Who swapped there GTX for an ultra?

[Born_2_Kill_83]

As above really, after poor performance in crysis I'm considering selling my GTX and putting £100/150 to and getting an Ultra or getting another GTX (as you may have seen in my other post).

So who has swapped across from GTX's to Ultras and how was the performance gain, in particular what’s the performance like in Crysis. It bring my GTX to its knees even with Shadows and Post Processing Medium (4xAA).

I will be playing @ 1680*1050, I would prefer to avoid SLI as my P5B-Deluxe will only run each @ 8X PCI-E.

 

[Rackerz]

It's the AA that's killing you, going to an Ultra won't help considering you can clock GTX's to Ultra speeds.

 

[martin9887]

Just enable Edge AA, you won't need any more enabled to be honest. It's part of Post Processing.

 

[Raikiri]

4xAA kills it, 2xAA runs a lot faster (3x for me, in fact)

 

[Born_2_Kill_83]

4xAA kills it, 2xAA runs a lot faster (3x for me, in fact)

It looks awful without any AA, I'd rather have 21FPS without jaggys than 25FPS+ with loads of them.

 

[helmutcheese]

It's the AA that's killing you, going to an Ultra won't help considering you can clock GTX's to Ultra speeds.

Doubt it, you get 680-700mhz Core and 2160-2400mhz out of non 0.8ns Memory without serious volts/cooling mods.

The fastest Ultras are ahead by good bit in recent benches of games but to change a GTX for a Ultra is madness.

 

[Raikiri]

It looks awful without any AA, I'd rather have 21FPS without jaggys than 25FPS+ with loads of them.

Right, which is why I said 2xAA and not no AA.

 

[Voltage]

sacrifices must be made

going up from a gtx to an ultra or sli isnt going to help you. Either your choice is play without aa or wait a year for the hardware to catch up

 

[RavenXXX2]

It looks awful without any AA, I'd rather have 21FPS without jaggys than 25FPS+ with loads of them.

A) You sit three inches away from your monitor and therefor see every jaggy insight.

B) Your monitor sucks.

I don't notice the jaggies hardly at all on my NEC 20" widescreen, happily play with no AA all day long.

 

[Born_2_Kill_83]

sacrifices must be made

going up from a gtx to an ultra or sli isnt going to help you. Either your choice is play without aa or wait a year for the hardware to catch up

This is madness.......

I can’t believe they've either brought a game out that cannot run on current top end hardware or yet again an un-optimised game

 

[Raikiri]

You can't believe something they have been saying for months before the release of the game?

They've always said it's designed to scale with hardware over the next couple of years.

 

[Born_2_Kill_83]

A) You sit three inches away from your monitor and therefor see every jaggy insight.

B) Your monitor sucks.

I don't notice the jaggies hardly at all on my NEC 20" widescreen, happily play with no AA all day long.

A) I sit 4 feet away from screen to nose

B) It's a Samsung 20"

A car in the distance looks like several coloured blocks even @ 1680*1050

 

[Born_2_Kill_83]

You can't believe something they have been saying for months before the release of the game?

They've always said it's designed to scale with hardware over the next couple of years.

Meaning they would bring out a patch/add-on to perhaps enable an "Ultra" graphics setting/sliders?

 

[Delvis]

This is madness.......

I can’t believe they've either brought a game out that cannot run on current top end hardware or yet again an un-optimised game

Well if you stick everything on High setting's on current hardware (that isn't brand new any more) on a newly released game, then it's going to tax your system.

The games scaleable...VERY scalable from what I've seen while I've been playing around with it, and naturally it's a demo...So theoretically performance should increase upon release, or after AMD/Nvidia have released a new patch to go with the game after the initial release.

That or after an official patch to the game.

I'm so glad I haven't upgraded my monitor yet.

 

[Devious]

It does seem a bit silly, not many will still be playing single player crysis in a year or so, there will be the next best thing.

Im sure some people will be playing online & mods but i doubt they will look as good as the single player game.

Shame Nvidia didn't release the 9800 with crysis, but I guess thats ATI's fault.

I dont want to play the game until I can run it on Very high.

 

[Raikiri]

Meaning they would bring out a patch/add-on to perhaps enable an "Ultra" graphics setting/sliders?

No, meaning at max settings with AA it simply won't run well on current hardware. When using very high (XP mod) with 2xAA I get 15-18 FPS on my 8800GT 512mb, without AA it is playable with those settings.

You also have to remember the GTX is nowhere near new, it's a year old today in fact.

 

[gary996]

You can't believe something they have been saying for months before the release of the game?

They've always said it's designed to scale with hardware over the next couple of years.

So really your better off not buying Crysis until the tech has caught up (in say a year or so) then buy a top range card. That way crysis will be had for £10

 

[Raikiri]

Or, you can buy the game now, enjoy it now and then play it again with improved visuals once the hardware has caught up.

 

[Greebo]

Well I think it's worth playing on medium/high settings anyway.

I'll play it again in two or three years time with a better graphics card and they have released graphics improvements just like I did with Fay Cry.

Let's face it, it took until the GTX/Ultras came out before you could play Far Cry with 16xaf/aa and hdr so why is everybody griping?

Nobody is forcing you to play it.

 

[Greebo]

Or, you can buy the game now, enjoy it now and then play it again with improved visuals once the hardware has caught up.

Beat me to it