Another Crysis TOPIC

[Dns]

Hey guys, I know this is the 99999... topic about crysis ,i have read some of the topics in this forum and i am still confused.Can anyone tell me if i can play Crysis at 1280*1024 ULTRA HIGH DETAIL FSAA 4x and everything at maximum detail , anisotropic and so on....with the new 9800 GX2 from Nvidia?And i mean if i can play it at a decent frame rate of 30-60FPS.Does anybody have this card?Has anybody tested the game with this card?All the tests i saw were on high detail but nobody tested it on ultra high toms,guru3d,xbitlabs and so on...

 

[sportsfanboy]

At that resolution the GX2 is kinda overkill
I would think a G92 8800GTS could handle that res.

 

[jonisginger]

g92 gts would die. gx2 maybe. 4xaa.. etcq

 

[promac]

I have a g92 8800 gts and at those settings you get a range of 5 to 25fps depending on how much is going on. Unplayable in other words.

 

[Kraynor]

Personally I think it'll be a while before even the 9800GX2 can run Crysis at "1280*1024 ULTRA HIGH DETAIL FSAA 4x and everything at maximum detail , anisotropic and so on" mostly because of dodgy drivers. At that res, however, a GX2 is overkill. Even the upcoming GTX would be a bit much. Just SLI 2 9600GTs or wait and see if a 9800 GT/GTS comes out with a decent price tag.

There's a reason people don't test on Ultra High... With a high setting there are visible gaps between video cards, and these gaps tend to be pretty nice to look at on paper. Switch that to Ultra High and you end up comparing between one card which does 5 fps, and another card that might be $100 cheaper that does 4 fps. It's not a realistic representation of the cards performance

 

[pauldh]

Problem with crysis is with max details come max physics effects and you need a monster CPU. Check out this Anand Article for some interesting/surprising results:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3271&p=4


edit: keep in mind no fsaa here. Enabling 4xaa like the OP mentiones, would add a big performance hit.

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

This should give you an idea. Like many said, I'd wait for the GTX if you wanted to go with Nvidia. But check Toms benchmark on their review: http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/03/18/nvidia_geforce_9800_gx2_review/page10.html

 

[sportsfanboy]

I don't have Vista so excuse the ignorance but...

I play Crysis all on high (Win Xp) 4x AA on a 22" monitor 1680x1050
resolution with absolutely no lag or "choppy" game play. It's on an overclocked q6600 and the old 8800gts(640 MB). From what I understand, the new Gts is about 20 to 30 percent faster than my card.

I don't see why The New GTS would have a problem at such a low resolution.

So is Vista actually that bad?

 

[Dns]

Pauldh thanks for that site it's very interesting ,so 9800gx2 plays Crysis in 1280*1024 at reasonable frame rate with no fsaa , but i wonder if we put a ageia physics card also with the 9800gx2 we can get better results.The system is ultra high end and few gamers will buy such a system just to play Crysis.
PS:i will buy it just to play Crysis

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

Don't get and Ageia Card for Crysis as it does not support it. The physics in Crysis are processed by the CPU. Get a Quad core from AMD or Intel if you want good physics in that game.

 

[purplerat]

I don't have Vista so excuse the ignorance but...

I play Crysis all on high (Win Xp) 4x AA on a 22" monitor 1680x1050
resolution with absolutely no lag or "choppy" game play. It's on an overclocked q6600 and the old 8800gts(640 MB). From what I understand, the new Gts is about 20 to 30 percent faster than my card.

I don't see why The New GTS would have a problem at such a low resolution.

So is Vista actually that bad?

DX10 makes a huge difference in performance. With it off I get the same as you running Vista. Turn DX10 on and frame rates can drop into the low teens at times.

 

[spuddyt]

firstly, vista IS bag, but in addition, on XP you only get "high" settings - unless you use a hack to get very high, and the difference between high and very high is big (playble at one, unplayable at the other for me)

 

[sportsfanboy]

firstly, vista IS bag, but in addition, on XP you only get "high" settings - unless you use a hack to get very high, and the difference between high and very high is big (playble at one, unplayable at the other for me)

I understand Vista lets you run the game in very high mode. My point is that the newer GTS is alot faster than the old 1 I'm running. So I thought it would make up for the difference, I guess not.

 

[purplerat]

I understand Vista lets you run the game in very high mode. My point is that the newer GTS is alot faster than the old 1 I'm running. So I thought it would make up for the difference, I guess not.

The G92 GTS is about 20%-30% faster. If you are only getting 20fps with the older GTS that means about a 4-6fps increase.