Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What is needed to max crysis??

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Crysis
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 19, 2011 10:52:50 PM

So now, my pc is a core i5 dual core, with 12gb of ddr 1333 ram, and an asus radeon hd 6950 video card.

I'm connected via hdmi to a 46" 1080p HDTV

And Crysis ONLY runs SMOOTHLY on low graphic settings.

What the hell?

More about : needed max crysis

a c 365 U Graphics card
January 19, 2011 11:26:19 PM

Didn't you know? Crysis is one of the most demanding games ever programed. Even though it was released in 2007, current hardware have trouble playing at max settings. See following benchmarks of current high-end single GPU core video cards matched with an Intel i7- 980X Extreme Edition.



Source: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-h...


I suppose dropping in another HD 6950 in XFire mode will help if you wanna stick with max settings. An i7-980 should also help as well.
m
0
l
January 19, 2011 11:44:58 PM

and so would 900 dollars for a core i7/mobo and another one of these 6950s. :-)

If i get a 24" 1080p monitor (like I'm going to) wouldnt the smaller display go to higher resolutions easier?

I'm very iffy about overclocking. I don't want to burn my expensive hardware up.

I do have an asus 6950 that is the one that's factory OC to 810mhz vs 800....also have an asus mobo...is there any safe/easy oc that would be worth it for my gpu or cpu?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 365 U Graphics card
January 19, 2011 11:57:54 PM

The i7-980X alone is over $1,000. You'll have to add more for the mobo.

1080p = 1920 x 1080 no matter what the size of the screen. Playing games on a 22" 1080p monitor and a 100" 1080p screen will have the same performance.

810MHz vs 800MHz is not a significant OC. You can opt to mod your HD 6950 to a HD 6970. Just Google it. Be aware there is a small chance you will brick your video card.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 9:44:09 AM

hd 5970 is way to go man,its fastest gpu on the planet,you will not need to upgrade cpu as well.it will cost 500 to 750$.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 10:54:04 AM

i have a phenom II 555 3.2HHz 4GB RAM, an ATI HD4890 1GB DDR5 and the gameplay is fluid at max settings with no slowdowns although i haven't tried it on a 46" display...just perfect. my first guess is to check your drivers and update the game
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 5:33:37 PM

Ha. I like the last reply mosox. true indeed. money would solve a lot of problems.

cmsvmylo im surprised you can run it on a lesser pc like that...when i mean smooth i mean silky smooth. When i up the graphics it gets so visual intensive it seems to slow down. and i bought the game as a direct download so i figure it would be updated?

Does crysis warhead run any easier?
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 5:47:07 PM

Anastrophy said:
So now, my pc is a core i5 dual core, with 12gb of ddr 1333 ram, and an asus radeon hd 6950 video card.

I'm connected via hdmi to a 46" 1080p HDTV

And Crysis ONLY runs SMOOTHLY on low graphic settings.

What the hell?


By the benchmark shown above, and from personal experience, it's quite clear that something is wrong on your system. You should be able to play smooth at very high, or at the very least, high settings.

Don't go out and buy an i7 system. An i5 system is just as fast in games. Assuming you have a 4 core i5.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 5:54:49 PM

i dunno. dual core core i5 not quad core.

just went in, game is version 1.1.something

hit optimal settings at 1080p, game set everything to high.

the tv is a 60hz panasonic 1080p tv.

went into gameplay, looks good, until i move, then its choppy choppy choppy.
m
0
l
a c 124 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 5:57:46 PM

One of the most harsh settings you can set in Crysis is AA. On a single 5850 I was running Crysis at High settings, 1080p, with 2xAA fine. Very high slowed down, and 4xAA was REALLY slow. Now I have two 5850s in crossfire. I run the game fine at Very High settings, and 4xAA works too unless I zoom in it can get a bit laggy.

So for max settings, at the absolute least 2x 5850s or similar performnace. A 6950 is better than a 5850, but not as good as two. I should think with the 2GB RAM tho High settings and 4xAA would work.

Oh my cards are also overclocked a lot (700/1000 to 870/1200)
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 5:59:39 PM

The 2 core i5 could be the issue. I'll see if there are some benchmarks of such a CPU.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 6:05:11 PM

The 2 core i5 is fine as long as its running at 3.6Ghz or higher @ 1080p. I ran the game at 3.7Ghz as a dual and then switched to quad and did not see any performance gains whatsoever, the GPU was basically the bottleneck.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 6:16:09 PM

Well, that leaves something wrong with drivers, PCIe slot, game patches, or something else.

I play Crysis at 1920x1200 with a 6970 and an i7 smoothly at very high and x2 AA, or high and x4 AA. I also require more FPS than most people to be happy.

Playing at low to get smooth play means something isn't right.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 6:21:45 PM

I really think its this 60hz tv. Very large display area for all that graphics. my computer runs smoothly, and the game does too now, after updating crysis and the gpu drivers, but there's choppiness along the screen. I think that's what it is.

There's no way my pc isnt capable enough. I just dont think so. If anything, the 2core i5 is the slowest part...especially with 12gb ddr3 1333 memory on board...
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 6:25:22 PM

TV sizes do not effect your FPS. It's the resolution that will effect your FPS. Now having a large screen may change your perspective and effect how you perceive different effects, but it won't change FPS.
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 6:28:18 PM

The game runs smoothly, but the graphics gets choppy. 60hz is on the lower end, and I've noticed larger displays take more. I know how resolution works but Tvs also have to have game visual enhancements, pan n scan, its own graphics chip, etc. Game runs smoothly, but it's displayed choppy.

Pisses me off because starcraft 2 runs on ultra just fine.
m
0
l
a c 124 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 6:29:03 PM

Yeah just cuz it's 40" doesn't make it more demanding. The display is only showing so many pixels, in this case 1920x1080. The same resolution on a 24" monitor will take just as much GPU power. The main difference is that the pixels are a lot smaller on the monitor, and will therefore look a lot more crisp.

60hz is basically the standard for all tvs/monitors except for the 3D TVs and I guess plasmas.

Maybe you have Vsync on?
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 6:35:35 PM

I may. how do you turn that off?
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 6:36:04 PM

Anastrophy said:
The game runs smoothly, but the graphics gets choppy. 60hz is on the lower end, and I've noticed larger displays take more. I know how resolution works but Tvs also have to have game visual enhancements, pan n scan, its own graphics chip, etc. Game runs smoothly, but it's displayed choppy.

Pisses me off because starcraft 2 runs on ultra just fine.


I just noticed something.

You have an ASUS card. Did you install the ASUS software with that card? I found GamerOSD and/or Smartdoctor caused Crysis to run extremely poorly. As soon as I uninstalled the ASUS software, it ran great.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 6:37:03 PM

Anastrophy said:
I really think its this 60hz tv. Very large display area for all that graphics. my computer runs smoothly, and the game does too now, after updating crysis and the gpu drivers, but there's choppiness along the screen. I think that's what it is.

There's no way my pc isnt capable enough. I just dont think so. If anything, the 2core i5 is the slowest part...especially with 12gb ddr3 1333 memory on board...



you have vsync enabled? are you expririencing screen tearing? is there a settings you need to adjust on the tv itself to correct this?
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 6:42:35 PM

i just updated crysis and now have the vsync option and turned it on and that choppiness went away!
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 6:54:02 PM

I doubt v-sync is the issue, if he is using it all he needs to do is check "Triple Buffering" box in CCC and make sure he has everything set to performance instead of quality.

Is there any way the OP can post a screen shot showing most of his settings?

Something like this :

http://i683.photobucket.com/albums/vv199/OvrClkr/exampl...

Edit : i guess I was too late :lol: 
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 7:14:02 PM

HA ITS FIXED!
Thank you soo much all of you!

Smart doctor (ASUS) didnt install for some reason, only gamer OSD did. I uninstalled gamerosd per the recommendation above.

Also, I had to update Crysis, and I got a whole bunch of new options like Vsync and I turned that on. WHEN I turned vsync on, (which was before I uninstalled gamerosd)
The screen tearing went away. There'd be like 1-3 lines thru the screen. that's gone
And then when I uninstalled Gamerosd, the lagginess/choppiness went AWAY.

I also have an ASUS motherboard, with the egpu and expressgate and other asus exclusive things on there to turbo the mobo so to speak. Should I delete these too?....since the asus crapware on my gpu slowed it down? Would it follow the same pattern?

Again, bottom line, Crysis is fixed. Thank you. Now, I gotta go into my catalyst control center and up those settings since they're all just on default right now. :-)
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 7:36:10 PM

actually. Lol. I up the settings, turn on AA 8x, and at the top of the screen, there's a transparent bar. The graphics are in it, you can see a bar though at the top of the screen
m
0
l
January 20, 2011 7:59:11 PM

morphological filtering caused the bar and some lagginess. other than that, I enabled all other settings on the gpu, turned on triple buffering,
Went IN game, turned on vsync, 8x AA, 1080p high settings.

It's stupidly ridiculously good looking.
m
0
l
a c 124 U Graphics card
January 20, 2011 8:06:38 PM

Great to hear it's working.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 21, 2011 12:51:48 PM

linh6496 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlXHquGrbpg&feature=rela...

Yes, this is what needed to max Crysis

lol yeah right that is way overkill not to mention that the res is higher than what the op is using, cool video though, looks like the guy has another rig with 4 gtx 580s even though that makes no sense to me but go ahead waste your money
m
0
l
a c 124 U Graphics card
January 21, 2011 2:13:51 PM

^ Wow wtf? 6x 5970s, and another rig with all those 580s... so stupid. Ugh why would someone waste all that cash?

Oh... epeen. Right.
m
0
l
January 21, 2011 2:15:26 PM

4 way 8800gt sli,you can find them within $300.they are better than gtx 275 or gtx 460.
m
0
l
January 21, 2011 2:26:39 PM

wolfram23 said:
^ Wow wtf? 6x 5970s, and another rig with all those 580s... so stupid. Ugh why would someone waste all that cash?

Oh... epeen. Right.


If he can afford it why no.
m
0
l
a c 124 U Graphics card
January 21, 2011 3:24:16 PM

linh6496 said:
If he can afford it why no.


Well it's not going to game better than many other, significantly cheaper options. The scaling isn't going to be good at all. I'm just saying it's a waste and the only reason to do it, the only reason - is to show off. Much like driving a Ferrari in northern climates with long cold winters. It's not like you can ever really stretch it's legs, it's just to show off how much of a baller you are. In fact most of the people I see driving nice cars are terrible drivers to boot.

I agree, hey, if it's just a drop in the proverbial bucket, why not spend all that cash for fun? Sure, why not? But realistically it's just not a good option. If I was going to drop thousands and thousands on a PC, I'd top it out at dual ASUS ARES. It's known that CF and SLI don't scale very well past 3 GPUs, and dual 5970s are already at 4 and notoriously have issues even at that number. Going up to 12 GPUs couldn't possibly work well and no matter what game you're playing, no matter what CPU you have, it's going to be bottlenecked either CPU or bandwidth wise at that point. It's worse than the Ferrari analogy. At least you could hit a deserted highway in summer and have some fun. The PC's only way to show off would be topping out a PC Mark score chart or whatever. Otherwise, most of that power is useless and unuseable even at his super high resolution.
m
0
l
January 21, 2011 7:19:40 PM

Completely agree. this is also why i avoid the top end video cards and paying extra. 300 dollars is a good limit and a 6950 is pretty awesome. when prices drop, ill upgrade to an i7 later and a dual 6950 setup, and it'll be good for the future. :-)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 21, 2011 7:58:32 PM

wolfram23 said:
Well it's not going to game better than many other, significantly cheaper options. The scaling isn't going to be good at all. I'm just saying it's a waste and the only reason to do it, the only reason - is to show off. Much like driving a Ferrari in northern climates with long cold winters. It's not like you can ever really stretch it's legs, it's just to show off how much of a baller you are. In fact most of the people I see driving nice cars are terrible drivers to boot.

I agree, hey, if it's just a drop in the proverbial bucket, why not spend all that cash for fun? Sure, why not? But realistically it's just not a good option. If I was going to drop thousands and thousands on a PC, I'd top it out at dual ASUS ARES. It's known that CF and SLI don't scale very well past 3 GPUs, and dual 5970s are already at 4 and notoriously have issues even at that number. Going up to 12 GPUs couldn't possibly work well and no matter what game you're playing, no matter what CPU you have, it's going to be bottlenecked either CPU or bandwidth wise at that point. It's worse than the Ferrari analogy. At least you could hit a deserted highway in summer and have some fun. The PC's only way to show off would be topping out a PC Mark score chart or whatever. Otherwise, most of that power is useless and unuseable even at his super high resolution.


^+1 totally agreed plus anything above his 60hz refresh rate is useless
m
0
l
!