Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Building a Crysis PC, Part 1

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 9, 2007 5:36:02 PM

If you were going to build a new gaming rig to run Crysis at its very best, what would that system look like? Tom’s Games will attempt to answer that question by experimenting in the lab, and we need your help. Send us your suggestions and recommendations for hardware configurations and parts for our Crysis PC.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/10/09/building_crysis_pc/

More about : building crysis part

October 9, 2007 5:56:29 PM

I hope to start seeing Beta benchmarks.
THG got 25fps with AA off on a 8800GTX ???
Ummm, I think I need a video card with un-Earthly performance.
g100 anyone?
October 9, 2007 6:05:53 PM

Awesome idea on an article and community input blend! I see this thread exploading. => EDIT: LOL, Now I've been made into a liar.

My input is with my rig on xp I play on all high @ 1440 x 900 and will see about 15-45 fps and usually sit about 30-40 fps.

I've recently modded my p160w and put a 120mm fan in the bottom of my case so that I'd have a constant supply of cool air to my 8800gtx and I have one of my temperature sensors on the heatsink near the discharge of the gtx to give me an idea of how the card is doing.
Related resources
October 9, 2007 6:15:23 PM

I was a beta tester and this game has serious issues.
I couldn't even play most of the time because everything was white washed! (textures) I tried all the settings but to no avail, and the FPS were horrible. I blame their code and NVidia drivers.

XP Pro
2 8800 gts 320 OC in SLI
e6750
4GB ram
what more do I need to run this game smoothly?
I deleted the stupid beta and will wait for the game to come out officially. Bah
October 9, 2007 6:22:30 PM

Well it doesn't matter if you have those 2 gts's in sli cause you're going to have memory limitations on those cards.


I had major texture problems when I started the beta but not anymore. Some sort of fix must have come out cause I haven't changed my drivers or anything. Last time I saw a screwed up texture was when I used the gauss tank and that was only with one shot that I barley noticed. I'd have to say that I haven't seen one besides that in about 5 days.
October 9, 2007 9:40:56 PM

The offical specs have been released.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/news.html?sid=6180628

Recommended System Requirements:
OS--Windows XP / Vista
Processor--Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz
Memory--2GB RAM
GPU--NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar


Also the game ships with both a 32-bit and 64-bit version.
They say the game runs better under Vista/DX10 then it does under DX9. And that the 64-bit version runs better then the 32-bit version.

So it looks like this build should include 64-bit Vista.
October 9, 2007 9:50:28 PM

updating the story now, thanks for the heads up, Erloas.
October 9, 2007 10:32:09 PM

erloas said:
The offical specs have been released.

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/news.html?sid=6180628

Recommended System Requirements:
OS--Windows XP / Vista
Processor--Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz
Memory--2GB RAM
GPU--NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar


Also the game ships with both a 32-bit and 64-bit version.
They say the game runs better under Vista/DX10 then it does under DX9. And that the 64-bit version runs better then the 32-bit version.

So it looks like this build should include 64-bit Vista.



If it runs so much better under Vista, why do they quote needing a faster CPU for Vista???
"Intel Core 2GHz (2.2GHz for Vista)" explain..
October 9, 2007 10:51:32 PM

Gawd, you mean they're actually trying to use 64-bit? Shocking. Although they were the ones to make the 64-bit Far Cry.

Besides minimum and recommended, you should test this game with previous gen high end stuff, like s775 P4's and Pentium D's or s939 FX-57's and FX-60's; 7800 GTXs and X1800's. Stuff people paid top dollar for and aren't too willing to give up.
October 9, 2007 11:24:30 PM

Could you also do some mid/low range test on systems with the geforce 7600 series/ radeon x1600 series and cpus like p4 3ghz and 3200+'s? That would be great, I hope my rig will run Crysis! Like I mean, could you do some tests of crysis at the minimum requirements?
October 9, 2007 11:31:46 PM

soldier37:
Where did you get the mouse pad and the green light under your monitor. looks cool.
October 10, 2007 1:49:42 AM

Quote:
* Processor - 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster* (Vista)
* Supported Processors: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista) or faster, Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista) or faster, AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or faster.


So... What exactly is the speed required here? These two statements seem rather contradictory. I have a 3800+ X2, which is only clocked at the default of 2GHz. Think Crysis will run on it?

Anyway, my system is an X2(as stated above), 2 GB DDR2 RAM, and a 7900GT(factory overclocked slightly). Personally, I would like to view a test of a system comparable to mine, although that's probably not possible due to all of the different kinds of systems that you would need to test. My suggestion would be vary the RAM between 1 and 4 GB, as well as having (as somebody said before) several processors with previous high-end components. As stated in the first page, the requirements call for a 6800 or better. I would like to see it on that just to see if it would actually work well.
October 10, 2007 2:24:42 AM

I'm personally interested if video ram is finally going to have a huge impact on this game due to the large number of textures being calculated. I have a hunch that it will.
James
October 10, 2007 2:30:09 AM

@enewmen
the mouse pad is a thermaltake gamma pad. I have one and they do all different colors. Not sure about the light underneath though, could just be a standard case mod light, modded to work outside the case (battery or something of the sort)
October 10, 2007 3:31:19 AM

I want to see a comparison of Vista 64 and Vista 32 bit as well as a comparison between quad core and dual core at the same clock speeds.. so for example a Q6600 and an E6600..

As for the specs to run it at 1920x1200 on ultra settings without totally breaking the bank (roughly 3,000) would be:

OS: Vista 64
GPU: rumored 9800GTX, or SLI 8800 GTX
Motherboard: some sort of high end motherboard, the new ones or already out 680i
ram: preferably 4 gigs with 64 bit or if 32 bit then just 2 gigs
CPU: Penryn 2.8 GHz, or Conroe 3GHz
Hard Drive- WD Raptor X
October 10, 2007 3:39:51 AM

bruce555 said:
@enewmen
the mouse pad is a thermaltake gamma pad. I have one and they do all different colors. Not sure about the light underneath though, could just be a standard case mod light, modded to work outside the case (battery or something of the sort)

Thanks.
The gamma pad looks brighter in the pic though. Like it's not LEDs but Cold Cathode lights.
Anyway - looks good in the photo :wahoo: 
October 10, 2007 4:17:05 AM

If this game is about the way it looks then please please use a 2560x1600 display!!!

Uhmm I guess that puts in a SLI Ultra league, and above budget.
October 10, 2007 4:24:26 AM

Crysis-Online, a fan site dedicated to the game, has speculated that Crysis will need at least an Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz and an Nvidia 6600 or ATI X1600, Shader Model 2.0 GPU, with recommended requirements being a dual-core CPU (Athlon X2 / Pentium D / Core 2 Duo) and an Nvidia 7800 or ATI X1800, Shader Model 3.0 GPU. said:
Crysis-Online, a fan site dedicated to the game, has speculated that Crysis will need at least an Athlon 64 3000+/Intel 2.8ghz and an Nvidia 6600 or ATI X1600, Shader Model 2.0 GPU, with recommended requirements being a dual-core CPU (Athlon X2 / Pentium D / Core 2 Duo) and an Nvidia 7800 or ATI X1800, Shader Model 3.0 GPU.

I wish, my x1950 pro and 3700 at 2.6GHz barely makes 16-30fps on all low at 1024x768.
October 10, 2007 4:52:53 AM

With Vista SP1 just around the corner fixing mostly performance issues isn't it a bit backward to even consider XP? Just let go...

More interresting is if it makes use of more than two cores and how/if 64-bit OS increases performance. This of course has much to do with the drivers of the graphics card. How big is the install? Would it be feasible to put it on a separate SSD device? DDR3 vs DDR2? What would the dream specification be? Intel Q9000?

And please include the more up to date resolutions of todays mid to high end monitors, ie 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. I would of course also love to see my own resolution (Pioneer 50" 720p) 1280x720 (yes native).

SP1 and DX 10.1 will it make a difference?

A not terribly loud version would also be interresting.
October 10, 2007 7:02:04 AM

I allready updated my system for Crysis!
see here the freshly bought (and installed) components:
OS: vista 64
CPU: intel E6600 core 2 Duo
MEM: 4Gb Kingston hyperX at 800Mhz
GPU 2x Nvidia 8800GTX in SLI
HDD: WD raptor 150Gb
MOBO: Asus Striker Extreme
Display: Samsung Syncmaster 226BW (1680x1050)

as you might have guessed, the MP beta works just fine!
I didn't test the framerates but I know it went terribly smooth!
even at the resolution specified all went really smooth.

so please bring on the full game!!
a b 4 Gaming
October 10, 2007 7:31:55 AM

I'm not going to bother upgrading for this game. I'll just use my one year old X1900XT 512mb.

I will be upgrading to a 26" LCD monitor, but not for the purpose of playing games at 1920 x 1200.
October 10, 2007 7:56:34 AM

critty said:
I allready updated my system for Crysis!
see here the freshly bought (and installed) components:
OS: vista 64
CPU: intel E6600 core 2 Duo
MEM: 4Gb Kingston hyperX at 800Mhz
GPU 2x Nvidia 8800GTX in SLI
HDD: WD raptor 150Gb
MOBO: Asus Striker Extreme
Display: Samsung Syncmaster 226BW (1680x1050)

as you might have guessed, the MP beta works just fine!
I didn't test the framerates but I know it went terribly smooth!
even at the resolution specified all went really smooth.

so please bring on the full game!!



your telling me you got all of that, and you forgot the quad core??
October 10, 2007 8:03:40 AM

I expect to see a flood of last years video cards on e-bay right around xmas. :( 
October 10, 2007 8:39:44 AM

Yeah, me too! :lol: 
October 10, 2007 9:29:31 AM

robwright said:
If you were going to build a new gaming rig to run Crysis at its very best, what would that system look like? Tom’s Games will attempt to answer that question by experimenting in the lab, and we need your help. Send us your suggestions and recommendations for hardware configurations and parts for our Crysis PC.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/10/09/building_crysis_pc/


Reading the message "to run Crysis at it's very best" - well obviously whatevers best on the market, whenever Crytec grace us with their new FPS - bit of a no-brainer huh? :pt1cable:  Surely we should just be examining a border-line functional computer spec.. That's where the questions are.. Not that we're Nostradamus, so forget the pointless conjecture till the beasts comes out to play with.. :pfff: 
Don't accept the rule! :sol: 
October 10, 2007 9:37:41 AM

***Ironnads***
"If it runs so much better under Vista, why do they quote needing a faster CPU for Vista???
"Intel Core 2GHz (2.2GHz for Vista)" explain.. "

thats right im confused lol when you play with vista you need more ram and cpu power, go figure

---------------
Minimum System Requirements:
OS--Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor--2.8GHz or faster (XP); 3.2GHz or faster* (Vista)
Memory--1GB RAM or 1.5GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card--256MB**
Hard Drive--12GB
Sound Card DirectX 9.0c compatible

I wouldnt even bother playing on those specs :( 
maybe @ 640x480
October 10, 2007 10:15:37 AM

I think it's very important what we have in our hand to play with..

I've got a Fatal1ty 2200 laser mouse (2400 dpi stated - actually runs at over 2700 dpi!!) Clunky at first but after a day easily the best mouse I've ever laid my grubby paws on. I reccomend we include this mouse in the final Kit. (Paid 39€ for it)
October 10, 2007 4:55:48 PM

Yea, I think the real key is defining a good midrange system. Sure you can go dual quad Xeon server board and CPUs, 8 gigs of RAM per CPU, and 2 8800 Ultra cards to run this game. However I'd love to see how this runs on a standard Core2Duo, 7x series of Nvidia, and a gig or 2 of RAM. I'd really like to see XP benches simply because I want to avoid Vista.
October 10, 2007 5:06:52 PM

It seems my system fits right into the recommended spec's.

core2 duo e6600 (2.4ghz)
2GB Mushkin Extreme PC6400
eVGA 8800GTS 640mb
Windows XP

No problems for me, mind you I still have an older LCD screen (1280x1024 res) so thats probably why I'm not having issues.

Resolutions are probably going to be the killers for the medium range systems here, but i think the vast majority of users are probably in the 1440x900 - 1680x1050 resolution range (mainstream 19-22" widescreens). I don't see this setup having any problems with that resolution. The higher onboard memory is going to be a big benefit to those pushing the bigger res's.

If you're running a 1900x1200 res screen you'll probably be needing an ultra. In the end though, we'll have to see how the drivers are optimised in the retail release.

I'm still an XP fan, maybe this game will change that but for now Vista is still not an option for me.
October 10, 2007 5:41:25 PM

Good suggestions and input, thanks guys. Keep them coming.

Just to let everyone know, we'll be running the upcoming demo and full version of the game on a few different PCs here in the lab besides the new "crysis build" we have planned. A couple of those PCs will be higher end and some will be older, mid-range systems, so we'll get some benchmarks and FPS numbers together next month that analyzes how th game run on different configurations.
October 10, 2007 6:44:06 PM

If I could make a suggestion, please test against the following variables:

Dual Core vs. Quad Core

Vista 32 vs. Vista 64

DX9 vs. DX10

This is one of the first games that's purported to really take advantage of quad core, 64-bit, and DX10 for performance gains. Would be very interesting seeing if the devs are blowing hot air like in a number of other games that supposedly take advantage of "next-gen" hardware, or if there actually are gains to be had. Also, I think many people (myself included) are waiting with bated breath for a report on this as it will influence when and what to upgrade.
October 10, 2007 7:02:36 PM

robwright said:
Good suggestions and input, thanks guys. Keep them coming.

Just to let everyone know, we'll be running the upcoming demo and full version of the game on a few different PCs here in the lab besides the new "crysis build" we have planned. A couple of those PCs will be higher end and some will be older, mid-range systems, so we'll get some benchmarks and FPS numbers together next month that analyzes how th game run on different configurations.



When could we expect this. I think that everybody + their dog has been waiting for this for a long time.
October 10, 2007 7:09:39 PM

bruce555 said:
When could we expect this. I think that everybody + their dog has been waiting for this for a long time.


Well, the demo won't be out for a few weeks, unfortunately. And I'm not sure there's much value in testing the MP beta, because it is a beta after all.

I'd love to get this stuff going sooner, but it doesn't look likely. We hope to have a copy of the full game prior to the actual release date, which will help us get some results out before people can actually buy the thing. In the meantime, we'll continue to play around with specs and configurations for our Crysis PC.
October 10, 2007 7:27:19 PM

I thought for a sec that you may have got your hands on a sp demo or something like that... fair enough, we'll just wait some more.
October 10, 2007 7:48:03 PM

Good Computer and its at a price rang where most people would spend for a Gaming Rig.


Cpu: Intel Quad 6600
Ram: OCZ Platinum 2GB DDR3 2X1GB DDR3-1333 (CL 7-7-7-20 - or lower)
MB: Asus P5E3 Deluxe
Video: XFX GeForce 8800GTS 560MHZ 320MB 1.7GHZ GDDR3 (Could of got a higher end video card but this is something everybody can afford)
Case: Antec Nine Hundred Mid Tower Gamer Case
HDD: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1000GB 1TB SATA2 7200RPM 32MB Cache NCQ (& WD Raptor if you want fo faster loading)
PSU: Corsair CMPSU-620HX 620W
Sound: Creative Sound Blaster X-FI Platinum FATAL1TY Champion Series 7.1 W/ Black Front Audio Bay & Remote
Speakers: Logitech Z5500
CDRom: Plextor DVD Burner
Ciao
Bryan

October 10, 2007 8:55:43 PM

Are you kidding me, you would recommend a $300 HD + a raptor rather than spending the money to get the recomended vid card?

EDIT: Woah, I just read your post again,


-No ddr3, way too much money for nothing, get 4gb ddr2
-No need for the fatality version, extreme gamer will do unless you want to do something else besides game with it.
-No $140 DVD burner, get a LG, asus, anything else for $30-40.

But I don%u2019t mean to cut down the attempt but if you change those things you can easily pick up a GTX and have some money to spare.
October 10, 2007 11:27:34 PM

Thanks rob, I'll be looking forward to the results!
October 11, 2007 12:28:44 AM

I guess I don't see the point of recommending system components at this time, when the systems listed here that have already tested the beta version are reporting slow FPS and within the maximum system requirements.

I don't think SLI is a valid option, as only a few can afford it. The same goes for 4 gigs of RAM. If the game won't play smoothly on 2 gigs, not many people will be playing the game.

I think there should almost be 2 systems. One on XP and one on Vista. Very few people are going to buy Vista just to play a particular game. Vista will require more RAM for the same results on XP.

It will be nice to see if Crysis runs better on 64bit, but personally I'm not willing to deal with all the rest of the problems with 64bit compatibility to install it for the game.

For that matter, I'm not upgrading my 512mb 7900GTX-TDH Extreme just to play a particular game. I believe the rest of my components are well within the system requirements.
October 11, 2007 3:06:54 AM

At Campus, we built a system for the MP Beta that was reading 61 fps. It is running Vista 64 Ultimate. Specs:
QX6850 OC'ed to 3.2 Gigahertz (upped the multiplier 1, reduced the FSB).
2x 8800GTX from XFX
4 gigs of DDR-667 CAS 4 from G.Skill (2x2gig)
EVGA 680i Motherboard

It takes some serious hardware to run this game. I imagine the final build will run better on 64-bit, as thats what 64 bit is all about: performing more calculations and running smoother. Still, I think we will need to wait for 9-series hardware from Nvidia and 10 series from ATI before Crysis is runnable at some good settings.
October 11, 2007 3:10:12 AM

Hoping my system will be able to handle it and play everything at max smoothly

Q6600
EVGA 8800 GTS 640mb OC
2 gig crucial balistix ram
150 gig Raptor and some 500 gig baracudas

Maybe upgrade the video card once nVidia comes out with the next higher series and either go for the 8800gtx/ultra or mid-range of the next card(hopefully they are both comparable pricing)
October 11, 2007 4:18:02 AM

I have a request:

Some people (including myself) have bought a PC about 1 to 2 years ago knowing that something like this would come around. Here are my specs:

CPU: X2 4200+
RAM: 2GB DDR400
GPU: 7800GTX 256 MB
MB: ASUS A8N32 - SLI Deluxe

This was a very popular configuration to buy when I purchased it around December of '05 for a game like FEAR or Quake 4/Doom 3/Half Life 2/etc.

Now, what if I ONLY upgraded my video card? Can you run a test with a config like above and then replace the video card to see what benefit/cost one could expect (with all other variables constant)? If I can get an extra 30 fps out of a $300 video card then that's like $10/fps. On the other hand if I'm spending more like $50/fps (a gain of 6fps) then I probably would not go for the UG.

You might also find out that I would be RAM/CPU saturated in which case a more balanced upgrade option would be more beneficial. I know 939 is hard to come by these days but there are many of us out there that don't want to start from scratch.

Thanks for your consideration.
October 11, 2007 5:57:24 AM

kstrat2001 said:
I have a request:

Some people (including myself) have bought a PC about 1 to 2 years ago knowing that something like this would come around. Here are my specs:

CPU: X2 4200+
RAM: 2GB DDR400
GPU: 7800GTX 256 MB
MB: ASUS A8N32 - SLI Deluxe

This was a very popular configuration to buy when I purchased it around December of '05 for a game like FEAR or Quake 4/Doom 3/Half Life 2/etc.

Now, what if I ONLY upgraded my video card? Can you run a test with a config like above and then replace the video card to see what benefit/cost one could expect (with all other variables constant)? If I can get an extra 30 fps out of a $300 video card then that's like $10/fps. On the other hand if I'm spending more like $50/fps (a gain of 6fps) then I probably would not go for the UG.

You might also find out that I would be RAM/CPU saturated in which case a more balanced upgrade option would be more beneficial. I know 939 is hard to come by these days but there are many of us out there that don't want to start from scratch.

Thanks for your consideration.


Are you running Vista or XP? If you plan to keep XP for the next year, then a future thinking card (like a furure HD 2950XT) won't help much.
Your PC still looks good and the X2 still blows the doors off the Pentium 4 like it did 1-2 years ago. Yes, I will also only upgrade the video card. I assume you have PCIe.
The good news is games are still only single thread (for single cpus) so your X2 will work well in next gen games (like Crysis using 1 core for physics) - also CPUs arn't the most stressed part of a PC (I think you know this).
Just a simple X1950XT will be a lot faster. The 8800GTS faster still. Any faster than a 8800GTS and other PC components may be the bottleneck. I will not get SLI anyway.
What is your PSU? The PSU needs to handle a larger card - such as as 8800GTS.
Can you wait a few months? Then cards like a 8800GT and HD 2950XT will be out, fast, and use less watts. This is not the HD 2900XT which has bottlenecks.

I think your PC can last another year at least. By then the Nehalem will be out and you will need new everything anyway.

Bottom line, the cards I suggested will bring huge gains.

(no proof, but I don't expect anyone to disagree)
October 11, 2007 9:55:11 AM

This is sickening i just upgraded my pc to a Quad core and 4Gig of upgraded ram on a 8800gts_320's that alot of us bought because they outperformed the 640's and now we are hearing that the 320 arent going to be good enough. I feel like I waisted 300+buck's and im not sure that any other 8800 is going to do the job. Nvidia is going to have to come up with something better in the way of video cards'. Badathur
October 11, 2007 11:06:06 AM

The gtx is fine. i dont know why you got a quad & 4 gig but not a good gpu. The gpu is the most important and best piece of hardware for games, the gts was ok but not for the top notch type games.
O well you can always sell it then upgrade.
October 11, 2007 2:59:05 PM

When did a clock to clock 320 beat a 640?
October 11, 2007 4:37:37 PM

bruce555 said:
When did a clock to clock 320 beat a 640?

The 320 never beats a 640. However, a 320 in SLI does not give you 640 megs.
October 11, 2007 4:45:03 PM

scryer_360 said:
At Campus, we built a system for the MP Beta that was reading 61 fps. It is running Vista 64 Ultimate. Specs:
QX6850 OC'ed to 3.2 Gigahertz (upped the multiplier 1, reduced the FSB).
2x 8800GTX from XFX
4 gigs of DDR-667 CAS 4 from G.Skill (2x2gig)
EVGA 680i Motherboard

It takes some serious hardware to run this game. I imagine the final build will run better on 64-bit, as thats what 64 bit is all about: performing more calculations and running smoother. Still, I think we will need to wait for 9-series hardware from Nvidia and 10 series from ATI before Crysis is runnable at some good settings.

2x 8800GTX? I need to look for a video card with unearthly performence!
October 11, 2007 5:46:28 PM

enewmen said:
The 320 never beats a 640. However, a 320 in SLI does not give you 640 megs.



That's what I was trying to point out. What people were looking at was the Superclock or overclocked versions of the 320 and then ignored eveyone saying that the 320 vid ram will have you limited very soon.
October 11, 2007 6:21:20 PM

enewmen said:
Are you running Vista or XP? If you plan to keep XP for the next year, then a future thinking card (like a furure HD 2950XT) won't help much.
Your PC still looks good and the X2 still blows the doors off the Pentium 4 like it did 1-2 years ago. Yes, I will also only upgrade the video card. I assume you have PCIe.
The good news is games are still only single thread (for single cpus) so your X2 will work well in next gen games (like Crysis using 1 core for physics) - also CPUs arn't the most stressed part of a PC (I think you know this).
Just a simple X1950XT will be a lot faster. The 8800GTS faster still. Any faster than a 8800GTS and other PC components may be the bottleneck. I will not get SLI anyway.
What is your PSU? The PSU needs to handle a larger card - such as as 8800GTS.
Can you wait a few months? Then cards like a 8800GT and HD 2950XT will be out, fast, and use less watts. This is not the HD 2900XT which has bottlenecks.

I think your PC can last another year at least. By then the Nehalem will be out and you will need new everything anyway.

Bottom line, the cards I suggested will bring huge gains.

(no proof, but I don't expect anyone to disagree)



I'm running XP SP2. In a situation like this I don't want to speculate what might work. The problem these days is expense. Video card prices don't seem to be dropping like they used to. I guess it's because we are all waiting for DX10 stuff to come out to buy. The problem is DX10 is a waste. I'm not upgrading my OS so that I can see an extra particle or two on a screenshot of a game that I'm playing. I'm sorry but Vista = crap. Almost all of the amazing demos we have seen of Crysis are DX9 based anyway. All I want to know is how much of an increase in FPS I would get with one of the cards you mentioned.

My biggest problem is probably my monitor which has a native res of 1680x1050. I would like to run at this res but so far see poor performance in other games like Bioshock and Jericho.

I have a feeling that Crysis will flop due to this performance issue. Only a select few of the PC gamer community will be able to play it with its full feature set enabled. When Doom 3 and HL2 were the big performance benchmarks for games a system for under 1k could easily handle the games. Now it's a different story. I see many people are spending 1k on just their vid cards in SLI.
October 11, 2007 7:49:21 PM

I don't understand what everyone is saying about the performance issue being so huge. Look at what the game is doing. Your card can only do what your card can do, so what if you can't pick all the highest settings in this game but you can in others. With those settings on other games they aren't going to tax your comp as much as this game is considering what it is doing. This is open for discussion but if you really think about it's not the games fault.

Mind you I do think that the game on a world wide sales point of view won't be huge or gigantic because of the system demand, and I think Cevat is hinting at the right thing, that he'd be happy if cysis does 5% (I think he said this) better than Far Cry. But Oblivion did good and when it came out not many systems could play it, and just now can you justify turning everything as high as possible at a high resolution.
!