Man of Honour
Tom|Nbk said:You have just made this threads first Epic Failure. Leave, leave now.
Tom|Nbk said:You have just made this threads first Epic Failure. Leave, leave now.
The PC version definitely outclasses the Xbox 360, mostly because of the ability to crank the resolution to 1920 x 1200. If you've got a Vista rig with a DX10 card, you can expect some heightened particle effects, crisper real-time shadows, and more dynamic water, but the game looks gorgeous regardless. On our gaming PC running a Core 2 Quad processor with a GeForce 8800 GTX, and 4 GB of RAM, it ran very well, with only a few occasions of seemingly random framerate hitches. We also couldn't find an option to switch between DX10 and DX9 modes, the game just seems to default to what's in your system, unlike Lost Planet.
Gerard said:Hmm
http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/813/813641p3.html
Hmm not exactly the "zomg it ran smooth on a dual core athlon at maxed settings" quote taken from another place.
mrk said:You mean PC GAMER? PCG played it on an x2 5000+ and 320mb 8800GTS and they stated exactly the above. It's not a quad core developed game so the performance benefits will be almost nothing - it's a game that uses dx10 so the greater benefits are using a dx10 gfx card not a better cpu...
Legless said:This game is SO OVER HYPED, its a FPS for gods sake, its gonna be like all the rest of em... People have been shooting their load over the gfx etc, but when are ya gonna learn that NEXT GEN GFX don't mean its gonna be the best game in the world?
This is gonna be a generic FPS... get over it, there is nothing new here, its gonna suck... Stop jumping on the hype wagon... Enjoy it for what it is, a FPS... Freeform my ass, its gonna be as linier as ya grandma's breasts, and as much fun to play with...
Don't get me wrong, its gonna be a cool game, but stop creaming ya pants over it... This is just another generic FPS with loads of marketing propoganda and hype...
...
Gerard said:Well how exactly did they get better performance on a lower end machine?
A gtx easily outclasses a gts yet nothing was mentioned about frame rates being choppy at points, just that it was smooth and nothing more.
PC Gamer ran it maxed in Dx9 at a lower res though, who knows what other settings they used, IGN ran it at 1920x1200 they may have used more AA but they did use Dx10 which could give a slight performance loss maybe.Gerard said:A gtx easily outclasses a gts yet nothing was mentioned about frame rates being choppy at points, just that it was smooth and nothing more.
juno_first said:So will this game run better on eg.
quadcore @ 3 Ghz
or
dualcore @ 4 Ghz
As it looks like a lot of people are now going quad & I dont undrestand why 64bit hasn't taken off as most people probably have 64bit CPU's.
ffallic said:Just been onto direct2drive to check availability. US price $49.95, UK price £34.95... once again, UK buyers ripped off.
Can someone explain to me why digital content costs more for us than US customers? It's a £10 quid difference...
Am I the onlt one that thinks downloaded content should be cheaper than buying retail version in a shop?
Dual Core will be better at lower resolutions but at higher resolutions you'll be at the same FPS as every other Core2Duo out there probably.juno_first said:So will this game run better on eg.
quadcore @ 3 Ghz
or
dualcore @ 4 Ghz
As it looks like a lot of people are now going quad & I dont undrestand why 64bit hasn't taken off as most people probably have 64bit CPU's.
Legless said:This game is SO OVER HYPED, its a FPS for gods sake, its gonna be like all the rest of em... People have been shooting their load over the gfx etc, but when are ya gonna learn that NEXT GEN GFX don't mean its gonna be the best game in the world?
This is gonna be a generic FPS... get over it, there is nothing new here, its gonna suck... Stop jumping on the hype wagon... Enjoy it for what it is, a FPS... Freeform my ass, its gonna be as linier as ya grandma's breasts, and as much fun to play with...
Don't get me wrong, its gonna be a cool game, but stop creaming ya pants over it... This is just another generic FPS with loads of marketing propoganda and hype...
...
Tachyon said:Folks a quick query on system specs regarding my system. I haven't played a lot of recent games & I'm pretty clueless about various graphics cards etc..
It's a year or 2 old, just wondering if it's worth getting the game for my PC or just purchasing a console as I'd be toying with the idea anyhow. I know it's above minimum requirements but I don't want it to run like a dog either.
Athlon64 3700+
Nvidia 7800GT
Dell 2007
X-Fi Extreme Music or something
Cyber-Mav said:i agree, crysis seems far more open ended than bioshock.
mrk said:it's going to run a heck of a lot better than Vegas, how many times has it been now you've constantly questioned Bioshock then later posted how you're still looking forward to it and that it would be a cool game...
- Vegas is a shoddy port = fact
- Vegas has performance issues for loads of people = fact
- Vegas implements UE3 poorly = fact
- Vegas has no dx10 implementation = fact
- Vegas is not regarded as a benchmark fps game and its PC reviews reflect that fact.
I would guess this is down to the fact that Crysis spans vast outdoor environments and has the open area explorable environment whereas Bioshock is confined within Rapture much like how Doom 3 was confined within the Mars research station.
Just a guess, like....ya know because the two simply cannot be compared.