# Crysis Max settings rig for $400



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 7, 2008)

*Edit* I just changed a few things around, brings the total down to a crazy $338 after rebates. I now would recommend everyone check out the recommended upgrades section before making purchase decisions, unless they literally can't afford over $350*

I've been selling Crysis oriented systems in the sub $600 price range for a few months now, and just thought some of you might find this parts configuration useful.

Starting with the processor, this core 2 based dual core tops out on average at 2.9-3.2 Ghz. I've been setting them at 2.66 to be safe. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116064

For the motherboard this might put some of you out of your comfort zone, but I must say I've been extremely satisfied with the $50 price range boards and their overclocking features. This one even has voltage control. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813500005

This powersupply sets this apart from other cheap builds, it will not fail you in 3-6 months like many cheapies. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153023

Ram, not much to say. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227139

One of the faster and more reliable drives out there, particularly at this price. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136075

Yet to have an issue with these burners. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106228

This card is really what makes this work. It's unlike all other 9600 GSO cards because it's shader to core multiplier is 2.8 versus the standard 2.5. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121251

This is an excellent case, and can't be beat on the price to quality ratio. For those wondering, Rosewill is actually newegg's in house brand. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147073

*After shipping total: $398.91
After rebate: $338.91*

If it plays Crysis it can play anything. Expect 12-42 (24 average) FPS at 1024x768 on Very High. Hope this is helpful for those on a budget.


*Edit** 

A lot of people are suggesting upgrades to the parts I've listed, having tested this out numerous times I can tell you performance is good as is, but here are a few decent upgrades none the less.

For the Cpu I'd try an E2180 for $20 more, I really don't feel more cache is necessary. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116052

For the HDD I know a lot of people would like more space, for only $10 more you can go to this 250 GB drive. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148262

On the ram and powersupply. Dual channel will not improve performance due to the lack of motherboard support. As for the powersupply... this is a very opinion heavy subject, just pick whatever else you feel comfortable with, but I really don't think you'll need something better unless you want to upgrade to a heavy duty card later on.


*VIDEO!*


A lot of people seem to be doubting the Celeron and this rig in general, so I felt a video was the only way to show people how well this actually works. To prove a point on the cpu, I clocked this "****" dual core celeron down to just *2.1 GHz*. Res is 1024x768, no filters, Very High settings (high for sound). The vids are the original files. I don't think you'd be able to make out much after the youtube processing.


*Vid #1* http://www.megaupload.com/?d=WSE8FL5H
The first vid shows a blurry cpu/gpuz, but you can make out Celeron and 9600 GSO. I then launch into Crysis with fraps. It stutters when I do the twirl to load in the textures but then you can see its fine, and its pretty lame movement since I'm only using one hand. 

*Vid #2* http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7LWSW9NU
This vid is much better. I got out a tripod and I go further onto the island. You can see it isn't perfect, but I think its damn impressive for $400 and a supposedly gimped proc.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 7, 2008)

i dont see this running crysis at a playable framerate on very high..


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Aug 7, 2008)

ShiBDiB said:


> i dont see this running crysis at a playable framerate on very high..



Yeah, my amd x2 5200 system with my gx2 couldn't play crysis at max. I find it hard to believe a 2.66 gig cpu with a 9600 gpu can do it


----------



## Darren (Aug 7, 2008)

As it stands those components should play Crysis at medium settings, but very high settings is out of the question. The Intel Celeron E1200 isn't a very good processor it's really weak and I wouldn't advise getting it unless you plan on a heavy overclock to near 3 Ghz.

The 9600 GSO is a good midrange card, capable of playing all games at high settings, but unfortunately Crysis is an exception so expect only medium settings again, especially if coupled with the Celeron E1200 which will degrade Crysis's performance. 

If you're silly enough to buy specialist components just for Crysis I'd recommend you get a dualcore E8400/E8400 or quadcore Q9300/Q9450 and couple it with atleast 4 GB/8 GB DDR6400 ram. (personally I'd rather spend a little amount and play *ALL *my games at high except Crysis, then spend a stupid amount of money just to play *one* game at high settings)

Edit:



Urbklr said:


> Why are you guys shooting him down? I can see these parts playing Crysis on High, and he stated they got 24FPS average at 1024x768...Completely possible.
> 
> The Celeron he used is a dual-core C2D based one, perform's better than a AthlonX2. He used them at 2.66GHz, so:
> 
> ...



Building a rig for one game a badly programmed game such as Crysis which is known for it's iill performiance on the most powerful hardware isn't wise, and preying that a below mid-range CPU with a midrange GPU is enough to run this game is setting oneself for a fall. Upgrade your PC's guys but NOT for Crysis.

Edit 2:

LAN_deRf_HA, at 1024x768 you should be able to get around 30 FPS at very high settings, but with AA (anti-aliasing) OFF and maybe a slight OC to the CPU.  But as I said before I'd recommend you increase your budget to E8500/E8400/Q-series with ATI 4850 if you're serious about playing next gen games with a long hardware life-span.


----------



## Urbklr (Aug 7, 2008)

Why are you guys shooting him down? I can see these parts playing Crysis on High, and he stated they got 24FPS average at 1024x768...Completely possible. 

The Celeron he used is a dual-core C2D based one, perform's better than a AthlonX2. He used them at 2.66GHz, so:

2.66GHz Core-Based Celeron
2GB DDR2
Geforce 9600GSO

I really don't see why this rig wouldn't play Crysis on high, or very high at 1024x768, like he stated.


----------



## exo17 (Aug 7, 2008)

I agree with urbklr, it might be possible for this system to run crysis on med-high @ 1024x768, but I'm guessing there will be inevitable frequent stutters but it should still be playable.


----------



## Urbklr (Aug 7, 2008)

For $400, this can get you High settings, at a low resolution...Pretty damn good.


----------



## L-MoS (Aug 7, 2008)

Thanks for the laugh... Good one.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 7, 2008)

As I explained, that GSO is not normal, and the cpu has little impact even at the low res, because on very high settings the work load is still very much on the gpu. I can understand how some of you may not be able to wrap your heads around this, but this does play Crysis comfortably, and no there isn't any stuttering, just slow downs. Setting crysis as your bar means everything else should play well on it, ut3 for example plays very well, much better than my 6550 at @ 3 GHz with an overclocked 8800 640 GTS did. The math is simple. 600 core with about 1700 in the shader range will do wonders.


----------



## Urbklr (Aug 7, 2008)

L-MoS said:


> Thanks for the laugh... Good one.



Thanks for the useless first post, Good one.

Welcome to TPU.

Edit: @LAN, you should get a screenshot, that will stop all the arguing.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 7, 2008)

I'll try a screenshot, but unless I can show all the parts and the screen with the framerate measure at the same time it might not count for much. Even with the side panel open I can't prove which cpu I'm using.


----------



## Darren (Aug 7, 2008)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> As I explained, that GSO is not normal, and the cpu has little impact even at the low res, because on very high settings the work load is still very much on the gpu. I can understand how some of you may not be able to wrap your heads around this, but this does play Crysis comfortably, and no there isn't any stuttering, just slow downs. Setting crysis as your bar means everything else should play well on it, ut3 for example plays very well, much better than my 6550 at @ 3 GHz with an overclocked 8800 640 GTS did. The math is simple. 600 core with about 1700 in the shader range will do wonders.



Performance wise the 8800 640 GTS is similar to the 9600 GSO and the slight factory GSO OC wouldn't improve performance much in Crysis, maybe 1-5 FPS increase over a normal factory model. 



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I'll try a screenshot, but unless I can show all the parts and the screen with the framerate measure at the same time it might not count for much. Even with the side panel open I can't prove which cpu I'm using.



Download Fraps, displays your frame rate in the corner of the screen.  
http://www.fraps.com/download.php



r9 said:


> Take a look at my conf. 1280x1024 at HIGH very smooth at VERY HIGH playable but not enjoyable



Edit:

Not enjoyable I wonder why that is. lol

Bare in mind you have the your CPU overed to 3.2GHz which requires a decent motherboard too. Your ram is @ 1066 mhz opposed to 800 mhz and your 9600 GSO has 768MB opposed to 384 MB. So with your system slightly better than LAN_deRf_HA's and you're saying it's not enjoyable... LAN_deRf_HA needs to rethink this components or expectations 

Edit 2:



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Fraps is not needed, Crysis has an ingame monitor that works well. As for the guy who doesn't enjoy crysis on his GSO, I recommend independently clocking the shaders higher with riva tuner, though frankly I can't understand you're issue unless you require a solid 60 fps to call something enjoyable. All and all I can only tell you what I know from repeated first hand experience, make what you will of it, I'm sure someone will find it helpful.


Well since your soo certain I guess you didn't need our help after all and creating this thread was a complete waste of time, eh? a slightly overclocked shader wouldn't increase frame rates much maybe 1-5 FPS difference. I'm a overclocker speaking that flashes cards via DOS not Riva Tuner.

Edit 3:


LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Alright I have an idea, when I get this next system put together I'll make a video for youtube. I'll show cpuz and gpuz running and then I'll fire up crysis with the frame rate monitor on and everyone can judge for themselves how well it plays. Will that be adequate for everyone?



30 FPS constant no dips @ 1024x768 everything on very high including 8x Anti-aliasing and 8x AF agreed


----------



## r9 (Aug 7, 2008)

Take a look at my conf. 1280x1024 at HIGH very smooth at VERY HIGH playable but not enjoyable


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 7, 2008)

right ill disprove this very quickly

$400 = £200

a 4870 in the UK is £170 average

on that basis the card needed to run crysis on high very high is almost as much as the budget

sure that system could run crysis medium but doubt it could do that well

im pretty sure celeron are balls!!! celeron are supposed to be like sempron for intel but fail


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 7, 2008)

Fraps is not needed, Crysis has an ingame monitor that works well. As for the guy who doesn't enjoy crysis on his GSO, I recommend independently clocking the shaders higher with riva tuner, though frankly I can't understand your issue unless you require a solid 60 fps to call something enjoyable. All and all I can only tell you what I know from repeated first hand experience, make what you will of it, I'm sure someone will find it helpful.


----------



## 3xploit (Aug 7, 2008)

MilkyWay said:


> right ill disprove this very quickly
> 
> $400 = £200
> 
> ...



since when do you need a 4870 to play crysis very high at 1024*768?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 7, 2008)

Alright I have an idea, when I get this next system put together I'll make a video for youtube. I'll show cpuz and gpuz running and then I'll fire up crysis with the frame rate monitor on and everyone can judge for themselves how well it plays. Will that be adequate for everyone?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 7, 2008)

Having just recently built a very similar build for a friend, see this thread for post on it, I'll add my comments.

The specs for the one I build are slightly different, but very similar, so performance should be too much different.

Anyway, usuing the XFX 610i board, I got my E1400 up to 2.66GHz without a voltage increase, and 3.0GHz with only a minor increase.  Since cooling was stock, I didn't push further.

For the price, these boards are amazing.  Voltage control and decent overclocking controls.

The specialness of the ASUS 9600GSO doesn't really matter that much.  Just unlink the shaders and overclock them seperately and it won't matter.

As for performance, the machine was wonderful.  Just because it is a Celeron, doesn't mean it is crap.  The only real thing seperating this from a full Core 2 Duo is the smaller cache.  When overclocked to decent speeds, they perform wonderfuly.

My setup when overclocked played Crysis on high settings@1280x1024 with little to no slowdowns(at least none that the friend complained about and he just beat the game Sunday). No AA was used, and Post Processing was set to Low.


----------



## a111087 (Aug 7, 2008)

very nice idea to make a thread like this, 
but Crysis at 1024x768? that's not exactly max )  but alright 
still a good guide for those on tight budget


----------



## Urbklr (Aug 7, 2008)

These cards perform on par with a 3850 right? Well the Crysis demo ran fine on the following config with all-high 1680x1050:

Intel e2140 2.6GHz(The celey performs ALMOST the same)
2GB DDR2
3850 stock clocks.

This is possible guys, just cause it has a Celeron doesn't mean crap, it is the new dual-core Celeron...based on the Core series.

Edit: Very-High @ 1024x768 = High at 1280x1024+


----------



## ENIAC (Aug 8, 2008)

If you are on a really tight budget then your selections have got to be super tight. So I have to wonder why select a 9600GSO over a 8800GS when they are the same part and the 8800GS is cheaper? Here's an EVGA 8800GSfor $5 less. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130332 

250GB is the value sweet spot at the moment. 
Here's a 250GB WD with free shipping which all in is $3 more (free shipping) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136113 

Here's the best deal on a 430 watt PSU 80 plus PSU at the moment http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371006

This is a far better CPU for the money http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116063

Check out this MB http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138122


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 8, 2008)

If he says its playable why doubt him  If it can be played at very high at 1024 x 768 at playble fps then thats a win imo. Then again if I had my way I would have 2 4870X2's running crysis on 1680 x 1050.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 8, 2008)

The GSO I picked is significantly faster at stock than any GS due to the shader ratio. Less work matters when selling rigs to less savvy customers. The psu is the exact same price only you have to mess with a rebate. Never buy the the E2200 over the 2180, they both top out at around 3-3.2. I put the 2180 in there under upgrades earlier for people who can't believe the celeron is enough. That mobo is unessential unless you intend on upgrading to a quad and overclocking it later. I added 2 videos to the main post going from cpuz into Crysis with fraps on.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 8, 2008)

Try loading the map armada on very high  that is quite impressive water graphics it has.


----------



## ChromeDome (Aug 8, 2008)

i am downloading second vid now. will return with impressions asap!


----------



## ChromeDome (Aug 8, 2008)

hey thats not bad at all! for $400 bucks you can do a heck of a lot worse. and if those are in fact "very high" settings imagine high? even better

i've not seen that part of Crysis before? where is it? is it a custom map or somethin'? 

maybe i need to take that boat around the place like you did?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 8, 2008)

Check out the first vid, shows proof of Very High settings selection and how I got to the map (Shore).

@Darren
It's very disorienting when you quote things that haven't happened yet . Not sure what you mean by not needing your help, if you read the first post I believe I said this was aimed at helping others. Anywho, those filters are very extreme with the GSO's bandwidth issues, and there are certainly dips, but it does spend a surprising amount of time above 30 fps.


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 8, 2008)

Okay based on this, there must be something seriously wrong with my setup.

@ 1680 x 1050 all on high, no AA or AF (unless game does af as part of high)

I get about 45fps average.

Starting cut-scene as plane goes across screen, lowest is 20fps.

What am I doing wrong?

and/or

What is the OP doing right?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 8, 2008)

alexp999 said:


> Okay based on this, there must be something seriously wrong with my setup.
> 
> @ 1680 x 1050 all on high, no AA or AF (unless game does af as part of high)
> 
> ...



Are you using a custom config? I noticed that in Vista the custom configs actually hurt performance rather than help like in xp. Also, the difference between 1024 and 1680 has a large impact in Crysis


----------



## ChromeDome (Aug 8, 2008)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Check out the first vid, shows proof of Very High settings selection and how I got to the map (Shore).
> 
> @Darren
> It's very disorienting when you quote things that haven't happened yet . Anywho, those filters are very extreme with the GSO's bandwidth issues, and there are certainly dips, but it does spend a surprising amount of time above 30 fps.


yup. and if it does that well with Crysis, goes without saying its a good budget rig all around

good job with that actually. its a very resourceful build imo. i've yet to build one (i "helped" a friend build mine. he did all the processor / mobo / set up stuff) but have been here learning more. i'm about ready i think.

so you sell these? how do you do it? do they sell well?


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 8, 2008)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Are you using a custom config? I noticed that in Vista the custom configs actually hurt performance rather than help like in xp.



No its unmodded. fully patched. all latest drivers.


----------



## rampage (Aug 8, 2008)

i dont see how that rig can run crysis on Very High...   i have a q6600 @ 3.2, 8 gig of ram 4-4-4-12 and a GTX 280 and with a custom config (that dose increase performance) i average around the 24>30 fps @ 168*1050, and just rember as i have found the furhter you get into the game the more it takes a hit on the system (i cant rember the level im at but im averaging 18>21 fps on this particular level)


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 8, 2008)

Damn, was to slow for you to catch my edit. Anyways yeah, the res makes a big dif. 

@PsychoTronn
I only sell them locally so that I don't get overwhelmed, and while many people are interested, even at this low price no one seems to have the money these days.


----------



## ChromeDome (Aug 8, 2008)

alexp999 said:


> Okay based on this, there must be something seriously wrong with my setup.
> 
> @ 1680 x 1050 all on high, no AA or AF (unless game does af as part of high)
> 
> ...


i think its what is he doing right. which is matching components well and juicing the processor without over doing it. its a well balanced budget gamer.

also...its just the game itself. its buggy and poorly optimized and is likely to do as well as or as poorly as it will on any given machine. no matter the set up. plus this game, like most, is pretty gpu bound. give it a midrange vid card and a decent processor and you'll get some decent results.  doesn't take much to get to 30fps tbh. you just might not get much more even with a better set up.


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 8, 2008)

alexp999 said:


> Okay based on this, there must be something seriously wrong with my setup.
> 
> @ 1680 x 1050 all on high, no AA or AF (unless game does af as part of high)
> 
> ...



exactly see my specs i dont even get past medium at 1280x1024
sure you dont need an 4870 but its one of the only cards that will do max settings at decent frames
i dont even think it could do max settings the AA would kill it

no AA and not every setting max is not MAX is it?

dont give me that ive been on the forums for a while and i know hardware just admit it celerons are shit and im never going to buy one, why buy a Celeron when you can get a real cpu a core 2 or something

those specs are medium friendly not ALL MAXED OUT


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 8, 2008)

PsychoTronn said:


> i think its what is he doing right. which is matching components well and juicing the processor without over doing it. its a well balanced budget gamer.
> 
> also...its just the game itself. its buggy and poorly optimized and is likely to do as well as or as poorly as it will on any given machine. no matter the set up. plus this game, like most, is pretty gpu bound. give it a midrange vid card and a decent processor and you'll get some decent results.  doesn't take much to get to 30fps tbh. you just might not get much more even with a better set up.



Those results I posted are at stock speeds for my CPU. Do you think running it at 3.2 will release a few more FPS?


----------



## ChromeDome (Aug 8, 2008)

i play my Crysis with the Cuban mod and ToD  level 3 @1680X1050. thing goes like COD4 sometimes. or at least it looks like it


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 8, 2008)

PsychoTronn said:


> i play my Cruysis with the Cuban mod and ToD. level 3 @1689X1050. thing goes like COD4 sometimes. or at least it looks like it



I dunno what they have done with crysis, but even 30FPS feels as smooth as silk. Check out the actual in game FPS.

r_displayinfo=1 (I think thats it)


----------



## ChromeDome (Aug 8, 2008)

alexp999 said:


> Those results I posted are at stock speeds for my CPU. Do you think running it at 3.2 will release a few more FPS?


dude i have no idea lol. you know more then i do. i'm just barely getting to understand all this. this is a great forum to do that in i learn something everyday. but i couldn't tell you that. although i know someone here can.

as for the performance thing with Crysis...the thing about the game is it seems different from machine to machine sometimes. one thing i notice though is it has a low baseline. you don't need the most expensive / best hardware to run it decently. but even if you have that, its not a guarantee of great performance. "maxing" out this game is extremely difficult. and remember his "very high" is at 1024X768. and he is hitting the teens and low twenty's in an undemanding enviornment. but thats still pretty good

plus you have to remember Crysis came out ten months ago now.  Vid card prices have come way down, a quad doesn't help in Crysis, and even if you have an overclocked E8500 its still more about GPU. and budget cards like the GSO and 8800GS can run these games to some extent. When this game came out they could have been almost $300 cards.

so its all pretty normal. he 's got a processor that works well for the game and a decent gpu. you really don't have to have a high end computer to run this game decently. it just takes a lot more to go a little further with it

games fault, basically


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 8, 2008)

PsychoTronn said:


> dude i have no idea lol. you know more then i do. i'm just barely getting to understand all this. this is a great forum to do that in i learn something everyday. but i couldn't tell you that. although i know someone here can.
> 
> as for the performance thing with Crysis...the thing about the game is it seems different from machine to machine sometimes. one thing i notice though is it has a low baseline. you don't need the most expensive / best hardware to run it decently. but even if you have that, its not a guarantee of great performance. "maxing" out this game is extremely difficult. and remember his "very high" is at 1024X768. and he is hitting the teens and low twenty's in an undemanding enviornment. but thats still pretty good
> 
> ...




Okay, I might go through the tweak guides site for crysis. they often tell you what things you can trun down in graphics and not notice a difference.

Thanks anyway. Will have to do some OCing and tweaking this weekend, see if I can get the framerate up.

Only other thing I have thought of is whether the OP is running DX10 or 9? (sorry if i missed it)


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 8, 2008)

Direct x10, hypothetically performance could be better in xp with a custom config. Honestly I think 45 fps average is pretty good at that res. I've got last cycles wonder card on my main rig and that is way out of its league.


----------



## ChromeDome (Aug 8, 2008)

alexp999 said:


> Okay, I might go through the tweak guides site for crysis. they often tell you what things you can trun down in graphics and not notice a difference.
> 
> Thanks anyway. Will have to do some OCing and tweaking this weekend, see if I can get the framerate up.
> 
> Only other thing I have thought of is whether the OP is running DX10 or 9? (sorry if i missed it)



yeah its a great game to do this stuff with. i've actually learned a lot from trying to run Crysis. things i never knew before about this stuff. Mods, configs, hardware things. like i said i've been coming here to catch on to things a  little more. if i'm going to build my own rig its going to be right the first time. no mistakes, guessing, nothing. so this game and where its led me (threads like this for example) have gained me a lot. 

its fun. i got sick of it about a month ago. but its fun. now i have the 22in monitor so i have to mod Crysis and play it on level 3. thats good for now. and i prefer the ToD mod with the game, anyway. but at 1440X900 i could run it all high with post processing on medium and pull about 30 fps. and thats a mean average. sometimes the game would go into the 40's...sometimes go to 25. but rarely under except in the "hot spots". when the action got going. but it never really stuttered and definitely was never a slideshow

so its been fun and interesting. but i've had it


----------



## Urbklr (Aug 8, 2008)

ENIAC said:


> This is a far better CPU for the money http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116063



Wrong, they are same core, different L2 cache.


----------



## FatForester (Aug 8, 2008)

r9 said:


> Take a look at my conf. 1280x1024 at HIGH very smooth at VERY HIGH playable but not enjoyable



I have no idea why people can't believe that a e1200 can run it. You've just got to make sure to overclock it a lot more, because even with 1mb of cache I've got a pretty bad bottleneck. I can run mine on High without any problems, and in some spots I can kick it up to Very High if I wanted to, but it usually starts stuttering after a while.


----------



## Urbklr (Aug 8, 2008)

FatForester said:


> I have no idea why people can't believe that a e1200 can run it. You've just got to make sure to overclock it a lot more, because even with 1mb of cache I've got a pretty bad bottleneck. I can run mine on High without any problems, and in some spots I can kick it up to Very High if I wanted to, but it usually starts stuttering after a while.



Exactly, these CPU's are faster than AthlonX2's...They are Core2's...Just dumbed down. Clock for clock the Alledales come very very close to my Conroe in bench's.


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 8, 2008)

FatForester said:


> I have no idea why people can't believe that a e1200 can run it. You've just got to make sure to overclock it a lot more, because even with 1mb of cache I've got a pretty bad bottleneck. I can run mine on High without any problems, and in some spots I can kick it up to Very High if I wanted to, but it usually starts stuttering after a while.



What do you define as stuttering. I find that crysis doesnt "feel" like it stutters till below 20FPS.

Wish more games were like that. Most feel sluggish below 50 FPS. Crysis feels pretty much the same at 30FPS as it does at 60FPS.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Aug 8, 2008)

I would say it's just misleading, claiming "max" or "very high" while using a low resolution. I would rather classify this as a nice budget build. On the other hand, it doesn't have any input and output devices. ie speakers, monitor, mouse, keyboard. Another misleading detail.


----------



## ENIAC (Aug 8, 2008)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> The GSO I picked is significantly faster at stock than any GS due to the shader ratio. Less work matters when selling rigs to less savvy customers. The psu is the exact same price only you have to mess with a rebate. Never buy the the E2200 over the 2180, they both top out at around 3-3.2. I put the 2180 in there under upgrades earlier for people who can't believe the celeron is enough. That mobo is unessential unless you intend on upgrading to a quad and overclocking it later. I added 2 videos to the main post going from cpuz into Crysis with fraps on.



I didn't notice you had edited the config to remove the E1200. I agree the 2180 is a good part for this application. Yes, the MB is for OC to get the most out of the value CPU and still have it run very stable for game play. 

You can take the 8800 GS and bump its clock 50MHz. Its the very same part, trust me. Nvidia admits that. You may want to look at the 9600Gt's which have slipped under $100 over the last couple of weeks. I noticed one for $85 last week but it appears $95 is the best deal right now. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500019

By the way the PSU you are looking at is not 80 +, also it's a single rail 18A. Not good.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 8, 2008)

I would like to think I settled the cpu debate with the vids. It's true that with older, easier to play games at very low resolutions the Celeron isn't that great clock for clock.... but it still gets more than 60 FPS in those pointless situations, and the differences melt away under any real loads.

@ Dan
How is that misleading? More often then not when we build rigs we reuse the same peripherals, and everyone I've sold these things to doesn't ever run above 1024-1280, and they're well aware its just the system. In Crysis particularly the difference between 1024 and 1600 is not huge in appearance. Same with aa on or off, something common in newer titles like crysis and ut3.

@Eniac
I didn't remove it, I just put the 2180 under suggested upgrades. As for the rail, considering limited expandability, a single rail with 18 should do. The oldest of these systems is 6 months going strong. Luckily though, with every part but one being under $50 replacement costs are pretty easy to absorb.


----------



## tkpenalty (Aug 8, 2008)

alexp999 said:


> Wish more games were like that. Most feel sluggish below 50 FPS. Crysis feels pretty much the same at 30FPS as it does at 60FPS.




ORLY? Erm, 30 FPS is 30FPS, 60FPS is 60FPS. I don't think anyone has a system capable enough of running crysis locked at 60FPS with maxed out settings...


----------



## Urbklr (Aug 8, 2008)

I can play Crysis with no configs at 55+FPS...Doesn't feel much smoother than 35FPS, that's what Alex was getting at. Other games don't feel totally smooth unless your at 60FPS+.


----------



## alexp999 (Aug 8, 2008)

tkpenalty said:


> ORLY? Erm, 30 FPS is 30FPS, 60FPS is 60FPS. I don't think anyone has a system capable enough of running crysis locked at 60FPS with maxed out settings...



 You've lost me there, I never said they did.

Al I was saying is that without the FPS counter it feels like a really good framerate and I dont notice a difference between high fps and low (to about 30). Every other game I have played you can tell when framerate goes below 50.

So I wanted to know what sort of FPS people are getting on these budget crysis rigs. Cus I used to determine maxed out and playable at 60FPS. But with Crysis you can make an exception, it doesnt really stutter till below 20.



Urbklr said:


> I can play Crysis with no configs at 55+FPS...Doesn't feel much smoother than 35FPS, that's what Alex was getting at. Other games don't feel totally smooth unless your at 60FPS+.



Exactly, thanks Urbklr


----------



## v-zero (Aug 8, 2008)

MilkyWay said:


> dont give me that ive been on the forums for a while and i know hardware just admit it celerons are shit and im never going to buy one, why buy a Celeron when you can get a real cpu a core 2 or something
> 
> those specs are medium friendly not ALL MAXED OUT



You sir, are a moron.You claim to know hardware, I just juxtapose that you in fact know fuck all to the max. (See what I did there?).

The new Celeron is based upon the Core2 architecture, the reason for its purchase instead of the other processors is two fold. They are cheaper, they do the job required (not beyond it) at such levels of resolution.

Q.E.D.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 8, 2008)

rampage said:


> i dont see how that rig can run crysis on Very High...   i have a q6600 @ 3.2, 8 gig of ram 4-4-4-12 and a GTX 280 and with a custom config (that dose increase performance) i average around the 24>30 fps @ 168*1050, and just rember as i have found the furhter you get into the game the more it takes a hit on the system (i cant rember the level im at but im averaging 18>21 fps on this particular level)



There is no way in hell thats all you are gettin that much even on very high at that resolution I mean you should be at the 50's  I get more out of a 8800GT


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 8, 2008)

MilkyWay said:


> dont give me that ive been on the forums for a while and i know hardware just admit it celerons are shit and im never going to buy one, why buy a Celeron when you can get a real cpu a core 2 or something



You really have no clue what you are talking about here.


----------



## ENIAC (Aug 8, 2008)

Personally, I think this rig would go farther in Crysis (but not max out) and it comes in at $377.43. You may want to consider some of these parts in your build.

9600GT, 320GB HDD, P35 MB to OC the E21080, 2GB OZ, Samsung DVD, nice case (sort of ). The PSU is suckass OEM quality and the weak link in the build.

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/P...ishListNumber=7845991&W
ishListTitle=$377.43


----------



## ENIAC (Aug 9, 2008)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> @Eniac
> I didn't remove it, I just put the 2180 under suggested upgrades.



Yep, you were right, the Core2 version Celeron does offer respectable benchies for the money. At only $50, I agree its the best value for a budget gaming rig.

http://computermonger.com/intel-celeron-e1200-review.html


----------



## Kei (Aug 9, 2008)

Urbklr said:


> Why are you guys shooting him down? I can see these parts playing Crysis on High, and he stated they got 24FPS average at 1024x768...Completely possible.
> 
> The Celeron he used is a dual-core C2D based one, perform's better than a AthlonX2. He used them at 2.66GHz, so:
> 
> ...



I completely agree as I have a low power setting I use sometimes on my Phenom 9850BE that runs it on two cores only with a speed of 1.8Ghz and I play Crysis at 1024*768 (on a 32" monitor that's still huge ) on Very High Spec and it runs very nicely. That was using a single HD3870 clocked low as well (this was my low power saving setting) to 600Mhz core and 800Mhz memory. 30fps wasn't really that hard at all.

The game only really gets ridiculous once you up the resolution and/or get to a crazy action kinda scene. So this is 100% believable and a very good price/project.

K


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Aug 9, 2008)

I'm not sure if that rig could handle the levels inside the mountain or the incredibly un-optimized final battle.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 9, 2008)

Hiya LAN derf! Welcome to TPU!

After seeing and reading this thread I have to point out. When overclocking these e1200 chips, the best thing to do is use CL4 whenever you can. It gives almost a 2 second difference in SuperPI and helps boost overall performance. Just thought I give you my input on this. Also a question for you:

What is the max you have been able to push one of these chips?

@Keiran

Only agree with you to a certain extent. The chips were designed with budget in mind. Not to be a performance monger. If you want the best, then by far you are free to purchase anything you desire. But for budget, they offer a very good price/performance ratio. That is a statement you can't doubt or ignore. I will admit their are cpu's better than it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 9, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> What is the max you have been able to push one of these chips?



I don't know about the E1200, but the E1400 was a pretty decent overclocker in the budget board.  Like I said when I posted about my experience with a similar build and budget board, I was able to get the E1400 up to 2.66GHz without even the need to increase voltages, and it hit 3.0GHz with only a mild voltage increase over stock(1.35v in the BIOS, IIRC) and I didn't dare go higher with just the stock cooling.  I've really been tempted to see what one will do in a well known overclocking board like my 780i and under my Ultra-120, but I haven't been able to justify buying one and ripping apart my rig to test it.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Aug 9, 2008)

Thanks newtekie. I am certain you have heard me post it before but my experience with this chip has been great. 3.5Ghz max will not boot over 438fsb, 8x438fsb stable with 1.46 vcore and 58C Load under a stock P4 Prescott Intel HSF on the DFI. I run 24/7 1.36 vcore 3.2Ghz, solid as a rock.


----------



## dark2099 (Aug 9, 2008)

That is a nice temp there Jr with the stock P4 heatsink, for an old piece of metal that took lots of flak for size, sure does its job.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 12, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> Hiya LAN derf! Welcome to TPU!
> 
> After seeing and reading this thread I have to point out. When overclocking these e1200 chips, the best thing to do is use CL4 whenever you can. It gives almost a 2 second difference in SuperPI and helps boost overall performance. Just thought I give you my input on this. Also a question for you:
> 
> ...



I actually haven't put it in a board that could take it to max yet. The budget boards can't do much over 333 so that's another reason I only set them to 2.66 GHz.

@Eniac 
That ram is a good find. As for the board and card, I'm partial to the GSO because the shader count helps out more in newer games, they both give you plenty of performance otherwise. I'm also a bit wary of ECS boards.

Edit* Just added that ram, brings the total down to a crazy $338 after rebates. I now would recommend everyone check out the recommended upgrades section before making purchase decisions, unless they literally can't afford over $350


----------



## zithe (Aug 13, 2008)

9600gt is 95 dollars now. 

Edit: nevermind it went back up


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 13, 2008)

talk about frames per second look at my rig and then think to yourself why i wonder why he gets such good speeds and graphics

i get jack on crysis with my rig it runs at 20-30fps medium sometimes high 30s but it goes insane on the high detail places it goes low as hell

i have latest drivers ect and my rig works fine so dont suggest its my own fault

I have to game on a budget no choice personally i wouldn't ever recommend a celeron to anyone even the budget crowd, plus you have the crappy UK prices to contend with so its hard for me

Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 £50 but id spend a little more for a Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 at £75 because its going to last you longer and is 45nm and has much more cache

The E2180 you mentioned isnt so bad either

i wouldnt skimp on the cpu, with a good cooler you can get a lot out of a cpu, i also wouldnt skimp on the psu a 500w is good enuf for the budget user, 9600gso no id get a 8800gt second hand, a single 2gb stick of corsair value ram or some other reputable value brand 1x2gb so you can add in a second 2gb stick later on, coolermaster cases are good id get a cheap Centurion 5, case inside is all that matters and how many fans spaces it has since you can add cooling and paint it with a cheap can of spray


ebay is the budget users friend and so is second hand, you can get good second hand stuff on TPU

cheap and cheerful isnt always the best, budget is about spending a little and making it go a long way cheep and cheerful isnt doing that


----------



## pepsi71ocean (Aug 13, 2008)

My rig plays the crysis demo in the high 60's in the first mission that the demo plays. im not sure what the average is, but its only varies from 45-60's during the mission


----------



## Katanai (Aug 13, 2008)

For all you people saying this is BS. I've finished the Crysis demo on an Athlon at 1.8Ghz and a x700 and 1Gb of DDR1. That was at a friends place. It was on medium settings at 800/600. That system would run it on High settings at 1024/768, although you would get black boxes instead of explosions and it was not playable but it didn't get stuck. So I don't see why this system wouldn't run it on Very High at that resolution...


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Aug 13, 2008)

Katanai said:


> For all you people saying this is BS. I've finished the Crysis demo on an Athlon at 1.8Ghz and a x700 and 1Gb of DDR1. That was at a friends place. It was on medium settings at 800/600. That system would run it on High settings at 1024/768, although you would get black boxes instead of explosions and it was not playable but it didn't get stuck. So I don't see why this system wouldn't run it on Very High at that resolution...



he claims though that his $400 PCs an run it at high specs.


----------



## pepsi71ocean (Aug 13, 2008)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> he claims though that his $400 PCs an run it at high specs.



I'm still not sure how that works tho, my Quad at 3.6Ghz with my gfx card ock'ed to 770 (L/S), and memory at like 1035(i think). pci bus ock was 115, and the ram was running 1100MHz.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Aug 13, 2008)

pepsi71ocean said:


> I'm still not sure how that works tho, my Quad at 3.6Ghz with my gfx card ock'ed to 770 (L/S), and memory at like 1035(i think). pci bus ock was 115, and the ram was running 1100MHz.



Agreed, my rig with the specs to the left still doesn't average over 25 FPS (Very High 1440*900 4xAA. Even less on High, not sure why.)


----------



## pepsi71ocean (Aug 13, 2008)

OzzmanFloyd120 said:


> Agreed, my rig with the specs to the left still doesn't average over 25 FPS (Very High 1440*900 4xAA. Even less on High, not sure why.)



Crysis is quite buggy, and at best a system monster. My quad had trouble playing with it at the setting it was, but i blame it to the coding of it.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Aug 13, 2008)

pepsi71ocean said:


> Crysis is quite buggy, and at best a system monster. My quad had trouble playing with it at the setting it was, but i blame it to the coding of it.



Er, I think you missed the point 
Some of us have some pretty high-end rigs (by high-end I mean well worth over $1000 in parts) that can't max Crysis, so I think it would be pretty tough to max the settings on a $400 rig (Granted he didn't say he's maxing res and AA on these systems.)


----------



## Gabkicks (Aug 13, 2008)

maybe he means max settings at at 320x240? Crysis looks so good... its like I have an eyegasm when  I play the game.


----------



## OzzmanFloyd120 (Aug 13, 2008)

Gabkicks said:


> maybe he means max settings at at 320x240?



Nah, that would be WAY too CPU-Dependant.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Aug 14, 2008)

There are two keys to why it works. One is the incredible diminishing returns you see with the more money you spend, especially in the CPU area. Second is resolution, that makes a huge dif. My 8800 1024 GTS at 800/2000/2200plays Crysis very high settings @ 1600x1200 with 16AF on slower than that 9600 GSO is at 1024x768 with no filters. Another reason why this is bearable is because new games like Crysis and ut3 don't show as much visual benefit from filters and higher resolutions as older games did.


----------



## MilkyWay (Aug 14, 2008)

lol at least its not me who thinks it BS

no doubt the system you posted is a nice budget system but it seems way to underpowerd for crysis

who cares its one game anyway


----------



## v-zero (Aug 14, 2008)

Just to jump back in here, I have two things to say:

1. May I ask/suggest that you try this configuration with the level 4 and realistic shadows options instead of very high? : http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=23117 .

2. What about a similar PC but with an AMD processor? At these kinds of speeds and cache levels the A64 is faster than the Core architecture per clock in games.

Just sticking my oar in again.


----------



## a_ump (Aug 14, 2008)

kieran your a little stubborn, did u even check his videos? if not then, no disrespect, but u have no place to post negative comments until u have seen everything he's had to offer to prove it, which includes the videos. as for my opinion i haven't even seen the videos myself, but yes its quite possible. 1024x768 is a very low resolution, which would stress that gpu less than it could actually handle, as said before the celeron dual-core is based off c2d architexture just less cache, lower clock speed.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 14, 2008)

Ok, since many of you can't read.  This rig is more than capable of playing Crysis on Very High(but not Maxxed like the title says).  Here is why:

1.) The resolution he is talking about is only 1024x768. He was very clear about this from the very beginning.  It is entirely possible to play Crysis at 1024x768 with no AA or AF with all other settings Maxed out.  Crysis is extremely resolution driven, the higher resolutions really kill the framerates.  If you doubt the ability of the card, you need only look as far as W1zzard's review of it here.  Look at the average framerates the card gets at 1024x768 on High, he gets almost 50FPS.  It is entirely reasonable to believe that ~25 is possible at Very High.

2.) Many of you doubt the CPU.  You have to realize he is overclocking the CPU.  At 2.66GHz, the Celeron E1200 is a very powerful CPU.  In games it can easily match an E2180, and even surpass it in some games.  The first upgrade I would make is definitely the CPU, however the E1200 overclocked is enough to manage Very High settings at 1024x768.


----------



## babaquazi (Aug 14, 2008)

Urbklr said:


> Why are you guys shooting him down? I can see these parts playing Crysis on High, and he stated they got 24FPS average at 1024x768...Completely possible.
> 
> The Celeron he used is a dual-core C2D based one, perform's better than a AthlonX2. He used them at 2.66GHz, so:
> 
> ...



when i go optimize it goes to "high" on 1280*1024 so i can't see how that can play crysis on high


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 14, 2008)

babaquazi said:


> when i go optimize it goes to "high" on 1280*1024 so i can't see how that can play crysis on high



It will for every card.. My friends tri-sli 280 setup even auto optimizes for high


----------



## XSAlliN (Aug 14, 2008)

11024 x 760 - it's true you don't need a High PC from current time to run Crysis at that resolution. About those videos, there incomplete since the biggest FPS drawback comes from characters rendering (you know characters with A.I.). On those videos all I can see is the environment rendering (sky,sea, earth, some trees and other objects). When people play Crysis they want to shoot some in game characters, Tanks ...I doubt they install Crysis to shoot down trees , maybe only nature haters did that. 

PS.I don't agree with people that show demos of environment rendering on very high settings and say those games are playable.


----------



## cdawall (Aug 14, 2008)

i made a thread a while back about a budget playing crysis @1024x768 med/high its not hard

s754 3000+ @2.4ghz
machspeed K8M8MSr2
2x1GB DDR480 3-3-3-8
60GB maxtor IDE
7800GS@650/1400
Tt purepower 500w

and it played cryis just fine this i need to build a rig just for cryssi shit is stupid just know what your doing and tweak and old rig and you cna play it just fine


----------



## ChromeDome (Aug 14, 2008)

its like i said before in this thread, you can play Crysis on a budget gamer. just don't expect MUCH more if you spend much more or have better hardware

its the game that is somewhat crap, not the systems its running on


----------

