# Crysis, is it still the hardest game on your system?



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

Are there any new games that work your system more than Crysis


----------



## erocker (Mar 2, 2009)

GTA IV does a good job at bringing most systems to it's knees.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

Sweet, i might have to give it a go, 
whats the gameplay like? ive never liked previous versions


----------



## erocker (Mar 2, 2009)

Gameplay is pretty much the same.   I didn't mind it though, it was fun.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 2, 2009)

One of the most taxing, but for a very good reason:

















and that reason is that it's poorly coded ;p


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

your probley right, crysis just had the option to get the most out of your system, 
what i ment is there a game that will make me wanna run out and upgrade me CPU or Graphics card just so i can set all options to high/ultra etc....


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

Thats What im talking about Ramsey!!


----------



## erocker (Mar 2, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> is there a game that will make me wanna run out and upgrade me CPU or Graphics card just so i can set all options to high/ultra etc....



Once again GTA IV for sure.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 2, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> your probley right, crysis just had the option to get the most out of your system,
> what i ment is there a game that will make me wanna run out and upgrade me CPU or Graphics card just so i can set all options to high/ultra etc....



What genre do you prefer?
First Person Shooter
Motorsports
MMO
etc?


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> What genre do you prefer?
> First Person Shooter
> Motorsports
> MMO
> etc?



most games, i just never liked the earler vesions of GTA for 2 reasons, crapy grafix and bad/piontless gameplay
i would try the new one, but no way would i buy it unless theyve upped the gameplay on it


----------



## RevengE (Mar 2, 2009)

Yeah quake 1 is pretty intense my 4870x2 can't handle it.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 2, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> most games, i just never liked the earler vesions of GTA for 2 reasons, crapy grafix and bad/piontless gameplay
> i would try the new one, but no way would i buy it unless theyve upped the gameplay on it


So how do you know which is new and which is old?


----------



## paulm (Mar 2, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> One of the most taxing, but for a very good reason:
> 
> <images>
> 
> and that reason is that it's poorly coded ;p



Sorry if I'm stupid, but why does your Crysis look so much gooder than mine (when I had a GTX 280)?


----------



## v12dock (Mar 2, 2009)

World of Warcraft, dalaran high pop server max settings.. you would be surprised


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 2, 2009)

paulm said:


> Sorry if I'm stupid, but why does your Crysis look so much gooder than mine (when I had a GTX 280)?


Because that's not Crysis in game.   And, I honestly don't see the point if it's not something we can use.  From what someone posted, extensive commands were used for different renderer effects.  To get shots like that you will probably need access to the full engine editor.

Be that as it may, the IQ isn't what makes the game.  It's the:
-storyline
-game play mechanics
-etc


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> So how do you know which is new and which is old?





I guess in short I judge How old a game is buy the Date its released


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 2, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> I guess in short I judge How old a game is buy the Date its released


Then which genre do you have a preference for right now?


----------



## Frizz (Mar 2, 2009)

I don't know my system can't handle both, I best stick to world of goo til I can get a gtx295 or 4870x2  ...

I don't recall crysis looking that pretty... even on all very high.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

ill load crysis and grab a screen shot


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 2, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Because that's not Crysis in game.   And, I honestly don't see the point if it's not something we can use.  From what someone posted, extensive commands were used for different renderer effects.  To get shots like that you will probably need access to the full engine editor.
> 
> Be that as it may, the IQ isn't what makes the game.  It's the:
> -storyline
> ...



they are in-game screenshots

http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768

Just with Time of day mods and some have texture mods.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 2, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> they are in-game screenshots
> 
> http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768
> 
> Just with Time of day mods and some have texture mods.


What are you speaking of? I didn't say their weren't from the game how else would they be screenshot.  This was discussed in another forum (before it was locked  ) and it's not something folk will see when playing the game.  Again, from what I've read some sort of extensive commands were used for different renderer effects (dynamic and advanced ToD system or something like that) were you may need full access to the editor. And if you take notice, there is no link to download and try this for ourselves in the link you provided.  However, if you do find some sort of mod that will allow this by all means let us know.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 2, 2009)

From what im hearing GTA IV is one of the worst in terms of system performance. But Crysis is still notorious for being hard to run.


----------



## HammerON (Mar 2, 2009)

Well, I haven't played GTA IV (only FPS games) but CRYSIS is still a good measure of a systems capabilities. The original Far Cry was used to measure a systems capabilities and was used for several years. I am thinking that CRYSIS and CRYSIS Warhead will be used for awhile.
I was hoping that FEAR 2 would be tough on my system like the original FEAR was. However it is not as I played through the game with everything maxed-out.
My 2cents


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

here, i just grabed 2 Screen shots, of course there much better shots, but that would require playing for abit longer, anwway here they are  im pretty sure you can mod the game for the ULTRA settings. this screanshot is 1920x1080 very high 8xaa


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 2, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> What are you speaking of? I didn't say their weren't from the game how else would they be screenshot.  This was discussed in another forum (before it was locked  ) and it's not something folk have seen when playing the game.  Again, from what I've read it some sort of extensive commands were used for different renderer effects (dynamic and advanced ToD system or something like that) were you need full access to the editor. And if you take notice, there is no link to download and try this for ourselves.  But if you find one by all means let us know.



I dunno what mods/skins were used in the screenies, but I'm trying this "natural" mod which changes ToD settings to make it look realistic.  I also use an extreme quality config from here:
http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=31242


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 2, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> I dunno what mods/skins were used in the screenies, but I'm trying this "natural" mod which changes ToD settings to make it look realistic.  I also use an extreme quality config from here:
> http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=31242



I think people would want to play Crysis/Crysis:WH as seen in those pics.  Problem is, I haven't seen a "how to" on ToD settings used.  So, while it's nice to see what Crysis/WH could have been there is no benefit if the information/mod isn't made available.  Which is why I said there are other factors that are important like storyline, game play mechanics, etc.  And, IMO, those pics in the link above aren't the same from the earlier pics.


----------



## wolf2009 (Mar 2, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> What are you speaking of? I didn't say their weren't from the game how else would they be screenshot.  This was discussed in another forum (before it was locked  ) and it's not something folk will see when playing the game.  Again, from what I've read some sort of extensive commands were used for different renderer effects (dynamic and advanced ToD system or something like that) were you may need full access to the editor. And if you take notice, there is no link to download and try this for ourselves in the link you provided.  However, if you do find some sort of mod that will allow this by all means let us know.





oli_ramsay said:


> they are in-game screenshots
> 
> http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768
> 
> Just with Time of day mods and some have texture mods.





EastCoasthandle said:


> Because that's not Crysis in game.   And, I honestly don't see the point if it's not something we can use.  From what someone posted, extensive commands were used for different renderer effects.  To get shots like that you will probably need access to the full engine editor.
> 
> Be that as it may, the IQ isn't what makes the game.  It's the:
> -storyline
> ...





paulm said:


> Sorry if I'm stupid, but why does your Crysis look so much gooder than mine (when I had a GTX 280)?



you guys need to look at this. that's is not the crysis that you will see in game. 

that is called a Bullshot. 

look here

http://www.kombo.com/article.php?artid=12420


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 2, 2009)

Crysis maxed > GTA IV maxed at a 6 fps difference.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 2, 2009)

wolf2009 said:


> you guys need to look at this. that's is not the crysis that you will see in game.
> 
> that is called a Bullshot.
> 
> ...


I originally thought they could be bullshots and some could be (there is no information made available on how to mimic these results).  However, after reading this thread I thought something else was involved.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 2, 2009)

http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26783983&page=0

They're not "bullshots"



> All of the above pics are done with simple ToD tweaks. No asset changes, no modifications to the engine, simply changing a few key variables to make the HDR work in mysterious ways.



so basically a few changes to the config files and you can achieve those results.


----------



## SLO247 (Mar 2, 2009)

FSX is a good one to bring a system to it's knees.


----------



## Marineborn (Mar 2, 2009)

sorry to jerk off topic but is there any mods for crysis which makes it look better


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 2, 2009)

Marineborn said:


> sorry to jerk off topic but is there any mods for crysis which makes it look better



http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/mods/crysis/mod.html Not even sure if ur system can handle it. These mods enable ultra high settings.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 2, 2009)

Marineborn said:


> sorry to jerk off topic but is there any mods for crysis which makes it look better



http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=14195

http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=31242

Try these, they should actually tax your system less than Ultra/highest in-game settings.  And if you're using the system in your signature, then you can easily handle it.  I can play it with the system in my specs at 30-40 FPS with those configs with no AA and 2xAA in some areas.


----------



## Marineborn (Mar 2, 2009)

so which one the ultra high super graphics or natural, which one would be more taxing ya think> and yes that is my system in my sig which most of that stuff is overclocked quite abit under water cooling


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 2, 2009)

You can use both at the same time.  The natural mod is for time of day settings.  The other one is to have extreme quality graphics while maintaining a respectable framerate.  You could probably even manage 4xAA with your card.


----------



## Marineborn (Mar 2, 2009)

i was talking  about the mod in spearmans post


----------



## RevengE (Mar 2, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/mods/crysis/mod.html Not even sure if ur system can handle it. These mods enable ultra high settings.



Whats the point if not even a 4870x2 can handle that? I mean thats pretty stupid..Can it or not?


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 2, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> Are there any new games that work your system more than Crysis



Nope, crysis and warhead is not that demanding. If you set the graphics up to high , or very high yes it does become more demanding, but if you have the right rig and set up you shouldn't have any trouble. 

The most demanding game i have played as for my rig is concern thus far is l4d.

*OFFTOPIC:*

Question, how do you get the 3rd person view in crysis and warhead?


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 2, 2009)

That isn't a mod, it's just a config file (7kb).  Probably the settings to enable highest detail in XP by the looks of it.


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 2, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Nope, crysis and warhead is not that demanding. If you set the graphics up to high , or very high yes it does become more demanding, but if you have the right rig and set up you shouldn't have any trouble.
> 
> The most demanding game i have played as for my rig is concern thus far is l4d.
> 
> ...



You put -devmode in the shortcut and press F1 in game.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 2, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Nope, crysis and warhead is not that demanding. If you set the graphics up to high , or very high yes it does become more demanding, but if you have the right rig and set up you shouldn't have any trouble.
> 
> The most demanding game i have played as for my rig is concern thus far is l4d.
> 
> ...



 U2 please quit talking out of your Rear End. :shadedshu


----------



## Random Murderer (Mar 2, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> Are there any new games that work your system more than Crysis



crysis never brought my system to its knees... gears of war has always been my system's nemesis. for some reason i can run crysis maxed out, even ut3(which is on the same engine as GoW) maxed with no problems, but for some reason GoW is rough on my system.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 2, 2009)

Random Murderer said:


> crysis never brought my system to its knees... gears of war has always been my system's nemesis. for some reason i can run crysis maxed out, even ut3(which is on the same engine as GoW) maxed with no problems, but for some reason GoW is rough on my system.



It never did with mine really either. Never played GOW would like to sometime.


----------



## Drizzt5 (Mar 2, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> Are there any new games that work your system more than Crysis



stalker clear sky is pretty darn demanding... I would say an equal to crysis.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 2, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I think people would want to play Crysis/Crysis:WH as seen in those pics.  Problem is, I haven't seen a "how to" on ToD settings used.  So, while it's nice to see what Crysis/WH could have been there is no benefit if the information/mod isn't made available.  Which is why I said there are other factors that are important like storyline, game play mechanics, etc.  And, IMO, those pics in the link above aren't the same from the earlier pics.



omfg so true... i was really dissapointed with crysis after all its hype.



Drizzt5 said:


> stalker clear sky is pretty darn demanding... I would say an equal to crysis.




True but only for NV cards, ATI cards w/ dx 10.1 have a big advantage in clearsky


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 2, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> One of the most taxing, but for a very good reason:
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090301/1uyne.jpg



HOLY MOLY Thats hot.  



xRevengEx said:


> U2 please quit talking out of your Rear End. :shadedshu



LMFAO.


----------



## Marineborn (Mar 2, 2009)

doesnt stalker clear skies have a directx 10.1?


----------



## RevengE (Mar 2, 2009)

Marineborn said:


> doesnt stalker clear skies have a directx 10.1?



Yes Its Directx 10


----------



## ChiSox (Mar 2, 2009)

> Originally Posted by EastCoasthandle  View Post
> What are you speaking of? I didn't say their weren't from the game how else would they be screenshot. This was discussed in another forum (before it was locked ) and it's not something folk have seen when playing the game. Again, from what I've read it some sort of extensive commands were used for different renderer effects (dynamic and advanced ToD system or something like that) were you need full access to the editor. And if you take notice, there is no link to download and try this for ourselves. But if you find one by all means let us know.
> 
> I dunno what mods/skins were used in the screenies, but I'm trying this "natural" mod which changes ToD settings to make it look realistic. I also use an extreme quality config from here:
> http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=31242



Thats not crysis..... thats some national geographic expedition at a Halloween party in the amazon ......If the game looked that good well I'd shart myself


----------



## johnspack (Mar 2, 2009)

GTA IV at 1920x1200 and all max settings brings my gtx280 to its knees...  much more so than crysis.   By the way,  love gta iv!
Edit:  and correct,  fsx at all ultra max settings,  will make my gtx weep....


----------



## PP Mguire (Mar 2, 2009)

I play Crysis at 1920x1200 with extra eye candy no problem. Even with 2xAA there is only slight lag when aliens invade my screen.


----------



## Frizz (Mar 2, 2009)

Is there anyway to lock frames to 30 fps? At very high on dx10 its ok, but it dips down from <40 down to 25 alot and it gets annoying, It might be alot more smoother at 30 fps locked.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 2, 2009)

I think we all should post *one famous* screenshot with everything on high with fraps and see the performance. Anyone up for it?  Btw, keep sound & particles on low, i really don't see the point in putting them on high. I will post my famous shot tomorrow on everything high settings. Its the demo. Going to OC my card too and post one with it at stock


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 2, 2009)

crysis best game graphic ever see and other hardest games
GTA but this games depend on high cpu and ram more than graphic card
clearsky but only with ATI when using DX10.1 and high AA it will beat crysis with this setting


----------



## hat (Mar 2, 2009)

Probably the origional crysis on all very high with forced AA and AF as far as it goes in the control panel. I heard STALKER Clear Sky is supposed to be a bitch with DX10.1 enabled though.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 2, 2009)

hat said:


> Probably the origional crysis on all very high with forced AA and AF as far as it goes in the control panel. I heard STALKER Clear Sky is supposed to be a bitch with DX10.1 enabled though.



on my system 1280x1024 everything on max setting and max AA
crysis warhead 20-25FPS
clearsky 10-15FPS


----------



## RevengE (Mar 2, 2009)

hayder.master said:


> on my system 1280x1024 everything on max setting and max AA
> crysis warhead 20-25FPS
> clearsky 10-15FPS



really? I didnt know Clearsky was so Harsh on systems?


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 2, 2009)

Clear Sky runs fine for me with DX10.1 on. I had to borrow the PII 920 in my HTPC for it tho haha. My 7750 can't do it tho.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 2, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> really? I didnt know Clearsky was so Harsh on systems?




clearsky only game Harsh my system



ShadowFold said:


> Clear Sky runs fine for me with DX10.1 on. I had to borrow the PII 920 in my HTPC for it tho haha. My 7750 can't do it tho.



really on max setting with max AA , my cpu q6600 is good enough too also i overclock it at 3.45 and you have 2x4830 so it is bit more performance than 4870
try set max AA quit the game and run it again , the AA in clearsky kill the performance of the GPU


----------



## HammerON (Mar 2, 2009)

Here are some screen shots with the http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/mods/crysis/mod.html
mod:


----------



## JC316 (Mar 2, 2009)

Nope. Lost Planet is the most taxing. I can run Crysis DX10, 1400x900, no motion blur, but everything else set to high with ease. Can't do the same with lost planet.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

HammerON said:


> Here are some screen shots with the http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/mods/crysis/mod.html
> mod:



i cant really see any major improvement with the mod
heres antoher cupple without the mod


----------



## Imsochobo (Mar 2, 2009)

*No not by far!*

Crytosis is the hardest ive come across!.

But GTA IV comes close, and crysis is one of the hardest though, but is the best looking game EVER, and is quite optimized if you ask me.


Think, Graphics vs requirements, i can actually play warhead on a HD2400 PRO 3ghz E6850 which we have at school (4gig ram).

its worth mentioning THIS:
ATI wasnt told that crytosis was in progress, and havnt heard of it before legitreviews tested the beta, its an "nvidia meant to be playd game".
And ofcourse, physx is utilized, and is almost required, i still have fun playing through the game at 18 fps with my madass system, see specs.
thats 1920x1200 and 0xMSAA shader 3.0 win 7.

thats something crysis does very nice btw


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

yea i recon, when i played the game right through, i every so often i would come across an amazing view, shame i dont have the screemshots any more, the ones i just posted are all within the first 30min of gameplay


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

Imsochobo said:


> Crytosis is the hardest ive come across!.
> 
> But GTA IV comes close, and crysis is one of the hardest though, but is the best looking game EVER, and is quite optimized if you ask me.
> 
> ...




im supprised you dont get more FPS than that though, im damn sure i get more than 18fps with my set up (see specs) thats 1920x1080 everything on very high, no msaa


----------



## FilipM (Mar 2, 2009)

Speaking of mods, this is the best I came to:

http://crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=28937&hilight=mster


----------



## js01 (Mar 2, 2009)

You guys should give thi map a try it looks amazing.
http://www.crymod.com/filebase.php?fileid=2801


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

damn looks like a fun mod, but i cant play it online, connection too slow


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 2, 2009)

JC316 said:


> Nope. Lost Planet is the most taxing. I can run Crysis DX10, 1400x900, no motion blur, but everything else set to high with ease. Can't do the same with lost planet.



agreed , but in same time this game have bad engine cuz you see some high dop in FPS just like farcry2 but you right about most taxing


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 2, 2009)

Imsochobo said:


> Crytosis is the hardest ive come across!.
> 
> But GTA IV comes close, and crysis is one of the hardest though, but is the best looking game EVER, and is quite optimized if you ask me.
> 
> ...



It doesn't use physx, Nvidia-Ageia PhysX I mean, so a Nvidia card doesn't help at all in that respect. Crysis physics engine is 100% custom made by Crytek, no middleware was used. It just uses the GPU (ANY brand) for some effects physics, which is not the same at all. 

Crysis launched a good amount of months before Nvidia bought Ageia anyway and considering that rumors about Ageia being in talk with AMD (yeah according to rumors Ageia did offer to AMD first. = fail AMD, IMHO) arised around SEP 2007, I doubt Nvidia even KNEW they would be offering PhysX in the next months.

Are Nvidia cards better suited for running any kind of physics on the GPU? Sure, thanks to it's "a little bit more CPU-like" cache architecture. But it has nothing to do with any PhysX-like GPU accelerated physics. In fact, after playing a lot with the settings and the cvars, I'm almost 100% sure that what makes Crysis so taxing is the physics system and it would have play much better if PhysX was used.


----------



## Frizz (Mar 2, 2009)

Well these are pretty old but, its me playing around in -devmode. Here is all very high DX10 1680x1050, 64bit, AA x2; r_displayinfo 1 is on. The nuke, moar effects are beautifully done along with the character models! 

_Hmm... hat or no hat?_




_HAT!_




_This is my fictional idea of killing someone_


 



MORE MOARRR!!!


----------



## KainXS (Mar 2, 2009)

farcry 2 is harder on my system than anything else, even crysis, but I think its cause its coded like crap.


----------



## Frizz (Mar 2, 2009)

Far Cry 2 can run like a piece of crap too, mostly due to pagefile problems though. Its not hard to keep it a 60 fps with all ultra. 

There's some optimization problems with it as well, DX10 runs better and all but x2 AA running better with no AA is just weird. Although I haven't played the patched versions because after I bought it I could only last 2 hours before noticing the annoying spawn rate of enemy outposts.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 2, 2009)

Flight Simulator X will eat your pc, then crap it out and eat it again.

Stick all the graphics up as high as they go and take off from heathrow, I got about 7 fps.


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 2, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> Whats the point if not even a 4870x2 can handle that? I mean thats pretty stupid..Can it or not?



Well he just ask for mod's to make crysis look better. And i did. But Very High Settings to Ultra High settings make a 1-4fps difference so.......


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 2, 2009)

crysis runs very smooth on my system at very high settings getting no lower then 25 fps


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 2, 2009)

ste2425 said:


> crysis runs very smooth on my system at very high settings getting no lower then 25 fps



Crysis or Crysis Warhead and what res?


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 2, 2009)

randomflip said:


> Far Cry 2 can run like a piece of crap too, mostly due to pagefile problems though. Its not hard to keep it a 60 fps with all ultra.
> 
> There's some optimization problems with it as well, DX10 runs better and all but x2 AA running better with no AA is just weird. Although I haven't played the patched versions because after I bought it I could only last 2 hours before noticing the annoying spawn rate of enemy outposts.



Aaah, I thought I was the only one with that weird AA issues. In my case it played better with 4x than without. 2xAA didn't really help too much compared to 4x though. Anyway it's really an unnoptimiced crap, that no matter what settings I used it would simply run like crap sometimes and sometimes just well. I don't know if it was because of the pagefile, but I don't think so, because very few people may have a bigger and better pagefile system than the one I have implemented. It might be the game is just crappy handling it no matter what though...

EDIT: Who cares anyway?  It took me just about the same time to notice the spawn annoyance, it just took me longer to stop playing it, I guess. 47% of the game.


----------



## anonymous_user (Mar 2, 2009)

I'm gonnago on a wild guess and say that it's your cpu if indeed you are running it on stock and if 0xAA is trully slower than 4xAA. Simply by increasing AA you offload the cpu strain to the gfx instead.


----------



## Frizz (Mar 2, 2009)

DarkMatter said:


> Aaah, I thought I was the only one with that weird AA issues. In my case it played better with 4x than without. 2xAA didn't really help too much compared to 4x though. Anyway it's really an unnoptimiced crap, that no matter what settings I used it would simply run like crap sometimes and sometimes just well. I don't know if it was because of the pagefile, but I don't think so, because very few people may have a bigger and better pagefile system than the one I have implemented. It might be the game is just crappy handling it no matter what though...
> 
> EDIT: Who cares anyway?  It took me just about the same time to notice the spawn annoyance, it just took me longer to stop playing it, I guess. 47% of the game.



The page-file problem only made the game stutter but it wasn't a big issue to the point it effected gameplay so it wuz all gewdddd. I found it disturbing that I spent $80 AUD to play the game up to %14 only lol but yeah hopefully future patches will make me raise that percentage and multiplayer is just bad, empty australian servers and over 250 ping to play against international players. ****SIGH****


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Mar 2, 2009)

randomflip said:


> Well these are pretty old but, its me playing around in -devmode. Here is all very high DX10 1680x1050, 64bit, AA x2; r_displayinfo 1 is on. The nuke, moar effects are beautifully done along with the character models!
> 
> _Hmm... hat or no hat?_
> 
> ...



I think maybe it's the fact that you have a quad but i dont get the same performance in crysis as you get in those screenshots.


----------



## AltecV1 (Mar 2, 2009)

i had a huge stutter problem in crysis with my E6400 and warhed was unplayeble!!!but e8400 solved that problem


----------



## kyle2020 (Mar 2, 2009)

You know what game my 260 struggles with some times? Titan quest. No joke, haha, everything maxxed out and sometimes entering portals / with some mages after me I lag a bit.


----------



## Binge (Mar 2, 2009)

I also have to say my system ran Crysis @ 1680x1050 with no problems and fps did not drop under 30.  A GTX280 is overkill .  Knock me all you want for the resolution, but 22" is plenty for how close I sit to my screen.

@Kyle.  That's probably not your vid card


----------



## boredgunner (Mar 2, 2009)

I believe GTA IV is the most taxing game, even though it looks mediocre at best.  That's how bad it's optimized.  At 1680 x 1050, I run Crysis at 35-60 FPS with my high end graphics mod and custom ToD.  This is how the game looks.






















Warhead runs the same, save the first level where I go below 30 FPS sometimes.  Optimization could be better, but it's no where near as bad as GTA IV.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 2, 2009)

GtaIV is only taxing if you have a dual core. The game recommends at least a tri core.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

KainXS said:


> farcry 2 is harder on my system than anything else, even crysis, but I think its cause its coded like crap.



wow, farcry 2 went sweet on my rig, @ 1920x1080 everything on ultra, i was very supprised it was smooth as silk. with aax4

Come to think of it i never relly notice if aa is truned on on my setup otherthan eather a minor or sometimes major drop in fps. i think my Screen might have somthing to do with that maybe?


----------



## RevengE (Mar 2, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> wow, farcry 2 went sweet on my rig, @ 1920x1080 everything on ultra, i was very supprised it was smooth as silk. with aax4



Did you like farcry 2?


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

yea, i thought it was good. very diffrent from Far Cry though
finished it within a week


----------



## RevengE (Mar 2, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> yea, i thought it was good. very diffrent from Far Cry though
> finished it within a week



Yeah Everyone else seems to hate it, I myself did not think it was that bad. It was fun to play for awhile.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

yea, ill probley never play it again, but i liked it. some games will remain on my system forever eg crysis, assasins cread, COD 4-5 Grid Dirt.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 2, 2009)

Age of Conan Has Some pretty amazing GFX i stoped playing around Xmas though, hopefully when i play again they have DX10. that was a Hard game on some systems. there was always people complaning about there FPS probley cos they thought there mid range card could crank like a new high end at the time,


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 2, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> Age of Conan Has Some pretty amazing GFX i stoped playing around Xmas though, hopefully when i play again they have DX10. that was a Hard game on some systems. there was always people complaning about there FPS probley cos they thought there mid range card could crank like a new high end at the time,



Probably most of them came from WoW and thought it would be the same.


----------



## niko084 (Mar 3, 2009)

I dunno man, you can taxing and horribly optimized, play NWN2, even with my current rig I can only manage about 15-20fps at maximum settings, which is completely ridiculous @ 1280x1024...

I can however run Warhead 1920x1080 Enthusiast with 2x AA for part of the game smooth almost 30ish fps.


----------



## chris89 (Mar 3, 2009)

Well i found FSX to be miles more taxxing then Crysis, but crysis is by far the most for an FPS.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 3, 2009)

chris89 said:


> Well i found FSX to be miles more taxxing then Crysis, but crysis is by far the most for an FPS.



Yeah he's right. One of the requirements for FSX is alot of patience because you will need to fly at 10fps from heathrow to Glasgow.


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 3, 2009)

Try Runescape On High Detail and High Res on a Highly populated area...  You'll be suprised


----------



## Frizz (Mar 3, 2009)

TRIPTEX_MTL said:


> I think maybe it's the fact that you have a quad but i dont get the same performance in crysis as you get in those screenshots.



I ran these with the 9.2 drivers, I'm not sure if it has the quad optimization but it does run alot better in crysis dx10 than 8.12 drivers if you haven't tried it yet I say give the driver a benchtest 

EDIT: Sorry what I meant by old is a week or two ago, I don't really keep track of time as I'm an unemployed part time student atm lol.



Binge said:


> I also have to say my system ran Crysis @ 1680x1050 with no problems and fps did not drop under 30.  A GTX280 is overkill .  Knock me all you want for the resolution, but 22" is plenty for how close I sit to my screen.
> 
> @Kyle.  That's probably not your vid card



Lol is 1680x1050 the new 1024x768? I only sit 17" inches from my 22" monitor and its just like watching a 54 inch LCD at my lounge room its quite blinding sometimes with vistaglazz on and I occasionally gotta correct gamma and brightness for some games bcoz my eye hertz.



DarkMatter said:


> Probably most of them came from WoW and thought it would be the same.



HAHA..

I went from WoW to Age of Conan because of my new rig  and sad to say WoW was still the winner.

Age of Conan = lost population **A CRAP LOAD** servers are ghost towns.

Tabul Rasa = Shutdown as of 25th of February

Granada Espada = Completely free to play along with many other korean made MMO's. Ragnarok Online is surviving with p2p.

I talk alot, but I would have liked to play Age of Conan alot longer, but I couldn't take the lack of fans and players missing in the game..


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 3, 2009)

This is at 1280x1024 low to medium settings, i a solid 15-25fps. 








If i set the visuals up to all medium, i get 11-18fps. Now if i set it up to medium to high i get 9-13fps. All at stock settings.

So the bottom line here, Crysis and warhead is kinda demanding. I mean, if i OC my card i might gain a few more fps, but i am sure if i had a 8500gt or even the 8600gt i would be able to play crysis at medium to high without any trouble. So crysis and warhead is kinda demanding, but not what people think. And this is from someone using a p3 with 600mhz. I can only wonder if my speed was up to 1ghz.
If i was never planning to buy a secondary rig, i would sure enough go ahead and upgrade my speed. But oh well , 600mhz is fine.


----------



## JC316 (Mar 3, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Flight Simulator X will eat your pc, then crap it out and eat it again.
> 
> Stick all the graphics up as high as they go and take off from heathrow, I got about 7 fps.



Oh yeah. I saw a HELL of a rig running it at Quakecon. I think it was twin 4870x2's and it ran like a frozen dog turd. Of course, it was running on multiple screens, but still.


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 3, 2009)

It doesnt stop at high, remember ultra high... Now that is demanding...


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Mar 3, 2009)

u2konline said:


> This is at 1280x1024 low to medium settings, i a solid 15-25fps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Once you have your res at 1680*1050 or higher, throw in some AA and DX10 though, Crysis becomes a whole different beast.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 3, 2009)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> Once you have your res at 1680*1050 or higher, throw in some AA and DX10 though, Crysis becomes a whole different beast.



Yea i agree, the higher you go, the more demanding. I guess you guys can have fun with all of that. Even whenever i do get my new rig, i plan to keep it simple at 1280x1024 medium to high or high to medium. Looks perfect at those settings imo. 

Peace


----------



## niko084 (Mar 3, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Yea i agree, the higher you go, the more demanding. I guess you guys can have fun with all of that. Even whenever i do get my new rig, i plan to keep it simple at 1280x1024 medium to high or high to medium. Looks perfect at those settings imo.
> 
> Peace



Wait until you have a card that can handle it at High or Very High, it gets so much nicer... You would have to see it to know it.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 3, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Yea i agree, the higher you go, the more demanding. I guess you guys can have fun with all of that. Even whenever i do get my new rig, i plan to keep it simple at 1280x1024 medium to high or high to medium. Looks perfect at those settings imo.
> 
> Peace



U2 There you go again speaking out of your Rear End.l


----------



## Binge (Mar 3, 2009)

I think he's talking with his wallet


----------



## RevengE (Mar 3, 2009)

maybe all I ever hear about is this new rig he's getting.


----------



## Binge (Mar 3, 2009)

If he doesn't set the bar at max settings with over 30 fps in Crysis he'll save $200+


----------



## RevengE (Mar 3, 2009)

Binge said:


> If he doesn't set the bar at max settings with over 30 fps in Crysis he'll save $200+


----------



## hat (Mar 3, 2009)

oh well. either he thinks he's fooling us by making it look like he's running crysis on a pIII or he actually is, either way that's just what he does and it's best to let him alone because he's either laughing at us or just not listening to us


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 3, 2009)

Binge said:


> If he doesn't set the bar at max settings with over 30 fps in Crysis he'll save $200+


If i OC my 8400gs to a point and keep crysis at 1280x1024 at all low, i am sure i will hit 35fps. However, playing crysis at low is not cool. I played crysis at 1280x1024 all high:




Seen here, so whats the point in playing this at all low when viewing visuals like that? 
No point. 



hat said:


> oh well. either he thinks he's fooling us by making it look like he's running crysis on a pIII or he actually is, either way that's just what he does and it's best to let him alone because he's either laughing at us or just not listening to us









Wouldn't even be able to play none of these games with the help of the 8400gs or my 2400HD. Plus i am running in pcie mode.


----------



## hat (Mar 3, 2009)

There is no such thing as pci-e on a PIII based system PCI-E wasn't even thought of yet when PIII was commonplace.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 3, 2009)

hat said:


> There is no such thing as pci-e on a PIII based system PCI-E wasn't even thought of yet when PIII was commonplace.



The new pci cards use a special bridge that enables the same speed as pcie 1.0, however i was told by albatron , Robert that it fully uses the same speed as pcie, despite the lower bandwidth in PCI. also read this
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?Itemid=34&id=7548&option=com_content&task=view

" The cards use a PCIe to PCI bridge from Pericom " 

contact albatron or any company that makes these new pci cards, they will tell you the same thing.


----------



## hat (Mar 3, 2009)

Impossible. PCI-E 1.0 spec is 100mhz. There is no way to get a PCI slot (these run at 33mhz) to run at 100mhz. If you did you would have so many stability errors it just wouldn't work. The 8400gs is origionally a pci-e card so yes it does use a pci/pci-e bridge, but I garuntee you there is absolutely no way your pci 8400gs is running at a bus speed of 100mhz like the pci-e version would. The only thing the pci-e/pci bridge does is make the parts of the 8400gs which were designed for pci-e work with the regular pci interface; they do not allow the pci card to run at the pci-e 1.0 spec of 100mhz.


----------



## Saakki (Mar 3, 2009)

lawl it is interesting to see that someone is trying to play crysis with p3 and 8400 PCI card ..that needs some balls


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 3, 2009)

> Crysis or Crysis Warhead and what res?


both crysis and ward head run perfect in high settings at 1680X1050, in windows 7 and xp, xp gets a little more performance though coz it aint using directx 10


----------



## Frizz (Mar 3, 2009)

Saakki said:


> lawl it is interesting to see that someone is trying to play crysis with p3 and 8400 PCI card ..that needs some balls



Or patience more like it!


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 3, 2009)

hat said:


> Impossible. PCI-E 1.0 spec is 100mhz. There is no way to get a PCI slot (these run at 33mhz) to run at 100mhz. If you did you would have so many stability errors it just wouldn't work. The 8400gs is origionally a pci-e card so yes it does use a pci/pci-e bridge, but I garuntee you there is absolutely no way your pci 8400gs is running at a bus speed of 100mhz like the pci-e version would. The only thing the pci-e/pci bridge does is make the parts of the 8400gs which were designed for pci-e work with the regular pci interface; they do not allow the pci card to run at the pci-e 1.0 spec of 100mhz.



Yes that is correct. Even if the card is running at 100mhz on the 33mhz bus of pci will slow it down anyway.


----------



## Conflict0s (Mar 3, 2009)

Lol i am running Crysis on Low settings at 1920x1080 and i get around 40-60fps, the same with Warhead.
And that is with a 3650, alothough i am using a e8400 which i think helps alot.
I LOVE Crysis Warhead tho.


----------



## chris89 (Mar 3, 2009)

Maxxed out on DX 10 at 1920x1200, im getting between 25-30FPS, 

Compared to FSX maxed out but not with DX10 on i get about 30FPS at 30,000FT and around 5-10 at Heathrow.


----------



## MightyG80 (Mar 3, 2009)

It burdens the system a lot, but i think its the best good-looking game there is. There are moments when you just have to stop in-game to admire the beauty of the graphics. Makes you happy that gfx card technology has progressed so much to make such games reality.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 3, 2009)

MightyG80 said:


> It burdens the system a lot, but i think its the best good-looking game there is. There are moments when you just have to stop in-game to admire the beauty of the graphics. Makes you happy that gfx card technology has progressed so much to make such games reality.



Yeah crysis is what real life was supposed to look like but god messed up


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Mar 3, 2009)

chris89 said:


> Maxxed out on DX 10 at 1920x1200, im getting between 25-30FPS,
> 
> Compared to FSX maxed out but not with DX10 on i get about 30FPS at 30,000FT and around 5-10 at Heathrow.



Yeah I'm about the same with my setup. I'm considering overclocking to 3.4ghz on the cpu and on my card when the  artic cooling xtreme comes out for it. Would push those frames a bit further. Although, I'm a little worried about summer temperatures.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 3, 2009)

Hybrid_theory said:


> Yeah I'm about the same with my setup. I'm considering overclocking to 3.4ghz on the cpu and on my card when the  artic cooling xtreme comes out for it. Would push those frames a bit further. Although, I'm a little worried about summer temperatures.



another 200 will do wonders for fsx especially because we have a quad. I was considering firing mine upto 3.6 for it.


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Mar 3, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> another 200 will do wonders for fsx especially because we have a quad. I was considering firing mine upto 3.6 for it.



when i was  tryin 3.6 back in september i couldn't find a point of stability and my bios voltage was getting high at 1.45. I heard you don't want to go higher than 1.45 (but is that in cpuz?) I found a stable point at 3.4 and was happy to stop there.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 3, 2009)

Hybrid_theory said:


> when i was  tryin 3.6 back in september i couldn't find a point of stability and my bios voltage was getting high at 1.45. I heard you don't want to go higher than 1.45 (but is that in cpuz?) I found a stable point at 3.4 and was happy to stop there.



I'd went to 1.6v for 3.9ghz and kept it at that for a few weeks and it was fine. I just installed FSX there lol  coincidence ?


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 3, 2009)

You're safe to go up to 1.55v on 65nm CPUs.  As long as temps are OK (<60C) then you're fine.  And yes it's the voltage shown in CPU-z that matters, not in the BIOS


----------



## Hybrid_theory (Mar 3, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> You're safe to go up to 1.55v on 65nm CPUs.  As long as temps are OK (<60C) then you're fine.  And yes it's the voltage shown in CPU-z that matters, not in the BIOS



cool thanks. though when i was testing for the sweet spot in 3.6 i was hitting 67C I think with prime. right now it hit 63/64


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 4, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> GtaIV is only taxing if you have a dual core. The game recommends at least a tri core.



?? Really. I've heard people say switching from a dual to quad only makes a 5-8fps difference in GTA IV.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 4, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> ?? Really. I've heard people say switching from a dual to quad only makes a 5-8fps difference in GTA IV.



5-8 is quite alot even though I've seen people with better pc's than me with dual core setups find it choppy.  

Think about it. You get 20 fps with a dual get a quad an extra 5 means 25 and its playable 8 is even better but a quad at 3.2 - 3.4 should be about 32 fps on example system.

I'l set my quad to dual and do benchmarks later on.


----------



## AltecV1 (Mar 4, 2009)

it hard to belive that they gain 5 fps(i will never buy a 4 core cpu)!!!!TWO CORES FTW


----------



## spencer22l (Mar 4, 2009)

Which one is harder on your system?
Crysis ? or Crysis Warhead??


----------



## AltecV1 (Mar 4, 2009)

crysis of course warhead is just tuned down CRYSIS with new missions


----------



## spencer22l (Mar 4, 2009)

really? I always thought warhead was harder cus
it was the newer one


----------



## AltecV1 (Mar 4, 2009)

now you now the dark secret


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 4, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> crysis of course warhead is just tuned down CRYSIS with new missions



Putting water on mainstream in water takes more of a strain then on crysis if i put water on high


----------



## spencer22l (Mar 4, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Putting water on mainstream in water takes more of a strain then on crysis if i put water on high



mainstream - water on warhead is harder than
high - water on crysis??
That's interesting....hmmmm

But overall which do you think is harder on your sys?


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Mar 4, 2009)

First Crysis... it's horribly unoptimized.


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Mar 4, 2009)

Crysis was the hype bomb of the DX10 generation, its what gave most gamers hype to get Vista. All of it was business trash thanks to Microsoft nagging at Crytek for a release week of Vista-advertised games. Fortunately, we can get them thinking of rebuild the CryEngine if one of us wants to go to Germany to wake the developers up. Me and my HD 3870 are having fun though on Crysis...at lower resolutions (sniff!).


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 4, 2009)

spencer22l said:


> mainstream - water on warhead is harder than
> high - water on crysis??
> That's interesting....hmmmm
> 
> But overall which do you think is harder on your sys?



Warhead is more demanding. That first level, in the first few mins where all the bombs are dropping and jets moving across the skies, OH man, 0-2fps lol. But i keep moving throughout the choppiness. Once you jump onto the rocks and you have that dream or flashback, things get more easy from there. In warhead there is too much stuff going on within the levels thats why its more demanding.


----------



## AltecV1 (Mar 4, 2009)

maybe your right i would not know coz i aint playing with P3 and 8400GS at 0-2 fps!!!!!!!


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 4, 2009)

Well yea i guess lmfao 

Anywho, some crysis screens i took: All high settings



















4-9fps lol my temps did stay at 55c the whole i was playing at those levels. So it really don't put a stain on my video card.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 4, 2009)

Nice screeshots
check this out 
http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_1.html


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 4, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> Nice screeshots
> check this out
> http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_1.html



Yes i have it bookmarked. I notice in Crysis warhead if i put shadows on gamer level, it doesn't bother performance that much. But on Crysis, hell i put shadows on medium and i lose about 10fps. The perfect settings on my end for Crysis is 1280x1024 high - medium - to -  low, talking about 14-25fps. No stutter, no pausing, no problems. I even have Transparency anti-aliasing(multi) and gamma color correction anti - aliasing on in NCP , and the game is running just fine. On warhead, 1280x1024 mainstream to minimum. and the game plays just fine. Thats really my limit for both games. 

But as of right now , i have no plans to play either game on my p3 anymore. After playing the game at medium to high or even high settings(unplayable yes) its really no point to play them at low anymore or medium to low or whatever.  Crysis and Crysis warhead is the only 2 games i have come across that needs to be played at certain levels. So i will look forward to playing them both again whenever i feel the need to buy a new computer.


----------



## hat (Mar 4, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Well yea i guess lmfao
> 
> Anywho, some crysis screens i took: All high settings
> 
> ...



Of course it strains your video card, it's crysis. you see people talking about high temps because they have high end graphics cards that take much more power than your 8400gs could ever dream of. my 9800gt reaches over 90c in furmark and that's with a zalman fv900 on it.


----------



## AltecV1 (Mar 4, 2009)

you only *talk* about getting a new rig!!whats up with the smallville?you a fan of the show or you just like the *GUY in the picture*


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 4, 2009)

hat said:


> Of course it strains your video card, it's crysis. you see people talking about high temps because they have high end graphics cards that take much more power than your 8400gs could ever dream of. my 9800gt reaches over 90c in furmark and that's with a zalman fv900 on it.


90c, whoa, thats scary. Unless the card is made for those temps. I was watching a tirgerdirect video on i think the Diamond 4870x2 card, he said temps reach 90c, but those cards are made for it. 



AltecV1 said:


> you only *talk* about getting a new rig!!whats up with the smallville?you a fan of the show or you just like the *GUY in the picture*


I talk about it, because i am still looking around for one. I always look around, i just never find anything i want.  Btw, i am a fan of smallville/superman. I support the show and promote it.


----------



## SLO247 (Mar 4, 2009)

JC316 said:


> Oh yeah. I saw a HELL of a rig running it at Quakecon. I think it was twin 4870x2's and it ran like a frozen dog turd. Of course, it was running on multiple screens, but still.




LOL. It really is that bad isn't it. Its a pretty slideshow but. I wonder if anybody can run it with all the visuals cranked? Except this U2Konline fella of course 

I didn't think GTA4 was that bad, then again it didn't let me turn it all up  Only just ran ok how it was though. Maybe there is a hack for it?


----------



## RevengE (Mar 4, 2009)

dan1_721 said:


> LOL. It really is that bad isn't it. Its a pretty slideshow but. I wonder if anybody can run it with all the visuals cranked? Except this U2Konline fella of course
> 
> I didn't think GTA4 was that bad, then again it didn't let me turn it all up  Only just ran ok how it was though. Maybe there is a hack for it?



I can run it Maxed out easy..if your talking of Crysis..Gta4 I wont try Until I get My PII and OC it on Water In a Few Weeks.


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 4, 2009)

ultra high is a dx10 only feature but is there a way to get it running in 9 just minus the dx 10 bits? or is the whole new textures and everything else ultra high enables dx10?


----------



## Frizz (Mar 4, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> I can run it Maxed out easy..if your talking of Crysis..Gta4 I wont try Until I get My PII and OC it on Water In a Few Weeks.



How does your current CPU do with your 4870x2? AMD has a few mad programs and features that apparently boosts gaming, I was planning on changing to AMD for this but didn't know if it was worth it. 

Fusion etc.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 4, 2009)

randomflip said:


> How does your current CPU do with your 4870x2? AMD has a few mad programs and features that apparently boosts gaming, I was planning on changing to AMD for this but didn't know if it was worth it.
> 
> Fusion etc.



Great, I love the 9850 its a Great CPU. What are you looking at doing?


----------



## crtecha (Mar 4, 2009)

So I've been on crymod's website the past couple days testing some of the finished and wip mods.  Im very impressed with some of the mods they have on there.  I plan on doing a thread this evening to show the performance increases and overall quality increases in the game.  

I was just going to run fraps and post before and after screens and fps's.  Do you guys have any suggestions of additional tests or info that I should include.  I will be doing these tests on two different machines.  One will be a lower end machine with a visiontek HD3650oc and the other with a 9600gt.


----------



## CDdude55 (Mar 4, 2009)

Hardest game to run on my system is still the games that need 512MB or more of Video memory to fully run. The rest of my system is beast, the video card is a real put down.

At least TF2 doesn't.


----------



## Frizz (Mar 4, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> Great, I love the 9850 its a Great CPU. What are you looking at doing?



I was thinking of going Phenom II somewhere in the future and I pretty much think any ATI Card would run heaps smoother on an AMD platform. So its just an idea for now.


----------



## SLO247 (Mar 4, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> I can run it Maxed out easy..if your talking of Crysis..Gta4 I wont try Until I get My PII and OC it on Water In a Few Weeks.



Nah FSX! I never played Crysis. I'm FPS Noob.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 4, 2009)

FSX I play alot too. it's intense but my 4870x2 still laughs at it with all settings maxed


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 4, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> FSX I play alot too. it's intense but my 4870x2 still laughs at it with all settings maxed



I've played it on a 4870X2 and it could max the settings but still lagged like hell at airports.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 4, 2009)

Really? Mine only lags a bit when I have the airport traffic up high.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 4, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> Really? Mine only lags a bit when I have the airport traffic up high.



Have you made sure every slider is up and not just set to ultra high and that its in 32bit colour mode  I had mine set in 16 bit for ages and didn't notice but I got amazing fps.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 4, 2009)

I am pretty sure yeah? But reguardless it's a very intense game.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 4, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> I am pretty sure yeah? But reguardless it's a very intense game.



Could be all the texture patches i've stuck on mine.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 4, 2009)

Yeah true once you start adding those patches it gets real laggy.


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 4, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Have you made sure every slider is up and not just set to ultra high and that its in 32bit colour mode  I had mine set in 16 bit for ages and didn't notice but I got amazing fps.



You didn't notice it in-game??  I mean.


----------



## crtecha (Mar 4, 2009)

holy crap 16bit thats crazy


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 4, 2009)

crtecha said:


> So I've been on crymod's website the past couple days testing some of the finished and wip mods.  Im very impressed with some of the mods they have on there.  I plan on doing a thread this evening to show the *performance increases *and overall quality increases in the game.
> 
> I was just going to run fraps and post before and after screens and fps's.  Do you guys have any suggestions of additional tests or info that I should include.  I will be doing these tests on two different machines.  One will be a lower end machine with a visiontek HD3650oc and the other with a 9600gt.



Performance increase?? How could better graphics .......


----------



## AltecV1 (Mar 4, 2009)

DarkMatter said:


> You didn't notice it in-game??  I mean.



8 to 16 bit differens you wold notice,but 16 to 32 bit you would not!!!!


----------



## crtecha (Mar 4, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> Performance increase?? How could better graphics .......




Some of the mods I found allow me to get better fps at higher resolution and also the quality of the graphics  in the game are noticeably different.

http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=41049&sid=b1a98f69401b3724e1f464bffe9c533b

I'm currently using this mod with my hd3650 and it looks really good and it runs smooth.


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 4, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> 8 to 16 bit differens you wold notice,but 16 to 32 bit you would not!!!!



Woah wtf??? 16 bit = 65535 colors, 32 bit = 4,294,967,295 colors and u see no difference?
BTW 8 bit = 256 colors


----------



## AltecV1 (Mar 4, 2009)

belive it or not but most of us *would not *see the differens


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 4, 2009)

DarkMatter said:


> You didn't notice it in-game??  I mean.





crtecha said:


> holy crap 16bit thats crazy



I haven't compared two pictures but I'm glad I didn't notice  Its not a colour rich game anyway. You would notice on crysis for example.


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 4, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> belive it or not but most of us *would not *see the differens



lolz. Set any HD wallpaper as ur desktop. Then take a pic of it at 32-bit, another in 16-bit. Compared them. Notice anything, in game I have to agree u'll see little difference because of the animations.


----------



## AltecV1 (Mar 4, 2009)

*i told you*


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 4, 2009)

I found some 4870 config for Crysis on the interwebz. So Crysis runs like butter on my system nowadays (also thanks to updated ATI drivers).

Empire Total War on the other hand, is pretty brutal.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 4, 2009)

ArmoredCavalry said:


> I found some 4870 config for Crysis on the interwebz. So Crysis runs like butter on my system nowadays (also thanks to updated ATI drivers).
> 
> Empire Total War on the other hand, is pretty brutal.



yeah but so is medieval 2. I still get lag on huge battles I mean wtf its old now


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 4, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> yeah but so is medieval 2. I still get lag on huge battles I mean wtf its old now



Medieval 2 runs pretty awesome for me, but oddly enough, Rome Total War has lag issues when building quality is on very high. It  is some sort of bug though, because I had the same problem with a hd3850/8800gt/hd4870


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 4, 2009)

> 8 to 16 bit differens you wold notice,but 16 to 32 bit you would not!!!!



im sorry lol buts thats like sayin u crnt tell the diff from 16 bit and 24 bit sound lol 16 is what your gameboy would produce playing pokemon whilst 24 is your huge stereo with floor rumbleing bass, see what am tryin to say lol


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 4, 2009)

ArmoredCavalry said:


> I found some 4870 config for Crysis on the interwebz. So Crysis runs like butter on my system nowadays (also thanks to updated ATI drivers).
> 
> Empire Total War on the other hand, is pretty brutal.



How is Empire Total War? and good is Hows the graphics copmared to Total Way? is gameplay the same? do you play online?

PS, 64 bit Vista is more responsive than 32 bit


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 4, 2009)

AltecV1 said:


> belive it or not but most of us *would not *see the differens



Well I can't really speak for you or others, but I can guarantee you that *I would*, and IMHO most people in most games would. In games is more noticeable than in pictures, photos or videos I mean, because those use techniques to avoid banding, like dithering and optimiced palettes. In games, the difference is enormous in the terms we speak in an enthusiast forum like this, so much noticeable than different AA or AF levels, even lack off. I mean the colour banding is so evident in games running in 16 bits...

See this:







Modern games don't use dithering AFAIK, so the banding is just as noticeable as the one in the picture above. That I know, only the first games in the era 32bit was implemented (first GeForces or Radeons) had any tricks to avoid banding, games of today simply lack any because they don't need to.

Oh and BTW, it really took me by surprise that the game ran better in 16 bit mode. It's been ages since the cards can do 32bit in the same clocks as they do 16bit and caches and registers are 32 bit too AFAIK. It must be related to the amount of memory used and ONLY that. Because it's very badly optimiced and I really mean it. Unless someone can explain me why runs better in 16bit mode in year 2009, otherwise. 



ste2425 said:


> im sorry lol buts thats like sayin u crnt tell the diff from 16 bit and 24 bit sound lol 16 is what your gameboy would produce playing pokemon whilst 24 is your huge stereo with floor rumbleing bass, see what am tryin to say lol



Eeeeeh!! Don't exgerate man. Gameboy is 8 bit. 

Even the first generation Audigy had 16 bit on some of it's stages.


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 4, 2009)

dark matter youve just helped me explain a problem when playing dead space the shadows look like there in 16 bit colour now ive seen that pick i no what it loos like but in my ccc it says im running 32 bit can you offer help please?   
edit jesus christ... only 8 bit!!!!! thats why it sounds so cool haha


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 5, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> How is Empire Total War? and good is Hows the graphics copmared to Total Way? is gameplay the same? do you play online?
> 
> PS, 64 bit Vista is more responsive than 32 bit



It seems to be pretty good so far, I have only played the demo. The difference in graphics is a lot more noticeable from medieval 2 to empire, than it was from rome to medieval 2.

At least imo they are... 

It includes Naval warfare now which is pretty awesome, the land battles are a bit different since almost everything is gunpower now. It is going to take some getting used to at least for me. I haven't played online yet, but I never did play total war online. I always do the campaigns.


----------



## RevengE (Mar 5, 2009)

I would like to play total war soon.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 5, 2009)

yea, it sound good yo me. i never played Mdeieval on line but played alod of 1v1 lan games, lots of fun


----------



## RevengE (Mar 5, 2009)

I remember back in the day it was hard for my PC to run blood..anyone remember that?


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 5, 2009)

HaHa, yea, spent ages trying to get it to go on my mates laptop, had to have the Gfx settings just right, we used to lan it with my secondery system, MSI KT700 ultra, athlon 2800 and geforce 4 Ti400 i think, it went ok as long as you didnt set it too high


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 5, 2009)

ste2425 said:


> dark matter youve just helped me explain a problem when playing dead space the shadows look like there in 16 bit colour now ive seen that pick i no what it loos like but in my ccc it says im running 32 bit can you offer help please?
> edit jesus christ... only 8 bit!!!!! thats why it sounds so cool haha



I haven't played dead space and I have not any experience with it, so no, I can't help you sorry. But you should try checking with others if that's not something natural. Banding can happen because of lots of things and not only color depth. Most modern games with soft shadows (I don't even know if DS has soft shadows, but I suppose it does) use shadow dithering, because shadows in essence are nothing more than a visibility check, light "sees" this point or not, and then create the shadow maps. So as I said they use dithering to "time-interpolate" that shadow maps with the objects they are casted on, in order to create the soft edges. But older games with soft shadows didn't use dithering, and just used different layers/bands to create the effect. That could be the case in Dead Space.

^^ Sorry, I'm assuming the banding happens in the dges because I have no single explanation otherwise.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 5, 2009)

Hmm, i think i get like Bad Banding when i watch those 700mb xvids?
Any idea on how to fix that?


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 5, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> Hmm, i think i get like Bad Banding when i watch those 700mb xvids?
> Any idea on how to fix that?



Hmm there's very little you can do (with little effort) if the videos were created in low color depth. Re-encoding them at a higher depth and applying some smoothing algorithm could reduce banding, but in expense of blurring the image. The result is always going to be far from perfect though, you simply can't add detail were there isn't.

An easier thing to try is playing the videos in the DivX player (if you aren't already), which I think it forces the superb divx deblocking and all other enhancement algorithms for xvid too, something that the WMP doesn't do except for DivX <- forced by the codec. An improvement in banding is not assured, but a slight increase in overall quality may happen.


----------



## crtecha (Mar 5, 2009)

Here is a quick show and tell of my results with some of the mods that crymods.com offers.  I will add to it and make it more through soon.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=1243803#post1243803


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 6, 2009)

DarkMatter said:


> Hmm there's very little you can do (with little effort) if the videos were created in low color depth. Re-encoding them at a higher depth and applying some smoothing algorithm could reduce banding, but in expense of blurring the image. The result is always going to be far from perfect though, you simply can't add detail were there isn't.
> 
> An easier thing to try is playing the videos in the DivX player (if you aren't already), which I think it forces the superb divx deblocking and all other enhancement algorithms for xvid too, something that the WMP doesn't do except for DivX <- forced by the codec. An improvement in banding is not assured, but a slight increase in overall quality may happen.



thanx


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 6, 2009)

I hope one day they make a crysis game not base in the jungle. Instead we will fight in various cites around the world. That will look awesome, and the gameplay will be out of this world. But then again, that will take a powerhouse of a computer to play.


----------



## hat (Mar 6, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I hope one day they make a crysis game not base in the jungle. Instead we will fight in various cites around the world. That will look awesome, and the gameplay will be out of this world. But then again, that will take a powerhouse of a computer to play.



actually that's not a bad idea


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 6, 2009)

HAT how come you have no stars?


----------



## RevengE (Mar 6, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> HAT how come you have no stars?



He has 5000+ posts You get a custom Title..unless you decide to keep your stars.


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 6, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I hope one day they make a crysis game not base in the jungle. Instead we will fight in various cites around the world. That will look awesome, and the gameplay will be out of this world. But then again, that will take a powerhouse of a computer to play.



I actually think it would be less demanding than a jungle based crysis. Less plants.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Mar 6, 2009)

DarkMatter said:


> Well I can't really speak for you or others, but I can guarantee you that *I would*, and IMHO most people in most games would. In games is more noticeable than in pictures, photos or videos I mean, because those use techniques to avoid banding, like dithering and optimiced palettes. In games, the difference is enormous in the terms we speak in an enthusiast forum like this, so much noticeable than different AA or AF levels, even lack off. I mean the colour banding is so evident in games running in 16 bits...



Man I hate to admit this. I mean you guys don't understand how much I HATE to admit this but I........agree with DarkMatter on this one.


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 6, 2009)

mint pic mate mail man


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 13, 2009)

So after testing Crysis Warhead on my P3, This is what i found out:

1280X1024 resolution, Gamer, to Mainstream settings, Gamma Correction in Anti-Aliasing, transparency anti aliasing multisampling, full screen anti aliasing AAX4( note, sound and water and Shadows on low) I put this game on AAX4 and i lose no performance whatsoever, i average around 9-13fps at these settings, not bad for my rig. NO OC, all stock gpu settings.

(resize to 1024x640)

















The most demanding visual options for warhead is Water. I put water on mainstream and it just kills performance. Sound i always keep on low, seems to be a waste of time. And another option that kills performance is Shadows, MY GOODNESS. 

So i keep textures, objects on mainstream along with Volumetric effects. 
Game effects, Shaders, Physics, Particles and post processing on all gamer settings.


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 13, 2009)

Did you say sound was a waste of time in the fact that you carn't tell the different from one setting to the other or that it kills performance?


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 13, 2009)

ste2425 said:


> Did you say sound was a waste of time in the fact that you carn't tell the different from one setting to the other or that it kills performance?



he meant sound is a waste of time and performance, shadows is a waste of performance but not time.


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 13, 2009)

it just sound settings is how many sounds it will play at anyone time an in a big firefight how can you not notice the strange feeling that only one guy is groaning at a time, i wasn't being funny dont get me wrong lol just wondering what he meant


----------



## spearman914 (Mar 13, 2009)

ste2425 said:


> it just sound settings is how many sounds it will play at anyone time an in a big firefight how can you not notice the strange feeling that only one guy is groaning at a time, i wasn't being funny dont get me wrong lol just wondering what he meant



uh crappy speakers maybe.


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 13, 2009)

haha aye true  it amazes me tho the performance he gets out of his system lol. i gues all his componants must be best suited for each other if that makes sense


----------



## KainXS (Mar 14, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I put this game on AAX4 and i lose no performance whatsoever, i average around 9-13fps at these settings, not bad for my rig. NO OC, all stock gpu settings.



why oh why do you do ThIS, you, you can't not lose performance turning on aa on crysis, I don't understand why you do this, unless God came from heaven and blessed your PC you cannot run crysis on your system period with AA with a 8400GS.

stop misleading people


----------



## Frizz (Mar 14, 2009)

u2konline you must have a good amount of patience, I cannot wait to see what you will say about your next mid-high range video card...


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 14, 2009)

ste2425 said:


> Did you say sound was a waste of time in the fact that you carn't tell the different from one setting to the other or that it kills performance?



I use headphones btw. But anyways, what i mean is, the sound in crysis or warhead sounds just fine on low. I just don't see any reason to increase it. Now, i have been testing out warhead for the past few days to see which visual option decreases performance and what does not. 

In Crysis Warhead:

Water = Keep on minimum. If it bump up water to mainstream i lose about 10fps. 
Sound = No effect, keep on minimum
Textures = I read from tweakguides that increasing textures will cause stutter, this is true, so i turn it up to mainstream. 
Objects = Mainstream settings, doesn't seem to affect performance too much
Post Processing = Mainstream
particles = minimum
Game effects = mainstream
Volumetric effects = lminimum
Shader Level = Gamer 
Physics Gamer
Shadows = Shadows seems to be the most demanding , i put it on mainstream and i lose about 20fps lol. 

*The bottom line: Warhead is clearly more demanding*

*BENCHMARKING AT THOSE SETTINGS. NO Overclocking, all stock i average 8-15fps*











1280X1024 Resolution, NVCP( Transparency Anti aliasing Multisampling, Gamma Correction  Anti-Aliasing), Gamer to mainstream to minimum settings, Anti aliasing X4 level. )


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 14, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I use headphones btw. But anyways, what i mean is, the sound in crysis or warhead sounds just fine on low. I just don't see any reason to increase it. Now, i have been testing out warhead for the past few days to see which visual option decreases performance and what does not.
> 
> In Crysis Warhead:
> 
> ...



Those screenshots don't have 4x anti-aliasing, I even doubt they have 2x. I'm not saying you are doing it deliverately, but those SS just don't have it. They neither have more than 2-4x anisotropic filtering. Stop messing.


----------



## D007 (Mar 14, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> I dunno what mods/skins were used in the screenies, but I'm trying this "natural" mod which changes ToD settings to make it look realistic.  I also use an extreme quality config from here:
> http://www.crymod.com/thread.php?threadid=31242



wish I would of known about this stuff when I started playing crysis..
dang those looks good..
Like I want to make a salad out of the foliage i see there and eat it.. XD


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 14, 2009)

D007 said:


> wish I would of known about this stuff when I started playing crysis..
> dang those looks good..
> Like I want to make a salad out of the foliage i see there and eat it.. XD



Be careful, some tropical plants are poisonous.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 14, 2009)

DarkMatter said:


> Those screenshots don't have 4x anti-aliasing, I even doubt they have 2x. I'm not saying you are doing it deliverately, but those SS just don't have it. They neither have more than 2-4x anisotropic filtering. Stop messing.



AF? There is no option to change AF in warhead. In NVCP its on application controlled. With AA in warhead options, i can use 16XQ or something like that, but i will never try that.  

Anyways, take a peak:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P40TWDNa6M0

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ingame-09sLt.jpg
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ingame1-6BS5r.jpg
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ingame2-nR9c6.jpg
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/gamein-0zw5d.jpg


----------



## KainXS (Mar 14, 2009)

wow, you can run the menu lol


----------



## DarkMatter (Mar 14, 2009)

KainXS said:


> wow, you can run the menu lol



But not without lag. 



u2konline said:


> AF? There is no option to change AF in warhead. In NVCP its on application controlled. With AA in warhead options, i can use 16XQ or something like that, but i will never try that.
> 
> Anyways, take a peak:
> 
> ...



TBH what are you trying to demostrate? Who cares if the game runs at 8 fps on mainstream settings. You are still 20 fps away from playable settings. 

Anyway, I don't care what AA settings you choose in-game, those screenshots have no AA, which is the reason you get no performance hit when you enable it, it's just not doing it. Maybe the game detects the card (has a good laugh) and disables AA by default, maybe it's forced to no AA in the driver panel without you knowing it, or what I've come up to think it's the case: YOU have it dissabled in the driver panel, because you are always trying to demostrate what can't be demostrated. A 8400GS can't provide an acceptable Crysis experience. Period.

And maybe I'm wrong, but I think that AF goes hand in hand with the shaders setting and when you choose gamer/high 8x AF is used, 4x in mainstream and 0-2x in low, unless otherwise forced in the CP or when using parallax occlusion mapping which goes to 0x (only in Crysis, in WH it does work).


----------



## RevengE (Mar 14, 2009)

U2 your Getting 8 Fps that is not playable, also why does it state that you have 923 Mb of Memory? or is that how much memory it is using? Because in your stats it says you only have 512mb.


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 14, 2009)

haha i used to game at 15fps with my old hd2600 and its perfectly playable i game at 25 fps in crysis at highest possible setting with my current rig and its perfectly playable its only when you have a fps increase or decrease that its not playable but a constant 15 fps if deffo playable not as nice as 40 but still playable


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 14, 2009)

xRevengEx said:


> U2 your Getting 8 Fps that is not playable, also why does it state that you have 923 Mb of Memory? or is that how much memory it is using? Because in your stats it says you only have 512mb.



I don't know. I know when playing at those settings which i mention above, i get a warning , about low virtual memory and it goes back to the desktop with the game still running, so i click ok on the virtual memory box and i go back into the game and i could play warhead for about 2-3 hours without the message appearing game. It only seems to appear once, and never shows up again, i guess my computer increase its paging file.  I read it has something to do with the fact that i am using 512MB, but i don't believe this is true, because crysis is the only game that it does it in. But another thing, i only have 1.50GB left on my Internal HD, but i am running Warhead on my External 1.1 500gb drive. But i don't have my virtual memory config to point to the external HD, rather its being use on my C drive.


----------



## hat (Mar 14, 2009)

yes, it IS because you are running out of memory. the pagefile is used when your memory buffer overflows (system RAM)


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 14, 2009)

my old p4 rig used to do that playing maelstrom very anoying


----------



## oli_ramsay (Mar 14, 2009)

Why not get 2 or 4 GB of cheap RAM?


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 14, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> Why not get 2 or 4 GB of cheap RAM?



His pc uses rdram I think. although it should be ddr.


----------



## ste2425 (Mar 14, 2009)

i had that ram to in an old 423 or 432 socket mobo lol anyway


----------



## Carrion (Mar 14, 2009)

GTA IV definitely. I lagged quite a bit and that's on my PC which is very high end.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 19, 2009)

are crytech gona put out any more games with the crysis engin?


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 20, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> are crytech gona put out any more games with the crysis engin?



aye


----------



## Melvis (Mar 20, 2009)

Yes it is, i can run it on high, about 20FPS, thats as far as i can run Crysis at the moment.

FarCry 2 isnt as bad as it, i can run it 10+Frames more then Crysis. I thought FEAR 2 would hit hard but no i can run it flat out, max everything 1600*1200 res and get 45FPS.

World in conflict now thats another game that hits hard, but i think its just badly made IMO.


----------



## DrPepper (Mar 20, 2009)

Melvis said:


> World in conflict now thats another game that hits hard, but i think its just badly made IMO.



Actually its one of the best designed games I've seen but when you increase the graphics level of course your going to get bad performance.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Mar 20, 2009)

I will be doing some benchmarks with my new rig later today, at 1280x1024 high to medium settings. But keep in mind, sound and particles will be on low, but everything else at high to medium.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 21, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Yes it is, i can run it on high, about 20FPS, thats as far as i can run Crysis at the moment.
> 
> FarCry 2 isnt as bad as it, i can run it 10+Frames more then Crysis. I thought FEAR 2 would hit hard but no i can run it flat out, max everything 1600*1200 res and get 45FPS.
> 
> World in conflict now thats another game that hits hard, but i think its just badly made IMO.



hmm, its definitly not badley made, infact its one of the most polished games ive played, id say you graphix card has alot to answer for if your playing COD WaW, my system playes it flawlessley


----------



## Melvis (Mar 21, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> Actually its one of the best designed games I've seen but when you increase the graphics level of course your going to get bad performance.



mmmk fair enough, i have only really played the first 2missions or so of the game, and it was awhile ago now, but i just remember if you wanted it to look good you had to put the settings up pretty high because it looked like ass, and when i did wow it came back with low FPS, even tho it still didn't look that great  But i must admit i was using the 8600GT back then, so it might be alot better with the 3850.




troyrae360 said:


> hmm, its definitly not badley made, infact its one of the most polished games ive played, id say you graphix card has alot to answer for if your playing COD WaW, my system playes it flawlessley



Yea as i said to DrPepper i was using the 8600GT so that might be the main reason why, i play COD WaW flat out as well, and still get good FPS. 1280*1024 around the 60FPS i think.

I will have to run World in Conflict again and see how i go this time using the 3850.


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Mar 21, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> hmm, its definitly not badley made, infact its one of the most polished games ive played, id say you graphix card has alot to answer for if your playing COD WaW, my system playes it flawlessley



Ditto on that, World in Conflict runs very well, for how good it looks.


----------



## troyrae360 (Mar 30, 2009)

Damn i just got Empire total war, theres absolutley no way i can play that with all setting turned on!!


----------



## Attix (Mar 30, 2009)

I'm pretty sure Crysis is pretty high up there with GPU loads and overall usage of your hardware. That, along with GTAIV. Pretty much anything extremely graphic intensive.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 7, 2009)

Testing out Crysis again, 1280x1024 , anti aliasing x2, all high to medium settings(only sound and texture). 185.50 / BFG 8400GS. I also have a question, how come the game looks really really blured when you set things on high, or is my Nvidia Control Panel settings config wrong?

1280x1024 see how it looks at all high settings:











I have that gamma correction on, is that the problem, or should i change something in the option menu?


----------



## Binge (Apr 7, 2009)

I think your computer is dying.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 7, 2009)

Binge said:


> I think your computer is dying.



My Pentium III doesn't die, as it ages, it grows in strength, seriously. But anyways, um no , my computer is not dying. I may have to play around with the settings that all, i was just curious did anyone know why it looks so blurred. I think one of the effects is causing it, my guess post processing. 

Let me do some more testing. 
be back laterZ.


----------



## troyrae360 (Apr 7, 2009)

u2konline said:


> My Pentium III doesn't die, as it ages, it grows in strength, seriously. But anyways, um no , my computer is not dying. I may have to play around with the settings that all, i was just curious did anyone know why it looks so blurred. I think one of the effects is causing it, my guess post processing.
> 
> Let me do some more testing.
> be back laterZ.



did you turn motoin blur off? what sort of fps are you getting?

HANG ON haven you got a whole thred on how your P3 is dead!! and that you gonna by a prebuilt system from Dell or Acer or sumthing?


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 8, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> did you turn motoin blur off?


There is no monitor blur option in Crysis, in warhead, but not in crysis. And i manage to fix the problem, by putting post processing on medium instead of high. 












troyrae360 said:


> What sort of fps are you getting?


With AAX2, High to medium settings, max fps is running solid at 9-13, never dips below 9. I am just testing the game settings out more , because i have switch over to XP using my 8400gs. This game runs so much better now on XP. This game is really really playable on my P3 if i turn off AA and put everything on medium to low, i average around 17-30fps. But i really do not want to play this game at all medium, looks better with some settings on high, so i am still testing around. 



troyrae360 said:


> HANG ON haven you got a whole thred on how your P3 is dead!! and that you gonna by a prebuilt system from Dell or Acer or sumthing?


No, My Pentium III is fine, my Dell optiplex 210L Intel Celeron D at 3.06ghz was the one that died on me, it was used anyway and had it problems from the start, and it only cost me 40 bucks, so you know.


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 8, 2009)

niko084 said:


> I dunno man, you can taxing and horribly optimized, play NWN2, even with my current rig I can only manage about 15-20fps at maximum settings, which is completely ridiculous @ 1280x1024...
> 
> I can however run Warhead 1920x1080 Enthusiast with 2x AA for part of the game smooth almost 30ish fps.



Oh gods I thought it was just my card!

If I set everything to high and have it at my native resolution (1400x900) I get 5-10 fps!


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 9, 2009)

Hey, anyone wanna battle me in performance?
1280x1024 , high to medium settings ?

LETS DO IT!


----------



## CDdude55 (Apr 9, 2009)

Wow, thats the PIII system U2K?, looks to good.

And my system is great at 1280x1024 in Crysis, especially at Medium.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 9, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Hey, anyone wanna battle me in performance?
> 1280x1024 , high to medium settings ?
> 
> LETS DO IT!



I like to eat P3's and P4's for breakfast


----------



## RevengE (Apr 9, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Hey, anyone wanna battle me in performance?
> 1280x1024 , high to medium settings ?
> 
> LETS DO IT!



Your kidding right?


----------



## CDdude55 (Apr 9, 2009)

I have to agree, you need to look for systems on your level U2k, As alot of system on here can do that res with that game like nothing.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 9, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Wow, thats the PIII system U2K?, looks to good.


Same rig since 2000, running on 90watts with a 8400GS 512MB PCI(BFG BTW)
Yea crysis does looks nice, which is why i completed the demo 5 times so far  I just like looking at the game haha. Even tho Jericho is the best FPS on the planet.



CDdude55 said:


> And my system is great at 1280x1024 in Crysis, especially at Medium.


30-40? 20-40? At those settings, they seem to be just right tho. 



Melvis said:


> I like to eat P3's and P4's for breakfast


Well i like to eat old hardware everyday 



xRevengEx said:


> Your kidding right?


Nope, have some fun dude?
Life is full of fun my friend! 

(I'm in a good mood, forgive me )


----------



## Melvis (Apr 9, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Well i like to eat old hardware everyday



You be hard pressed to find hardware older then yours to eat on here  eg: Celeron 500MHz?

It must take like 10mins to load that game? gezzzz


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 9, 2009)

I win


----------



## CDdude55 (Apr 9, 2009)

I'm get around 20- 30's at Medium with no AA more much special effects, everything on high just kills my system if anything else is added.

I can play with somethings on high with no AA, once i add AA it will generally turn into a slideshow.


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 9, 2009)

All high 1920x1080 2x AA runs 30-40FPS for me.


----------



## CDdude55 (Apr 9, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> All high 1920x1080 2x AA runs 30-40FPS for me.



Lucky.


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 9, 2009)

Getting Crysis soon, what is the predicted frame rate on my rig? 

1400x900 resolution, but I'd settle for 1024x768


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 9, 2009)

Crysis isn't the hardest game on my computer ever since I put my 720BE in my computer. The CPU really makes a difference.


----------



## CDdude55 (Apr 9, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> Getting Crysis soon, what is the predicted frame rate on my rig?
> 
> 1400x900 resolution, but I'd settle for 1024x768



Should work good at a lower res, at 1440x900 my 8600 GTS can't handle it that well on High(my CPU helps alot tho). On Medium with no AA, it should do very well tho, and this is talking about Crysis, Warhead should do a bit more better.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 10, 2009)

Some more lovely Crysis Screens at 1280x1024 AAX2, This time all medium settings with shadows on high settings.


----------



## CDdude55 (Apr 10, 2009)

I didn't think it was possible for it to look like that with a PIII rig. Looks nice.


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 10, 2009)

I doubt he's sustaining 20fps. I just got done playing warhead 4x AA 1920x1080 all gamer and didn't see the fps go below 30.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 10, 2009)

At 1280x1024 no AA, all medium settings(sound on low) i get around a solid 15-27fps(only with my 8400gs). Right now the game is moving at 3-5fps, because i have my external HD hook up to my USB 2.0 card, so my whole system is in a massive bottleneck mode lol. If i put my external hd plug in the back of my tower, my system becomes bottleneck free, but as of right now, i wanted to enable 2.0 speed for for other things, so i just thought i would try out crysis, even tho its moving slow as nails, but looks good. 

peace

oh and btw, my p3 only has 1.1 speed, and i only have 10gb of internal hd, so most of my games i run off my external. I am buying a new rig as i said in a few days, so i am just enjoying some games on my p3 for the moment.


----------



## KainXS (Apr 10, 2009)

u2konline said:


> At 1280x1024 no AA, all medium settings(sound on low) i get around a solid 15-27fps(only with my 8400gs). Right now the game is moving at 3-5fps, because i have my external HD hook up to my USB 2.0 card, so my whole system is in a massive bottleneck mode lol. If i put my external hd plug in the back of my tower, my system becomes bottleneck free, but as of right now, i wanted to enable 2.0 speed for for other things, so i just thought i would try out crysis, even tho its moving slow as nails, but looks good.
> 
> peace
> 
> oh and btw, my p3 only has 1.1 speed, and i only have 10gb of internal hd, so most of my games i run off my external. I am buying a new rig as i said in a few days, so i am just enjoying some games on my p3 for the moment.



lol


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 10, 2009)

Whats so funny?


----------



## Rock God (Apr 10, 2009)

Nope.


----------



## MilkyWay (Apr 10, 2009)

pretty taxing game is empire total war with all setting cranked up, i dont think i can even do it

crysis i cant max either

gta 4 is horrible to play on pc sure it looks a bit better and the draw distance is better but the coding combined with superior graphics is killer


----------



## js01 (Apr 10, 2009)

This is the best that my rig can get out of this pig of a game, it's somewhat playable but not really especially the level relic I think that level is the hardest level of the game on the system.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 10, 2009)

33.28 at very high settings with DirectX10, no AA, = thats perfect. You may want to turn sound on low because i really don't see any point in putting it any higher, lol. Also, particles you can put on high or medium, add aax2, you may hit 40fps.

Btw, can you post some snaps please


----------



## Rock God (Apr 10, 2009)

I'm gonna run the benchmark now.


----------



## Rock God (Apr 10, 2009)

I just scored 40.525 average.

1680x1050, very high.


----------



## js01 (Apr 10, 2009)

Rock God said:


> I just scored 40.525 average.
> 
> 1680x1050, very high.



You must have a pretty good system then, I'm assuming nvidia they really shine in this game ati not so much.


----------



## human_error (Apr 10, 2009)

js01 said:


> You must have a pretty good system then, I'm assuming nvidia they really shine in this game ati not so much.



To be fair i just scored over 40fps average 1680x1050 all very high on my system (ati 4870x2), although that was with the crysis gpu benchmark so i have no screenie of all the settings, for some reason when i run the tool everyone else is using here it just runs the game normally in dev mode and not a demo run :/


----------



## Rock God (Apr 10, 2009)

js01 said:


> You must have a pretty good system then, I'm assuming nvidia they really shine in this game ati not so much.


I got a 4870 x2.


----------



## js01 (Apr 10, 2009)

human_error said:


> To be fair i just scored over 40fps average 1680x1050 all very high on my system (ati 4870x2), although that was with the crysis gpu benchmark so i have no screenie of all the settings, for some reason when i run the tool everyone else is using here it just runs the game normally in dev mode and not a demo run :/



With an i7 at 4ghz i'd expect nothing less then that, I should of got a q6600 the low multiplier on this chip really hurts it.But still a 4870x2 should be able to do much more then that but this game is so nvidia optimized.


----------



## Rock God (Apr 10, 2009)

i7 isn't worth it (especially over my system) since I have the latest (if Core i7 didn't come out).


----------



## human_error (Apr 10, 2009)

js01 said:


> With an i7 at 4ghz i'd expect nothing less then that, I should of got a q6600 the low multiplier on this chip really hurts it.But still a 4870x2 should be able to do much more then that but this game is so nvidia optimized.



That's with the i7 at a terrible 3.4ghz as i'm troubleshooting a lock-up issue in my system, think it's my wireless card :| Yeah a 4870x2 should be able to do more but other than crysis there isn't a game i've tried with it where i wished i could have more graphics power. I'm not noticing any fps changes with boosting or lowering my i7's speed beyond 1 or 2 fps so it looks like i've reached the limit of my card more than anything.



Rock God said:


> i7 isn't worth it (especially over my system) since I have the latest (if Core i7 didn't come out).



TBH i7 was an amazing upgrade from my 939 rig with a 2.5ghz dual core athlon 64, and it oc's like a dream. I do agree that at the moment there is no game that properly utilises the 8 threads i7 supports, there's just no other processor out with the same memory bandwidth and overclock potential meaning i7 won't be abottleneck for a looong time (i hope).


----------



## ste2425 (Apr 10, 2009)

> You may want to turn sound on low because i really don't see any point in putting it any higher



wat u r joking right?   spund on low limits the amount of sounds ur rig plays at once, if im correct, so thats mean in a big  fight explosions may be 'seen' but not 'heard' and same for guns shots


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 10, 2009)

ste2425 said:


> wat u r joking right?   spund on low limits the amount of sounds ur rig plays at once, if im correct, so thats mean in a big  fight explosions may be 'seen' but not 'heard' and same for guns shots



I guess so, sound on low sounds just fine on my end, i can hear everything. I guess you guys may use speakers, but i use 20 dollar headphones and i am set for life


----------



## ste2425 (Apr 10, 2009)

haha i use an old huge 70's stereo, which i love whoreing off by the way if you havn't guessed, i mean sound is more personal to everyone, im sorry if i sounded harsh if your happy with how it sounds then dnt change it by what anyone else says sound to me is more important then video tbh thats why i have a studio mixer as a sound card haha but again sorry for the way i worded my las statement mate


----------



## DaveK (Apr 10, 2009)

Crysis isn't the hardest game on my system, I seem to have problems playing FEAR...can run Crysis at 1280x1024 at Medium with 6xAA and FEAR struggles at Medium...


----------



## ste2425 (Apr 10, 2009)

ive never played fear is it as good as crysis graphicly? from promo screeny's it looks great but they always hype up and edit photo's for the media


----------



## KainXS (Apr 10, 2009)

ste2425 said:


> ive never played fear is it as good as crysis graphicly? from promo screeny's it looks great but they always hype up and edit photo's for the media



if you mean fear then no way

if you mean fear 2 then no way


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 11, 2009)

*I still want to know what the hell was so funny?*

Anyways, i am going to do some benchmarks at 1280x1024 , with anti -antialiasing x2,  all medium settings, sound on low , in a few hours. I can run crysis with ease at those settings. adding aa doesn't decrease performance either. 

The only settings which i have notice that decreases performance are " and texture and objects ".Textures causes stutter which they said in the tweak guide which is true. As in warhead, if i put shadows on mainstream i lose about 15fps, but in crysis i can put shadows on high without a problem. Or in warhead i put water on mainstream and its bad, but if i put water on high or medium in crysis, its not a problem. etc Adding AA in both games does not seem to affect performance at all. Nevertheless, i can't play either game below 1280x1024, i have to play at 1280x1024. Anything lower and the game becomes unplayable and very choppy.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 11, 2009)

DaveK said:


> Crysis isn't the hardest game on my system, I seem to have problems playing FEAR...can run Crysis at 1280x1024 at Medium with 6xAA and FEAR struggles at Medium...



I notice with fear engine games if you turn off some of those light effects, you can gain about 20fps. Also, you said fear struggles, what settings do you have it on?
Try playing fear at 1280x1024 max to medium settings with AAX2 and see how it goes.


----------



## Rock God (Apr 11, 2009)

lol


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 12, 2009)

Right my rig.

All settings to high no AA = 15-18 fps whilst running around  10 fps give or take in a fire fight.

All settings to medium no AA = 25-30 fps 20 during fire fight.

Not to bad for a 35 pound graphics card.

Also have to say this game looks AMAZING the character models are amazing.


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 12, 2009)

How can you play it like that? I find 30fps to be almost unplayable, I need 40+.


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 12, 2009)

Because you only notice the difference when your used to faster.

As I watch tv in pal ( 25 fps) this frame rate is fine and dandy for me


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 12, 2009)

1280x960
anti aliasing x2
transparency anti-aliasing(super)
gamma correction AA
Texture medium
Object medium
Post high
Shadows High
Game effects high
Water medium
Shaders High
Physics High
Particles High
Volumetric high 
Sound on low



















It drop to 0-2fps at high settings when stuff like this happens.





:shadedshu


----------



## FilipM (Apr 12, 2009)

Crysis aint that hard, on mine with that benchmarking tool it does 45FPS on High at 1680x1050 DX10


----------



## imperialreign (Apr 12, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Clear Sky runs fine for me with DX10.1 on. I had to borrow the PII 920 in my HTPC for it tho haha. My 7750 can't do it tho.



back to Clear Sky - it's a major PITA for even my system.

I haven't yet tried playing with DX10.1, but my last foray, using Enhanced Full Dynamic Lighting (which is probably the most maxed out DX9c render I've ever seen), brought my system down into the 20FPS range . . . of which Crysis had never done to me.

Although, I've heard the DX10.1 implimentation does perform A TON better than the DX9 settings.



From personal experience, though - I have to give S:CS the award for most demanding game . . .

graphically, it competes with Crysis, IMHO - TBH, I found Crysis was too glossy, too polished, too bright.  Sure, it looked good, but had that same over-done overtone that we see in modern blockbuster movies.  CS, although a completely different engine, looks great, and has more of a gritty feel to it . . . I think subjectively it comes down to personal preference.


----------



## FilipM (Apr 12, 2009)

I agree with that, CS just feels a bit more amnospheric (cant spell ), where as Crysis doesnt get me into it as much as CS does.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Apr 12, 2009)

wait for crysis 2 the cryengine 3 your going to need a GTX350 to play it


----------



## Mussels (Apr 12, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> One of the most taxing, but for a very good reason:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090301/1uyne.jpg
> 
> ...



I was running the game on DX10 enthusiast and it looked nothing like that.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 14, 2009)

1280x1024
Anti Aliasing x2
transparency anti-aliasing(performance)
gamma correction AA
Texture High Settings
Object High Settings
Post High Settings
Shadows High Settings
Game effects High Settings
Water Medium Settings
Shaders High Settings
Physics High Settings
Particles High Settings
Volumetric High Settings
Sound on low

Anyways, some lovely photos ( only one benchmark )






8-12fps Max. Not bad for a P3 at those settings , no stutter, no pausing, slowdown of course , but overall this game looks freakin amazing. still not better then Jericho tho, which is still the best FPS ever made


----------



## Rock God (Apr 14, 2009)

Wait until you get to the last mission - Reckoning. 

Lag fest!


----------



## HammerON (Apr 14, 2009)

Rock God said:


> Wait until you get to the last mission - Reckoning.
> 
> Lag fest!



That will be interesting


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 14, 2009)

Not to rain on your parade but  8FPS and you might as well be playing it in powerpoint...  Of course you won't notice stutter, at 8FPS you're in a constant state of stutter.  That's bad.  That rig cannot, by any definition, play crysis at those settings.  

It *might* be playable with no AA and everything on Low.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 14, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> That's bad. That rig cannot, by any definition, play crysis at those settings. It *might* be playable with no AA and everything on Low.


Um yes its playable at 1280x1024 no aa low settings(15-24), but i can't stand to play at those settings anymore lol. I am buying a brand new computer soon, so i will get to enjoy crysis at those settings at maybe 20fps, which will be playable at most. These 2 video cards the 2400HD and 8400gs will be holding me back a bit, but hey, 20-30fps is perfect for me. 
I am buying a 8600gt with GDDR3 memory just for the new rig, so that should put up to yea 20-30 at high to medium settings. 

Anyways, more screens:


----------



## ste2425 (Apr 14, 2009)

god i remember gaming with my old pentium four rig and a nvida 5200 thing or something like that couldnt even max out prey so to be a solid 20 fps in crysis maxed out is heavenly


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 14, 2009)

Rock God said:


> Wait until you get to the last mission - Reckoning.
> 
> Lag fest!




Oh gods I know what you mean, whole game ran at 25 fps with everything at medium ( fair and fine enough for me) I get to that level at it was running at 10! had to set everything to low and it was still only 15-20!


----------



## Mussels (Apr 14, 2009)

i still get crap FPS in crysis. everything on second highest (4xaa, 1080P) i go between 30 and 60 FPS.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 14, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i still get crap FPS in crysis. everything on second highest (4xaa, 1080P) i go between 30 and 60 FPS.



Whats 1080p? Seriously? I mean whats the resolution? 
Also you said second highest at 4xaa and you get 30-60 and you called that crap 
 Thats perfect IMO, what you want to get 60-200 or something?


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 14, 2009)

1900x1080 progressive scan.


----------



## Mandown (Apr 14, 2009)

I haven't played crysis on my system, but Everquest 2 at the extreme setting is still very taxing on my system, and thats just running around outside no spell effects, unplayable with spells. I have it at very high and I get about 30+ fps. no AA either.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 15, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Whats 1080p? Seriously? I mean whats the resolution?
> Also you said second highest at 4xaa and you get 30-60 and you called that crap
> Thats perfect IMO, what you want to get 60-200 or something?



1080 = 1920x1080.
i means interlaced (30Hz)
P means progressive (60Hz)

its how HDTV's name it, as CRT TV's are all interlaced.


I cant stand gaming if my FPS ever drops below 30 FPS. crysis is a rare exception where i'll accept below 60 FPS. Games like left 4 dead - with 24xAA i go between 60 and 200 FPS.


----------



## Conflict0s (Apr 15, 2009)

Thanks Mussels, I never knew that "i" ment Interlaced and "p" ment Progressive.


----------



## Rock God (Apr 15, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> Oh gods I know what you mean, whole game ran at 25 fps with everything at medium ( fair and fine enough for me) I get to that level at it was running at 10! had to set everything to low and it was still only 15-20!


Yeah, fighting the huge (I can't remember what it was, my memory has gone) but fighting that huge blue and black boss was a lag fest. I get always 30+ FPS in Crysis on max settings (average I scored was 40 FPS very with 8xAA ) but on the last mission it was an atleast 10-15 FPS drop. I got like 15-20 FPS on the last mission with max settings. I didn't turn down no settings cause I like max settings 

I got through it and beat the game.


----------



## js01 (Apr 15, 2009)

Rock God said:


> Yeah, fighting the huge (I can't remember what it was, my memory has gone) but fighting that huge blue and black boss was a lag fest. I get always 30+ FPS in Crysis on max settings (average I scored was 40 FPS very with 8xAA ) but on the last mission it was an atleast 10-15 FPS drop. I got like 15-20 FPS on the last mission with max settings. I didn't turn down no settings cause I like max settings
> 
> I got through it and beat the game.


I find it's the same thing in warhead at the last level when you see all the aliens flying across the sky it's nearly unplayable even on low settings. I think it's the ai that slows crysis down it seems everything runs fine until you get a bunch of ai on screen.


----------



## largon (Apr 15, 2009)

Those flying aliens in the last level are just texture decals, not 3d objects with ai like the normal aliens that persistently keep annoying the player. SMOKE is what kills performance in Crysis, no matter the level.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 15, 2009)

Mussels said:


> 1080 = 1920x1080.
> i means interlaced (30Hz)
> P means progressive (60Hz)
> 
> ...



well 30-60 is great , you have the game at such high levels and a high resolution, so 30-60 seems about right, or maybe 40-60. Shadows kills performance, so if you have shadows on very high, put it on high and sound on low and see what happens.


----------



## ste2425 (Apr 15, 2009)

> Yeah, fighting the huge (I can't remember what it was, my memory has gone) but fighting that huge blue and black boss was a lag fest. I get always 30+ FPS in Crysis on max settings (average I scored was 40 FPS very with 8xAA ) but on the last mission it was an atleast 10-15 FPS drop. I got like 15-20 FPS on the last mission with max settings. I didn't turn down no settings cause I like max settings
> 
> I got through it and beat the game.



dnt have a clew what u guys are on bout haha played through the whole game for both crysis and warhead and the only level that lagged was when your on top of the train in warhead and only the bit on the train haha both the last levels played fine, on the boat for crysis and in the airfield for war head


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 16, 2009)

I thought this look funny. I was aiming for his head, but oh well.

IMAGE REMOVE. I got hit and took a photo


----------



## Mussels (Apr 16, 2009)

are you using 3D glasses or something? that image makes me sick just looking at it


----------



## mrw1986 (Apr 16, 2009)

Some screenies...1680x1050 everything at Very High no AA/AF...game is VERY playable, always > 30fps.


----------



## t77snapshot (Apr 16, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I thought this look funny. I was aiming for his head, but oh well.
> 
> http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/funnyc-kRBdw.jpg





Mussels said:


> are you using 3D glasses or something? that image makes me sick just looking at it



Yeah whats going on? my eye's are watering


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 16, 2009)

mrw1986 said:


> Some screenies...1680x1050 everything at Very High no AA/AF...game is VERY playable, always > 30fps.


Looks good man, is that warhead tho? 



Mussels said:


> are you using 3D glasses or something? that image makes me sick just looking at it


ROFL, no, i got hit and took a snap really quick. Sorry about that haah. I will remove it


----------



## mrw1986 (Apr 16, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Looks good man, is that warhead tho?
> 
> 
> ROFL, no, i got hit and took a snap really quick. Sorry about that haah. I will remove it



Nope, that's Crysis...I'm in the process of beating it then moving onto Warhead.


----------



## Melvis (Apr 16, 2009)

Well i ran Crysis again with the new ATI 9.4 Drivers and this is what i get.....Fraps in the top left hand corner.

Is this good for a 3850? in a oldish comp ? 

O and i get 45+ FPS in FEAR 2 at 1600*1200 everything set to MAX


----------



## ste2425 (Apr 16, 2009)

is there any way to turn your hud off an gun n stuff just so u can talescreenys pf the actual world?


----------



## MRCL (Apr 16, 2009)

Hm I can play it with everything on very high (except motion blur, if I turn that up, lags like shit) in 1680x1050. Dunno the exact fps tho, but at least I can't identify any lags or microstuttering.

Funny thing is, I downloaded it first to look if I can play it, it was horrible. Bought it anyway and runs smooth.


----------



## ste2425 (Apr 16, 2009)

yez when i played the downloaded version set everything high an got white lines comeing up every now an again but the retail version workd beautifully


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 16, 2009)

MRCL said:


> Hm I can play it with everything on very high (except motion blur, if I turn that up, lags like shit) in 1680x1050. Dunno the exact fps tho, but at least I can't identify any lags or microstuttering.
> 
> Funny thing is, I downloaded it first to look if I can play it, it was horrible. Bought it anyway and runs smooth.




To be Honest, i don't understand why motion blur is in so many FPS, how many of you guys get blurry vision from turning in real life?

Poor Nomad must have bad eyesight


----------



## MRCL (Apr 16, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> To be Honest, i don't understand why motion blur is in so many FPS, how many of you guys get blurry vision from turning in real life?
> 
> Poor Nomad must have bad eyesight



Heh, thats why I don't mind the low setting on motion blur. I always turn it down on other games. Whats the point of crystal clear graphics if everything is blurry.


----------



## hat (Apr 16, 2009)

largon said:


> Those flying aliens in the last level are just texture decals, not 3d objects with ai like the normal aliens that persistently keep annoying the player. SMOKE is what kills performance in Crysis, no matter the level.



smoke kills performance in every game ever made ever


----------



## Mussels (Apr 16, 2009)

motion blur is there to hide the low FPS. Its a trick movies use to make 24 FPS look fluid, and the console games started using it to make up for the fact the hardware just couldnt keep up.

its bled over into some PC games, but mostly it just looks like arse. (exception: Fallout 3. I think it looks great in that game)


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 16, 2009)

Could someone post a screen shot of Crysis at 1080p All settings to maximum, including AA? ( x16)

Would love to see how it looks at truly max settings.

As for motion blur, I turned it on in Necrovision last night, made it impossible to aim whilst strafing ( Fighting a room full of people)


----------



## thebeephaha (Apr 16, 2009)

Mussels said:


> motion blur is there to hide the low FPS. Its a trick movies use to make 24 FPS look fluid, and the console games started using it to make up for the fact the hardware just couldnt keep up.
> 
> its bled over into some PC games, but mostly it just looks like arse. (exception: Fallout 3. I think it looks great in that game)



Fallout 3 is beautiful when it works. It is the only game on my computer that crashes no matter what I do, OS install, different drivers, patches, updates, whatever. The stupid expansion pack thing made it even worse.


----------



## crtecha (Apr 16, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> Could someone post a screen shot of Crysis at 1080p All settings to maximum, including AA? ( x16)
> 
> Would love to see how it looks at truly max settings.
> 
> As for motion blur, I turned it on in Necrovision last night, made it impossible to aim whilst strafing ( Fighting a room full of people)




All I can say is holy crap!!!


http://maxcrysis.com/highresolution.php


----------



## MRCL (Apr 16, 2009)

crtecha said:


> All I can say is holy crap!!!
> 
> 
> http://maxcrysis.com/highresolution.php



Looks almost photorealistic in the distance


----------



## crtecha (Apr 16, 2009)

MRCL said:


> Looks almost photorealistic in the distance




I was impressed


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 17, 2009)

All High Settings, AAX2. The last photo was funny, and it look amazing in motion , those 2 dudes went flying.


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 17, 2009)

Look at the close up of the KPA face! Individual stubble and spots. Madness.

Can't wait to see games in 10 years time.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 17, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> Look at the close up of the KPA face! Individual stubble and spots. Madness.
> 
> Can't wait to see games in 10 years time.












lets hope pci cards are still made too


----------



## troyrae360 (Apr 17, 2009)

Heres a cupple pics at 1920x1080, in very high settings.


----------



## troyrae360 (Apr 17, 2009)

Still dont know how to post the big picture as opposed to thumbnail!!
Can some one point me in the right direction


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 17, 2009)

Upload them to a photo hosting service, I usehttp://photobucket.com

Pretty decent, can upload videos and such like as well.


----------



## paulm (Apr 17, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> Upload them to a photo hosting service, I usehttp://photobucket.com
> 
> Pretty decent, can upload videos and such like as well.



You can use techpowerup.org just as well, and it gives you the BB code...


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 17, 2009)

So does photo bucket 

Also the HTML code and such like, all in mouse over windows.

Photobucket.com, for all your photo storage needs.


/not an actual advertisement .


----------



## JC316 (Apr 17, 2009)

pantherx12 said:


> So does photo bucket
> 
> Also the HTML code and such like, all in mouse over windows.
> 
> ...



Photobucket resizes to 800x600. I use TPU hosting.


----------



## imperialreign (Apr 17, 2009)

Once I get my Vista install stable . . . I'll get some DX10.1 screenies of Clear Sky for y'all to drool over as well


----------



## DaveK (Apr 17, 2009)

JC316 said:


> Photobucket resizes to 800x600. I use TPU hosting.



It's not mandatory for it to resize to 800x600, it's only an option, you can use 1MB file size if you want.


----------



## pantherx12 (Apr 17, 2009)

JC316 said:


> Photobucket resizes to 800x600. I use TPU hosting.



Only if you let it, drop down menu to set it to various sizes.

600 wide
800 wide
900 wide
1000 wide

and full size 


Example of fullsize image hosted on photobucket






Not that I'm trying to take away from TPU or say photobucket is perfect. just letting ye know, I've been using it since I started using the net.


----------



## DaveK (Apr 17, 2009)

And here's an example of a 5 megapixel image on Photobucket 






But TPU hosting is still good  Though I notice a lot of people don't use it like in Project Logs, to be honest I don't notice TPU loading images faster than PB.


----------



## PEPE3D (Apr 17, 2009)

*Crysis and Crysis warhead*

I really liked these two games. Play them both and finish them. Play them both at there highest settings from beginning to end, unbelievable graphics. RIG: Maximus II Formula, two Diamond 4870X2 2GB GDDR5 XOC Edit (CF). CPU Intel WX9650 OC @ 4.10GHz, 8 GB Corsair Dominator DDR2 1066.CPU and GPU are water cooled. I have play may other games but these two they look very nice at the highest settings. Other games that look grate: Assasins Creed, Tom Clancy Hawx Half Life 2, Grid, UT3,Need for Peed Undercover, Mirror's Edge Far Cry 2, Fall Out 3, Bioshock, etc. Play them all Maxed out. Now I' bore with my rig. I want to sell it to build another one, This time, Maybe with All AMD Hardware(Phenom II 955??) or with Nividia GPU (295). I'm loosing the apetite with intel high end CPU too expensive. After building so many RIGS you can pretty much build one with the right components without going to crazy and still get good results. LOL.


----------



## Meizuman (Apr 18, 2009)

Original S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is quite hard when typing r2_gi on the console 



> r2_gi [on,off] - Disabled by default, this setting appears to control whether Global Illumination is used, a form of lighting which is more realistic, in that lit surfaces then indirectly reflect on and light up other surfaces. There are a range of global illumination parameters starting with r2_gi_ you can use to alter the effect if it is enabled, such as r2_gi_refl which controls the reflectivity of lit surfaces. However enabling global illumination severely reduces FPS, so it is best left disabled on most systems.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 21, 2009)

I need some help with Crysis people:

 Finally got around to install crysis and in Vista( never had this problem in XP ) and there is massive massive sound stuttering at the menus and in the game, is this a Vista issue, if so how do i fix it?

The good thing, i set everything to VERY HIGH dx10 settings, at 1280x1024 with AAX2 and at the cut scenes i get around 15.22 - 26.6fps. But the sound stuttering just kills performance near the end of the cut scenes and at the beginning of the level in the skies, its unplayable


----------



## RadeonX2 (Apr 21, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I need some help with Crysis people:
> 
> Finally got around to install crysis and in Vista( never had this problem in XP ) and there is massive massive sound stuttering at the menus and in the game, is this a Vista issue, if so how do i fix it?
> 
> The good thing, i set everything to VERY HIGH dx10 settings, at 1280x1024 with AAX2 and at the cut scenes i get around 15.22 - 26.6fps. But the sound stuttering just kills performance near the end of the cut scenes and at the beginning of the level in the skies, its unplayable



that's impossible. On XP DX9 I am getting the same FPS as you and my rig has much more power


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 21, 2009)

Well it drops down to 1-2 because of the stupid sound stuttering. When the cut scenes start, the performance starts to go up, then drops, the sound is messing up everything, and its unplayable.

Could it be my onboard sound, is something not config right?
can you switch over to XP in crysis, by changing something?
could be my hardware acceleration on the sound board, i may need to put it too basic, i just have to find it first


----------



## PEPE3D (Apr 21, 2009)

well try to have the lates patch installed. Lower settings in the game. I havent's have any issues in vista. Though I have Vista Ultimate 64 Bit. To play the game at there highest seetings you must have a very goog system. All of my game are play throgh Steam.Check that you have the latest drivers for your sound card. Check online see if there are any issues regarding your sound card  and the game.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 21, 2009)

Ooooooooooooooh i see. I must always remember, Vista is directx10 and so far Crysis is the only game that is giving me trouble and my 2400HD is holding me back. I haven't tested with my 8400gs yet, but i will try it later.

Now about lowering the settings haha, yea you are right. I put the game on 800x600 all low to medium 40-70fps. 1024X768 all low to medium 35-60fps. 1280X1024 all low settings, 25-40fps.
One question: Is there a trick to use Direct X9 in crysis or it wouldn't matter either way because the 2400HD is too weak in vista for *Crysis*?


----------



## Blacksniper87 (Apr 21, 2009)

well 2400HD is pretty crap


----------



## ste2425 (Apr 21, 2009)

i dunno when i had my hd 2600 xt i got supprisingly smooth gaming at medium - high at my current res


----------



## PEPE3D (Apr 22, 2009)

If your card supports DX10you shlud be able to play it. in DX9 you have to choose it.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 22, 2009)

you can right click the game shortcut in games explorer, and choose DX9's codepath.

I've noticed i cant choose DX9 when running the 64 bit mode, but that may be a bug locally.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 22, 2009)

Well i tried everything with this 2400HD, no go. The sound is just causing too much trouble, even tho i notice the sound isn't the cause of the performance. My guess its this card with vista. I did the shortcut thing, ran the game in direct x9. 1024X768 all high settings, but sound on low, and i get 11-16fps. I put the resolution to 1280x1024 and it drop to 4-7fps. 

Only thing i can see is this.  When i had XP, i ran the game using my 8400GS at all high at 1280x1024 on my Pentium III at unplayable frames , but still it was better performance then it is on Vista. I haven't tried my 8400GS yet in this new system , but when i do i will test out crysis again. My guess, the 2400HD for crysis is bad in Vista thats all and if you want to run crysis in a new rig with directx10 with vista, you better get a use a more powerful card lol

Nevertheless, Crysis is the only game thus far which runs poorly. All my other games which i have install plays just fine.



Blacksniper87 said:


> well 2400HD is pretty crap



LOL yea i notice.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 22, 2009)

have you updated directX?


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 22, 2009)

Mussels said:


> have you updated directX?


Yep. But i look around in google a bit and alot of people have this problem, i found some useful information. I am using my onboard audio, it could be that i need a sound card. So i will pick up a new sound card, when i pick up a pcie card. Come to find out, this problem is not only with crysis, i tried playing SOF3 , same thing, also same thing with GTA 3. So maybe in vista i need a sound card, which might help on things. 

Or it could be a problem with the 2400HD in Vista. So its either one of them. I had this problem with my 2400HD when i was using my P3, with tomb raider legend, problem went away using my 6200 or 8400gs. The 2400HD is really a funny acting card. 

Anyways, it could be those 2 issues which i mention, i will look into them soon.


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 22, 2009)

Crysis kneels before thy 4850X2. All high I get 60+FPS at all times.


----------



## Assassin48 (Apr 22, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Crysis kneels before thy 4850X2. All high I get 60+FPS at all times.



with beta drivers i might add


----------



## Melvis (Apr 22, 2009)

u2konline said:


> The good thing, i set everything to VERY HIGH dx10 settings, at 1280x1024 with AAX2 and at the cut scenes i get around 15.22 - 26.6fps.



How in the world can you select VERY HIGH settings? unless its just DX10? even i cant select that high, it just wont let me, even my Brothers comp with a 4850 wont let him select it


----------



## Mussels (Apr 22, 2009)

Melvis said:


> How in the world can you select VERY HIGH settings? unless its just DX10? even i cant select that high, it just wont let me, even my Brothers comp with a 4850 wont let him select it



its a DX10 setting.


----------



## PEPE3D (Apr 22, 2009)

I have no problems  playing Crysis-Dx10 or DX9  on Vista. Like I said the Game is on Steam. So, It does let me choose wich version I want to play.


----------



## js01 (Apr 22, 2009)

Melvis said:


> How in the world can you select VERY HIGH settings? unless its just DX10? even i cant select that high, it just wont let me, even my Brothers comp with a 4850 wont let him select it



Just go into bin32 or bin64 and rename CryRenderD3D9.dll to CryRenderD3D10.dll, and CryRenderD3D10.dll to CryRenderD3D9.dll. After that add -dx10 to the end of your shortcut this will actually start the game in dx9 and the very high setting in the menu will be available.


----------



## Mussels (Apr 22, 2009)

js01 said:


> Just go into bin32 or bin64 and rename CryRenderD3D9.dll to CryRenderD3D10.dll, and CryRenderD3D10.dll to CryRenderD3D9.dll. After that add -dx10 to the end of your shortcut this will actually start the game in dx9 and the very high setting in the menu will be available.



old trick. it makes the options available, but doesnt really do anything graphics wise. The game merely doesnt render the extra effects that "very high" calls for.


----------



## js01 (Apr 22, 2009)

I don't really notice that much of a differnce between high and very high but with this trick I know that sunshafts enable and those are only in very high.


----------



## ShadowFold (Apr 22, 2009)

I usually just play DX9 all high. Very High on dx10 just kills performance and doesn't look that much better. Plus I get 4x AA with Dx9.


----------



## DrPepper (Apr 22, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> I usually just play DX9 all high. Very High on dx10 just kills performance and doesn't look that much better. Plus I get 4x AA with Dx9.



I think dx10 rapes dx9 visually in crysis but then dx10 rapes your gpu and its like watching a slideshow.


----------



## PEPE3D (Apr 22, 2009)

That is a good analogy.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 22, 2009)

Directx10 / very high doesn't seem that demanding. I already tried it.(even tho i can't seem to run it good) If your card is a beast, people should get anywhere between 20-30. But also, some settings don't need to be on very high such as sound or particles. Do people really pay attention to particles in a game?
I seen the views over at the tweak3d guide, they are not a big deal.


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Apr 22, 2009)

250watt PSU.... rofl^^^^



ShadowFold said:


> I usually just play DX9 all high. Very High on dx10 just kills performance and doesn't look that much better. Plus I get 4x AA with Dx9.



GTX 295 handles it fine with an OC'ed Quad. I've been there.

And it looks alot better if you have good frame rates. The sunlight god rays are perfect lighting when running through the jungle. Its immersive but it will cost you a better GPU.


----------



## AKlass (Apr 22, 2009)

on my rig running at 1366x768 gets me 18-34 fps using a custom high config


----------



## js01 (Apr 22, 2009)

DX9 Very High









DX10 Very High


----------



## Reventon (Apr 23, 2009)

Don't see a huge difference between the two really.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 23, 2009)

Check out this video i found

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr5QIIzi2d4&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div


----------



## PEPE3D (Apr 23, 2009)

Pretty good video. Low resolution. When you seat in front of your PC for more than 5 hrs playing this game, let me tell you is, awsome!. You sough of get involve like being in the game. It is intense. Once you finished the game you feel that you want more. That is why I played the 2nd Part Crysis Warhead. Waiting for the next one. Ihope that they don't screw it up Like FEAR 2.


----------



## RadeonX2 (Apr 23, 2009)

YES, 'nuff said. Until I get a decent card


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Apr 30, 2009)

Quick question, in warhead is there a way to enable 3rd person mode?
I hit `, and did -devmode or _devmode and nothing happen.


----------



## MRCL (Apr 30, 2009)

Hm I play with BlueSky mod and the non-custom settings on very high, 8x AA and 1680x1050 and get a decent 35 fps average...  but that is in "calm" situations. Its still hella demanding game.


----------



## crtecha (Apr 30, 2009)

I get about 25-30fps with those settings but If I drop down my AA to 4x and well my res is 1440 but I can run it smooth like butter at about 35-40.  

cpu clock 3.2ghz
gpu 680mhz-1.1ghz


----------



## AUTOgod (Apr 30, 2009)

gtaIV by a long way.

crysis is hard on the GPU side, and allows me to set max settings at 1680x1050 and get 25-30 fps.

GTAIV wont let me go to high texture detail hehe  and runs the CPU a lot harder.

CPU usage in crysis with CPU driven settings (physics, sound etc) at highest my CPU runs at 50-60%

GTAIV runs at a solid 90%, with the GPU pushed just as hard.


----------



## PEPE3D (Apr 30, 2009)

*Crysis Warhead.*



u2konline said:


> Quick question, in warhead is there a way to enable 3rd person mode?
> I hit `, and did -devmode or _devmode and nothing happen.



To tell you the truth I don't know. But my guts tell me that you can't.


----------



## DrPepper (May 1, 2009)

PEPE3D said:


> To tell you the truth I don't know. But my guts tell me that you can't.



EDIT: From another website

Done. Added -devmode to the target line and now w/ F1 in-game (not editor) I can roam freely in 3rd person, thx for the help guys much appreciated. Where there is a will there is a way.


----------



## NeotonicDragon3 (May 1, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> One of the most taxing, but for a very good reason:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090301/1uyne.jpg
> 
> ...


Wow that looks damn real


----------



## crtecha (May 1, 2009)

> u2k.  Add -devmode to the target line and now w/ F1 in-game you can play in 3rd person.  I have mods installed though.



I just found a new love for crysis


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 3, 2009)

Thanks to MRCL for this awesome mod:


----------



## ShadowFold (May 3, 2009)

I needs an optimization mod. No matter the settings, I lag at 1680x1050  2gb of ram is killing me for sure!


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 3, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> I needs an optimization mod. No matter the settings, I lag at 1680x1050  2gb of ram is killing me for sure!



Just be glad you aren't running suck ass PCI cards like me, i am playing this mod at 10fps. I had to turn off blur and set shadows from custom to mainstream, to get 10fps. My 2400HD seems to be more powerful then my 8400gs in certain games(which is why the 8400gs and 2400hd are a tie in my book, they both perform about the same way) one of them being crysis, which is strange. But i am not using that at the moment, so i can't do any testing right now.


----------



## troyrae360 (May 3, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Thanks to MRCL for this awesome mod:
> 
> http://www.imagebee.net/images/om776y3g9mvomgdg0wwl.jpg
> http://www.imagebee.net/images/tkfnugi1fqzhy7suw1vu.jpg
> ...



what mod is that?


----------



## MRCL (May 3, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> what mod is that?



BlueSky


----------



## DrPepper (May 3, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Just be glad you aren't running suck ass PCI cards like me, i am playing this mod at 10fps. I had to turn off blur and set shadows from custom to mainstream, to get 10fps. My 2400HD seems to be more powerful then my 8400gs in certain games(which is why the 8400gs and 2400hd are a tie in my book, they both perform about the same way) one of them being crysis, which is strange. But i am not using that at the moment, so i can't do any testing right now.



Someone get this man a PCI-E card stat!


----------



## js01 (May 3, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> I needs an optimization mod. No matter the settings, I lag at 1680x1050  2gb of ram is killing me for sure!


It's the game not your pc all crytek games are like this with ati cards anyways.


----------



## crtecha (May 3, 2009)

Ahh yes bluesky and its beauty here is some screen shots I took a few weeks ago.


----------



## CDdude55 (May 3, 2009)

Cryostasis is now the hardest game to run on my system(at medium). Crysis is still hard but at least i can get it to run smooth with certain settings.

Makes me realize how much i need to upgrade my video card even more.

Those are some nice Crysis pics tho^^


----------



## RevengE (May 3, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Just be glad you aren't running suck ass PCI cards like me, i am playing this mod at 10fps. I had to turn off blur and set shadows from custom to mainstream, to get 10fps. My 2400HD seems to be more powerful then my 8400gs in certain games(which is why the 8400gs and 2400hd are a tie in my book, they both perform about the same way) one of them being crysis, which is strange. But i am not using that at the moment, so i can't do any testing right now.



Just 3 days ago you were in love with PCI


----------



## LittleLizard (May 3, 2009)

if i didnt lost the dvd, yes, it would still be the hardest game on my pc


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 3, 2009)

*CDdude55* i agree , i can't even run the game on the lowest settings and resolution. 



xRevengEx said:


> Just 3 days ago you were in love with PCI


What makes you think that? 3 days ago? are you sure? because i could of sworn i said i was moving on to PCIE , the day i made that thread where i mention i finally got my new rig.


----------



## AUTOgod (May 4, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Cryostasis is now the hardest game to run on my system(at medium). Crysis is still hard but at least i can get it to run smooth with certain settings.
> 
> Makes me realize how much i need to upgrade my video card even more.
> 
> Those are some nice Crysis pics tho^^



second that. just tried the cryostasis demo.

performance is EPIC FAIL!

not even sure why, crysis still looks better..........


----------



## ShadowFold (May 5, 2009)

WTF
I just tried Crysis again.. Before I could barely get 20FPS now I get 50+ at all times.. I had everything Very High 4x AA 1680x1050 and it runs amazing.. I can enjoy this god damn game finally....


----------



## johnnyfiive (May 5, 2009)

What video card you using now Shadow?


----------



## ShadowFold (May 5, 2009)

4850X2. I took out the 260 last night.. It's nowhere near as good as the 4850X2 in about everything.. Already setup the refund for it on newegg.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 5, 2009)

I guess they can tone down the bloom a bit


----------



## ShadowFold (May 5, 2009)

Damn that mods too bright lol I prefer deeper blacks.. I wish someone would make a mod that made the game darker(as in gothic dark, not brightness)..


----------



## Conflict0s (May 5, 2009)

Now that would be sweet.


----------



## CDdude55 (May 5, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> 4850X2. I took out the 260 last night.. It's nowhere near as good as the 4850X2 in about everything.. Already setup the refund for it on newegg.



Or give it to someone who needs it.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 5, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Or give it to someone who needs it.



I haven't shipped it yet, pay me 239$ and it's yours 
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130441


----------



## crtecha (May 5, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Damn that mods too bright lol I prefer deeper blacks.. I wish someone would make a mod that made the game darker(as in gothic dark, not brightness)..




It does get a little crazy sometimes but you can adjust the mod to increase or decrease its brightness and well all the aspects of the mod.  Just open the autoconfig.cfg in notepad and play around.


----------



## silkstone (May 5, 2009)

Damn i just installed cryostasis on my system. that game sucks, it looks pretty shit, ugly textures, and it stutters bad on my system (this is only at 1440x900)


----------



## crtecha (May 5, 2009)

oli_ramsay said:


> One of the most taxing, but for a very good reason:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090301/1uyne.jpg
> 
> ...




Nice thats some TOD screen shots those look amazing


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 5, 2009)

silkstone said:


> Damn i just installed cryostasis on my system. that game sucks, it looks pretty shit, ugly textures, and it stutters bad on my system (this is only at 1440x900)



The game doesn't look all that special anyway lol


----------



## DrPepper (May 5, 2009)

u2konline said:


> The game doesn't look all that special anyway lol



+1


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 6, 2009)

Here is some gameplay i found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWQnuHPQt8k

It does look decent tho, and sort of real. But not the best looking , i guess the main focus on the game is physx


----------



## AllHopeIsGone1 (May 6, 2009)

Damn, u2konline's PC is better then mine!


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 6, 2009)

Whats your specs?

Btw, yea this computer is pretty good. But once i move on to PCIE, should be even better. On another note, i have notice that Vista is slower then XP, slightly anyways. Or maybe Vista just needs PCIE cards, instead of PCI. I have notice games that ran really good when i had my celeron D using XP, but those games run like a POS with Vista. So maybe vista hates PCI or Vista hates certain games , i don't know. lol its only 2 games btw, SOF3 and GTA III. Both games run at like 5-10fps, but ran like butter on my Pentium III and Celeron D. So i think its vista , you have to use PCIE cards with the OS, because the OS is so damn demanding. I am glad its only 2 games tho, well 3 crysis games as well. But all my other games work just fine.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 8, 2009)

Now that I can run crysis amazingly well, what's a good visual mod..


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 8, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Now that I can run crysis amazingly well, what's a good visual mod..



Blue sky


----------



## BradleyKZN (May 8, 2009)

crtecha said:


> Nice thats some TOD screen shots those look amazing



what i wanna know, is how on earth do i get it too look like that?!


----------



## BradleyKZN (May 8, 2009)

Lol so i started playing this game again for the first time since getting my quad and it runs quite well. I run it at 1440x900 high, 4xAA. Do you guys also use AF?


----------



## silkstone (May 8, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Here is some gameplay i found:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWQnuHPQt8k
> 
> It does look decent tho, and sort of real. But not the best looking , i guess the main focus on the game is physx



I guess that's why it runns pretty shocking on my system, i have no PhysX Card


----------



## crtecha (May 8, 2009)

BradleyKZN said:


> what i wanna know, is how on earth do i get it too look like that?!




Go sit in crymods for a bit read up and play in the sandbox


----------



## largon (May 8, 2009)

Ick. 
That Blue Sky Crysis mod looks ridiculous. Such overuse of bloom and artificially deepened colors and shadows make it worse than stock Crysis.


----------



## BradleyKZN (May 8, 2009)

BradleyKZN said:


> Do you guys also use AF?



anyone?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 8, 2009)

Currently the wireless drivers for windows7 are the hardest on my system.


----------



## crtecha (May 8, 2009)

Did you find win7 drivers or are you using vista drivers?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 8, 2009)

crtecha said:


> Did you find win7 drivers or are you using vista drivers?



Vista. I think its the card itself has 64bit issues.


----------



## largon (May 8, 2009)

BradleyKZN said:


> I run it at 1440x900 high, 4xAA. Do you guys also use AF?


AF, yes. AA, no. 
Crysis "was never meant to be" run with AA because of the built-in edge-AA horribly and ofcourse, the insanely complex foliage which will make the game kick any AA hardware in the face.


----------



## BradleyKZN (May 8, 2009)

So that would explain why it looks like ass on everything maxed


----------



## crtecha (May 8, 2009)

it doesnt look like ass for me maxed out.......


----------



## ShadowFold (May 8, 2009)

largon said:


> AF, yes. AA, no.
> Crysis "was never meant to be" run with AA because of the built-in edge-AA horribly and ofcourse, the insanely complex foliage which will make the game kick any AA hardware in the face.



4x AA looks amazing.. No performance hit either. I see you have a 4890, you shouldn't get much of a hit in performance with 4x AA


----------



## fullinfusion (May 9, 2009)

Sorry if it seems im hijacking this thread, but can some on tell me what patch i need for Crysis?
I just installed it and having troubles getting it to run full screen after setting it up to the size of my monitor
thanks


----------



## DrPepper (May 9, 2009)

fullinfusion said:


> Sorry if it seems im hijacking this thread, but can some on tell me what patch i need for Crysis?
> I just installed it and having troubles getting it to run full screen after setting it up to the size of my monitor
> thanks



There is 1.1 1.2. and 1.21


----------



## fullinfusion (May 9, 2009)

Thanks DP but what one will fix the full screen problem im having?


----------



## DrPepper (May 9, 2009)

My friend has that problem too. Erm I think the latest cats fix that problem.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 9, 2009)

Doesn't fix it for me. When ever I try to use 1920x1080 in DX10 it just shows a black screen.


----------



## DrPepper (May 9, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Doesn't fix it for me. When ever I try to use 1920x1080 in DX10 it just shows a black screen.



Hmm thats rediculous that such an error hasn't been fixed.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 9, 2009)

Doesn't really matter to me honestly. I play in DX9 mode anyway.


----------



## Tyr.1358 (May 9, 2009)

Nope.  I can run crysis fine.  Dead Space, however, brings my processor to it's knees.  Don't know why.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 9, 2009)

Guys with the resize issue...IIRC its shift and enter or ALT and enter to resize to fullscreen.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 9, 2009)

sneekypeet said:


> Guys with the resize issue...IIRC its shift and enter or ALT and enter to resize to fullscreen.



Yea but then the screen is still black.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 9, 2009)

ouch my bad!

this makes me think its possible tho http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntH4NDOx5go


----------



## fullinfusion (May 9, 2009)

sneekypeet said:


> Guys with the resize issue...IIRC its shift and enter or ALT and enter to resize to fullscreen.


ALT + enter worked for me like a charm.... thanks


----------



## Mussels (May 9, 2009)

you people with the wrong size and black screen issues, might be suffering the interlaced bug.

See the 48x0 series thread in my sig.


----------



## BradleyKZN (May 9, 2009)

crtecha said:


> it doesnt look like ass for me maxed out.......



i see you're on vista, im going to be moving to it today. But i took warhead to 8xAA and 16xAF, it looked like AF was working but AA did not.


----------



## largon (May 9, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> 4x AA looks amazing.. No performance hit either. I see you have a 4890, you shouldn't get much of a hit in performance with 4x AA


In Crysis there's no such thing as free AA. 
FPS ~halves when I enable 4xAA ingame.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 10, 2009)

Is the 9500gt this fast or is something wrong with this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NsUm3ohaKs

Look at this specs and he says its max out and check out the performance he gets with that card?
If the 9500gt series is that fast, i might end up making that my card to buy along with the radeon card


----------



## DeathTyrant (May 10, 2009)

I've recently upgraded from an 8800GTX to 2x GTX285s in SLI.
The hardest games on my system:
Crysis maxed out DX9
Cryostasis maxed out DX9
STALKER Clear Sky maxed out DX9

Playing at 1080p. Crysis is hard on the cards, but I do get very playable framerates. Cryostasis has some nastily-low fps moments.


----------



## a_ump (May 10, 2009)

nah, i don't believe he's on enthusiast settings, let alone dx10. If you scroll the video to about 32 seconds, watch the sun in the top left area, there should be sun or god rays from the sun being partially behind trees, yet there are none. infact there are none through out the video, i watch up to about 5:16. and no u2k go with the 9600GT like you planned.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 11, 2009)

Warhead / Epic photo. When i was taking this photo, i was like daaaaaaaaamn, that look amazing.
I had to zoom in really quick tho


----------



## largon (May 11, 2009)

Too bad you're missing a whole lot of amazing screens in your Crysis slideshow. 
¦D


----------



## ShadowFold (May 11, 2009)

largon said:


> In Crysis there's no such thing as free AA.
> FPS ~halves when I enable 4xAA ingame.



Hmm must be because I have an X2  I get 4x free with literally no hit.


----------



## Mussels (May 11, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Hmm must be because I have an X2  I get 4x free with literally no hit.



ATI do actually get large AA boosts in crossfire.


----------



## DrPepper (May 11, 2009)

largon said:


> In Crysis there's no such thing as free AA.
> FPS ~halves when I enable 4xAA ingame.



I forced 16xqaa in nvidia control panel and got no performance hit and improved image quality. Not 16xaa quality alot less but there was no performance hit.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (May 11, 2009)

largon said:


> Too bad you're missing a whole lot of amazing screens in your Crysis slideshow.
> ¦D



10fps baby


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Jun 21, 2009)

Just to let you guys know, i have crysis demo install and it runs at a solid steady 20-30fps at 1280x1024 aax2, low to medium to gamer(only thing on gamer is physics) however, running in direct x9 mode and the game is horrible. Seems like Vista is faster in crysis with direct x10, than direct x 9.


----------



## hat (Jun 21, 2009)

Hm. Oddly enough with my 8600GTS, crysis was decent on all medium settings. With my 7900GT, it is unplayable with med-low settings. All DX9 in 64-bit XP. I figured the 7900GT would be faster.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 21, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Just to let you guys know, i have crysis demo install and it runs at a solid steady 20-30fps at 1280x1024 aax2, low to medium to gamer(only thing on gamer is physics) however, running in direct x9 mode and the game is horrible. Seems like Vista is faster in crysis with direct x10, than direct x 9.



directX 10 on low, tends to be faster than DX9 on low in many games. thats the way DX10 SHOULD be... its just that on the higher settings, the turned eye candy on, instead of letting us enjoy higher performance.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Jun 21, 2009)

Alright i did some more benchmarks, take a look:

System specs to the left ,8400GS 512MB PCI, 175.16 drivers(anyone using a 8400gs, please use these drivers, anything else creates a major bottleneck) i also OC my card, even tho at stock it seems to be the same similar performance, only slightly better when OC
http://gpuz.techpowerup.com/09/06/21/383.png

1280x1024 AAX2, low to medium settings to high settings(physics is the only thing on high)
18-30fps, never drops below 18 even when fighting, but it does drop to around 16 at some of the cut scenes. Not bad considering my card lol , ain't the best, but finally playable lol. I have to wonder what performance i will get at 1024x768 no AA low to medium hmmmmm, anyways















I am buying the full versions soon, but in the demo i am getting some massive sound stuttering and weird sound issues, not sure what the problem is tho. I may need to get a sound card which i will do soon. Only seems to happen in Crysis, not Warhead.


----------



## KainXS (Jun 21, 2009)

crysis not hard anymore


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Jun 22, 2009)

KainXS said:


> crysis not hard anymore



actually i believe it is, but not as everyone thought. I have warhead install, doing some benchmarks soon, however do not install the patch , because when you do it decreases performance big time. At 1280x1024 on warhead, if i look up in the sky i get around 40, but with the patch install, it barely hits 10.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Jun 22, 2009)

Here is my warhead benchmarks:

Here are 2  more, this time with warhead at 1280x1024 aax2, all mainstream settings, note: physics on gamer, and shadows on low., OC slight on GPU, getting around 15-35fps. More then crysis at high settings. Note 2: Using a *3450 Radeon Config  and my 8400gs PCI.*


[url]http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/1881696/1024/gamefolder/Crysis-2009-06-21-20-50-09-35.png[/URL]

[url]http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/1881698/1024/gamefolder/Crysis-2009-06-21-20-51-43-51.png[/URL]


----------



## Soylent Joe (Jun 22, 2009)

Definitely not the hardest on your system, but I think that Empire: Total War maxed out with a screen full of soldiers and ships and stuff can really humble a system.


----------



## imperialreign (Jun 22, 2009)

well, after some testing with some new hardware - trifire; 4870x2 + 4870, everything at stock clocks (GPUs and CPU) - Crysis and Crysis: Warhead are extremelly playable at enthusiast/DX10 settings at 1920x1200 (smooth as butter, TBH . . . no stuttering, or sputtering).  not sure my exact FPS, though (don't have on-screen enabled), but I'd guess at least a minimum of 40FPS+ to be this smooth . . .



STALKER: Clear Sky v1.5.09, though, continues to remain the rig killer - 1920x1200, DX10.1, maxed out in-game settings brings my setup into the 1x/2x FPS range.


I'm wondering how stressful the new Call of Pripyat is going to be . . . hopefully no worse than Clear Sky


----------



## Mussels (Jun 22, 2009)

u2konline said:


> Here is my warhead benchmarks:
> 
> Here are 2  more, this time with warhead at 1280x1024 aax2, all mainstream settings, note: physics on gamer, and shadows on low., OC slight on GPU, getting around 15-35fps. More then crysis at high settings. Note 2: Using a *3450 Radeon Config  and my 8400gs PCI.*
> 
> ...



this is why i call the game unoptimised, it runs pretty fast on low-medium, but turning to to high (or very high) it suddenly takes a machine 5x as powerful for 10% better quality


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Oct 15, 2009)

Seems like Crysis & Warhead Is only demanding (recording or non recording ) in Vista or Win 7, unless you have super high end cards. Because with my 9500gt or 4670 i am getting like 30% decrease in performance at the same settings or even lower , ugh. It plays and records perfectly with XP, but with vista or win 7, horrible all together. Guess i will just play crysis games in xp, because i never played to buy any high end card.

I will see how they run when i get a dual core, but i really don't think it will make a difference or will it?


----------



## CDdude55 (Oct 15, 2009)

Cryostasis is the new system killer, stalker is second.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 15, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> Cryostasis is the new system killer, stalker is second.



I agree I max everything out and turn on advance physics and only get 8-14 FPS. 


IT LOOKS SO NICE that I keep it on. I just don't play it though, beat once and that was enough. Would play it again with the advance physics if it didn't lagg.


----------



## Soylent Joe (Oct 15, 2009)

I think I'm getting about the same FPS in Crysis and GTA IV, maxed out with max AA @ 1920x1080, which is about 30FPS average. Teetering on the brink of unplayability for me, but GTA IV looks fairly smooth at 30 frames, whereas other games are jumpy.

Also may I mention that there's a different between a game being a challenge to max out, and a game being broken. If 3 295's and an i7 still only get 20FPS in a dx.10 game, then it's broken. I don't really know of any like that though (except Crysis, I can't say I've seen anyone say they get over 60FPS),


----------



## PP Mguire (Oct 15, 2009)

Right now with rig in system specs im maxing everything out 1920x1200 but i cant turn on AA except with older games and Shift. 


Im in the middle of playing Clear Sky now (red forest) and i have everybody maxed but still no AA. I can turn it on but about 20 minutes of gameplay and my frames drop. *shakes fist at old cpu*


----------



## @RaXxaa@ (Oct 17, 2009)

I can actually run crysis Warhead with higest detail on 1024x1280 without any problems on my  
g71 but i cant even play GTAIV higher than low to medium quality on 800x600 and it gets on my nerves i mean come on its suppose to be faster as i feel the crysis has better graphics than gta iv atleast


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 17, 2009)

maq_paki said:


> I can actually run crysis Warhead with higest detail on 1024x1280 without any problems on my
> g71 but i cant even play GTAIV higher than low to medium quality on 800x600 and it gets on my nerves i mean come on its suppose to be faster as i feel the crysis has better graphics than gta iv atleast



GTAIV requires more processing power from the CPU than crysis. Even though both utilize 3 cores.


----------



## Jaffakeik (Oct 17, 2009)

its because GTA4 has poor performance and got lot of patching need.To stabilize its performance on PC systems.


----------



## PP Mguire (Oct 18, 2009)

What was said, GTA4 has to be worse optimized than Crysis


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Oct 22, 2009)

Empire Total War on max settings. Really chugs. Crysis is bearable. 

Although up unitl now, I dont get it why people say Crysis is not optimized or poorly coded.. in my pov framerate was fairly understandable considering the size of the maps, the objects on screen, the AI at hand, and the non "blocky" collision detection.


----------



## troyrae360 (Oct 23, 2009)

Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:


> Empire Total War on max settings. Really chugs. Crysis is bearable.
> 
> Although up unitl now, I dont get it why people say Crysis is not optimized or poorly coded.. in my pov framerate was fairly understandable considering the size of the maps, the objects on screen, the AI at hand, and the non "blocky" collision detection.



Yea I can run crysis @ 1920x1080 at around 30 fps on ultrahigh settings No AA...

...But Empier total war just kills my comp when everything is turned up, Its one heavy game!!


----------

