What will I be able to run it on?

[Intel17]

So my current rig (Pentium D 925, GF7800GS, 2GB ram) totally sucks and can't even play Crysis at low very well. But I'm wondering what resolution/detail I'll be able to play when my new rig gets here? Here are the specs:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (I'll overclock it)
eVga GeForce 8800GT (will also overclock)
2GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 800

[brady]

You'll be able to play a combination of high/very high in DX10 or if you play in DX9 you can manage almost all very high settings witht he DX9 tweaks.

[hokeyplyr48]

Originally Posted by brady

You'll be able to play a combination of high/very high in DX10 or if you play in DX9 you can manage almost all very high settings witht he DX9 tweaks.

hmm i don't believe that. what resolution are you talking about? 1024 x 768?

remember he's only got 2gb of ram and a gt. not a gtx like you, nor 4gb of ram.

[brady]

Originally Posted by hokeyplyr48

hmm i don't believe that. what resolution are you talking about? 1024 x 768?

remember he's only got 2gb of ram and a gt. not a gtx like you, nor 4gb of ram.

You're right. I forgot to mention that would be only at lower resolutions. I think he would be better off sticking with XP DX9 + tweaks. You could probably manage some very high settings at a higher resolution in that case. If you're satisfied with all high settings under DX9 XP then I think you'll be able to easily manage a decent resolution.

[Nanosuitguy]

What settings are you guys talking about? I have a GTX OC'd and well, only 2GB (only lol) and i cant play it on all veryhigh (in xp) in resolutions over 1024x768 without getting bad framerates. I have to mix high and veryhigh if i want to play on 1280x1024 with a stable fps near 30... Altho i have only an old althlon, X2 4600+ with only 1gb cache total, wonder how much difference 4GB ram and a e6850 or a q6600 quadcore will do. I really have no idea...

[loafer87gt]

On my machine I find 1024x768 with high detail levels to be about the sweet spot. Anything higher than and the frame rates frequently plummet below 20FPS in the later levels making the game difficult to control. I would say with your new system you should be good for high detail levels at lower resolutions (1024x768) for the first levels, and then you might have to knock things down to medium for the latter more graphically intense levels.

[Intel17]

Wait, so this (near) top of the line card can't even max out this game? Eek!

[brady]

Originally Posted by loafer87gt

On my machine I find 1024x768 with high detail levels to be about the sweet spot. Anything higher than and the frame rates frequently plummet below 20FPS in the later levels making the game difficult to control. I would say with your new system you should be good for high detail levels at lower resolutions (1024x768) for the first levels, and then you might have to knock things down to medium for the latter more graphically intense levels.

Really? Your system is not too different from mine and I'm able to run Vista DX10 all very high with no texture streaming and level precache on at 1360x768 and I rarely dip below 20fps and find the game very playable with fps > 18. Infact, the later levels seemed to run very nice and I have not noticed the huge drop in fps that a lot of people are reporting. A few times I have noticed fps around 15 but when I saved and restarted they came up to 25-30 in the same spot. For the most part the, during gameplay, the game stays above 24fps.

[SlieTheSecond]

E6600 at 3.2Ghz, and a single 8800 GTS 640.
Before the patch, I played through fine with all settings on high at 1680x1050.
When I got the 8800 GT I played through with the dx9 very high tweaks.


If you have to play at 1024x768 with a system like that. Something is wrong.

The only time did my fps really plummet was the very last level... and well you need a nuclear reactor to power the kind of computer needed to run the last level
Though I hear the patch makes the last part of the game run a lot smoother. I should play it again.

[Nanosuitguy]

Originally Posted by SlieTheSecond

E6600 at 3.2Ghz, and a single 8800 GTS 640.
Before the patch, I played through fine with all settings on high at 1680x1050.
When I got the 8800 GT I played through with the dx9 very high tweaks.


If you have to play at 1024x768 with a system like that. Something is wrong.

The only time did my fps really plummet was the very last level... and well you need a nuclear reactor to power the kind of computer needed to run the last level
Though I hear the patch makes the last part of the game run a lot smoother. I should play it again.

Thats because you have a better CPU and running two 8800gt in SLI. And i dont believe that you run crysis at veryhigh in 1680x1050 with good framerates. U cant do that on a single GT...

[ATi]

do you guys think my next rig will do fine on 1680x1050?

E8500or or a Q9450?
XFX MB-N780-ISH9 LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 780i SLI Intel Motherboard
xfx GeForce 8800GTS (G92) 512MB XXX
Vista 64-Bit Ultimate
Western Digital Caviar RE 250GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb
2 Crucial Ballistix 2gb SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) Dual Channel Kit
? ?

[FastRedPonyCar]

2gigs of ram isn't bad. I've only got 2 gigs in my system and mange a perfectly healthy 27~34 fps in tweaked very high settings (see sig for system).

A single GT should be able to comfortably render mid/high 20's at a high/very high mix.

There are tweaks to the config that can be made to nickle and dime your FPS a little higher with little to no visual impact. turning off POM is the most noticable speed increasing change you can make. In some areas, it alone can give you 5 fps.

A pair of GT's will run smoothly at all very high settings.

I'd honestly pass on the quad cpu though and get an E8400 and OC it.