Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What card can maxout crysis 2 dx11 high res texture at full hd ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 24, 2011 9:03:54 PM

hey ... am Hameem BTW
i saw the crysis 2 directX 11 high res texture benchmarks and i noticed that 2 of GTX 460 can run it perfectly but unfortunately at 1680x1050

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-2-directx-11...

and i want to know what single Nvidia graphic card can run crysis 2-directx 11-high res texture-perfectly at 1920x1080 with minimum of 30 fps exactly :bounce: 
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2011 9:12:29 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-2-directx-11...

you should have read the ending.

And what about graphics card performance? The very minimum detail level of Crysis 2 requires at least a Radeon HD 5770 or GeForce GTX 550 Ti at 1680x1050. If you want to turn all the new eye candy on at 1920x1080, nothing but the big guns will do: a couple Radeon HD 6970s in CrossFire or GeForce GTX 580s in SLI pave the way, although the results suggest Radeon HD 6950s in CrossFire and GeForce GTX 570s in SLI should also be serviceable. When it comes to CPUs, a triple-core chip at 3.5 GHz should do the trick, but the game really works best on quad-core processors at 2.5 GHz or faster.

In conclusion, we're glad that Crytek followed through with its DirectX 11 plans, delivering the best example of Microsoft's API in action yet, all without charging customers an extra penny. If you were holding off on Crysis 2 until the DirectX 11 patch came out, you owe it to yourself to stop hesitating and give it a try.
July 24, 2011 9:20:12 PM

am Hameem BTW
i saw the crysis 2 directX 11 high res texture benchmarks and i noticed that 2 of GTX 460 can run it perfectly but unfortunately at 1680x1050

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-2-directx-11...

and i want to know what single Nvidia graphic card can run crysis 2-directx 11-high res texture-perfectly at 1920x1080 with minimum of 30 fps exactly
so i can enhance it with another one like it in the future.. when the stuff get Tougher :bounce: 
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2011 9:32:47 PM

Maybe the 590. Even the 580 will dip under 30 fps sometimes at 1080p.
July 24, 2011 9:37:34 PM

benski said:
Maybe the 590. Even the 580 will dip under 30 fps sometimes at 1080p.

any benchmarks of that ? dx11 + high res texture + 1920x1080
July 24, 2011 9:51:23 PM

I have 2 GTX 460's and the gameplay is fine maxed out at 1080p. OCCASIONALLY it will dip but for the most part the gameplay is fluid.
a c 271 U Graphics card
July 24, 2011 9:59:14 PM

I can get around the 60 fps mark with a pair of GTX560Ti's.
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2011 10:38:24 PM

If you read the review linked above, you'll see on this page that a GTX 570 will do a marginal job at 1920x1080 on max settings: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-2-directx-11...
The hi-res doesn't seem to affect framerate.

If you have to do it with a single card, go GTX 580. If you can do multiple cards, 6950's or higher should do. But that's only graphics and says nothing of the rest of your build. Can your CPU, mobo, & PSU handle it?
a b U Graphics card
July 24, 2011 10:47:41 PM

I get around 35 with 2 5850s in cf at 1900x1200 on a 25.6 inch monitor. When I added the second card I was hoping for 50 or so but it didn't happen.
July 24, 2011 10:51:15 PM

so .. good goodbye for PC gaming because we can't enjoy games any more :pfff: 
a c 143 U Graphics card
July 24, 2011 11:17:55 PM

hameem 1 said:
so .. good bay for pc gaming :pfff: 

you don't have to buy HD 6990 or GTX 590 to run it perfectly, with the fact that GTX 560ti can handle it perfectly at that resolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2FRzDUskZY&feature=rela...
GTX 570 or HD 6970 or HD 6950 will run it just fine @ that resolution without any problem
July 24, 2011 11:25:47 PM

ilysaml said:
you don't have to buy HD 6990 or GTX 590 to run it perfectly, with the fact that GTX 560ti can handle it perfectly at that resolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2FRzDUskZY&feature=rela...
GTX 570 or HD 6970 or HD 6950 will run it just fine @ that resolution without any problem


At what frames tho? It looked good enough but even with my 580 clocked up to 920 on the core I still get bad frame dips with vsync on and on ultra settings. On some levels I dip into the 30's and its so bad I turned it back to extreme. Thats the only way I can even get a consistent 60fps.
a c 271 U Graphics card
July 24, 2011 11:33:14 PM

This next topics has been merged by Mousemonkey
  • What card can maxout crysis 2 dx11+high res texture+minimum 30 fps
    a c 143 U Graphics card
    July 24, 2011 11:33:28 PM

    silky salamandr said:
    At what frames tho? It looked good enough but even with my 580 clocked up to 920 on the core I still get bad frame dips with vsync on and on ultra settings. On some levels I dip into the 30's and its so bad I turned it back to extreme. Thats the only way I can even get a consistent 60fps.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf1NAcHVy5I
    look he gets 30 FPS easily with the HD 5870 with 8x AA, at this case a gtx 580 or 570 HD 6970 or HD 6950 will make it fine
    July 24, 2011 11:43:06 PM

    silky salamandr said:
    At what frames tho? It looked good enough but even with my 580 clocked up to 920 on the core I still get bad frame dips with vsync on and on ultra settings. On some levels I dip into the 30's and its so bad I turned it back to extreme. Thats the only way I can even get a consistent 60fps.

    i thought that if your minimum fps is 30 then its perfect :heink:  because DICE has confirmed that the console version of BF3 will run at 30 FPS

    http://www.gamepur.com/news/4241-dice-battlefield-3-con...
    July 25, 2011 2:43:40 AM

    hameem 1 said:
    i thought that if your minimum fps is 30 then its perfect :heink:  because DICE has confirmed that the console version of BF3 will run at 30 FPS

    http://www.gamepur.com/news/4241-dice-battlefield-3-con...


    On computers usually we shoot for 60 but if your fine with 30 thats cool too. By no means is 30 not playable tho.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 25, 2011 3:19:35 AM

    hameem 1 said:
    i thought that if your minimum fps is 30 then its perfect :heink:  because DICE has confirmed that the console version of BF3 will run at 30 FPS

    http://www.gamepur.com/news/4241-dice-battlefield-3-con...

    I dunno if I'm just not 1337 enough but I don't think 30 fps or similar dips to 30 make a game unplayable. Crysis 2 with full settings I vsync it and it will run at 30 and that's playable for me
    July 25, 2011 4:03:33 AM

    30 looks fine, to me, the problem is when it dips below that. At 60 fps that dip isn't very noticeable but when you drop from 30 to 15 fps its a jarring transition. 60 just gives a bit of headroom.
    July 25, 2011 1:59:41 PM

    ok , so if any one like to enjoy playing a good game at 1080p like crysis 2 with directx 11 he will have to get at least gtx 590 ..
    what about metro 2033 dx11 and the up coming Battlefield 3 dx11
    a b U Graphics card
    July 25, 2011 2:38:58 PM

    hameem 1 said:
    ok , so if any one like to enjoy playing a good game at 1080p like crysis 2 with directx 11 he will have to get at least gtx 590 ..
    what about metro 2033 dx11 and the up coming Battlefield 3 dx11

    No. Metro and Crysis 2 both are totally playable on single GPU cards, and I dont see BF3 being much of a difference
    a c 124 U Graphics card
    July 25, 2011 3:37:39 PM

    If you're going for console performance (30fps), you could just get a console for less $$$ than a video card? All of the aforementioned games run on a 360?
    a b U Graphics card
    July 25, 2011 3:49:10 PM

    ubercake said:
    If you're going for console performance (30fps), you could just get a console for less $$$ than a video card? All of the aforementioned games run on a 360?

    Im amiss as to what "console performance" means to you. 30 fps, although doable on a console with every game that is on them, are dumbed down graphically. Its nice to see all the sweet effects and high res textures consoles dont offer. 30 fps is far from console performance imo when we are talking about visuals that would make a console crawl.
    a c 124 U Graphics card
    July 25, 2011 4:06:47 PM

    FlintIronStagg said:
    Im amiss as to what "console performance" means to you. 30 fps, although doable on a console with every game that is on them, are dumbed down graphically. Its nice to see all the sweet effects and high res textures consoles dont offer. 30 fps is far from console performance imo when we are talking about visuals that would make a console crawl.

    I know what you're saying. This is why I love my gaming PC.

    But for some, this might be a better option. Vsync is not a great feature to have to rely on especially in a first-person shooter.

    Also, rumor has it BF3 has a GTX 460 as a 'recommended' (not just 'minimum') video card.
    July 25, 2011 5:46:07 PM

    i think that the best graphic card ever made is the GTX 460 because of the performs that it provide for the money , and its less expensive from pretty much any card that has the same power.
    plus nvidia has the Physics future plus Nvidia support more games than AMD , so...
    a b U Graphics card
    July 25, 2011 5:47:59 PM

    hameem 1 said:
    i think that the best graphic card ever made is the GTX 460 because of the performs that she provide for the money is way to far from pretty much any card has the same power.
    plus nvidia has the Physics future plus Nvidia support more games than AMD.

    ::sigh::
    July 25, 2011 9:59:57 PM

    FlintIronStagg said:
    ::sigh::

    what's that supposed to mean :heink:  .... are you agree with me ??
    a c 143 U Graphics card
    July 25, 2011 11:31:25 PM

    hameem 1 said:
    what's that supposed to mean :heink:  .... are you agree with me ??

    you can't compare a GTX 580 with GTX 460
    a b U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 12:18:03 AM

    The 460 isn't the greatest card ever, it's a really good card that's a great value right now, but so is the 6850, and in 6 months the 560ti will cost what a 460 cost now and someone will be saying it's the best card ever.

    For this particular game, TWO GTX 460s, and the required motherboard and PSU to run and SLI setup right now probably is the cheapest way to max the game out in HD with playable frame rates. One GTX 460 and you'll be looking at frame rates in the teens, that's from experience, I have both a GTX 460 and SLI GTX 465s.
    July 26, 2011 12:52:34 AM

    come on man are you trolling? cause you're saying some pretty dumb stuff.

    what is your budget?
    a c 216 U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 1:29:36 AM

    ilysaml said:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf1NAcHVy5I
    look he gets 30 FPS easily with the HD 5870 with 8x AA, at this case a gtx 580 or 570 HD 6970 or HD 6950 will make it fine


    That's Crysis 1, not Crysis 2.

    While 30 FPS may be playable, it makes me motion sick. To me, playable is 40+. If it rarely drops into the 30's, I can manage, but if it sits there for a prolonged period of time, I'll get sick and maybe a headache.
    a c 124 U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 9:28:40 AM

    bystander said:
    That's Crysis 1, not Crysis 2.

    While 30 FPS may be playable, it makes me motion sick. To me, playable is 40+. If it rarely drops into the 30's, I can manage, but if it sits there for a prolonged period of time, I'll get sick and maybe a headache.

    That's what I'm talking about. 30 fps is so 2008.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 11:21:32 AM

    I'm not trying to troll and it's a manner of opinion, But. Supposedly test done and everything that the human eye cannot see past 30 fps. You may feel motion sick and dizzy, but that's probably because of a different reason. The problem with 30fps is that if it dips... And then you may get unwanted drops down to the 20's. But i've seen soo many videos of people playing it in the 30's and 40's with the 460 just by it's self. It's a great card if you're on a budget and if you think about it. If you ever wanted to run it in sli later on, to get better res and fps. It would be cheaper; so all in all it's all a matter of opinion.
    a c 124 U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 12:05:18 PM

    Sure the human eye and our perception might be tricked into thinking 30 frames = smooth motion. The human brain is not limited in the same way. Things outside of television are not processed this way (ie IRL) because there are no gaps in the frames. Your brain takes in all the information. This is part of the reason for the epilepsy warnings on video gaming consoles. Your brain actually picks up all the gaps, too (similar to a strobe). People who are more photosensitive for one reason or another might actually experience dizziness or "motion" sickness.

    Many people have even found perceivable differences when crossing the 60Hz barrier after they've gotten a 120Hz monitor.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 12:52:03 PM

    the human eye can see well over 30 fps.
    a c 124 U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 12:56:51 PM

    FlintIronStagg said:
    the human eye can see well over 30 fps.

    What does it mean "to see"? Does an eye really even consider frames when it "sees"?

    The conversation is becoming deep...
    a c 143 U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 12:57:04 PM

    bystander said:
    That's Crysis 1, not Crysis 2.

    While 30 FPS may be playable, it makes me motion sick. To me, playable is 40+. If it rarely drops into the 30's, I can manage, but if it sits there for a prolonged period of time, I'll get sick and maybe a headache.

    didn't notice that... well i got the HD 6950, i am gonna try it today and see how the performance looks like when playing @ 1920 × 1280 with 8x AA
    a b U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 1:00:37 PM

    ubercake said:
    What does it mean "to see"? Does an eye really even consider frames when it "sees"?

    The conversation is becoming deep...

    youre just splitting hairs here and derailing the conversation.
    July 26, 2011 1:07:58 PM

    what i really think is that you can't know if your FPS in a game is running high or low without "fraps"
    because i think that the human eye can only catch 30 frame per second, any thing higher than 30 will be unnoticeable, i don't know if you agree with me.. but there is games you feel that it has more dynamic motion than others.. like modern warfare 2 and dirt 3.. the graphics are so smooth and flexible and nice :D 

    and (refresh rate ..and .. "VSync" ..and triple buffering .. etc ) it all so complicated :pfff: 

    http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=928593
    SOME ONE EXPLANE IT .. :fou: 
    a c 124 U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 1:08:28 PM

    Your eye does not see in frames. This is what I'm trying to say.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 1:22:15 PM

    @all those of you who say 30 fps is unplayable.I myself play games like witcher 2,crysis 2 with frame rates in 30s and they are very well playable.Sure,there are lags to around 27-28 fps at times but its nothing game breaking.(not game breaking enough to make me buy a gtx 590 for constant 60 fps :lol:  )
    In fact if you read hardware heaven reviews this is what they say in testing methodology of every card

    "One of the most important aspects of enjoying a game is minimum frame rates which can have the greatest impact on the gaming experience. Due to this we also include a separate graph which details the framerates every second during a level for each of the tested games. This framerate graph allows us to show you how stable the framerates are in on a product and how often they rise towards the maximum or fall to the minimum level. We have also incorporated a 'red line' at the 25 frame per second mark to show the 'cut off' point that most people find acceptable - if you see the current frame rate line drop below this then you can expect the game to become choppy."

    I completely agree with the 25 fps mark as I find games to be unplayable below that point :) 
    July 26, 2011 1:40:02 PM

    celpas said:
    @all those of you who say 30 fps is unplayable.I myself play games like witcher 2,crysis 2 with frame rates in 30s and they are very well playable.Sure,there are lags to around 27-28 fps at times but its nothing game breaking.(not game breaking enough to make me buy a gtx 590 for constant 60 fps :lol:  )
    In fact if you read hardware heaven reviews this is what they say in testing methodology of every card

    "One of the most important aspects of enjoying a game is minimum frame rates which can have the greatest impact on the gaming experience. Due to this we also include a separate graph which details the framerates every second during a level for each of the tested games. This framerate graph allows us to show you how stable the framerates are in on a product and how often they rise towards the maximum or fall to the minimum level. We have also incorporated a 'red line' at the 25 frame per second mark to show the 'cut off' point that most people find acceptable - if you see the current frame rate line drop below this then you can expect the game to become choppy."

    I completely agree with the 25 fps mark as I find games to be unplayable below that point :) 

    i agree with you about the red line , but what we trying to know that : can we notice the deference between playing at 30 fps and 100 fps .. can my eyes notice the deference ?
    a b U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 1:41:26 PM

    hameem 1 said:
    i agree with you about the red line , but what we trying to know that : can we notice the deference between playing at 30 fps and 100 fps .. can my eyes notice the deference ?

    yes you will notice as long as your monitor has a refresh rate of 120hz. if your monitor is 60hz then you wont see any difference past 60.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 1:42:56 PM

    ubercake said:
    Your eye does not see in frames. This is what I'm trying to say.

    youre being so specific its like beating a dead horse now, thats all im trying to say. everyone understands what they are talking about just because the "correct terminology" wasnt used, you feel the need to pick apart what people are saying and not speak on the subject at hand
    a c 124 U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 1:48:52 PM

    I have but there are people out there who feel 30 fps is all you need.
    a b U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 1:57:38 PM

    hameem 1 said:
    i agree with you about the red line , but what we trying to know that : can we notice the deference between playing at 30 fps and 100 fps .. can my eyes notice the deference ?

    yes you can see a difference but only till 60 fps.Any more fps is just for bragging about you pc's potential.From what I could make of of 30fps vs 60 fps,the game runs "faster" under 60 fps.For example in games like crysis 2 at 60 fps your gun will seem to reload faster then at 30 fps.This can also be a bad thing though.At 60 fps everything becomes so fast paced that you may dire frequently on hardest difficulty.Believe me I am on rank 47 in crysis 2 multiplayer and I actually come in the bottom rankings when playing at 60 fps and a constant top 3 scorer when playing at 25-50 fps :lol:  .This in itself proves that even in multiplayer 30-40 fps is sufficient.Here is another example of fps rating from guru3d
    <30 FPS
    very limited gameplay

    30-40 FPS
    average yet very playable

    40-60 FPS
    good gameplay

    >60 FPS
    best possible gameplay


    So if a graphics card barely manages less than 30 FPS, then the game is not very playable, we want to avoid that at all cost.
    With 30 FPS up-to roughly 40 FPS you'll be very able to play the game with perhaps a tiny stutter at certain graphically intensive parts. Overall a very enjoyable experience. Match the best possible resolution to this result and you'll have the best possible rendering quality versus resolution, hey you want both of them to be as high as possible.
    When a graphics card is doing 60 FPS on average or higher then you can rest assured that the game will likely play extremely smoothly at every point in the game, turn on every possible in-game IQ setting.
    Over 100 FPS? You either have a MONSTER graphics card or a very old game.
    a c 125 U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 3:18:06 PM

    christop said:
    I get around 35 with 2 5850s in cf at 1900x1200 on a 25.6 inch monitor. When I added the second card I was hoping for 50 or so but it didn't happen.


    Maybe it's your extra 120 pixel height, or maybe that mine are OCed, but at 1080p with two 5850s I'm seeing minimum of 40, mostly around 60-70. I did the little highway level last night and met up with the scientist guy, pretty close to the start of the game. I have everything set to Ultra (except blur at low because I hate a lot of blur).

    I was also recording (FRAPS set to full size, 50FPS cap) a few days ago and managed to hold around 30-40 in that first level and when I went into the subway it was a solid 50.

    So, yeah, I think you can get a lot more performance out of your 5850s. Mine are at 870/1200 on stock voltage.
    a c 125 U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 3:23:29 PM

    hameem 1 said:
    ok , so if any one like to enjoy playing a good game at 1080p like crysis 2 with directx 11 he will have to get at least gtx 590 ..
    what about metro 2033 dx11 and the up coming Battlefield 3 dx11


    You don't need a 590. Refer to my previous post ^

    Also, Metro 2033 is more demanding than Crysis 2 at highest settings. I play Metro at Very High, DX11, Tesslation on, etc. With DOF and 4xMSAA on I can only pull a max of around 30FPS, but turn DOF off (OR keep DOF on and go to AAA) and I'm in the 40-50s.

    For a single card, a 480, 570, 580, 6950 (OC), or 6970 should suffice for max settings (or close to). My two 5850s are roughly equal to 580 performance.

    But going with a pair of 560 Tis/6950s for <$600 is a much smarter way to go than a 590/6990. Even a pair of 6870s, 560s, or 550Tis should be close to as fast as my setup. Most dual GPU cards cost more than they're worth.
    a c 216 U Graphics card
    July 26, 2011 4:02:56 PM

    Read through this for insight about how sensitive the human eye is. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.ht...

    As for simulator sickness: http://www.siggraph.org/education/materials/HyperVis/vi...
    For me, this simulator sickness occurs most severely when I have FPS below 40 in a first person or over the shoulder view. I'm not 100% sure if it's the actual FPS, or if it's the delay in responsiveness that causes it. Maybe both. Lower FPS also comes with lower responsiveness in a game.

    To see if you can see a difference at 30 FPS and 120 FPS, you can attempt playing a game like Crysis at high FPS, and try spinning around fast. You'll notice it becomes very choppy if motion blur is turned off. If you lower the settings so you gain 60+ FPS and do the same, it becomes smoother. With 120hz monitor, it's much smoother yet.
    July 26, 2011 4:08:36 PM

    how about 2 of HD 6850 for $310 :)  or 2 of gtx 460 for $300 .. nvidia has physics :sol:  nice
    !