PDA

View Full Version : Wonder how well you PC will run Crysis


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7

DasFox
01-13-07, 07:04 PM
We are talking about the 2k res as an indication of what the performance in lower resolutions will be like.
of course most people game @1280x1024,1600x1200 or 1920x1200 at best.


Ok

Muppet
01-13-07, 08:00 PM
Why even be concerned with this resolution since the majority of gamers will be on smaller monitors anyways, and performance is going to be based on the settings you use.

I mean unless all anyone wants to know is how well it does for 2048x1536, but isn't really the point just to know how well it works for different settings/setups, so people will know what the recommended specs are.

Any game will run up to any type of a rez. you throw out it, IF you HAVE the hardware to support it.

Why drool over 2048x1536 and test a game at this for the general public that will never use this.

It's more like a glam show off, see what this can do, so what, any next GEN game can do these resoultions too.
That was the reason i linked to the article. It's because if it can run that well at that resolution, then the average PC should be just fine at lower settings.

Bman212121
01-13-07, 08:44 PM
theres a lot of games where that isnt true, unless good fps is in the 20s or u dont mind a very low minimum framerate

I don't have a very big library of new games, nor do I really play a bunch of different genres, so you are probably more correct than I am. On the games that I play anyway, BF2, COD2, COH, and AOE3, I have no problems running with everything on. Even Oblivion runs pretty good with the AA turned down a fuzz.

To me, good fps is at least 40 in RTS, and 60 in FPS. I am very sensitive to motion sickness in games, so it bothers me to play with even somewhat low fps. I have a different tolerance depending upon the game, in which some games I can go lower without it bothering me, and there are some games it doesn't matter if I'm running 100 fps I can't play it cause of the textures and lighting in them. I can only take Quake 4 in small doses, Fear Combat will get me after about 20 minutes, as will Resistance: Fall of Man. Yet I can play Unreal, COD, and BF2 with almost never getting sick.

J-Mag
01-13-07, 09:52 PM
Whomever wrote the article is a moron. The dell 30in panel is 2560x1600 res, unless it means Crysis doesn't support widescreen resolutions...

Xion X2
01-13-07, 10:09 PM
Whomever wrote the article is a moron. The dell 30in panel is 2560x1600 res, unless it means Crysis doesn't support widescreen resolutions...

Please say it does support WS. I'm getting sick of these companies rolling these games out the door that don't and then having to hack my way into some obscure ini file to fix it. Hellooooooooo, we're in the 21st century, here. Make it an in-game setting, please.

icecold1983
01-13-07, 10:53 PM
i know cod2 doesnt run at 60 fps at 1920 x 1200 with 16x aa 16x af. and it drops to around 30 regularly. company of heroes runs ok at those settings, but fps will frequently drop to the 20s in heavy action or detailed maps.

oblivion doesnt even run smoothly with 4x aa at that res with grass fade set to maximum in a lot of areas, it frequently drops to the low teens. this is with no mods installed either.

trackmania united is another one, a lot of stadium maps bring the 8800 down to the 20s and 30s with 4x aa, which makes a game that fast very hard to control. fear also has some very wicked performance drops with 4x aa at that res.

walterman
01-13-07, 10:55 PM
It will be a slideshow till next 2 or 3 gens of gpus.

They can say that it runs at 60fps looking at the floor or walls, but we all know that it will run like a slideshow while fighting at the deep jungle.

I expect 10-20fps on my system at 1280x1024 without FSAA & medium settings.

Darkoz
01-13-07, 10:57 PM
Please say it does support WS. I'm getting sick of these companies rolling these games out the door that don't and then having to hack my way into some obscure ini file to fix it. Hellooooooooo, we're in the 21st century, here. Make it an in-game setting, please.

With FarCry having widescreen support almost 3 years ago, I would say with 100% certainty that Crysis will definitely have widescreen support.

Redeemed
01-13-07, 11:00 PM
i think ur dreaming with the 16x aa

Dude, there is a difference between 16xQ AA and 16xAA. I'm referring to 16xAA. I'm not sure what benchmarks you have looked at, but regular old 16xAA is practically free on the 8800 series. I'd expect this to carry over on to DX10 titles as well.

Redeemed
01-13-07, 11:06 PM
It will be a slideshow till next 2 or 3 gens of gpus.

They can say that it runs at 60fps looking at the floor or walls, but we all know that it will run like a slideshow while fighting at the deep jungle.

I expect 10-20fps on my system at 1280x1024 without FSAA & medium settings.

This is more than true considering that your game has no DX10 support. Those whom have a GF8 or Radeon X2k series card(s) should be able to run it at rather high settings without a problem. With my setup (dual GTSs) I'm going to be very disappointed if I can't run it near maxed settings. And when I go Quad core I aim to also get a pair of GTXs. THAT rig had better run it maxed or I'll be bummed out.

icecold1983
01-14-07, 12:04 AM
Dude, there is a difference between 16xQ AA and 16xAA. I'm referring to 16xAA. I'm not sure what benchmarks you have looked at, but regular old 16xAA is practically free on the 8800 series. I'd expect this to carry over on to DX10 titles as well.

its only free when it doesnt work on most surfaces. when it works theres a solid performance drop from 4x.

Redeemed
01-15-07, 02:22 PM
its only free when it doesnt work on most surfaces. when it works theres a solid performance drop from 4x.

I've yet to notice any. That is with FEAR, Quake4, HL2, HL2:EP1, FarCry- well practically every game I own. I don't own Oblivion or CoJ so I can't speak for those two. But if it only causes a performance dip on a handful of titles while not causing any real dip on the majority then I'd blame those handful of titles for having some bad coding.

What games supposedly cause this significant performance hit at 16xAA that you speak of?

Roadhog
01-15-07, 02:27 PM
I've yet to notice any. That is with FEAR, Quake4, HL2, HL2:EP1, FarCry- well practically every game I own. I don't own Oblivion or CoJ so I can't speak for those two. But if it only causes a performance dip on a handful of titles while not causing any real dip on the majority then I'd blame those handful of titles for having some bad coding.

What games supposedly cause this significant performance hit at 16xAA that you speak of?

Theres a performance hit with 16xaa... over like 8xaa or what not. Not very big, but its there.

Xion X2
01-15-07, 03:00 PM
its only free when it doesnt work on most surfaces. when it works theres a solid performance drop from 4x.

I haven't seen another person on this forum that is as full of it as you are.

When I tested out AA on a single GTX the other day, there was a 2fps difference on Oblivion going from 4xAA-->8xAA-->16xAA on the 8800GTX. So you're talking a maximum of around 4-6fps there.

I'm sure it fluctuates between games, but on the whole there is little penalty in upping the AA on these cards.

i know cod2 doesnt run at 60 fps at 1920 x 1200 with 16x aa 16x af. and it drops to around 30 regularly.

I ran Call of Duty 2 perfectly at 1680x1050 resolution on a single GTX w/ 16xAA and all settings maxed. Only two or three times throughout the entire game do I remember the framerate dropping to less than 60 and it was usually when there was tons of smoke effects on the screen at once. These should give you an idea of how well it ran. This map here stressed the card more than any other one throughout the entire game:

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23407&stc=1&d=1168294075
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23406&stc=1&d=1168294075
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23408&stc=1&d=1168294075

Are you running DXTweaker for triple-buffering in DirectX? You know that double-buffering in DirectX will cause your games to automatically drop to half your refresh rate if it can't push it, right? That is the only way that COD2 should be dropping down to 30fps on your setup, because there isn't a 30fps difference in jumping from 1680x1050-->1920x1200.

If you are running DXTweaker, then again I say that your computer is seriously screwed. You're the only person on these forums I see getting such horrible performance out of a C2D paired w/ an 8800GTX. Find yourself somebody who can optimize your PC properly since you can't do it yourself and would rather b!tch all day long about how crappy it runs. It'd be nice if you could give all of our ears a rest from it. If you spent half the time optimizing your computer that you do just sitting on these forums and b!tching about how slow it is, you could take care of these performance problems you're having.

icecold1983
01-15-07, 03:20 PM
xion u are incredibly ignorant....it has nothing to do with triple or double buffering as i dont use v sync...are u just pulling terms out of your ass?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_preview/page20.asp

55 fps avg at 1920 x 1200 with 4x aa, its pretty easy to see how it will be dropping to the 30s or slightly below as a minimum framerate with 16x aa.

in terms of 16x aa performance hit

http://www.behardware.com/articles/644-8/nvidia-geforce-8800-gtx-8800-gts.html
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7177&page=7

so please xion get a clue before you go spouting off your garbage.

Xion X2
01-15-07, 03:30 PM
Look at my screenshots, idiot! That is at 1680x1050 resolution with 16xAA enabled. Are you telling me that your computer just by upping the resolution a tad is suddenly going to "regularly" drop down to 30 fps!? If you are, then you are absolutely, positively 100% full of sh!t.

That's why I asked you if you were running vsync, because there's no way in hell your setup should be dropping that low. Why don't you try to enable vsync with DXTweaker to see if it helps, because I've noticed that sometimes games will actually drop to lower framerates when not running vsync in stressful areas.

But right now you just don't know what the hell you're talking about. I have played all the way through COD2 recently on an 8800GTX with a resolution just below yours and 16xAA and haven't seen anything much smoother. It never even comes close to 45fps, much less 30, and the performance difference in our resolutions isn't that great.

55 fps avg at 1920 x 1200 with 4x aa, its pretty easy to see how it will be dropping to the 30s or slightly below as a minimum framerate with 16x aa.

Just crazy. These new cards do not take a 25fps performance hit by going from 4xAA-->16xAA on a game that's a YEAR AND A HALF OLD.

If there's anyone "spouting garbage" here, it's you n00b.

J-Mag
01-15-07, 03:53 PM
Essentially it looks like 8xAA is ~16% slower than 4xAA and 16xAA is ~4% slower than 8xAA, when not using trasperancy AA... Although it will vary a bit depending on the game and resolution.

They are not "free".

Also Xion you have SLI so maybe thats why it isn't showing the same results in your case.

Xion X2
01-15-07, 04:21 PM
Those screenshots were taken with a single 8800GTX before I had SLI, JMag. I just put my new card in this past weekend.

Essentially, icecold and I had the exact same setup except for my CPU being overclocked.

icecold1983
01-15-07, 04:34 PM
xion u seem to be confusing avg fps with minimum. those ss u posted do not prove anything. the fact that almost all review sites got a similar score to firingsquads avg fps of 55 with only 4x aa makes it extremely obvious that the minimum fps will certainly be very close to 30, and drop their frequently in heavy action scenes with 16x aa, even if uve never played the game.

you also took screens of an extremely dry and empty area, areas were fps is likely to be highest.

J-Mag
01-15-07, 04:56 PM
Those screenshots were taken with a single 8800GTX before I had SLI, JMag. I just put my new card in this past weekend.


Well either way you were just showing the performance of 16xAA and not the performance delta between 16xAA and any other mode...

Redeemed
01-15-07, 05:11 PM
xion u seem to be confusing avg fps with minimum. those ss u posted do not prove anything. the fact that almost all review sites got a similar score to firingsquads avg fps of 55 with only 4x aa makes it extremely obvious that the minimum fps will certainly be very close to 30, and drop their frequently in heavy action scenes with 16x aa, even if uve never played the game.

you also took screens of an extremely dry and empty area, areas were fps is likely to be highest.

icecold, you are about the most blind person I've seen.

Have you even tried oc'ing that E6600 of yours? My 8800GTSs with a s754 3400 is pushing better fps than you claim your GTX is getting. And that s754 3400 is a huge bottleneck for these cards.

And Icecold, I am playing everygame at 1920x1440- a resolution that is higher than what you are using. Furthermore, I'm also using 16xAA without noticing any of the performance drops you mention. And this is with FRAPS running and me focusing mostly on the fps count than the game.

You, my friend, are a n00b. I am not convinced that you have no clue how to configure your PC.

So, I shall throw some tips out there for you:

OC that E6600 as high as you can. Trust me, this will greatly help your 8800GTX out. The difference should be night and day.

Since you are not running SLi, enable both vsync and triple buffering.

Get a cat-scan. :p (j/k)

Dude, I don't know what else to say. The 8800GTX is a beast. You posted reviews, I guess it's my turn to do the same:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/415/3/

^^^ In that review, the single 8800GTX is pretty close to the X1950XTX CrossFire setup. Pretty d@mn impressive.

http://www.overclockers.com/articles1390/

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=grfx&id=474&pagenumber=5

http://www.************/read.php?cID=1005&pageID=2793

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2870&p=22

At 2560x1600 with 4xAA- the 8800GTX (single) finally gets this 30fps minimum you're talking about.

Dude, nearly every bench mark states the opposite of what you are claiming. This is why I'm convinced you do not know how to optimize your rig. OC that E6600 to as close to 3.5GHz as you can, then enable vsync and triple buffering. Prepare to be amazed.

If you still have issues, here is my advice- give up doing anything in regards to PC gaming. You obviously can't figure it out, and you refuse to listen to anybody whom tries to help you. Thus, a console is better for you.

Hope that helps. ;)

Redeemed
01-15-07, 05:13 PM
Well either way you were just showing the performance of 16xAA and not the performance delta between 16xAA and any other mode...

Okay, take my word for it then. I've tested with a single 8800GTS (and again, I stress that my cpu is a s754 3400- i.e. massive bottleneck) at 1920x1440 with 16xAA, and then again without 16xAA- there is only a few fps difference between the two. The only place any real difference is noticed is with 3DMark (03 - 06). As for games, the performance is either at or less than 6fps difference.

Xion X2
01-15-07, 05:16 PM
Well either way you were just showing the performance of 16xAA and not the performance delta between 16xAA and any other mode...

What the hell are you talking about? The discussion between icecold and I was about how well COD2 ran w/ 16xAA.

???

Xion X2
01-15-07, 05:17 PM
xion u seem to be confusing avg fps with minimum. those ss u posted do not prove anything. the fact that almost all review sites got a similar score to firingsquads avg fps of 55 with only 4x aa makes it extremely obvious that the minimum fps will certainly be very close to 30, and drop their frequently in heavy action scenes with 16x aa, even if uve never played the game.

you also took screens of an extremely dry and empty area, areas were fps is likely to be highest.

Are you serious with this? Nothing in this game will slow performance down like smoke effects will.

:banghead:

And what the hell is this? You call this a "dry and empty area?" There are soldiers, smoke effects, tanks, and fire effects on the screen all at the same time. And note the frame counter.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=23407&stc=1&d=1168294075

J-Mag
01-15-07, 05:26 PM
The discussion between icecold and I was about how well COD2 ran w/ 16xAA.


Exactly! When comparing 16xAA to another AA mode (in CoD2) you can see how well it runs!