Is this normal for GTX 260 running crysis..?

toon_mad · 12 May 2009 at 09:50

hi, so i just upgraded my palit 1gb 8800gt for a gtx260+ extreme galaxy super overclocked card, gta iv runs smooth as hell, but in crysis i set all settings to the highest (enthusiast), the game runs good at 1060x1050 AA at x4, but if i put the AA to x16q it must only get about 6 frames a second!

is that normal, or am i expecting too much?

Tefal · 12 May 2009 at 09:53

AA x16 is complete over kill and you won't notice much of a difference tbh over x4.

And yes you're expecting way to much to get a decent fps in crysis with 16xaa.

ro55o · 12 May 2009 at 09:55

toon_mad said:
or am i expecting too much?

Hit the nail on the head there. Putting AA x16 through crysis just doesn't work, it's enough to turn the most powerful of systems into a slideshow

toon_mad · 12 May 2009 at 09:55

ok i was hoping that was the case, i thought the card might be under performing or something.

cheers

psychas · 12 May 2009 at 09:57

playing crysis at 16 qxaa is to much to ask , but u would not notice difference as from 4 aa as said above.

u should be happy that u can play with 4 aa as not long time ago people were struggling to play the game with no aa on at all

ro55o · 12 May 2009 at 10:04

Agreed, getting 4x AA through crysis at enthusiast is really good, even at 1680*1050 (I'm guessing that's the res you play at, haven't heard of 1060*1050

). Most people would love to play the game at that, so yes the 260 seems to be doing it's job well.

toon_mad · 12 May 2009 at 12:52

yeah 1680x1050

I got it to run at 8x AA smooth, and as mentioned i cant even see any noticeable different between 2x and 8x :eek:

Tefal · 12 May 2009 at 13:14

toon_mad said:
yeah 1680x1050

I got it to run at 8x AA smooth, and as mentioned i cant even see any noticeable different between 2x and 8x

x4 is really the sweet spot between performance and looks these days any more costs too much for too little gain.

Btw your next purchase should b e a nice 1920x1200 24" monitor

After a week you'l wonder how you ever managed with anything smaller

You know you want to

toon_mad · 12 May 2009 at 13:33

Yeah this 22" seems smaller everyday

, i was thinking of doing away with these tft monitors, maybe get a 32" lcd tv

Ive just messes around with the AA settings, 8x runs sweet, 8xQ stutters like mad! so i tried 16x and i can run it at that

, just not 8xQ or 16xQ

So it got me thinking, whats the Q on the end for?

SiUnit · 12 May 2009 at 13:37

toon_mad said:
am i expecting too much?

best quote ever

The 'Q' means higher quality. Table explaining. 8xQ samples twice the amount of colour information compared to 8x

Theguy · 12 May 2009 at 13:37

Quality I believe..

toon_mad · 12 May 2009 at 13:56

ah i see, so does that make a game running at x8Q look better then a game running at 16x AA?

unknownsock · 12 May 2009 at 14:00

Tefal said:
x4 is really the sweet spot between performance and looks these days any more costs too much for too little gain.

Btw your next purchase should b e a nice 1920x1200 24" monitor

After a week you'l wonder how you ever managed with anything smaller

You know you want to

Rather get 3x22/24" with a triplehead2go dongly thingy

unknownsock · 12 May 2009 at 14:08

My bad, double post..