Crysis problems

[wesley_huddleston1]

I cant play crysis on anything higher than medium. My specs are:
MSI K9N SLI Platinum mobo
PNY 8800 GTS 320 MB video card
Mushkin 550 watt power supply
AMD Athlon 64 X2 600+ processor
G. Skill 4GB (2x 2GB) ram
2 x Western Digital Caviar 250 GB hard drive
Lite-On SATA DVD burner

I have seen people claim to play on high with worse systems.
Are they all talk or am I doing something wrong?

 

[hawkspur]

I can't play Crysis on all High on my system. Well, I can, but sans 30 FPS isn't really playable as it were.

 

[wesley_huddleston1]

I can't play Crysis on all High on my system. Well, I can, but sans 30 FPS isn't really playable as it were.

Wow, all you need is more ram and that would be the computer I wish I had.

 

[turboflame]

What resolution?

 

[wesley_huddleston1]

1024-768

 

[turboflame]

1024-768

wow something is wrong there

My 7600GT can play on medium at that resolution (20 fps)

have you tried the latest drivers?

 

[randomizer]

My 7600GT can play on medium at that resolution (20 fps)

Play... 20FPS... I beg to differ

@OP: What framerates are you getting? Because if it isn't playable for you doesn't mean it is performing worse than others, "playable" is extremely subjective.

 

[Wolfshadw]

Completely agree with Randomizer. For me, avg 15FPS is playable. Ugly as heck and generally not enjoyable, but "playable". For others, any dip below 60FPS on Very-High settings is grounds for a complete system upgrade.

As it stands, I averaged 25FPS on the demo at medium to high settings with the system in my sig at 1680x1050 and was perfectly happy with it.

-Wolf sends

 

[vtr99]

Problem is most likely Vista...

 

[randomizer]

Problem is most likely Vista...

Mmmk...

@Wolfshadw: I prefer to have 30fps min, although in crysis 25FPS min is ok since it isn't really fast-paced. Other games you need 100FPS min

 

[wesley_huddleston1]

I do have vista but i have to reinstall crysis now cause i just switched to 64 bit

 

[vtr99]

Crysis plays better with XP on the same hardware, and you can get the DX10 hack to make it look just as good. Vista is the new Windows ME, only worse.... It's a resource hog! I had Vista on 3 of my 7 home systems, and really tried to like it. After switching my new laptop to XP it runs twice as fast. I also noticed my desktops run much better after switching back to XP, especially on games. The Crysis graphics hack proves DX10 is a scam. Do a Google search for Vista game problems...

 

[randomizer]

DX10 vs DX9 very high is not the same, close, but not the same. DX10 is not a scam, it's implementation is simply terrible thanks to DX9.

Most of the game problems you find are actually ancient, I found that XP is really not any faster than vista as long as you have more RAM for vista and run DX9.

And vista is NOT the new ME, you obviously never used ME or you would know that vista is much more stable. In fact, everything is more stable than ME.

 

[wesley_huddleston1]

with DX9 I get an avg 25 fps on high
with DX10 I get an avg 15 fps on high
with DX10 I get an avg 8 fps on very high

 

[randomizer]

What about DX9 very high (hacked)?

 

[wesley_huddleston1]

What about DX9 very high (hacked)?

haven't tried it yet

 

[Silverion77]

Crysis plays better with XP on the same hardware, and you can get the DX10 hack to make it look just as good. Vista is the new Windows ME, only worse.... It's a resource hog! I had Vista on 3 of my 7 home systems, and really tried to like it. After switching my new laptop to XP it runs twice as fast. I also noticed my desktops run much better after switching back to XP, especially on games. The Crysis graphics hack proves DX10 is a scam. Do a Google search for Vista game problems...

Enough said

 

[bwdsmart]

i can run all high (atleast for the first half, second half isnt as fun) @ 1920x1080 with a rare dip below 15 fps, but mostly at an avg of 25ish or more.

 

[bwdsmart]

errr i forget specs were not in sig opteron 170 @2.6 2 gigs ram, 8800gt 715/1750/1000 win xp

 

[vtr99]

DX10 vs DX9 very high is not the same, close, but not the same. DX10 is not a scam, it's implementation is simply terrible thanks to DX9.

Most of the game problems you find are actually ancient, I found that XP is really not any faster than vista as long as you have more RAM for vista and run DX9.

And vista is NOT the new ME, you obviously never used ME or you would know that vista is much more stable. In fact, everything is more stable than ME.

I have been building and programming computers for many years. So yes, I had plenty of experience with ME. I simply meant that Vista is not better than the OS it was to replace (XP). Given Vista is more secure, so secure I have made good money setting up home networks where people previously had no problem with XP. I have changed more systems back to XP in the last 9 months that I have built with Vista. Vista is essentially a bloated OS with far too many useless processes for my taste. I average 3 to 12 system builds a month. I hold multiple MS, and Cisco certs. I have run my own small business systems & networking company for close to 20 years, and manage a large server environment as my main job. There are a few areas where Vista has an edge, but they are few and far between.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page6.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page4.html#3d_games

 

[randomizer]

Theres still no way you can compare vista to ME. Yet people do it all the time. Vista is more bloated, but much more stable. I couldn't even shut down on ME after a month.

 

[vtr99]

ME has a lot in common with Vista when it comes to being accepted, and as a highly questionable improvement over the OS it was supposed to replace. MS has already moved back the date XP was supposed to be taken off the market a number of times. In my opinion Vista is the most hated OS in history, and makes ME look rather successful in comparison. A quick Google search makes this easy to confirm. Another point in XP's favor is that SP3 gives it a 10% speed boost further extending it's performance lead. Vista SP1 does nothing for performance.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=windows&articleId=9048658&taxonomyId=125

http://www.informationweek.com/windows/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202102847

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GZAZ_enUS242US242&q=problems+with+Vista&btnG=Search

 

[randomizer]

6.2 million hits :lol:

Honestly, I LOVE vista in comparison to ME, I just couldn't do anything with ME, and it's only real benefit over 98 was native USB flash drive support (no need to find that tiny driver CD). System restore was dysfunctional, and it was rock stable for about 45 mins before you got a program that "performed an illegal operation". I'm sure it sold better, but that doesn't make it actually better.

I haven't tried SP3, not sure I want to since my system is running fine now.

 

[ausch30]

In fact, everything is more stable than ME.

Anna Nicole was more stable than Win ME!

Off the point but I agree with your statements about Vista. A lot of people tried it out when it was released or have read stories about it's problems and I agree it did have issues but most of them have now been worked out.

Of all the things that vtr99 linked the most recent was November, in fact the first 5 results in the Google search were from March, April and July 2007. Everyone knows Vista wasn't perfect when released and in fact very little software is, ever seen a game patch released a week after the game is. XP was hated when it was released, it was a resource hog and wasn't stable.

"On October 25, the day it shipped the new OS, Microsoft posted multiple bug fixes, compatibility updates, and enhancements on its Windows Update Web site--more than 18MB of them, all told. The same day, Microsoft's Knowledge Base support site also listed hundreds of confirmed bugs found in Windows XP, most of which still don't have patches or solutions. And the company's general-purpose Windows XP newsgroup continues to receive thousands of new posts every day."

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,68796-page,1-c,xp/article.html

 

[vtr99]

I suppose some people are hooked on the eye candy Vista has to offer, but from a speed and functionality standpoint it's no contest. Even when it comes to security, SP3 and an app like Zone Alarm Security Suite makes XP far more secure than Vista. This is especially true when you consider all the reporting engines built into Vista that you are supplying CPU cycles, memory, and bandwidth to give away your private information for free. Others will argue these can be defeated with Vista Lite, but again why would anyone rather have all the roadblocks Vista puts up?