Very High -- Crysis 1280x1024

[uncfan_2563]

So I was just wondering since these days people don't like to benchmark 1280x1024 (i can't use a monitor any bigger, hurts my eyes) how much GPU power do you need to max out Crysis Warhead at 1280x1024? Since i'm always looking to upgrade my pc (not that i have the money) i was wondering what i'd have to get to achieve this. Also i'm not too interested in the eye candy but hey, if i have a free 20 fps, why not?

 

[cjl]

A 4850 would do it fairly easily. Perhaps not with full AA, but definitely all settings on very high.

 

[uncfan_2563]

hmm thats good. i was considering a 4850 or a GTS 250 so i like what i hear. speaking of crysis, i wont get the current one but anyone know when Crysis 2 is expected?

 

[Twoboxer]

Heres a review of 4850 doing Crysis at your resolution - think you would need more than that.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1471/sapphire_radeon_hd_4850_in_crossfire/index9.html

If you can't find your exact resolution in a review, you might find a 16XX x XXX that handles close to the same number of pixels as your res.

 

[uncfan_2563]

Vista for me, but i dont think my budget can reach out and pick up a 260. maybe if daddy steps in..... ahh teenage years...

 

[meodowla]

Go for GTS 250 or the 9800GTX+
Both are same...

 

[mactronix]

Its just not going to happen i just read a review of a 4890 where they had to back off the AA at x4 and only had it on Gamer settings, so there is a whole level of settings to go yet.

Mactronix

 

[4745454b]

Seeing as the OP said eye candy isn't needed, the 4850 will probably do fine. At full/max it was already around 22FPS, I'm sure moving some sliders down will get him above 30FPS. Not to mention that link was 6months old, I'm sure patches and driver updates have given it a boost since then. If the 9800GTX/GTS 250 runs it faster, he should look for one of those.

BTW, 1280x1024 = 1,310,720, 1600x1200 = 1,920,000, 1680x1050 = 1,764,000, and finally 1440x900 = 1,296,000. In terms of number of pixels, 1440x900 is much closer then either of the 1600 resolutions.

 

[invisik]

Isnt he going to need a past cpu as well playing at such a low resolution?

 

[uncfan_2563]

well if it matters, i have an Athlon 64 X2 4800+. its not toooo slow i guess, it could be better, but the BIOS locked overclocking so i'm stuck with it. And yeah i'm thinking the GTS250 might be better cuz i remember seeing nvidia does better with Crysis.

 

[invisik]

I thought at low resolution the pc needs more cpu power.

 

[uncfan_2563]

I thought at low resolution the pc needs more cpu power.

i think the CPU usage stays pretty much the same at all resolutions, gets a little higher at a higher resolution tho. i'm not %100 sure tho

 

[Twoboxer]

I don't think you can make any general rule about cpu utilization and resolution. It depends on what bottleneck you create or relieve, and the game itself.

 

[4745454b]

By running at a lower resolution, your GPU doesn't work as hard correct? If so, its able to push a lot more pixels, providing you with more FPS. This puts a strain on the CPU to keep up. If the CPU is to slow, then its not going to be any faster. You'll still be able to play, its just that the bottleneck has moved to the CPU instead of the GPU. Max is right.

 

[Outlander_04]

you wont max out crysis at that resolution with a 4850 .

I have played at 1440 x 900 with a 4850 at got about 35fps on high

A 4870 1 gig might do it , and so might a gtx 260 ,but any less than that you will have to lose quality or put up with lousy fps

 

[eklipz330]

at lower resolutions, a higher cpu clock speed is needed or your video card will be bottlenecked.

JUST fyi, they had a qx9770 at 4.0ghz, and the gtx 280 they were testing was still bottlenecked at 1280x1024.

how do you know if its bottlenecked? if you seem to stop seeing gains as you lower your resolution, your cpu is bottlenecking your gpu

 

[megamanx00]

If you want to play Crysis on very high, then go nVidia and at least get a GTS250. A GTS 260 sp192 should do it pretty good. Crysis doesn't really like ATI GPUs. Anyway the next Crytek engine will be designed with a more multi-platform concept so it should be less demanding and more efficient. It's impossible to say just how current cards will preform on it.

 

[mactronix]

Oh we are on this old chestnut again are we
I'm not going to go into it all again strangestranger has certain views on it which are technically valid as far as i can see, and we have talked this over more than enough.
However i agree with what invisik, 4745454b and eklipz330 posted.
Its not that the CPU would try and run faster to keep up, (well an i7 would if turbo mode was on).
Its got a set speed and when the GPU is capable of drawing and rendering the frames faster than this then the "Restriction" in the machine as far as FPS goes is the CPU.
Its not that its even a bad thing per say, as long as you have a playable frame rate when you hit this restriction then the extra speed the GPU has found at the lower resolution can be translated into higher Quality settings.

Mactronix

 

[redgarl]

You need at least a 4870 or a 9800 GTX+... I am not kidding.

If you want to play in 1900X1080, you need at less something really strong like a 4870X2 or 2X280 in SLI to really max it out... even there forget AA... it's already a lost battle for the little it can gives you.

 

[redgarl]

If you want to play Crysis on very high, then go nVidia and at least get a GTS250. A GTS 260 sp192 should do it pretty good. Crysis doesn't really like ATI GPUs. Anyway the next Crytek engine will be designed with a more multi-platform concept so it should be less demanding and more efficient. It's impossible to say just how current cards will preform on it.

True statement, we don't know how DX11 cards will perform. If you can, buy the cheapest solution until you can get a glimpse of the new era coming this autumn.

 

[uncfan_2563]

well see when i mean max it out, i can give up certain things. It doesn't have to be absolutly at very high but i want things like Textures to atleast be maxed.

 

[successful_troll]

So I was just wondering since these days people don't like to benchmark 1280x1024 (i can't use a monitor any bigger, hurts my eyes)

Monitor size___usage
19’ __________no use, is only suitable for the garbage.
22’ __________for office use, nothing more.
26’ __________you can play some games.
30’ __________perfect for games.


Edit:
These are facts.

 

[pauldh]

Tom's still tests at 1280x1024 in articles such as SBM's. In Crysis (not Warhead), the GTX 260 and HD 4870 are not up to the task of DX10 (all) very high.

OC'ed GTX 260 isn't enough:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-2-overclock,2310-9.html

HD4870 is a no go, HD 4870 X2 is capable given enough CPU:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-cpu-overclock,2304-7.html

Of course, not everyone agrees on exactly what is playable performance. Most of the game may be fine if settings get dumbed down in the worst areas.

 

[uncfan_2563]

Monitor size___usage
19’ __________no use, is only suitable for the garbage.
22’ __________for office use, nothing more.
26’ __________you can play some games.
30’ __________perfect for games.


Edit:
These are facts.

umm i think it's still very playable at 19". I can't use that big of a monitor because 1. I'd rather upgrade my pc before getting a bigger display 2. I do a lot of programming, so when i look at a bigger monitor for extended period of time, my eyes tear and burn

 

[successful_troll]

umm i think it's still very playable at 19". I can't use that big of a monitor because 1. I'd rather upgrade my pc before getting a bigger display 2. I do a lot of programming, so when i look at a bigger monitor for extended period of time, my eyes tear and burn

if you do programming a big monitor is essential so you can see more code per page.
You are just making up excuses so go buy a decent monitor and stop being so cheap.