Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Want to run Crysis w Very High Settings what will it take

Last response: in Video Games
Share
October 28, 2007 10:13:47 PM

Hey Everyone I just got done playing through the Crysis SP Demo
and I have to say that i love everything about it.

My question is what kind of hardware will it take to run the
game or demo for that matter smoothly @ 30-40 fps with all
settings set the very high, with a resolution of 1920x1200 or close to it.

I want to hear from anyone out there running SLI GTX's or Ultras... What
settings are you able to use. Also does anyone know when and
what the first single card (not sli setup) will be that should be able to
run this game on all high settings.

I know about the new 8800gt and they won't be any better the the GTX's.
So let me know if something new will be coming soon out that can tame this beast of a game.

e6600 @3.15ghz
8800 gts 640mb
2gb Corsair 1066
24" Dell
October 28, 2007 10:57:23 PM

Fly i,m in the same boat as you ..
2 X Ultra 8800GTX in SLI will run the game well 1920x1200 prob 60-70FPS with 16X AA
Ultra High settings are to be used for new video cards in the future.. ie 9800's
I would not recommend ultra high settings for anything else.
Nvidias generation 9 cards will be late next year I expect.
October 28, 2007 11:11:00 PM

Thanks for the reply,

I would still like to hear from someone out there who has SLI GTX's or Ultras what settings
are you playing at?

Also is the successor to 8800 gtx (g90?) supossed to be out later this year?
I believe that Nvidia refreshes their high end cards once a year and
if they want to keep up with their schedule they will have to release their
new card soon (other than the 8800gt) right?

e6600 @3.15ghz
8800 gts 640mb
2gb Corsair 1066
24" Dell
Related resources
October 29, 2007 10:26:16 AM

9800... I have one of them from about 5 years ago, will that work on ultra high?
October 29, 2007 10:29:08 AM

I'd wait atleast 6months-year for new hardware.
October 29, 2007 11:31:59 AM

None of the hardware out now can play crysis on full settings. I guess you are playing on high settings so if you want to play with very high settings then just invest in a GTX. problem solved.

PS: I wouldnt bother spending $400 just to play one game on v.high settings instead of just high settings.
October 29, 2007 1:02:57 PM

I'll check this demo out once I get home. If I were you I would not trust anything till the final game has been released with the latest official drivers. Right now the demo is a pre release build working on top of beta drivers. Not really a solid base to draw up conclusions is it.

I have Vista X64 Ultimate with an 8800GTX and a Q6600 at home, I’ll give this game a little spin once I’m back from work.
October 29, 2007 2:17:54 PM

We're working on an article regarding the Crysis SP demo with some benchmarks and tips for improving performance. It should go up this week.
October 29, 2007 3:50:06 PM

With my q6600 and 8800 gts 640 oc, i was able to get around 30+ fps if i remember correctly and everything was crystal clear and very smooth
October 29, 2007 4:01:24 PM

Does the demo run in 32Bit mode or does it do both 64Bit and 32Bit depending on what OS you are using?
October 29, 2007 6:08:22 PM

mrmark27 said:
With my q6600 and 8800 gts 640 oc, i was able to get around 30+ fps if i remember correctly and everything was crystal clear and very smooth

WHat settings and what resolution?
October 29, 2007 9:25:10 PM

1280x1024 8800GTX 600/900 E6600 2.4Ghz. all maxxed out with 8xAA 25-40 Fps
October 30, 2007 1:55:08 AM

rhysee said:
Fly i,m in the same boat as you ..
2 X Ultra 8800GTX in SLI will run the game well 1920x1200 prob 60-70FPS with 16X AA


Why would you say that if you don't have the proof to back it up???

I'm running eVGA 8800 Ultras in SLI, I've hit close to 15000 in 3dMark06. Running this game at 1680x1050 with all HIGH graphic settings and 16x AA, I'm averaging ~20-25 fps.
October 30, 2007 8:04:42 AM

Cool well if thats on an e6400 I wonder how my Q6600 will cope at the same settings?
October 30, 2007 11:30:56 AM

Hi All

I'm running the demo @1920x1200 with a single 8800gtx oc2 (bfg) running at 626 / 2000 ; cpu is Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz (401x9) 2 gig or ram @ 4-4-4-12.

All game settings are set to high AA is set to 8xQ.

Gameplay is silky smooth at these settings (i'm running xp atm so no cannot test very high settings).
October 30, 2007 3:08:15 PM

well, I'll tell you that a 2900 pro with max settings and 8x aa is a slideshow :lol:  (albeit a nice looking one)
October 30, 2007 4:25:49 PM

1920x1200 all on high (XP of course) 30+ fps. Runs great.
1920x1200 (Beta drivers)Very high (Vista) I get PwNeD. about 10-15 fps.
Tweaking it while leaving textures on very high, and object detail, I can get it playable at about 15-25fps. But it blows :p  lol.
But yea crysis is made to be scalable for the next year or so.
Also I had Ntune running to log my performence. It went something like (under Vista)
Cpu = 90%
Ram (2gb) = 97%

My specs.

c2d e6600
bfg 8800gtx oc2
2gb ram
October 31, 2007 10:02:27 AM

Well I gave the demo a try out last night, and the game is fairly good. Reminds me of the original Farcry but has much more substance. My system is made up of an Intel Q6600 at stock settings, 2GB’s of DDR2 800MHz (4-4-4-12) & an 8800GTX 768MB graphics card. I was able to get about 15FPS with everything set to ‘very high’ but this was with the 32Bit version of the game running on Vista X64 ultimate. The 32Bit version had to be used due to the 64Bit version failing to start up.

When the game was running at 15FPS it was not at all playable with a huge amount of mouse lag, which is something I have not seen since I played the original Deus Ex on a GeForce 2 MX. But when the settings for pixel shading where changed from ‘very high’ down to ‘high’ (all other settings still set to ‘very high’) the frame rate jumped from 15FPS all the way up to 27FPS which surprisingly was very playable with almost all the mouse lag reduced to a very minimum.

The visual loss from dropping the setting was noticeable but only barely, with the only thing being affected, was the look of some of rocks that you find scattered about. Everything else looked the same. This might be a good time to let you know that I was running the game at 1680X1050 resolution and that I had 16X AF enabled, while AA was disabled.

So right now that is how a pre release 32Bit version of Crysis works on a fairly good system with beta graphics drivers installed. I have also heard that the demo only uses 2 cores and not 4 if you have them, as well as a few other things not being fully implemented.

I believe once the game has been officially released we will then be able to see how the game runs on the latest hardware. We will be using a final build of the game, with official graphics drivers, in 64Bit mode with all 4 cores being utilised. I would be surprised if the frame rates are not increased at least 2 fold over the demo when the game has officially been released with all the latest drivers and features enabled.
October 31, 2007 10:41:34 AM

cafuddled said:

I have also heard that the demo only uses 2 cores and not 4 if you have them, as well as a few other things not being fully implemented.


Can you or anyone else confirm this? I presume the released game will be not be restricted as such? That should really make a difference running benchmarks.
October 31, 2007 11:44:29 AM

Hi

My system (in siggy)

Runs Crysis maxed at about 25 FPS (no AA)

If I turn a few things down then I can get it smooth.

Could someone please who has Vista AND XP run the game with teh same settings and tell me what teh FPS difference is?

Thanks
October 31, 2007 11:52:55 AM

cafuddled said:
It was here that a read that the demo does not use more than 2 cores, only runs in 32bit and does not work with SLI. It refers to the crysis forum, will try to find that later so I can see for my self.


I beg to differ -- I varied between 20 and 40 fps (depending on gameplay, map, etc. @ high, 16xAA) while in SLI -- I went down about 10-15fps when I turned off SLI. As for 32-bit/quad-core, I can't confirm/deny...

jonisginger said:

Could someone please who has Vista AND XP run the game with teh same settings and tell me what teh FPS difference is?


I couldn't get it to work on Vista (64-bit, Ultimate) -- I will try again tonight and post my results (assuming I can get it to work).

October 31, 2007 1:06:16 PM

You will need... 1 MILLION DOLLARS!!
October 31, 2007 1:30:47 PM

LOL, inspired me to use google and paint..

October 31, 2007 2:15:17 PM

I played the demo today. 800x600 all low settings.
Guess I'll have to wait for my christmas upgrade before I can see the foliage or mountains or anything.

TBH, my puter sits well below minimum specs, so I knew it wasn't going to be up to par.

I get massive artifacts all over the screen. SOMETIMES you can see a bit of rock texture, but otherwise everything that's not sky is grey blob.

At the moment, system specs are:
Athlon XP 2600+ (1.9GHz - W00t!)
Asus a7n8x2.0 Deluxe
Radeon 9800 Pro 256Mb
1.2Gb Ram
Vista/XP dual boot

Roll on upgrades!:
Asus P5-K
Q6600 @3GHz
8800GT
2Gb OCZ Platinum
Antec Earthwatts 500W

I'll post screenshots later, so you can all see my pwnage!
October 31, 2007 3:42:20 PM

LiuKang, try setting Crysis demo to run in X32 mode only?

October 31, 2007 4:38:05 PM

cafuddled said:
Does the demo run in 32Bit mode or does it do both 64Bit and 32Bit depending on what OS you are using?

There is both a 32bit and 64bit version.
I don't know why THG is using the 32bit version.
I also don't know of the advantages of 64bit (there should be some)
October 31, 2007 5:37:21 PM

Using Quad cores are no use with the demo, I think they limited it to 2 cores like in the Multiplayer Beta i play.

Btw, the game runs on 25fps on Medium with my 6800XT, but with Very High and 8800GTX it runs with 22fps average? One word: drivers :) 

After the second beta release I got a 6 fps boost with my graphics card, and another 2fps boost after the newest beta drivers.

The game is gold, but Crytek is allready working on a patch, so hopes up folks!
October 31, 2007 5:55:17 PM

i can tell you right now that 2 ultras will NOT run this game at very high at anything more than 25-30 fps even without anti aliasing. There is no card out that can pull that feat.
October 31, 2007 6:13:34 PM

If i'm not mistaken arent the "Very High" settings only selectable under Vista because those are the settings that use DX10 elements?
October 31, 2007 6:23:58 PM

There is no such things as direct x 10 elements or graphics, just the fact that DX10 uses unified processing which gives the opportunity to create effects like Global Illumination without stressing the card that much. It is mostly just an efficiency of the graphics processing.

DX10 utilizes unified architecture and geometry shading which allows more instances at one time and faster working, not that a DX9 card can NOT handle it, it will just demand more of it.
October 31, 2007 6:25:45 PM

To max this sucker, you need hardware that isn't out yet.

Turn down post processing, that's at least 5 fps from high to very high. Go through and switch settings around, find settings changes that you don't notice. Some have an affect, some have no affect.

I have my game up to just over 30fps avg, with pretty much very high settings and 4xAA. It's never gonna look like the screen shots, until we have 9 series cards, the Penryns aren't gonna do much for performance.
November 1, 2007 2:14:08 AM

rhysee said:
Fly i,m in the same boat as you ..
2 X Ultra 8800GTX in SLI will run the game well 1920x1200 prob 60-70FPS with 16X AA
Ultra High settings are to be used for new video cards in the future.. ie 9800's
I would not recommend ultra high settings for anything else.
Nvidias generation 9 cards will be late next year I expect.
I own an overclocked 8800GTX and I'd kill to get half that framerate at very high settings without antialiasing.
Jorg40 said:
There is no such things as direct x 10 elements or graphics, just the fact that DX10 uses unified processing which gives the opportunity to create effects like Global Illumination without stressing the card that much. It is mostly just an efficiency of the graphics processing.

DX10 utilizes unified architecture and geometry shading which allows more instances at one time and faster working, not that a DX9 card can NOT handle it, it will just demand more of it.
Is that why the game runs faster for me on XP 32-bit on Very High quality than it does on Vista 64-bit with my 8800GTX? :sarcastic: 
November 1, 2007 2:48:25 AM

with a 24" dell your not going to be able to run it with aa and im not even sure about totally max being possible.

anyways i guess the best hardware would be:

2x 8800 ultra
4 ddr3 ram
2 western digital 10,000 rpm hard drives in raid 0
storage drive 750 gig western digital
asus striker extreme motherboard
November 1, 2007 12:22:29 PM

I am running crysis in two different environments: vista 32bit and xp 64bit, both using catalyst 7.10 with a 2900xt (i can only overclock the gpu in xp64 and my speeds are 850MHz core and 900MHz memory). My settings in vista are all high except texture detail and one other thing i cant remember. Resolution is at 1680x1050 w/o AA and i get a framerate of 20-25 frames per second and to be honest it rarely goes below that. In xp64 all settings are high and on 1680x1050 and no AA. Framerate is about the same but I experience a complete system crash, my guess is some issue other than my oc cause it even does it at stock speeds, probably either the game or driver issues (i am using the .exe under the bin64 folder). My system is 2gb ddr2 at ddr1000, running in 1:1 with my e6300 at 3.5GHz. The quality of the game is impressive but since I am getting a reasonable framerate I do not see myself upgrading. For the record, I used fraps to check my framerates. If you are unsure about their rates, this is an awesome way to go. If anyone knows about any issues with crysis and xp64, let me know haha.
November 1, 2007 4:19:00 PM

Quote:
If anyone knows about any issues with crysis and xp64, let me know haha.


XP 64-bit: Is an great idea for an operating system but from start ti'll today as known lots of issues itself, let alone figuring out the problems you may encounter with Crysis' Demo. With your system, you shouldn't even have 64-bit as you don't have enough to benefit from it =Single core, 2gig of Ram. If you want to avoid problems, stick with Windows XP-32bit and your Crysis will see much improvement.

BUT: Assuming you have installed the latest drivers and windows patches, I had a similar problem with VISTA 64-bit where I couldn't even start the game.

Try this: I have NTune for my Nvidia card but Catalist probably has this option... Try forcing V-Sync on your game Crysis and see if it keeps on crashing. If it does, then you can also try to run the 32-bit version (if its available in XP) by going into the game directory and launching it from either the 32-bit folder or 64-bit forlder.

Good luck.

Alex

November 1, 2007 7:00:47 PM

You have to wait for Nvidia to release final drivers for Crysis to take advantage of SLI, to date SLI doesn't even work for Vista/DX10. The update to DX10.1 might solve that program, but time will only tell.
November 2, 2007 12:30:43 AM

Alex The PC Gamer said:
Quote:
If anyone knows about any issues with crysis and xp64, let me know haha.


XP 64-bit: Is an great idea for an operating system but from start ti'll today as known lots of issues itself, let alone figuring out the problems you may encounter with Crysis. With your system, you shouldn't even have 64-bit as you don't have enough to benefit from it =Single core, 2gig of Ram. If you want to avoid problems, stick with Windows XP-32bit and your Crysis will see much improvement.

BUT: Assuming you have installed the latest drivers and windows patches, I had a similar problem with VISTA 64-bit where I couldn't even start the game.

Try this: I have NTune for my Nvidia card but Catalist probably has this option... Try forcing V-Sync on your game Crysis and see if it keeps on crashing. If it does, then you can also try to run the 32-bit version (if its available in XP) by going into the game directory and launching it from either the 32-bit folder or 64-bit forlder.

Good luck.

Alex


?
Dude, lol I'm not that clueless. My cpu is a Core 2 Duo, with a conroe 2m, B2 revision. Last time I checked, conroe is dual core. Two gigs of ram is also more than enough for my uses. Its not an issue of graphical anomalies (ie tears in picture due to no vertical sync) its a fact that there needs to be a patch or a driver hotfix because obviously the issue lie within there, as your system even failed to launch the game. That is what i believe is causing my system to crash. Why you think vsync is the cause of my system crash I have no idea. Also, xp64 is a fantastic operating system. I need not compromise anything as whatever I do in win32 i can also do in win64, not to mention the fantasic stability even with CATALYST 7.10. Other than these issues it runs like a champ in vista 32 bit. Everything is on high and is running on, as said earlier 1680x1050 with 20-25 fps average, little jumps and slumps here and there as would on any system. I'm not trying to steal your thunder or be arrogant or anything, thats just how it is. :non:  peace
November 2, 2007 9:54:14 PM

Welll you guys with your core 2 Duo's and 8800's can keep em.

I'm running an Athlon 64 3000+ and 2 Gig Crucial RAM, and a 256Mb Leadtek GeForce 6600 (not even a GT), and I'm getting smooth frames at 1024x768 mixture of medium and low settings.

This game shouldn't run with a card lower than 6800GT ! I am impressed that I can even play this at all, let alone on the settings I've got.
November 2, 2007 10:46:15 PM

I'm running a Athlon 64 3500+ and 1 Gig corsair ram 256MB radeon X800 and getting 28-35 FPS at 1024x768 with everything at medium no AA.

A Core 2 Duo or Althon X2, and a 8800GTS, 8800GT, 8800GTX should be able to play crysis max'ed out the people who are having problems try playing on a lower resolution.
November 2, 2007 11:40:52 PM

Back in 1987 I got an 8mhz Turbo XT (3.77mhz before you hit the turbo button). It had an ATI EGA Wonder video card that displayed 16 colors. I used to play games at much less than 10fps. I remember playing M1 Tank Platoon at maybe 2 or 3 FPS and mastering the game. The reason I'm mentioning all of this is that I not only ran the Crysis demo on HIGH settings at 1680x1050 (which is playable at ~20fps). I turned the AA up to 8x. OMFG it was cranking at 8 FPS according to Fraps. My 2900XT is bad with AA to begin with but in Crysis, its a joke. I plan on doing the VERY HIGH hack and seeing if I can break the 5 FPS mark. It will be a good memory to laugh about in 2 years when I have a system that runs it at 125 FPS at the same settings, Godwilling...... (this is assuming an 8 core Nehalem/Bulldozer or better with 2 next gen GPUs along with integrated graphics on the processor)
November 3, 2007 12:48:24 AM

I have the demo/ game engine - will install tomorrow and give it a go on SLI 8800 GTX cards with Vista 64 - 4 gigs ram - 6700 Quad Core etc..
November 5, 2007 9:32:44 PM

yuseaname said:
?
Dude, lol I'm not that clueless. My cpu is a Core 2 Duo, with a conroe 2m, B2 revision. Last time I checked, conroe is dual core. Two gigs of ram is also more than enough for my uses. Its not an issue of graphical anomalies (ie tears in picture due to no vertical sync) its a fact that there needs to be a patch or a driver hotfix because obviously the issue lie within there, as your system even failed to launch the game. That is what i believe is causing my system to crash. Why you think vsync is the cause of my system crash I have no idea. Also, xp64 is a fantastic operating system. I need not compromise anything as whatever I do in win32 i can also do in win64, not to mention the fantasic stability even with CATALYST 7.10. Other than these issues it runs like a champ in vista 32 bit. Everything is on high and is running on, as said earlier 1680x1050 with 20-25 fps average, little jumps and slumps here and there as would on any system. I'm not trying to steal your thunder or be arrogant or anything, thats just how it is. :non:  peace


Dear "Dude" guy,

I only ment to help, my friend, no need to get all hyped up. I may have wrongfully read your CPU info and missed that you had a dual core (as oppose to singlecore) so I will apologize for that. However, I would still recommend runing XP-32bit as oppose to XP-64bit as you are not benefiting from its features given your system.

You also sort'of proved my point as you mentioned that 2 gigs of RAM with a DUO processor was plenty for you...and i'll say for most of us in fact. In XP-32bit, your hardware will be able to provide you with best frame rates and gaming performance. Mind you that given your system, Vista 32-bit is your ultimate choice in as an OS if you want the best quality/performance in gaming.

What I ment to say earlier was: In your current XP-64bit, your operating system "should" make your hardware more efficient BUT with third parties writting their own 64-bit drivers, you will find your hardware performing at less or equal performance to the 32-bit drivers in many cases. So what I was saying is in theory, 64-bit IS better but in practice, is equal to worst given your hardware. As for your system, you have an awesome PC. However, XP-64bit was created for PCs using lots and lots of ram (servers with 8 gigs and more and with CPUs designed for servers). Therefore, most companies selling hardware to regular pc users or even gamers were not investing in writting top of the line drivers for the XP-64 bit version. Very few people were using 64-bit as a regular user and the hardware would not even benefit from a 64-bit driver. So they started writting drivers that were using their own emulators of the 32-bit version or the emulator the operating system would use making the actual 64-bit drivers. Keep in mind that some companies did actually write 64-bit drivers that took advantage of the X64 systems.

With today's needs, many hardcore gamers will need more than what 32-bit can offer. In fact, 32-bit will become the regular level users in around 2 years while gamers will be needing 64-bit. The amount of RAM needed for the next generation gaming platform will be more than 2 gigs of RAM and a lot more than 512mb VRAM. Hence, if you combine a SLI 2900xt (2x512mb VRAM) and 4 gigs of DDR3 RAM, 32-bit would only recognize about 3.3 gigs of ALL RAM combined = 32-bit is not enough. You have 2 gigs of RAM + 512 VRAM = 2.5 gigs total RAM and 32-bit meets your needs. Why would you go 64-bit? Well perhaps if you upgrade but wait, you mentioned 2 gigs was enough for your needs. See my point? The faster multi-threading is still a valid benefit when using 64-bit given your machine but you may have a lot more negative factors such as poor drivers and the fact that most coding is in X86 and forces you OS to operate with its own emulator and these will give you an overall performance that is poorer than using 32-bit.

You had mentioned your game crashed after playing for a few minutes. I looked at your Videocard (ATI Chip 2900XT), a fairly new videocard today, and related to my own experience in Vista-64bit. The 64-bit drivers for videocards have to be rewritten almost entirely unlike other types of hardware where they can use emulators (copies of X86 in X64 format). Given you have a widescreen, i'll assume your Frequency is 60 or 75mhz. As you know, even if you get a 150FPS your monitor can only process the same in frequency = 60 or 75FPS or so. I don't want to explain where the extra FPS goes and how coding can change things but long story short, Crysis or the Catalyst drivers may have had a glitch freezing your game after minutes of playing right? Well, since you can't choose VSync in game, this creates a problems such as a game freezing when your 2900xt creates more FPS than your monitor can handle...coding may create conflicts or bugs with both Catalyst and Monitor drivers (or windows assigned monitor drivers). This means that both Crysis, or ATI Catalyst, or your monitor drivers (if you installed them) can be responsable for your game crashing. So I will diagnose this like Dr. House and say that forcing VSync migh have fixed your freezing as it did for me when I use Vista 64-bit.

Regardless, you should see most of those bugs fixed in the actual game release November 16th.

Alex
November 5, 2007 11:42:21 PM

jonisginger said:
Hi

My system (in siggy)

Runs Crysis maxed at about 25 FPS (no AA)

If I turn a few things down then I can get it smooth.

Could someone please who has Vista AND XP run the game with teh same settings and tell me what teh FPS difference is?

Thanks



I am doing a dual boot, In XP Pro 32 at 1280 I get 28 to 40 on the highest, In Vista 32 I get 17-23 at the same resolution. It seems to run really strangely in vista. The frame rates seem to stay pretty consistent even when I raise the resolution. I haven't messed with it alot in XP yet. Another interesting thing, my 6000x2 was running one core maxed out and the second core at like 4%. Then started having lockups and stuff, so I checked it out.
Turns out it was crapping out on me. Now I'm running my ol 4200 @2.42 and it uses both cores pretty equally. Even tho I lost a couple fps in the demo. 2 gigs of ram run at 67% full, and my cpu (4200) averages about 60-70% in Vista.

ASUS Crosshair, 6000x2 @ 3.24, 2 gigs Corsrair XMS, 8800 gtx oc (629-2000), Sound Blaster XFI
November 7, 2007 10:32:33 PM

Hey there Inglburt, was your 6000 X2 actually crapping out, or do you need to install the dual core patch from AMD's website? With the faster AMD X2's you need to install the patch, or the dual core's don't work properly on some games. Apparently it's not an issue with the lower spec X2's.
November 8, 2007 8:56:47 PM

I'll admit to run it on very high at 1920x108 yea next gen maybe will run it. We have to wait and see what the 9800/R700 will do.

But I can tell you that at 1280x1024 on the same CPU(only clocked to 2.7GHz) as you with the same RAM(Corsair PC8500) and a Radeon HD2900Pro 1GB version I ran it on Very High with average framerate of 40-50FPS. And thats without OC'ing the card.

I think the game runs better if you have more V-RAM especially with those large textures.
November 8, 2007 9:22:22 PM

jimmysmitty said:
I'll admit to run it on very high at 1920x108 yea next gen maybe will run it. We have to wait and see what the 9800/R700 will do.

But I can tell you that at 1280x1024 on the same CPU(only clocked to 2.7GHz) as you with the same RAM(Corsair PC8500) and a Radeon HD2900Pro 1GB version I ran it on Very High with average framerate of 40-50FPS. And thats without OC'ing the card.

I think the game runs better if you have more V-RAM especially with those large textures.


Did you run every setting on very high? Can you just make it so you can just set the texture Q on very high and leave the other settings on high?
!