crysis, what do you need to play on ultra with good fps

chaparral · 28 May 2009 at 23:43

wombraider said:
What do you need to play crysis on ultra with high FPS ?

A time machine , go about 1 year into the future and the hardware available then might be able to run it

Everyone was saying that about 18 months ago

LoadsaMoney · 29 May 2009 at 00:14

Its faster in XP than Win 7, so wonder if its the same for Vista, as in XP all high, i get about 45 average, where as in Win 7 all high, average is about 35

chaparral said:
Everyone was saying that about 18 months ago

Thats because when Crysis came out, they said it would take about 2 years for cards to be able to run it, but the trouble was, they didn't know that the 8800 GTX was going to be the only card for 2 years, so its going to be at least 2011-2012 before we get the buggers now.

Perfect_Chaos · 29 May 2009 at 00:18

mpj88 said:
It probably still causes the lowest frame rates which would imply it is still the most challenging!

Disaster when they make games this demanding imo, by the time you get to play it smoothly and hardly any slowdown it will be 2 years old.. They should make games which look great and run great instead of tech demo esque games

balth_dire · 29 May 2009 at 00:24

LoadsaMoney said:
That won't run it either, why no one mentioned it in here

Indeed

. I was going to suggest that two of them might have an outside shot, though with the physical and driver-related hindrances associated with quad, you'd probably find that three heavily OC'd 285s would turn in a better result.

CK61938 · 29 May 2009 at 00:56

So I decided to tweak the graphics in ATI CCC...I put the standard settings to Optimal Quality, put V-SYNC on always on, then ticked both OpenGL and Triple buffering. Played Crysis Warhead using the same settings as before (1920x1200res, 4xAA, ENTHUSIAST). FPS shot as high as 60!! I couldnt believe it...it was so smooth and playable I honestly thought at times I was playing a movie rather than a game. I am going to try Crysis tomorrow under the same settings barring AA at 2x...and see what I get with that.

But this proves that the 4870X2 can cope really well with Crysis

hughythomas · 29 May 2009 at 11:59

Wha???!! Am I the only one here who went from a 4870X2 -> GTX285 and noticed my performance go UP? The 4870X2 was all over the place in terms of consistent FPS. The GTX285 just eats up Crysis. Maybe my rig wasnt beasty enough to handle the X2 or summit? Although, one would have thought that 4.40Ghz E8400 could handle it...

jmc007 · 29 May 2009 at 13:51

hughythomas said:
Wha???!! Am I the only one here who went from a 4870X2 -> GTX285 and noticed my performance go UP? The 4870X2 was all over the place in terms of consistent FPS. The GTX285 just eats up Crysis. Maybe my rig wasnt beasty enough to handle the X2 or summit? Although, one would have thought that 4.40Ghz E8400 could handle it...

Off topic a minute. What vcore you got your E8400 at?
Never mind I stalked your threads; your at vcore 1.325 no?

hughythomas · 29 May 2009 at 16:20

Yer lol I really ought to put that in my sig.

Ch3m1c4L · 29 May 2009 at 16:50

hehe, i play it at 2560 al very high in dx10 under vista 64 and get decent (40ish being minimum except for random spikes because of quad SLI) fps, but thats using 8x asf and no aa. AA KILLS my performance which im guessing is because of the memory limitations running at that res and settings, either that or the drivers i was using at the time. This was tested ages ago when i first got my quad setup though, and ive tweaked the hell out of it now so i probably can get a decent amount more out of it now. would help if i turned on the optimizations and put settings to optimal instead of quality etc but i cba since i dont play the game hardly ever.

edit this is from memory during gameplay when i lookeda t my fps, so numbers might be off)

r2d2 · 29 May 2009 at 21:16

Crysis/Crysis Warhead frames drop low for me in the most demanding parts of the game. Where there are a lot of enemies/things going on/big draw distances.

Like another poster said its all great posting closeups of walls showing high fps.

I would love to see a rig that can totally max out the game (1920x1200) 4XAA/8XAA in the Most demanding areas of the game and still be playable (30-60).

There isnt a rig that can do this yet. The poster with the sli 280gtx summed it up.

Where do I buy one of these supercomputers which enabled crysis to be played with 8xaa all maxed 1920x1200 @60 plus fps oh brother.

r2d2 · 29 May 2009 at 21:19

Ch3m1c4L said:
hehe, i play it at 2560 al very high in dx10 under vista 64 and get decent (40ish being minimum except for random spikes because of quad SLI) fps, but thats using 8x asf and no aa. AA KILLS my performance which im guessing is because of the memory limitations running at that res and settings, either that or the drivers i was using at the time. This was tested ages ago when i first got my quad setup though, and ive tweaked the hell out of it now so i probably can get a decent amount more out of it now. would help if i turned on the optimizations and put settings to optimal instead of quality etc but i cba since i dont play the game hardly ever.

edit this is from memory during gameplay when i lookeda t my fps, so numbers might be off)

You see this is believable. You have a decent cpu plus the quad sli 295gtx/

The ONLY WAY currently of coming close to totally maxing out crysis.

I was tempted to get another 295gtx JUST for crysis lol. But I had to ask myself what was the point just for one game I had already completed.

Props though that is a sweet rig.

r2d2 · 29 May 2009 at 21:20

Strife212 said:
280 SLI at the very minimum, for total maxing.

I can play fairly comfortably at 1920x1200 Very High DX10 2x AA but at times you can really feel it slooooowing down.

This I believe. Sweet rig.

AMG · 29 May 2009 at 22:30

what CPU with that GTX280 ?

i7 it better be

or just say screw it two X2s (yes two) on a overclocked I7 that might do the trick

danceMB · 29 May 2009 at 22:36

I was able to play the game quite well with my GTX295 and an OC i7 @ 4.0,on Ultra High Settings

Toadus · 2 Jun 2009 at 13:12

I've never played this game before, and I'm thinking of buying it soon. Does anyone know if there are any decent enough settings I can run the game in which will give me a solid 60 fps @ 1920x1200. My spec is in my sig. Many thanks.

danceMB · 2 Jun 2009 at 13:42

There is currently no card on the market that can give you a solid 60FPS on your current screen settings, I was only able to achieve near to 60FPS and I have an i7 @ 4.2 and a GTX295 (overclocked when the new Rivatuner gets released) and it detected "High" settings, until I manually changed it to Ultra High as I am sure I can reach those levels. You might be able to get near the same settings with your SLI setup, but dont get your hopes up if you cant.

aries2580 · 2 Jun 2009 at 13:46

When I get my Q6600 up to around 3.4GHz - 3.6GHz, and throw in a GTX 285 AMP into the mix, i'll show some screens.

Q6600
4GB Intel Extreme DDR3 - 1600MHz (i'll try to push that a bit)
x48 Blackops
GTX285 AMP (when i get my moniesss $.$

)

I'm hoping to go for x2aa and everything on ultra high - 1680x1050.
I'm thinking that my smaller resolution will give me a bit of an edge.

I wonder if i was to whack a 9600GT iin there as a physix card, would i offload some of the pressure and up the FPS?

Toadus · 2 Jun 2009 at 13:52

Thanks for the info.

I was hoping if I toned down the AA and detail I could get 60fps. I'm quite happy leaving out detail for 60fps as to me personally, it's much more visually enjoyable that way.

Happy · 2 Jun 2009 at 14:06

aries2580 said:
I wonder if i was to whack a 9600GT iin there as a physix card, would i offload some of the pressure and up the FPS?

I'm pretty sure Crysis doesn't use PhysX.

bledd · 2 Jun 2009 at 14:14

just wait 2 years and come back to play it at 60fps solid