• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Crysis Kills my 8800GTX

If you don't find a tremendous increase in speed without stuttering when you select your suit speed mod and press shift, you are running with graphics settings to high, as I found out at only medium setting that the software calculated, had to go in and alter a few bits here and there to make it look like Doom on a 486 lol :D
 
Well it destroys my setup at 2560x1600 no aa all on very high = 8fpsish :P

Obviously I don't attempt to play it like that runs ok at 1600x1200 everything on very high no aa. Fell the slow downs in combat sometimes at those settings. Everything on high runs fine.

Using 163.75 drivers the beta ones crash the game for some reason.

I also belive that SLI is not working and not all 4 cores are used only 2.

Think full game will have better perfomance.
 
So has anyone compared XP to Vista with a mid end setup such as C2D overclocked with an 8800GTS or 2900XT? I'm still trying to decide if I'll go back to XP or stick with Windows Vista, if Crysis runs that much worse in Vista compared to XP it looks like it suggests Vista still has a lot of work to be done and XP is still the way to go even though Vista appears to be more responsive, also Vista Service Pack 1 really, really does not look like its going to improve things that much when ever that comes out :\.
 
Played it on vista and it was not good, very laggy, same settings on XP are as smooth as silk so that's where ill be playing the retail version and it still kooks amazing on XP.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Played it on vista and it was not good, very laggy, same settings on XP are as smooth as silk so that's where ill be playing the retail version and it still kooks amazing on XP.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, looks like XP, I guess I'll just do a ghost image of Vista and XP and use the one that best fits the scenario at the time.
 
I've not tried my current rig out with XP, but I have this thorn in the back of my mind...

My current rig (signature) runs Bioshock with a few stutters and skips in it with a framerate of 45-60FPS.

My old rig ran Bioshock stutter free at a very playable 18-20FPS (didnt affect gameplay). Specs:

AMD Athlon 3200+ Single
2GB Crucial PC3200 RAM
x1650Pro AGO 512MB DDR2
Windows XP Pro

Bottom line - I liked the playability of Bioshock better on that old rig. Whether thats down to Vista or not, I don't know. I certainly prefer Vista, but it's a shame if game performance is impaired because of it and, if it is, I hope it is sorted with SP1 next year.
 
Just tried it on my new rig
core 2 duo 6750 at 3.4 ghz
4gb ram
2900xt
24" BENQ monitor
vista
at 1900 x 1200 resolution
all settings at high plus 2x aa and it looked mint!
slowed down at the start until the plane fades a bit but after that i played right through fine!
wow! was expecting it to struggle after reading on here.
After they optmize it before release im sure it'll be even smoother!
 
Why dont people except the fact that this game will eat everything that is currently on the market and just lower there settings to where it is playable.

I have a fairly decent rig E6600 @ 3.2Ghz 8800 GTX 2GB Ram. I had to lower resolution to 1600 x 1200 and turned off AA AF...everything else is high. The game looks brilliant, highly playable and once you are immersed in the experience you become less aware of any detail failings...

PC gamers, we are a really hard bunch to please but at the end of the day you have to face the fact that we bought into an ongoing wallet emptying program that will always keep us striving to have the latest and greatest. We will never be pleased.

Unfortunately ATI have helped enormously to slow the next generation of G cards coming to the market. We all want a 9850 Ultra 2GB DDR4 but we ain't going to get it.... yet...
 
-|ScottFree|- said:
Why dont people except the fact that this game will eat everything that is currently on the market and just lower there settings to where it is playable.

I have a fairly decent rig E6600 @ 3.2Ghz 8800 GTX 2GB Ram. I had to lower resolution to 1600 x 1200 and turned off AA AF...everything else is high. The game looks brilliant, highly playable and once you are immersed in the experience you become less aware of any detail failings...

PC gamers, we are a really hard bunch to please but at the end of the day you have to face the fact that we bought into an ongoing wallet emptying program that will always keep us striving to have the latest and greatest. We will never be pleased.

Unfortunately ATI have helped enormously to slow the next generation of G cards coming to the market. We all want a 9850 Ultra 2GB DDR4 but we ain't going to get it.... yet...
Click to expand...

Agreed, the same people who moan,would be moaning if 2 years down the line dev was using the cryengine and it look pants be happy knowing if game dev's use this engine it will look good at very high for quite some time after the 9800/r700 are out.
 
-|ScottFree|- said:
Why dont people except the fact that this game will eat everything that is currently on the market and just lower there settings to where it is playable.

I have a fairly decent rig E6600 @ 3.2Ghz 8800 GTX 2GB Ram. I had to lower resolution to 1600 x 1200 and turned off AA AF...everything else is high. The game looks brilliant, highly playable and once you are immersed in the experience you become less aware of any detail failings...

PC gamers, we are a really hard bunch to please but at the end of the day you have to face the fact that we bought into an ongoing wallet emptying program that will always keep us striving to have the latest and greatest. We will never be pleased.

Unfortunately ATI have helped enormously to slow the next generation of G cards coming to the market. We all want a 9850 Ultra 2GB DDR4 but we ain't going to get it.... yet...
Click to expand...


Yep your right i just posted this thred to say that this was the first game to really test my card, even Bio shock ran fully maxed out with no problems. I've had a good year out of my 8800GTX and more than impressed with it and think it will be good for a wile longer. Cant see anymore games coming out soon that will test it like crysis so not in any rush. :D
 
Willis said:
Yep your right i just posted this thred to say that this was the first game to really test my card, even Bio shock ran fully maxed out with no problems. I've had a good year out of my 8800GTX and more than impressed with it and think it will be good for a wile longer. Cant see anymore games coming out soon that will test it like crysis so not in any rush. :D
Click to expand...

Bioshock is indoors and close up where crysis isn't
 
From what I've read so far Crysis is playable on a 2900XT or an 8800 as long as you keep the settings on high and not Very High. Even at up to 1920*1200.

People just need to accept that Very High is not for this generation.
 
I think it's a great philosophy from Crytek - not only do you get a fantastic looking game today (on medium), you get a fantastic looking game in one or two years time when you upgrade (on high / max settings).

It worked for Far Cry (which I've played on P4/9800pro, A64/6800GT and C2D/GTS320, bumping up the settings each time), so why not Crysis?
 
HangTime said:
I think it's a great philosophy from Crytek - not only do you get a fantastic looking game today (on medium), you get a fantastic looking game in one or two years time when you upgrade (on high / max settings).
Click to expand...
Couldnt agree more, its just we get used to whacking all the settings on high and off you go. Its a bit unsettling not to be able to do that with the best rig in town :D

I have a 4800X2 and a 640MB GTS, I played the demo on medium at 1900x1200 and I felt it lacked the spark that was present in the demo movies we have seen. On ultra high I had to get the res down to 1024x768 and it was still sluggish, 1280x1024 for high
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom