Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

CRYSIS settings

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Crysis
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share

Which Crysis Setting?

Total: 37 votes (8 blank votes)

  • 1024x768
  • 10 %
  • 1680x1050
  • 90 %
July 12, 2009 12:19:42 AM

Would you RATHER play Crysis @

1024x768 with 8x AA & max settings

OR

1680x1050 with 0x AA & max settings

I have a GTS 250

More about : crysis settings

a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2009 1:40:14 AM

1680x1050 aa just adds a bit smoothness rather have more real estate on the battle field.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2009 2:30:06 AM

16x10, but you won't be able to play through the game at either ( DX 10 Very High) with that GPU. An overclocked GTX 260 core 216 isn't enough to do 1280x1024 "Max" details with no AA. High details sure, max details...nope.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-2-overclock,23...


July 12, 2009 2:46:23 AM

pauldh said:
16x10, but you won't be able to play through the game at either ( DX 10 Very High) with that GPU. An overclocked GTX 260 core 216 isn't enough to do 1280x1024 "Max" details with no AA. High details sure, max details...nope.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-2-overclock,23...


does dx10 just look better than dx 9?
if so, the drop down in settings is worth it, right? (assuming dx10 > dx9)
a c 236 U Graphics card
July 12, 2009 3:41:54 AM

10 looks better then 9 if you are looking at slides, if you are playing a game I doubt you would notice the difference. Crysis still looks great in DX 9.
July 12, 2009 3:54:00 AM

ct1615 said:
10 looks better then 9 if you are looking at slides, if you are playing a game I doubt you would notice the difference. Crysis still looks great in DX 9.


so if im a gamer (who plays farcry2 and crysis) i should go w/ DX9?
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2009 4:35:47 AM

off topic how would you go from DX10 to DX9 ?
July 12, 2009 4:50:23 AM

LOL...I just mentioned this in another thread, but when it comes to resolutions and monitors it is all about individual taste. Personally, I am fine running games on a HDtv at 1360 x 768, sitting a little farther back than I would at a small monitor, and every game I throw at it, including crysis runs smooth as butter. I don't have to worry about expensive video card upgrades every year when new direct versions come out, because my system has more than enough cpu and graphics power to play any game that comes out in the next few years at those lower resolutions.

Most gamers who see my rig running a huge monitor playing games at incredible framerates think I've got some crazy quad sli system with a monster processor...they don't realize they could do the same thing by just lowering the resolution a bit and using a HDtv as their monitor. I know some would hate this and consider everything too "big", but that can be adjusted if you want more desktop space. Anyway, its something else to consider.
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2009 5:39:43 AM

pauldh said:
16x10, but you won't be able to play through the game at either ( DX 10 Very High) with that GPU. An overclocked GTX 260 core 216 isn't enough to do 1280x1024 "Max" details with no AA. High details sure, max details...nope.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-2-overclock,23...

An overclocked GTX 260 c216 is more than enough to run 1280x1024 cranked, even with some AA. Now, the GTS250 mentioned in the OP will struggle slightly at the settings mentioned, but it won't be completely unplayable. I'd probably lean towards slightly lower settings than the ones mentioned though - it would probably run quite well cranked at 1280x1024, possibly with 2xAA, or at 1680x1050 mostly high settings (rather than very high).
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2009 5:44:27 AM

Crysis will run with everything at very high (except post processing) and AAx4 at 1280x1024 for a GTS250/9800GTX/GTX+ ...this was what I played with when I had a single 9800GTX



So I believe it will run at those settings at 1680x1050 for a GTX260 c216

a c 107 U Graphics card
July 12, 2009 6:17:20 AM

If 1680x1050 is your monitors native resolution, since that would mean you have a widescreen LCD, then that is the res you should go with. LCDs generally look crappy when you try to run them outside their native resolution. If you hook it up to a CRT monitor though then if you can only avoid slowdown by running it at 1024x768 then that is the res I would run it at.
July 12, 2009 8:48:39 AM

The only thing you can do with the GTS 250 is:

1680x1050 noxAA High DX9 and you will achieve playable fps.

There is no point play with VeryHigh setting and get verylow fps.

VeryHigh setting & verylow fps = frustrating gameplay

High setting & playable fps = enjoyable gameplay
July 12, 2009 5:57:41 PM

+1, had a single GTX+ and after a SLI GTX+ and even with a SOLO GTS250 ( GTX+ ) the frame reate was NICE 16x10 HIGH noAA. Was able to crank the AA with the SLI.
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2009 7:10:32 PM

cjl said:
An overclocked GTX 260 c216 is more than enough to run 1280x1024 cranked, even with some AA. Now, the GTS250 mentioned in the OP will struggle slightly at the settings mentioned, but it won't be completely unplayable. I'd probably lean towards slightly lower settings than the ones mentioned though - it would probably run quite well cranked at 1280x1024, possibly with 2xAA, or at 1680x1050 mostly high settings (rather than very high).

Everyone's idea of playability may differ, but personally I don't agree with you on this. An OC'ed GTX 260 will still see framerates dip in the teens in areas of Crysis, and some prolonged dips in the low 20's. I'd agree that most of the game would be fine, but notice I said through (ie throughout) the game.

My idea of playable isn't that you can actually finish the game at those settings, but rather it has enjoyable performance throughout the the entire game. Getting fragged because of choppy framerates isn't my idea of enjoyable performance. Some low quick dips are hard to avoid, but I would prefer sustained framerates at or above 30 FPS in Crysis, and at least have moments below 25 fps be very brief if present at all. Crysis is better than most FPS games in this respect, but I'd be quite surprised if you can't feel the game change below 25 fps.



a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2009 8:01:56 PM

notguru said:
does dx10 just look better than dx 9?
if so, the drop down in settings is worth it, right? (assuming dx10 > dx9)

I only specified DX10 very high because there is a hack to allow "very high details" in DX9, which provides higher fps than the games true Very High details (only selectable in DX10). Sorry if that was confusing.

In honesty, if it were me, I'd start in DX10 and your native resolution and experiment yourself what you find to be playable. Enabling the console command or using fraps you can see your fps and at least confirm if the "slow" feel to the game is framerate related. Anywhere from medium/high, high, or maybe even high/very high may be acceptable to you. If low framerates start to ruin the expereince, then tune them down.

Basically only you can decide what's acceptable performance. I've played games on other peoples systems tuned to their taste, that to me are painfully choppy and no fun at all. Do you value max IQ, total smoothness, a compromise, or outright the best of both (which in crysis gets expensive). Typically you will find this game gets more hardware demanding, so settings that are playable early on, need to get tuned down in later levels. People that only play the demo tend to over estimate how good their machine is in crysis. The cutscenes in the demo (or first level) are in a way an indication of what's to come GPU performance wise.

BTW, this article compared DX9 Vs 10 in both performance and IQ. Notice their performance on an 8800GTX at 1280x1024 in actual gameplay. (12x10 medium/high and ave = 26 fps)
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4MCwzLCw2MA=...
July 12, 2009 8:53:39 PM

Is Direct X 9 something you can download and install if you have DX10? Or are you not allowed to go back?
a b U Graphics card
July 12, 2009 9:23:27 PM

You don't have to worry about that. You can just force Crysis to run in DX9 if you would like to try comparing DX10 to DX9. This link shows you how: http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_5.html

edit: but just to be clear, you could just use default DX10. There's not that big a difference between DX9/10 high detail performance. It's one available tweak if you enjoy doing that, but to play it in Vista, I would now just leave it at DX10.
July 12, 2009 11:34:43 PM

pauldh said:
I only specified DX10 very high because there is a hack to allow "very high details" in DX9, which provides higher fps than the games true Very High details (only selectable in DX10). Sorry if that was confusing.

In honesty, if it were me, I'd start in DX10 and your native resolution and experiment yourself what you find to be playable. Enabling the console command or using fraps you can see your fps and at least confirm if the "slow" feel to the game is framerate related. Anywhere from medium/high, high, or maybe even high/very high may be acceptable to you. If low framerates start to ruin the expereince, then tune them down.

Basically only you can decide what's acceptable performance. I've played games on other peoples systems tuned to their taste, that to me are painfully choppy and no fun at all. Do you value max IQ, total smoothness, a compromise, or outright the best of both (which in crysis gets expensive). Typically you will find this game gets more hardware demanding, so settings that are playable early on, need to get tuned down in later levels. People that only play the demo tend to over estimate how good their machine is in crysis. The cutscenes in the demo (or first level) are in a way an indication of what's to come GPU performance wise.

BTW, this article compared DX9 Vs 10 in both performance and IQ. Notice their performance on an 8800GTX at 1280x1024 in actual gameplay. (12x10 medium/high and ave = 26 fps)
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4MCwzLCw2MA=...


How will I know what settings to turn down if I find the gaming experience to laggy?
July 13, 2009 1:18:12 AM

I think Crysis has a "detect best settings" option, you should that as a starting point and tweak from there.
a b U Graphics card
July 13, 2009 12:35:08 PM

notguru said:
How will I know what settings to turn down if I find the gaming experience to laggy?


Generally, Shaders, Textures, Shadows, and AA are the most GPU intensive settings for any game, and the first settings that should be moved down a notch.

For your card, I'd start with everything set to high, 2x AA, and go from there.
July 13, 2009 3:22:42 PM

2x AA and everhting HIGH is .... to high to stay @ 30fps and above.

HIGH with NO AA is gona be very playable !

I had an E6850 @ 3.6ghz with a GTX+ OCed and NO AA with HIGH was in the mid 40fps with 1680x1050.
July 13, 2009 6:54:36 PM

Is there a significant difference between 0xAA and 2xAA?
July 13, 2009 7:43:07 PM

AA to me is overrated and a choke on your system. It doesn't really make the graphics themselves look a lot better, but does make the "lines" look better. The tradeoff is much slower framerates though. In your video control panel you can see the difference by messing around with the manual "quality vs performance" settings. Of course ideally you want a rig that can have BOTH, but for most mainstream systems running crysis that is impossible.
July 13, 2009 8:03:36 PM

AA wil also reduce/eliminate the "cuting" that can appeir in the image when fast moving you mouse or big action in the screen.

AA wil make the image smoother if your system handle it correctly. With a good computer, AA isnt a choke.
July 13, 2009 8:11:59 PM

Some games give you AA for "free" without slowing down the framerates. But that is the exception, not the rule. Crysis is NOT one of those games. Turn on the AA and you get an immediate loss of frames. As I said, how much you notice the slowdown depends on the quality of your system , but his "mainstream" system will show a very noticeable slowdown with AA enabled vs the same settings with no AA.
a b U Graphics card
July 13, 2009 9:54:12 PM

1680x1050 with 0x AA = smooth gameplay

a b U Graphics card
July 13, 2009 10:07:28 PM

OvrClkr said:
1680x1050 with 0x AA = smooth gameplay

Just curious; What settings do you use in Crysis with GTS 250 SLI?

For me 16x10 High DX9 (XP) was not nearly smooth enough with a single OC'ed 8800GT ( + OC'ed Q6600) , but with SLI 8800GT I could enable 2xAA and still have enough fps. Only in the final battle of the game did I prefer to turn off AA for a few more FPS.

Not everyone values AA, but I'm the type who surely does. In some games, I can't stand not using at least 2Xaa.

a b U Graphics card
July 13, 2009 10:51:13 PM

I normally have everything on "Mainstream" and 2xAA / 1680x1050

Or change all settings to "Enthusiast" and no AA / 1680x1050

As far as FPS it varies. You could be looking up at the sky and get 100FPS, but once you battle it will go down to 40FPS or even lower.

a b U Graphics card
July 13, 2009 11:07:56 PM

OK thanks. So you are talking about Warhead. Did you play the original Crysis on that rig?
a b U Graphics card
July 13, 2009 11:20:26 PM

Not yet, but once I install it I will let you know the exact setting's im using.

It should not differ when it comes to the same settings, if taking in consideration that Medium = Mainstream / High = Enthusiast. But I am not 100% positive so maybe someone can correct me here......
July 13, 2009 11:47:01 PM

My last RIG ( E6850 @ 3.6ghz with SLI 9800GTX+ and 4gig ram ) was able to run Crysis @ 16x10 with everything on HIGH and 2xAA in the low 40 fps. 4x was too much and FPS dropped often under 30fps. But with 2X and HIGH the game was smooth and only in BIG BIG action i had few slow down but not enough to make me mad and remove AA.
July 14, 2009 12:09:54 AM

OvrClkr said:
It should not differ when it comes to the same settings, if taking in consideration that Medium = Mainstream / High = Enthusiast. But I am not 100% positive so maybe someone can correct me here......


Crysis - Crysis Warhead

Low = Minimal
Medium = Mainstream
High = Gamer
Very High = Enthusiast
July 14, 2009 12:10:57 AM

pauldh said:
Just curious; What settings do you use in Crysis with GTS 250 SLI?

For me 16x10 High DX9 (XP) was not nearly smooth enough with a single OC'ed 8800GT ( + OC'ed Q6600) , but with SLI 8800GT I could enable 2xAA and still have enough fps. Only in the final battle of the game did I prefer to turn off AA for a few more FPS.

Not everyone values AA, but I'm the type who surely does. In some games, I can't stand not using at least 2Xaa.


  • The GTS250 is naturally faster than the 8800GT (un-overclocked).
  • However, if you OC the 88, then you should be able to run smoothly on 16x10 (without AA), especially with DirectX 9.
  • The bottleneck may due to the CPU because...
  • Core 2 Duo/Dual Core is better than Quad Core for games (because games don't use all 4 cores).
  • I have can play Crysis at 16x10 (DX 10) with all high settings and 0xAA.
    July 14, 2009 12:13:21 AM

    pauldh said:
    OK thanks. So you are talking about Warhead. Did you play the original Crysis on that rig?


    I think they're talking about Crysis [period]...not Warhead. Crysis is more graphically demanding. I think it uses a different engine than Warhead.
    July 14, 2009 12:14:41 AM

    OvrClkr said:
    Not yet, but once I install it I will let you know the exact setting's im using.

    It should not differ when it comes to the same settings, if taking in consideration that Medium = Mainstream / High = Enthusiast. But I am not 100% positive so maybe someone can correct me here......


    I'm not sure where the "MAINSTREAM/ENTHUSIAST" settings are in Crysis, but I know there's an "Optimal Settings" feature.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 14, 2009 1:03:27 AM

    notguru said:
    I'm not sure where the "MAINSTREAM/ENTHUSIAST" settings are in Crysis, but I know there's an "Optimal Settings" feature.


    Optimal Settings mean that the game will scan your hardware and decide whats best for you, it does not max out the settings.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 14, 2009 1:04:30 AM

    notguru said:
  • The GTS250 is naturally faster than the 8800GT (un-overclocked).
  • However, if you OC the 88, then you should be able to run smoothly on 16x10 (without AA), especially with DirectX 9.
  • The bottleneck may due to the CPU because...
  • Core 2 Duo/Dual Core is better than Quad Core for games (because games don't use all 4 cores).
  • I have can play Crysis at 16x10 (DX 10) with all high settings and 0xAA.

  • Yeah, just was curious actually as to what settings SLI 9800GTX+ / GTS 250 people were using.

    I didn't personally find the an OC'ed 8800GT to be nearly smooth enough at 16x10 all high. Framerates were in the teens at times. A blend of Medium/high was OK.

    Take a look at this review. Look at their 1280x1024 medium/high actual gameplay performance with an 8800GT and OC'ed 8800GT.
    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTUyOCwzLCw=

    Your not going to surpass a G92 8800GTS with an oc'ed 8800GT. Look at the performance in DX9 and DX10 with an 8800GTS. 12x10 medium/high is under 30 fps ave.
    http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4MCw0LCxoZW5...

    Anyway, not Tom's but just wanted to link some numbers of actual gameplay that back up my own findings.... an 8800GT is not playable at 16x10 all high.



    Surely you are not suggesting an OC'ed Q6600 would hold back a single 8800GT in Crysis at high details? The GPU is being hammered at those settings.

    Crysis actually does benefit from more than two cores.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/multi-core-cpu,2280...



    a b U Graphics card
    July 14, 2009 1:05:55 AM

    notguru said:
    I think they're talking about Crysis [period]...not Warhead. Crysis is more graphically demanding. I think it uses a different engine than Warhead.


    Both use the Crytek engine and they are very similar when it comes to gameplay.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 14, 2009 1:10:22 AM

    notguru said:
    I think they're talking about Crysis [period]...not Warhead. Crysis is more graphically demanding. I think it uses a different engine than Warhead.

    Warhead as in Crysis: Warhead...the first expansion to Crysis. Both are CryEngine 2.
    http://www.crytek.com/games/crysis-warhead/overview/

    edit: ^ ah you beat me.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 14, 2009 1:14:28 AM

    Yep. looks like I misspelled that.. Thanks for correcting me......
    a b U Graphics card
    July 14, 2009 1:19:56 AM

    I have way more time into playing/benching/evaluating Crysis than Warhead, but from I recall there was better framerates at Warhead "Gamer" than in Crysis "High".

    Anyone else?
    July 14, 2009 4:27:13 PM

    notguru said:
  • Core 2 Duo/Dual Core is better than Quad Core for games (because games don't use all 4 cores).


  • Clock for Clock your completely WRONG .... a 3.0ghz DUO vs a 3.0ghz QUAD .... im taking the QUAD all the way ... and by all the way i mean that the QUAD gona be better CLOCK for CLOCK.

    The reason that could make The E8400 better VS a Q9550 is that the E8400 can go WAY higher if you are an EXtreme OCer. I can hit 4.0 without issue with my quad but WC become a need. Lots of ppl can reach 4.0 with a E8400 on air without any ISSUE. If you OC your processor to the limit 24/7 for gaming, ill agree that the DUO can win cause its gona be faster and games mostly like speed. This way the "slower" quad will loose the race. But if you them CLOCK for CLOCK the quad win ...

    BTW, i dont really like CRYSIS. Its a F***** beautyfull game with a good computer but the gameplay isnt the awesome. My opinion.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 14, 2009 4:45:41 PM

    boulard83 said:
    Clock for Clock your completely WRONG .... a 3.0ghz DUO vs a 3.0ghz QUAD .... im taking the QUAD all the way ... and by all the way i mean that the QUAD gona be better CLOCK for CLOCK.

    The reason that could make The E8400 better VS a Q9550 is that the E8400 can go WAY higher if you are an EXtreme OCer. I can hit 4.0 without issue with my quad but WC become a need. Lots of ppl can reach 4.0 with a E8400 on air without any ISSUE. If you OC your processor to the limit 24/7 for gaming, ill agree that the DUO can win cause its gona be faster and games mostly like speed. This way the "slower" quad will loose the race. But if you them CLOCK for CLOCK the quad win ...

    BTW, i dont really like CRYSIS. Its a F***** beautyfull game with a good computer but the gameplay isnt the awesome. My opinion.


    I agree, exept for the Crysis part... Play a game of Crysis using an i7 and dual GTX 275's in Sli and it's a whole different scenario... The gameplay changes a ton, much higher framerates, smooth as butter (no lag) and the detail is incredible. The one thing that most dont understand is that when you compare a game like Crysis vs. a game like Call of Duty, when it comes to gameplay, Call of Duty is superior but it will not have nearly the Eye-Candy and Physics that Crysis has. I play Crysis Warhead almost everyday and it still amazes me in many ways. But then again, this is soley my opinion......
    July 14, 2009 5:12:53 PM

    Im also amazed by the Crysis PHYSX but thats not only physx that can make me play a game... its like a SHOW game at my eye.

    hey look how beautyfull it is man ! ... and after you go play COD to have some real fun ;) 
    August 3, 2009 6:09:38 PM

    Hey
    I have a gts 250 1 gb core edition and core2duo e4300@1.8GHz.
    I play crysis at 1024x768 at very high and 2x aa or at high with 16x aa.
    If u feel any lag try lowering the shader quality alone.
    August 3, 2009 7:59:11 PM

    What video card do you need to play at 1900x1200 res,fully maxed settings
    August 3, 2009 8:04:51 PM

    depends on what you call smooth. Its not so much about the card as it the poorly written game engine. Even a gtx295 on an i7 is going to drop below 30fps at times with everything cranked to maximum. You are better off lowering the settings a little a playing it with a card that will play every other game fine at that resolution like a 4890 or gtx 275...or you'll find that you are spending $2500 on one game.
    a b U Graphics card
    August 3, 2009 8:31:17 PM

    I agree, that game is a GPU,CPU and RAM hog.......

    I play @ 3.6Ghz with a single 250 and 4Gb of Ram and I normally play with medium settings and 2xAA....And if I want more frames then I just settle for no AA at all....
    August 3, 2009 11:40:21 PM

    Never tryed Crysis with my GTX285 and my QUAD ... maybe i should
    !