michaelmk86 said:
24fps is not playable. :non: 
Note: the 24fps in crysis are from the benchmark in the first level of the game the levels that follows are mach more demanding (in terms of graphics) and the average fps from 24 will drop to 20fps and the minimum fps will be 10fps.

So everybody agree that in crysis benchmark you need to have:
35fps avg to be just playable.
50-60fps avg to be enjoyable.
100+ fps avg for perfect experience.


Where did you get those completely random numbers? 100+ fps for perfect experience? Yeh right, 2 GTX295s can't even get 60 fps average, let alone 100. Your values are completely arbitrary with no factual basis.


The playable fps for most first person shooters is 30. Halo 3 on the XBOX360 runs locked at 30 frames per second.

The human eye usually can't tell the difference beyond 60 fps.

And considering that most LCD monitors have refresh rates of 60-75, that means your screen doesn't even render past 60-75 fps on your monitor.
April 11, 2009 6:28:53 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
Where did you get those completely random numbers? 100+ fps for perfect experience? Yeh right, 2 GTX295s can't even get 60 fps average, let alone 100. Your values are completely arbitrary with no factual basis.


The playable fps for most first person shooters is 30. Halo 3 on the XBOX360 runs locked at 30 frames per second.

The human eye usually can't tell the difference beyond 60 fps.

And considering that most LCD monitors have refresh rates of 60-75, that means your screen doesn't even render past 60-75 fps on your monitor.


This numbers are not random 100fps is the average that means that if you have 100fps average you will have 60fps minimum, and yes 2 GTX295s can get 80fps very high settings(and if you lower the setting you will get 100fps avg)

These are facts and I don’t care if you agree or not
35fps avg to be just playable.
50-60fps avg to be enjoyable.
100+ fps avg for perfect experience.

April 11, 2009 10:36:02 PM

invisik said:
Well ati tool i believe is only for overclocking not voltage change and rivatuner im not to sure since i have never used it myself but i hear people using it to overclock/volt change. Im really new into voltage changing so im kinda limited on that. You might want to start a new thread people familiar with rivatuner can help you more. Evga voltage tuner should work what nvidia drivers do you have installed?




evga voltage tuner only works with evga cards i have bfg
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2009 11:23:05 PM

michaelmk86 said:
This numbers are not random 100fps is the average that means that if you have 100fps average you will have 60fps minimum, and yes 2 GTX295s can get 80fps very high settings(and if you lower the setting you will get 100fps avg)

These are facts and I don’t care if you agree or not
35fps avg to be just playable.
50-60fps avg to be enjoyable.
100+ fps avg for perfect experience.



These aren't facts. These are just fps numbers you think are good for playing Crysis...numbers that you've probably never even tested.
April 12, 2009 1:01:42 AM

^+10000000
What's he talking about? 100+ fps, isn't that great? Perfect experience. You just don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand that after a certain point it makes no difference what fps you get. Like I said, the playable fps varies from person to person.
April 12, 2009 1:22:55 AM

RAID a couple of OCZ Vertex drives or Intel X25s.

If you are playing on Very High mode, with the large textures being streamed in real time, you need very high random and sequential read performance.

Even though my system (i7 920 @ 3.8GHz, SLI 285 SSC) was running in the 50s-60s fps at Very High 1920, the game stuttered every few moments while in movement. Basically it was a disc I/O bottleneck. RAID X25-Es solved the problem, now the game is buttery smooth.
a b U Graphics card
April 12, 2009 1:44:17 AM

Brandon00000 said:
evga voltage tuner only works with evga cards i have bfg



start a new thread regarding voltage increase on your graphic card since i havent used any other program but evga v tuner. sorry.


What is he talking about? The human eye cant tell apart 60fps or 1000fps lol.
April 12, 2009 5:00:03 AM

Quote:
What is he talking about? The human eye cant tell apart 60fps or 1000fps lol.

Precisely.

Did you know that many Xbox 360 games deliver only 30fps?
!