Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis Performance with SLI

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 20, 2007 2:43:19 PM

Article written by Rob Wright.

After running the full version of Crysis on Windows Vista through some initial tests, we tested the game on an SLI-enabled Alienware desktop. How much will two GPUs instead of one improve the results?

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/20/crysis_sli/

More about : crysis performance sli

November 20, 2007 3:02:23 PM

while sli seemed too help, the improvement was not good enough.

if 1 card cant run the game properly on maxed out settings, then 2 cards wont run it good enough either

I always see sli as a waste of money as you pay twice the cost for a 20-30% increase in performance

on other tech support forums that i post at, there many users who were upgrading from 7900gtx cards, to 8800 gtx cards

the 7900 can run every game out right now on full settings except crysis and bioshock (due to the direct x 10)

the 8800gtx can also run every game out right now maxed out, except crysis (but it can max out bioshock) whats the point of the upgrade, all that money and you still cant max out the latest games. (main reason why I am not going to upgrade until a better card comes out)

SLI should never be a good option. the next card by nvidia that comes out will be much faster than 2 8800gtx cards in SLI (nvidia has always kept this patters for the most part. The next card that came out was always faster than 2 of the older cards in SLI)

if 1 card runs your games smooth then theres no point in going sli because as the buyers who went sli with the 8800 cards have notice, in a few months, they will be junking 2 cards instead of 1 when they upgrade to a card that can actually run games like crysis (they will also get the urge to scream into a pillow when they find out that for the price of their second 8800, they could have saven that money a few months and get a card that would be much faster than a 8800GTX in SLI would ever be

November 20, 2007 3:09:47 PM

12 fps? What?

Anyone else think it's Vista to blame? I'm getting average 30~ FPS at that resolution with a Q6600 + 8800GTX on Windows XP 32 with all settings on 'High'.
Related resources
November 20, 2007 3:17:43 PM

Did you guys check out the InCrysis interview link at the end of the article? Interesting comments about DX10 and Vista....
November 20, 2007 4:24:13 PM

on every benchmark I have seen, when it came to direct x 9, windows xp has always had higher framerates than in vista.

crysis in windows xp generally had around 6FPS more on high settings dx 9 than on vista

vista is a more demanding OS and crysis is a very demanding game, running both at the same time will lead to less performance

November 20, 2007 4:51:15 PM

What a complete joke Crysis is! I feel sorry for all the true PC gamers out there this holiday season getting sucked in to buying multiple graphic cards or complete system upgrades (like myself) just to heopfully play this game.

Shame on Crytek!! Sure is looks cool. But if I wanted photo-realistic visuals I'll look out my car window. Im not going to pay $50 to play the 'greatest game available' if my 8800 gtx wont hold snuff up to it. How can you sell a game at premium dollar and it wont run on the best system avail. Thats some bull!

They should have held out on this game until the hardware was in place to show it off. Dont blame vista. My COD4, Bioshock, and Gears of war are amazing on vista. If Crytek thinks i am coming back next summer and playing this game with my 9800gtx they are crazy.

By the way, all the Crysis delays... thank god we didnt get it on time if this is the best they can do.




November 20, 2007 5:33:52 PM

Would the framerates for CF match those for SLI? I still don't see why a quad-core and two overclocked 8800 ultras wouldn't push this title, driver issues and game patches aside.

Agreed, I would wait for the next top-end GPU to come out in order to really play this game. Wait a little bit, then when you see the game on sale for $20, then you can buy! :sol: 
November 20, 2007 5:45:09 PM

I was going to say the 9800gtx(assuming that's what it's called) had better be one kick ass card! I was going to build a new computer partly for this game but if a top of the line n computer can't max this game out then I might as well wait untill hardware comes out that can.

BTW when is nvidia's next flagship card coming out anyway?
November 20, 2007 5:48:25 PM

a game designed to get better with age.
and will be a good benchmarker for the next two years.
can you imagine how sad the frame rates would be with quad-HDef (5fps?)

doesn't anyone remember when doom3 came out.

hopefully ATI gets a {real} high end card to utilize those four x16 slots with crossfireX
hopefully Nvidia gets their drivers wrapped up, hope to see an Nforce that can do 4 cards as well.
could never afford but I would like to see.
November 20, 2007 6:30:52 PM

Under XP with everything on high and 2xAA @ 1680x1050 the game looks great on my system. I haven't ran FRAPS on it, but it plays very smooth and I have absolutely no complaints.
November 20, 2007 8:29:28 PM

shurcooL you are running it on high in XP. You should get a better average than in Vista on Very High. Although SLI getting wasted is kinda sad to me. Same for you TSIMonster. When I ran the game on High in Vista I did get a much better framerate(or it seemed smoother) than everything on Very High.

I remember Doom 3 but actually the latest hardware could play it on maximum. And Dom 3 was nice but HL2 looked way better in the graphics arena and didn't require ungodly hardware.

Kinda like COD4. That games graphics are close to what Crysis has and it still runs great. I just wounder if the cryengine 2 has issues.

BTW I would like to see it run on a Crossfire setup using 2 HD2900XT/Pros with 1GB GDDR4 to see if it does want more video memory. Of course the 2900Pros will be hard to come by but if you want to donate a 2900XT 1GB to me I will pop it in my system and test it out for ya wnink wink.
November 20, 2007 8:34:20 PM

EllisD said:
What a complete joke Crysis is! I feel sorry for all the true PC gamers out there this holiday season getting sucked in to buying multiple graphic cards or complete system upgrades (like myself) just to heopfully play this game.

Shame on Crytek!! Sure is looks cool. But if I wanted photo-realistic visuals I'll look out my car window. Im not going to pay $50 to play the 'greatest game available' if my 8800 gtx wont hold snuff up to it. How can you sell a game at premium dollar and it wont run on the best system avail. Thats some bull!

They should have held out on this game until the hardware was in place to show it off. Dont blame vista. My COD4, Bioshock, and Gears of war are amazing on vista. If Crytek thinks i am coming back next summer and playing this game with my 9800gtx they are crazy.

By the way, all the Crysis delays... thank god we didnt get it on time if this is the best they can do.


Firstly, your an idiot for buying it if you knew it was beyond just about any system out there to run it at full, and then get annoyed because you cant either.

Secondly, just because you cant run it at high doesnt mean its crap.

Thirdly, the figures are out there, and they do show xp is quicker all round.

Fourthly, your just bitter that your system has been humbled by a game, and that your year old graphics isnt up to max settings.

To finish, what is wrong releasing a game ahead of its time? If you now its forward looking, put your blinkers back on and dont play it, you whinging fool.

Whoever said half life 2 was overrated, your damned on the money. Bought it, completed it, sold it. If I wanted that many scripts, I'd be on the stage.
November 20, 2007 8:43:53 PM

588792,11,296554 said:


Kinda like COD4. That games graphics are close to what Crysis has and it still runs great. I just wounder if the cryengine 2 has issues.

said:


The foliage and water in crysis kill the frames. The scenes in crysis are alot more complex than COD 4. The effect of the presentation is similar in magnitude though. Cryengine 2 hasnt got issues, its just far beyond any other engine in its capability. Were back to the days of hardware catching up with software. Remember oblivion pre 8800 series?
November 20, 2007 8:48:02 PM

LOL. Crysis = Graphics card destructotron
November 20, 2007 9:21:57 PM

Hi,

I don´t understand why people in sites insist in run Crysis with Vista 32bits and 2Gb of ram.

If is to run in Vista , run with 4Gb of good ram , its more cheep than a another GTX!!


And in my opinion Crysis is build to 3 things, Cores , PCIe bandwidth and 64bits... i think that max of the game will be in 64 bits....


Is a game for a (near)future hardware...

November 20, 2007 9:56:51 PM

Why the hell are you testing with Vista 32-bit? 64-bit is out there. And if I'm not mistaken, Crysis has a 64-bit code path.
November 20, 2007 9:58:27 PM

I agree that it is crazy to SLI your cards just to play one game, but it's no reason to get your panties in a bunch because others want to do it. Let them spend there money how they want. I am one of those people who love games and new technology enough I am willing to sink a chunk of cash into 2 video cards so I can play it on Very High instead of high. I just bought 2x8800gts SSC and yes it did cost me $800, and yes it was worth it to ME. Anyways I probably wouldn't of bought them if it weren't for EVGA and there great step up program. I have till Feb 15th to get some new cards and I am sure by then my $800(or a bit more) will buy me something that will last a good while. Speaking of that does anyone know what to expect from Nvidia before then?
November 20, 2007 10:28:53 PM

razor512 said:
on other tech support forums that i post at, there many users who were upgrading from 7900gtx cards, to 8800 gtx cards

the 7900 can run every game out right now on full settings except crysis and bioshock (due to the direct x 10)

the 8800gtx can also run every game out right now maxed out, except crysis (but it can max out bioshock) whats the point of the upgrade, all that money and you still cant max out the latest games. (main reason why I am not going to upgrade until a better card comes out)

SLI should never be a good option. the next card by nvidia that comes out will be much faster than 2 8800gtx cards in SLI (nvidia has always kept this patters for the most part. The next card that came out was always faster than 2 of the older cards in SLI)


So, with one 7900GTX you are saying I can max out any game at 2560x1600?

Give me a break, 8800GTX SLi struggles with some games.

In most games at this res, SLi is way more than a 30% boost, and I need all the GPU power I can get. If there is a faster single card I can buy, please show me it.
November 21, 2007 12:10:23 AM

I ran the demo in sli with two 8800gts320 OC and I got avg. of 20-30 fps on very high (the xp-dx10 hack) at 1024 X 768. And 18-25 on 1280X1024.

SLI does work, maybe not 1.8X better in crysis, but when the second card is cheap, then why not? I bought it way before the 8800gt was out and it too is not much better than the 8800gts in Crysis, so it is Crysis' fault.
November 21, 2007 1:15:12 AM

I just play it all on low except textures (hacked to very high), sound (high) and physics (high). 1680x1050 and no AA gives me 35-40FPS average outside.

E6600
x1950 pro 256mb
4gb RAM
vista x64

I can't play the game at <25FPS like some people, too much input lag. Besides, I want to play the game smoothly, not just look at pretty pictures.
November 21, 2007 1:52:29 AM

I have pretty much decided that I wont play the game for another year or two, so that I can:

1. Buy it dirt cheap
2. Play it how it was meant to be played...

Shame really, but for it to be playable I have to reduce the gfx settings to the point that Timeshift is FAR prettier and smoother.
November 21, 2007 7:10:17 AM

I wonder if Rob Wright has heard of the diffrence it should make to rename the Crysis.exe file, appearently there have been made some "optimisations" of the drivers that kick in when the Crysis.exe is run. I read this at http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_conten...

Maybe a new test should be made to see the diffrence?
November 21, 2007 8:26:51 AM

At 1280x1024, renaming the executable in ForceWare 169.04 gave us close to a 7% drop in performance. Utilising ForceWare 169.09, there is no longer any
performance drop from renaming the Crysis executable, but performance overall is around 7% lower than that seen in the previous driver set, putting it
on a par with the older driver with the game EXE renamed. This is still faster than the older ForceWare 163.69 WHQL driver, but suggests that much of the
additional performance seen in ForceWare 169.01 through to 169.04 was due to that water reflection rendering issue.


WAT GOOD IS THAT lol D:
November 21, 2007 10:02:47 AM

I know, its been said so many time over and over but how on earth can you release a game that doesnt run on current hardware?????!!!!!!

Freakin hell!
Im not going to buy this game, it doesnt look good on high setting caus 12fps is a complete joke, and it looks completely average on medium setting at 45fps because of the detail level!

Sure it sounds like a fun game, why not make it playable?
With my current rig i can enjoy the game on medium, what about the
100 000+ kids who cant buy pricey pc's!

Shoo, i really needed to vent there, sweet.

November 21, 2007 10:47:27 AM

it seems to be different for everybody. My lil bro runs everything on very high in vista 64\dx10 on an 6700, P35 mobo, 8800gtx and 2gb ddr2 800 at perfectly acceptable frame rates. He was running at 1024x768 with no AA tho.
November 21, 2007 10:38:19 PM

Let's compare COD4 graphics to crysis :

on a system that runs COD4 at max settings smoothly , you can probably play crysis at medium or a medium/high hybrid.

and they both look fantastic at those settings imo (altho COD4 looks and runs better) , but in a few years that will change.

the only question is , will people be playing cyrsis in a few years , i mean not every game is starcraft or cs to live forever.
November 21, 2007 11:11:26 PM

no.... probably people wont be playing this years from now but now... you cant compare anything to cs1.6 can you?
November 22, 2007 12:14:26 AM

Just play on low and enjoy the game, stop worrying about graphics. I didn't even take notice of the graphics except during cutscenes or when I'm just standing around waiting for someone to stop talking rubbish and tell me what to do next. When shooting alien machines that are firing a bajillion ice shards at you, graphics are the last thing you think of.
November 22, 2007 12:15:50 AM

darkstar782 said:
So, with one 7900GTX you are saying I can max out any game at 2560x1600?

Give me a break, 8800GTX SLi struggles with some games.

In most games at this res, SLi is way more than a 30% boost, and I need all the GPU power I can get. If there is a faster single card I can buy, please show me it.



i'm not saying that it will run 100% of all games, also do you game at that res now

even the 8800's struggle with those resolutions for many games

i'm not saying that the 8800 is bad, but it's performance increase doesnt seem enough to move from a 7900gtx to a 8800 gtx

it is like moving from a 2006 ford, to a 2007 ford


sure both the 2007 is more powerful but it still wont be pulling the cargo of a 18 wheeler cross country
(while the 2007 model will pull it faster, neither is going to get the cargo where it needs to go )

when i go for new hardware, I expect major improvements.


November 22, 2007 12:32:36 AM

razor512 said:
when i go for new hardware, I expect major improvements.

Amen to that. That's why I'm not upgrading my x1950 pro. A 50-70% increase is not enough. Last upgrade was from a 9800 pro, and I had no choice as I needed a PCIe card.
November 24, 2007 3:49:49 PM

my old socket a linux system with a ti4200 dumped in this 1.6ghz bad boy will run crysis maxed out at 203fps. :-p
November 24, 2007 3:54:06 PM

enough of the peanut gallery... I'll be soon building a system with an amd black 2.6 brisbane, 4gigs of patriot ddr2 800, standard hd, m2n-e asus mobo, regular old harddrive, etc. you can let me know what you think as soon as newegg gets back up under the "public wish lists" mine is "brand spankin new pc" or something like that... have fun wanting it! :-p but that'll be after x-mas when the prices drop. hehe. i'm hoping that they'll drop enough that i can build that system for more like 850-900 rather than the steep 1200 that it's at now. but i doubt it. have fun arguing kids and i'll be back when fffffffffff key stops sticking.

oh, and i'll post my settings and frame rates for you... so you'll know what that shiny system can do...
November 24, 2007 11:20:47 PM

nachowarrior said:
my old socket a linux system with a ti4200 dumped in this 1.6ghz bad boy will run crysis maxed out at 203fps. :-p

I tried to run it on a t-bird with 256mb RAM and a 9800 pro. It didn't start unfortunately, I think it requires SSE support.
November 25, 2007 11:13:38 AM

itotallybelieveyou said:
no.... probably people wont be playing this years from now but now... you cant compare anything to cs1.6 can you?


BF2 takes a long hot languid wee-wee all over CS. It really is (was for me - I rinsed it over 2 years) the dogs nuts.
November 25, 2007 9:23:12 PM

1.6 is a hack.
November 26, 2007 3:37:47 AM

randomizer said:


I can't play the game at <25FPS like some people, too much input lag. Besides, I want to play the game smoothly, not just look at pretty pictures.


Lol, right on man i loot at it the same way. Btw love you choice of words.
November 28, 2007 11:55:31 AM

I don't see it --> I have run Crysis on two Vista machines (opteron 2220 + 8800ultra)&(C2D 2ghz + 7900gtx) and I have run it on a XP machine (PentiumD 930 + 8800 GTX) and everyone of the machines have played it perfectly --

The opteron system settings = very high = cpu benchmark (bin32 dir) = 30.86 average
The C2D system settings = high = cpu benchmark = 31.54 average
the PD930 system settings = high = cpu benchmark = 30.56 average

Hell even when setting everything to medium it still looks better than almost every game on the market.

Crytek said the game scales - and it does very well - lower the settings and BAM the game runs perfect on older machines and guess what.... it still looks AWESOME!!!

Why must people trash something -- the game is absolutely the best thing I have played in a very very very long time.
November 28, 2007 12:32:17 PM

mattmojo said:
Why must people trash something -- the game is absolutely the best thing I have played in a very very very long time.
Because believe it or not some people are just dicks
November 28, 2007 6:57:01 PM

dariushro said:
Let's compare COD4 graphics to crysis :
the only question is , will people be playing cyrsis in a few years , i mean not every game is starcraft or cs to live forever.


Thanx for reminding me of starcraft. Dont you think nomads nanosuit stole its abilities from "starcraft ghost"? Thats the thing i love the most about this, this is the game that sc:ghost shoulda been...blizzard wasnt going to give it to us so crytek did and for the PC!!!! Moving on to crysis graphics, im struggling with medium, no aa , 960 x 600 with 8600gts. imagine in the future when u can play this game 2560 x 1536 VERY HIGH @ 60fps
November 29, 2007 1:12:40 PM

Well i guess you people have no idea what you are talking about,one 8800 gtx is as powerful as two 7900 gtx. I know cause i owned them all and now i have two 8800gtx`s runnin my games at much higher resolution than previouse gen cards!!!
November 29, 2007 1:25:36 PM

Does anyone remember when Doom 3 came out? No one could play that game at max "Ultra" settings. That required almost 500 megs of video memory, and at the time, there were no video card with more than 256 ram.

My point is, I don't why everyone is acting so suprised there is a game they can't play at max. I have yet to try Crysis, but I am sure the game is playable, as long as you don't max everything out and play at some astronomical resolution.
November 29, 2007 2:21:54 PM

Actually your wrong, John Carmack was the only one that said the game wont be able to run with everything set to there max settings unless you have 512MB’s of graphics memory. You where in fact able to run the game at the max settings with very playable frame rates with most of the mid – high end graphics cards with only 256MB’s of graphics memory.

I think I was actually using a 9800Pro with only 128MB’s at ultra after they done a few driver updates. But yes when the game was released it was not playable at the highest settings on cards. It only was after a few updates and optimizations. I would bet that Crysis will have the same happening to it too.
November 29, 2007 2:47:46 PM

Actually, there is no way that you were playing Doom 3 at "Playable" framerates with the best textures available on a 9800 with 128 video ram. It would run, but there would be a lot of hitching, as the textures would need to be swapped. It is physically impossible for the texture swapping not to happen. You are either lying, embelishing or not remembering correctly. Or, you have a low threshhold for what you consider playable. In my book, that would be atleast 30+ FPS with little to no lag.

I have a PC with a 9800 Pro 128 Ram in it, and Doom will not run at max settings with a playable framerate.

If you had a nice system (fast CPU/fast ram), with a good 256 card (like an x800 or 6800) at the time, I think you could run at max. It would produce some hitching, occasionally, and most people could just ignore that... to an extent.
November 29, 2007 3:15:28 PM

Maybe it’s you that does not remember correctly, it was the last game I played on the old system. After that I upgraded to a 256MB X800XT PE that made the game extremely playable.

With the 9800Pro I had 2GB’s of memory and a 3200+ that was overclocked to 2.8GHz. Yes the game was using the graphics aperture a fair bit I bet but was it unplayable with all the settings set to max, that’s no. If you can remember back to when the game first came out people where getting frame rates of about 15 - 20 with 9800 Pro’s with everything set to max. But someone released registry values that significantly increased the performance on ATi cards.

Also there was 3rd party drivers created that ran the game about 15% – 20% faster than the official ATi drivers. It was indeed very playable on a 9800 Pro with all the settings set to max. I should know I completed it with those settings.
November 29, 2007 3:30:24 PM

Alright man, I will concede... there is a possibilty that I am not remembering correctly. But, I am certain that the game uses far more than 128 MB of video memory when on Ultra (I am almost certain it is more than 256 megs too), even more as you add the AA. Which would inevitably lead to hitching as the textures would need to be swapped.

Are you certain that you had the textures set to max, and not just set to the high value and everything else maxed?

Also, you speak of registry tweaks and optimized drivers for Doom 3... they weren't available immediately after release. So, that was why I referenced when the game originally came out.

Anyway it works, it was an example of a game that (barely) no system out at the time of release could play at MAX settings (including AA and AF) and get high framerates. Oblivion is another example of a game like that.

But, now you have gotten me curious, and I am going to install Doom 3 again on my Athlon 3000 with 9800pro 128 and 1 gig of ram. I will see if I can get "ultra" to play well (decent FPS and no hitching).
November 30, 2007 7:18:21 AM

Yes John Carmack did indeed say to run DOOM3 with the textures set to max you would need a 512MB memory card. That at first was true, but once the enhanced tweaks where released it became more and more playable. The tweaks were out about a week after the game was released with the 3rd party drivers coming out a few days before that, think they where called omega drivers or something similar to that.

Anyway to say the game was as smooth as a babies backside would be to lie, no it was no, but was it playable. Frame rates where all above 30fps on average with a few dips at the start of a few levels. And juddering also accrued after the load of some of the levels. But this was only at the start of some levels till the textures sorted them selves out.

So was it smooth as it is today? No. Was it playable, very much so as long as juddering and a dip in FPS for a few seconds at the start of some of the levels did not bother you.

P.s. If your going to test it your best getting an extra gig of ram I can remember I had my graphics aperture set to 512MBs.
November 30, 2007 11:06:57 AM

Ok, I will let you know how it turns out.

But, to me, jidder is not acceptable. I remember it being more than just the beginning of levels, too. It was quite frequent and in my opnion made the game unplayable. Whether or not I did the same "tweaks", I don't know. But, I am still not convinced that any tweaks or optimized drivers would make the games Ultra textures fit in a 128 video card. It would still need to transfer between the system ram and the video card, and that is not going to happen with out some jidder. Like I said, I am almost positive Ultra is more than 256 megs of textrues in a scene at a time.

Also, I doubt that you were using any or very little AA, which to me is a requirement if you are going to say that you are running on max settings.

But, when I do this, I will have my meters up to tell me the amounts of textures actually used and the full amount of video memory needed, with AA enabled.

And just so you know, I am not trying to argue, I just don't think it is possible for the game to run good on Ultra with max settings (including some AA and AF) on a 9800 pro w/128 Ram.
November 30, 2007 1:45:10 PM

Let me ad my ($.02) cents worth to this discussion. We ALL need games like Crysis for different reasons. I have an ATI X1900xtx that I got the day it came out and you may even see in post I have made earlier on the board I was fretting about if I should upgrade in anticipation of these new games or keep the card. I was dreading the thought of having to run the game at low resolution to get the game to run at all. CRYTEK did NOT fool anyone about the requirements of the game at any point in the development of it. I can say the I did not upgrade and running in XP i have had an enjoyable experience of playing Crysis on mostly high settings. I have not experienced slow framerates (did not do fraps or any kind of fps program) during the game, but played it to enjoy the game, period. And I did! below are some of my thoughts on the CRYSIS subject, it is not comprehensive just food for thought.


1. Replayability -
A. Because of the different modes of the NANO-suit this game has a lot of replayability.
B. And as time goes on and video cards become cheaper via competition and advances in chip making technology(radeon HD3870)we can try different things and boost the settings. Drivers will also mature to help prolong the life of this game.

2. The consumer & console competition-solidify PC gaming
Crysis shows the whole gaming community the PC games can keep up with the consoles - I have a Wii and just bought a PS3(for the blu-ray, games on it is just a bonus other than Rock Band). While there is a competition between consoles, there is also a competition between ALL consloes and PC gaming. Crysis raises the bar and mantains the legitimacy of PC gaming IMHO. A number of articles I have read has projected the death of PC gaming, some may even say Crysis as presented may quicken the death of PC gaming, I disagree. That leads me to the next topic

3. Push within the industry
This raises the bar for both developers and hardware makers, that mean more competition and better prices for better products. Crysis and COD4 are the games that will be used as a benchmark for years to come. Look at how long Crysis has been in production.

4. Crytek boasting rights
This lends itself to the longevity of CRYTEK in the gaming industry and make no mistake they are here to make money and to insure that they have jobs for as long as they can . All the hype helps in this cause. If they are delivering a product that is purchased and is well liked there will be a spot for them at the table. Since FarCry they(Crytek) have a spot at my table along with Petroglyph and the Command and Conquer franchise. (I am eagerly awating Universe at War for next weeks game) What is the most talked about games for the PC right now? I would say COD4 and CRYSIS by far. This helps the franchise by leaving a lasting impression in our minds. 3 years from now when I pick up Crysis and play it againI will still be wowed and when they come out with their next game I will remember the longevity of their last one. In the recesses of my subconcious mind I will remember that I got my money's worth and gladly pay for their next game.


I am glad I did not sell my x1900xtx and get the x2900. I think that also for the way I play (RTS and Strategic Shooters) a high framerate may not be necessary. but when I used speed mode all went well. I am into the skill and finess rather than the run-n-gun mode. But again Crysis lends itself to both of those and I can try the run-n-gun when the x39xx cards come out supposedly Q1 08 and replay the game on the highest settings.


My current & near future game machine
I have Vista (had it for a year)but have not installed it. The rest of my current macjhine is 2 gig ram, E4300 oc'ed to 2.8Ghz on an ASUS P5WDG2 WS PRO motherboard, Zalman 9700 in a Coolermaster Stacker.

Last week I purchased an ASUS Maximum Formula SE, a Q6600, & 4 gigs 6400 Corsair ram that I will be assembling over the Christmas holidays. If the Q9450's come out on schedule the Q6600 may have a short life in my game machine

All in All I do not have a top end system but I do have good quality parts in the system. And yes I am running on a 27" widescreen but lowly 1280*720 display. My new displays are 24" Widescreens and things will change. But the other secret is matching the game to the hardware. Complaining because your hardware wont run a game is something the individual has control over. The hardware is out there that WILL run it. I can afford it, but I choose my purchases carefully. But lets not hold others back because of our own choices in the components that we purchase. Crysis is one game, like Farcry, that I will hold onto probably forever. It has value beyond current playability, it is a piece of HISTORY.

Thanks for your time in reading this post.
!