I have 1GB of DDR1 RAM is it possible to gain access to Crysis ultra high settings?
- Thread starter dvdbunny
- Start date
oh look guys what i found, he's using a £500 gaming rig and play crysis well on max, now i will just get vista and 4GB of ram and play even better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VejO1P638dk
EDIT: I need to get to my dads house, and do the benchmark sometime over the weekend hopefully.
EDIT: Please look at the about this video to the right of the video on youtube and click more highlighted in blue to see his specs.
EDIT: Oh and look at that video it's a little choppy in frames per second, my rig runs it in smooth and on XP you get more frames than in vista, but just vista has the very high settings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VejO1P638dk
EDIT: I need to get to my dads house, and do the benchmark sometime over the weekend hopefully.
EDIT: Please look at the about this video to the right of the video on youtube and click more highlighted in blue to see his specs.
EDIT: Oh and look at that video it's a little choppy in frames per second, my rig runs it in smooth and on XP you get more frames than in vista, but just vista has the very high settings.
Last edited:
look smsmasters
I wished i never originally said that the game runs at 50 fps, i had never even ran a benchmark or fraps to get to that conclusion that it was running at 50fps, it's just from how smooth it was running to my eyes i gave an estimate and said it was 50 fps, i should have said this from the start. I apologize but then i said that it is in fact running at around 30 fps, this way further back on the 2nd page, if you bothered to look you wouldn't still be saying I'm lying.
I wished i never originally said that the game runs at 50 fps, i had never even ran a benchmark or fraps to get to that conclusion that it was running at 50fps, it's just from how smooth it was running to my eyes i gave an estimate and said it was 50 fps, i should have said this from the start. I apologize but then i said that it is in fact running at around 30 fps, this way further back on the 2nd page, if you bothered to look you wouldn't still be saying I'm lying.
Okay i just found out that i do have 1GB DDR2 RAM, i will be upgrading to 2 x 2GB sticks of DDR2 RAM. which i found cheapest for £50 including VAT, i also found vista home x64 premium for £50 including VAT that i will dual boot.
But first i will run benchmarks without these upgrades, please mods don't close the thread.
But first i will run benchmarks without these upgrades, please mods don't close the thread.
Hi snowdog
I can tell you this, when i run crysis with my 1GB DDR2 RAM it does not stutter during play, only for a second or two like i said previously when you go up a big hill to look down on the other side because of everything it has to draw in. Also when i leave crysis to return back to the desktop, there is only a slight slow down, after about 45 seconds i am ready to load up COD4.
I can tell you this, when i run crysis with my 1GB DDR2 RAM it does not stutter during play, only for a second or two like i said previously when you go up a big hill to look down on the other side because of everything it has to draw in. Also when i leave crysis to return back to the desktop, there is only a slight slow down, after about 45 seconds i am ready to load up COD4.
I am sick of reading all of this stuff you guys write, look this goes out to everyone that's cussing me. firstly please read what i say in posts correctly don't read into words that are not there.
It does not take me 45 second to exit out of a game, it's just a few seconds but once i am back on the desktop it's around 45 seconds of slow down until the CPU light stops flickering and then i can boot up another game. It seems like 45 seconds i haven't actually timed it yet, it's probably around a lot less.
Secondly this gaming rig was bought back in 2006, it's just been upgraded with a 512MB 8800GT.
Thirdly, this is not some thread where i am talking rubbish, i am not trying to test out my writing skills for my book on you guys, not at all.
Fourthly, DDR1 it was indeed at the start of my thread but i got that wrong, as i found it was in fact DDR2.
Fifthly, the gaming PC back in 2006 cost me £920 but then i sent back a pair of speakers that came to £40 and a ATI 1300 Pro that cost me £140 and i got a refund i bought the system from COMPETITOR including the monitor
Now the PC system costs £350 excluding monitor and you can get the 512MB 8800GT for £160 including VAT and delivery. So it's around 500 quid in this context £510 but i have seen it for less, after i bought the gfx card. I know i could have got a similar PC for far cheaper back in 2006 but my dad really needed a computer for work and so we didn't want to wait and i try to get the best value system on high street prices. So that the system could be used for gaming and work. We has basically one day and just several hours to get hold of a computer.
Now to all you guys, that have doubted me, i will demonstrate over the weekend my rig.
But first i have something that will prove my claims for now
Bit-tech have got news on a budget spec PC that comes direct from the crytek, and this PC costs £500 and it's running in 1280x720. Now my specs are pretty similar and that just shows that it can work like i am describing, the system spec is with 2GB all running on high details and they choose windows xp + service pack 2 over vista which is what i have got.
here's the link
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01/17/crytek_specs_a_budget_machine_for_crysis/1
NO COMPETITORS - ZEFAN.
It does not take me 45 second to exit out of a game, it's just a few seconds but once i am back on the desktop it's around 45 seconds of slow down until the CPU light stops flickering and then i can boot up another game. It seems like 45 seconds i haven't actually timed it yet, it's probably around a lot less.
Secondly this gaming rig was bought back in 2006, it's just been upgraded with a 512MB 8800GT.
Thirdly, this is not some thread where i am talking rubbish, i am not trying to test out my writing skills for my book on you guys, not at all.
Fourthly, DDR1 it was indeed at the start of my thread but i got that wrong, as i found it was in fact DDR2.
Fifthly, the gaming PC back in 2006 cost me £920 but then i sent back a pair of speakers that came to £40 and a ATI 1300 Pro that cost me £140 and i got a refund i bought the system from COMPETITOR including the monitor
Now the PC system costs £350 excluding monitor and you can get the 512MB 8800GT for £160 including VAT and delivery. So it's around 500 quid in this context £510 but i have seen it for less, after i bought the gfx card. I know i could have got a similar PC for far cheaper back in 2006 but my dad really needed a computer for work and so we didn't want to wait and i try to get the best value system on high street prices. So that the system could be used for gaming and work. We has basically one day and just several hours to get hold of a computer.
Now to all you guys, that have doubted me, i will demonstrate over the weekend my rig.
But first i have something that will prove my claims for now
Bit-tech have got news on a budget spec PC that comes direct from the crytek, and this PC costs £500 and it's running in 1280x720. Now my specs are pretty similar and that just shows that it can work like i am describing, the system spec is with 2GB all running on high details and they choose windows xp + service pack 2 over vista which is what i have got.
here's the link
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01/17/crytek_specs_a_budget_machine_for_crysis/1
NO COMPETITORS - ZEFAN.
Furton what are you smoking? have you even bothered reading all my posts, i said i got the resolution wrong, it is set at that resolution but then it reverts back to 1280x720 for some strange reason. You are all in for a treat when i show you a video on the weekend. Oh and on that bit-tech link if you watch the video it says the rig costs actually $900 that's £450.
Oh man, i said it will be around 30 fps, originally i said 50 fps but then i said around 30 fps was more realistic. You guys just don't read all the posts, you just jump to the last post.
And no when i say it's a budget PC, it is a Budget PC, it was not a budget when i bought it but i am saying because of now a year and half has gone buy it becomes a budget PC for others to buy so they can run crysis because of it's affordability.
And no when i say it's a budget PC, it is a Budget PC, it was not a budget when i bought it but i am saying because of now a year and half has gone buy it becomes a budget PC for others to buy so they can run crysis because of it's affordability.
Finally guys i got some news for you, Before i begin i am sorry if i got all you guys worked up over this, it was my intention to get people interested in playing crysis on lower end systems as i believe you don't need such top end systems, I have run the crysis benchmark v1.05. I got average framerate of 20 fps. That sucks i ran it 3 times with all high settings in 1280x1024 with 4 AA. But if you read further i still believe my system on a budget is an a good system if you want to play crysis on a budget.
Now before you all pawn me, firstly i got it wrong, last week when i tried crysis for the first time i had chosen 1680x1050, my settings were getting reverted back for some strange reasons to 1280x768, so by this i mean i would got to the option settings and choose 1680x1050 but when i load up a level and then go inside the option settings it would read once again 1280x768, i had the option to do 1280x720 but the images would become distorted, so 1280x768 worked better on my monitor. So i chose that.
Last week, when i mentioned the game i had said it ran at 50 fps at 1680x1050 now as explained with the resolution reverting back to 1280x768 that's an honest mistake on my computer part. From the smooth frame rate that i was seeing it seemed to me to be running at 50 fps, but of course it was an estimate made without using a fps counter. I said i would get 50 fps running at 8x AF and 4x FSAA now this does not seem to be the case.
I ran the benchmark doing all 3 tests the GPU, CPU and level test. ran each one at 3 times, and the average fps was 20 fps for each test.
I have the screens, with some information of my computer, and my username on here to show that these screens are really from me.
Also the benchmark to me is pointless because the start of the benchmark flies in from above and obviously this would put a lot of strain on the gpu for it draw in all the trees in the distance and i found as the scene came more lower into the ground level the fps speeded up a lot until it then zoomed back out from above which cause the fps to drop in a huge way.
Also i wouldn't play a game in 1280x1024 with 4x FSAA
Now i checked the settings and i chose within my nvidia drivers control panel 8x AF. Then i went into the game and put motion blur on max, then v sync on, mouth smoothness on, 2x FSAA on, all settings on high, resolution 1280x768, then i applied and loaded up the first level. Load time was 1 minutes 20 seconds, cut scenes were incredibly smooth except a tiny bit of loading in at the start that lasted about 4 seconds, then the detail on the black guys face was unbelievable and a smooth framerate continued, absolutely no jaggy lines to be seen the AA was definitely working. Then as the aircraft flew past there was one freeze for like a split second. And just before you jump it loads in about 2 seconds of data. I exit the craft and all is good until you get hit by the alien and it again freezes for like 1 second now and then perfect from then on. I have touch down, graphics are amazing and not jerky, it's all running smooth, it loads in sometimes when you go around corners, but that loading only lasts 2 seconds. Again when you climb a mountain and look over it has 5 seconds of loading. You take out your binoculars and again there is loading for a few seconds but then all smooth again. If you get killed you can go back and play the whole scene again and as the data has already been loaded into the cache there is absolutely no jerky and choppy frame rates anymore.
I wanted to make sure all features were working, so i looked at trees, and even leaves of plants and the AA was on, definitely on, i was not mistaking crappy fps for motion blur, definitely not. The motion blur and explosions were just like all the videos i have seen of the game.
The rocks did not have even a jaggy line to them, Now i decided to bring the console down and i typed in r_displayinfo=1 and it said that FSAA was on, the framerate i was getting was if you were to look down at the ground you would get 40 fps, if you were to look at a new scene you would get 25 fps if you were to look back at a scene that had just got cached it would read 30 fps, sometimes it large expansive areas it would read 15 fps but mostly jump about from 20-30 fps. But the very interesting thing was even with this fps counter being displayed, the actual game was running smooth, which is impossible in a way because this is the fps counter if that is reading a low frame rate then i should be all choppy but it wasn't, it was totally playable throughout and i was happy, i had gun battles with 10 players on screen at once. No slow down, i was blowing things up, destructing the enviroment and taken down 15 trees and it was all smooth. So i don't get it.
I want to be able to take screenshots, but i don't know how to in game. The thing is i have posted screen shots of the benchmark. Of course the first run through of every test would give like 20fps on the counter but when it's running the second and third time through because the data was being cached it gave readings of 30-35 fps but it only gave an ending average score of 20 fps.
I still believe the resolution is good, of course i should still do a test running it in 1280x768 or 1280x720 with no AA and no AF and in high settings.
This i will perform later and post results, i want to make a video to still show you that it's very very playable.
Now i played call of duty 4 and within the options i put the slider al lthe way to the right on max AF. I put 2x FSAA. 1280x768, this time call of duty 4 didn't have any resolution above 1280x768. I put every detail on max at the same time within my nvidia control panel AF was set at 8x. The only thing i left on medium was the number of corpses to display. This thing must have been running at an incredible speed because there was absolutely no jerky frame rates. I will get a video up on here for this game to prove it.
Finally tiger woods 2008 all max settings with 8x AF and 4 FSAA super smooth frame rates.
pictures of crysis benchmark
http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=30495716sp6.gif
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=47709304eq2.gif
http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?image=12962121yc2.gif
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=35008254ru4.gif
My future plan is to remove the 1GB of ddr2 ram and putting in 2x2GB sticks and running windows vista home premium x64, the ram at least will make levels load up quicker and may stop the 3 to 4 second loads up when drawing in new data, which only happens at the moment every 10 minutes or so, it depends on how fast you like to move within the game world. I like to explore everything, so my pace is slower and more enjoyable as i get to see the whole game and at the same time it's less stress on the cpu and gpu as it doesn't have to constantly every few minutes load new scenes into the cache, anyway quick saving and quick loading takes 1 second to load.
EDIT: one last thing while the benchmark was taking place i don't know if this makes any difference, but within my nvidia control panel i had AF on 8X, will this AF transfer to the benchmark affecting the results? If someone can please clear this up, thanks in advance.
Now before you all pawn me, firstly i got it wrong, last week when i tried crysis for the first time i had chosen 1680x1050, my settings were getting reverted back for some strange reasons to 1280x768, so by this i mean i would got to the option settings and choose 1680x1050 but when i load up a level and then go inside the option settings it would read once again 1280x768, i had the option to do 1280x720 but the images would become distorted, so 1280x768 worked better on my monitor. So i chose that.
Last week, when i mentioned the game i had said it ran at 50 fps at 1680x1050 now as explained with the resolution reverting back to 1280x768 that's an honest mistake on my computer part. From the smooth frame rate that i was seeing it seemed to me to be running at 50 fps, but of course it was an estimate made without using a fps counter. I said i would get 50 fps running at 8x AF and 4x FSAA now this does not seem to be the case.
I ran the benchmark doing all 3 tests the GPU, CPU and level test. ran each one at 3 times, and the average fps was 20 fps for each test.
I have the screens, with some information of my computer, and my username on here to show that these screens are really from me.
Also the benchmark to me is pointless because the start of the benchmark flies in from above and obviously this would put a lot of strain on the gpu for it draw in all the trees in the distance and i found as the scene came more lower into the ground level the fps speeded up a lot until it then zoomed back out from above which cause the fps to drop in a huge way.
Also i wouldn't play a game in 1280x1024 with 4x FSAA
Now i checked the settings and i chose within my nvidia drivers control panel 8x AF. Then i went into the game and put motion blur on max, then v sync on, mouth smoothness on, 2x FSAA on, all settings on high, resolution 1280x768, then i applied and loaded up the first level. Load time was 1 minutes 20 seconds, cut scenes were incredibly smooth except a tiny bit of loading in at the start that lasted about 4 seconds, then the detail on the black guys face was unbelievable and a smooth framerate continued, absolutely no jaggy lines to be seen the AA was definitely working. Then as the aircraft flew past there was one freeze for like a split second. And just before you jump it loads in about 2 seconds of data. I exit the craft and all is good until you get hit by the alien and it again freezes for like 1 second now and then perfect from then on. I have touch down, graphics are amazing and not jerky, it's all running smooth, it loads in sometimes when you go around corners, but that loading only lasts 2 seconds. Again when you climb a mountain and look over it has 5 seconds of loading. You take out your binoculars and again there is loading for a few seconds but then all smooth again. If you get killed you can go back and play the whole scene again and as the data has already been loaded into the cache there is absolutely no jerky and choppy frame rates anymore.
I wanted to make sure all features were working, so i looked at trees, and even leaves of plants and the AA was on, definitely on, i was not mistaking crappy fps for motion blur, definitely not. The motion blur and explosions were just like all the videos i have seen of the game.
The rocks did not have even a jaggy line to them, Now i decided to bring the console down and i typed in r_displayinfo=1 and it said that FSAA was on, the framerate i was getting was if you were to look down at the ground you would get 40 fps, if you were to look at a new scene you would get 25 fps if you were to look back at a scene that had just got cached it would read 30 fps, sometimes it large expansive areas it would read 15 fps but mostly jump about from 20-30 fps. But the very interesting thing was even with this fps counter being displayed, the actual game was running smooth, which is impossible in a way because this is the fps counter if that is reading a low frame rate then i should be all choppy but it wasn't, it was totally playable throughout and i was happy, i had gun battles with 10 players on screen at once. No slow down, i was blowing things up, destructing the enviroment and taken down 15 trees and it was all smooth. So i don't get it.
I want to be able to take screenshots, but i don't know how to in game. The thing is i have posted screen shots of the benchmark. Of course the first run through of every test would give like 20fps on the counter but when it's running the second and third time through because the data was being cached it gave readings of 30-35 fps but it only gave an ending average score of 20 fps.
I still believe the resolution is good, of course i should still do a test running it in 1280x768 or 1280x720 with no AA and no AF and in high settings.
This i will perform later and post results, i want to make a video to still show you that it's very very playable.
Now i played call of duty 4 and within the options i put the slider al lthe way to the right on max AF. I put 2x FSAA. 1280x768, this time call of duty 4 didn't have any resolution above 1280x768. I put every detail on max at the same time within my nvidia control panel AF was set at 8x. The only thing i left on medium was the number of corpses to display. This thing must have been running at an incredible speed because there was absolutely no jerky frame rates. I will get a video up on here for this game to prove it.
Finally tiger woods 2008 all max settings with 8x AF and 4 FSAA super smooth frame rates.
pictures of crysis benchmark
http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=30495716sp6.gif
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=47709304eq2.gif
http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?image=12962121yc2.gif
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=35008254ru4.gif
My future plan is to remove the 1GB of ddr2 ram and putting in 2x2GB sticks and running windows vista home premium x64, the ram at least will make levels load up quicker and may stop the 3 to 4 second loads up when drawing in new data, which only happens at the moment every 10 minutes or so, it depends on how fast you like to move within the game world. I like to explore everything, so my pace is slower and more enjoyable as i get to see the whole game and at the same time it's less stress on the cpu and gpu as it doesn't have to constantly every few minutes load new scenes into the cache, anyway quick saving and quick loading takes 1 second to load.
EDIT: one last thing while the benchmark was taking place i don't know if this makes any difference, but within my nvidia control panel i had AF on 8X, will this AF transfer to the benchmark affecting the results? If someone can please clear this up, thanks in advance.
Last edited:
guys, i am going to do another test within the next few days
i think running the benchmark at 1280x1024 at 4xFSAA is a waste of time, why? Because the whole point is i basically want to tell people that you can run the game on a budget very well. I am going to do the benchmark at 1280x720 with high settings, v sync off, and no AA and no AF. This way people don't have to have max settings on but are still able to play the game decently.
i think running the benchmark at 1280x1024 at 4xFSAA is a waste of time, why? Because the whole point is i basically want to tell people that you can run the game on a budget very well. I am going to do the benchmark at 1280x720 with high settings, v sync off, and no AA and no AF. This way people don't have to have max settings on but are still able to play the game decently.
jimmyboy2008
that was when i was guessing the fps without using any fps counter, i it just felt like that fps from what my eyes were seeing, i have explained this before.
And guys no i am not proving that my rig is crap, my rig is excellent i am able to play this game perfectly well, and i recommended anyone to get my system and play it and you will see, i will make a video on this.
And i can see from the way this thread has turned out, you guys just sit here and chat rubbish all day long, you try to prove that your systems is better than others and really you spend so much money on your rigs which i find absolutely pointless.
that was when i was guessing the fps without using any fps counter, i it just felt like that fps from what my eyes were seeing, i have explained this before.
And guys no i am not proving that my rig is crap, my rig is excellent i am able to play this game perfectly well, and i recommended anyone to get my system and play it and you will see, i will make a video on this.
And i can see from the way this thread has turned out, you guys just sit here and chat rubbish all day long, you try to prove that your systems is better than others and really you spend so much money on your rigs which i find absolutely pointless.
Thanks, but no thanks i am loving how the game is right now, it works perfectly in high settings, with AF and FSAA and i am having a real blast playing. I will show you soon with a video and your going to go omg i can't believe i was so wrong. Mark my words and mark them well!!!
Ok Guys i found out my motherboard is a SIS 649, i found i can only have a max of 2GB of DDR2 RAM. I can also use DDR1 RAM. more info on my motherboard can be found here
http://www.sis.com/products/sis649.htm
I think for the 2GB max i need 533Mhz RAM, can anyone tell me if that's right?
This mobo also has a AC97 audio controller built in, but i have seen upon boot up that their is a realtek 97 sound card in my PC.
http://www.sis.com/products/sis649.htm
I think for the 2GB max i need 533Mhz RAM, can anyone tell me if that's right?
This mobo also has a AC97 audio controller built in, but i have seen upon boot up that their is a realtek 97 sound card in my PC.