Yaaay more reason not to upgrade my prehistoric socket 939 setup.
8800 Series and Crysis - Are they just poor DX10 performers?
- Thread starter Recall
- Start date
Yaaay more reason not to upgrade my prehistoric socket 939 setup.
Maybe if you have a dual core, but if you're talking single core then you need to upgrade!
My rig: Q6600 @3.3Ghz + HD2900XT 512MB (7.10 catalyst) + 4GB RAM + Vista 64bit
Running 64bit version of Crysis SP demo
I´m playing with this settings:
1920x1200
0AA 0AF
Texture Quality Very High
Objects Quality Very High
Shadows Quality Medium
Physics Quality Very High
Sharders Quality High
Volumetric Effects Quality High
Game effects Quality Very High
Postprocessing Quality Very High
Particles Quality Very High
Water Quality Very High
Sound Quality Very High
Min. 17FPS Avg. 21FPS Max. 35Fps - I was VERY surprised that even with very low FPS game is perfectly smooth.
I also edited .cfg so that objects (esp. rocks on beach) wont pop up - draw distance 150m
My only "problem" is that fraps doesnt work in Crysis SP demo (no problem in MP beta)
Conclusion: It looks much better than any other game and somehow its smooth even with verylow FPS
Running 64bit version of Crysis SP demo
I´m playing with this settings:
1920x1200
0AA 0AF
Texture Quality Very High
Objects Quality Very High
Shadows Quality Medium
Physics Quality Very High
Sharders Quality High
Volumetric Effects Quality High
Game effects Quality Very High
Postprocessing Quality Very High
Particles Quality Very High
Water Quality Very High
Sound Quality Very High
Min. 17FPS Avg. 21FPS Max. 35Fps - I was VERY surprised that even with very low FPS game is perfectly smooth.
I also edited .cfg so that objects (esp. rocks on beach) wont pop up - draw distance 150m
My only "problem" is that fraps doesnt work in Crysis SP demo (no problem in MP beta)
Conclusion: It looks much better than any other game and somehow its smooth even with verylow FPS
Fraps worked for me when I was taking screenshots. I had the FPS counter off, but the game has a built-in counter anyway.
Agreed, this game does seem to be strangely much more playable at low frames than most other games. Im not convinced thats purely down to the motion blur but I guess it could be.
30fps feels perfect while i'm currently gunning it at v.high across the board at 600p and getting a (barely) playable 15-25fps on a GTS640.
Yeah I wanted a 30 incher that could pull off 1080p content for my consoles and give me the ability to have 25x16 resolution for my pc...Good scaling is another excellent reason to invest in it.. I thought this would not happen in the near future so I bought 2707wfp this summer.. Don't get me wrong it's a nice monitor but something tells me that I will make another big investment this summer for a 30'' incher with similar capabilities if available in EU..
Bad timing as always for me..
Ooof, just finished playing the demo. Makes me realize a few things.
1. I'm extremely glad I got a monitor with the best scaling chip on the market right now. The fact that 1360x768 on a 30" monitor looks almost as good as 2560x1600 on a 30" monitor makes playing with Very High quality a very real possibility.
2. Unfortunately at 1360x768 on a 30" monitor AA is an absolute must which negates a lot of that performance gain.
3. Looking at what they did, I can VERY easily see how this game can very quickly become CPU limited. The amount of physics calculations used in this game puts Half-Life 2 to shame.
4. In reference to point 3, where's my Phsyics on a GPU? I have a perfectly capable x1800 XT just chomping at the bit to do physics. **sigh**
5. Yeah, you're going to need a top of the line quad core in the fastest speed possible paired up with the fastest GPU you can get your hands on to play this at high res and high settings. I'm betting Intel, AMD, and Nvidia are just LOVING Crytek right now.
6. Finally, a graphical showcase that surpasses Oblivion and Vanguard. Although volumetric clouds in Vanguard are still the shiznit.
Regards,
SB
can u show some pics where your running 13x7 and 4xaa?
lmao. so many of you are in denial about the low fps. trying to convince yourselves that 17 fps is SMOOTH.
Its not denial, its a genuine observation that Crysis feels smoother than the majority of games, especially FPS's at lower framerates. I don't know why that is, perhaps its the motion blur, perhaps its very consistent delivery of frames even at a low rate, I don't know but its definatly real.
No-ones trying to say 17fps is smooth, just that if feels smoother than 17fps in most other games. I would still want 40fps minimum in an idea world but if I could sustain 25fps in Crysis then I would probably be happy to not turn down any more details in exchange for extra framerate.
Word..My thoughts exactly
People are just having a hard time accepting that their "ultimate setups" are not exactly ultimate anymore, or never were in the first place. The 8 series and 2xxx series eating monster that is Crysis has been unleashed.
Even with medium settings, I think the game looked amazing. Just imagine in a year or so when they release the patch for ambient lighting unlocking, the game will only look even better!
Funny thing to note though: I got the Crysis to run on my laptop which is equiped with a GeForce Go 7200 (G72M Core). I ran it at minimums of course in an 800 x 600 window at actually surprising framerate, about 15 frames per second. Considering its a GPU way below the "required" specs, I'm surprised it even booted up and actually ran. Maybe Crysis could be patched to run on even more minimalistic hardware? Frankly I find this just as funny as making Rainbow Six Vegas work on my laptop.
3 vertex units, 4 pixel units, 4 texture units, and 2 ROPs, 64 MB Dedicated VRAM + 192 MB shared: what a combo for such a game that brings 8800s to their knees XD
Amazing how useless CPU's are for high res gaming!
I've not played Crysis, myself, but if it has a good implementation of motion blur, it is entirely believable that it might seem smooth at that sort of frame rate.lmao. so many of you are in denial about the low fps. trying to convince yourselves that 17 fps is SMOOTH.
If you watch a film in the cinema, you're watching something that manages only 24 frames per second, and yet it doesn't normally appear jerky. The reason why film looks smooth at 24fps while games need >60fps to get anywhere smooth motion is precisely the fact that film has motion-blur: the shutter of the camera is open for a significant fraction of the duration of each frame, and any moving object within the frame is shown as a blur all the way across the path it follows during the frame.
By contrast, game images are perfectly sharp. Comparing game images with and without authentic motion-blur is like comparing stop-frame animation with modern CGI animation in movies. Stop-frame motion is jerky, but the motion of Jurassic Park is smooth. Once you have proper motion blur, you really don't need a high frame rate.
(Of course there are other reasons why a high frame rate is desirable, for example controller-latency - the time between when you move the mouse and when the screen refreshes to show the result of the movement. If there's too much lag between the two, the game gets hard to control.)
well i tried the beta and demo and the level of dissatisfactions from getting sub 30 fps was no less than in any other game that went sub 30 fps. it did not feel smooth or playable. i only felt one thing, frustrated. so i still stand by my belief you guys are in denial. i don't think there is subjective way to make me change my mind. (unless you let me borrow your brain )
)Disable FRAPS or any other FPS counter, amazing how well that gets past most peoples barrier. In fact, I think anyone who plays with FRAPS up is not a true gamer. But then again, I'm just like that.
The dips into the 10~ area are noticeable, but the game is completely playable with FPS around 30 to 20.
The dips into the 10~ area are noticeable, but the game is completely playable with FPS around 30 to 20.
I don't really think it has anything to do with the motion blur, since I find the game is still playable sub-30fps and that has nothing to do with visuals. I just think they have a good method of handling their time deltas and input latency at lower FPS.
New beta ForceWare drivers for Crysis
XP32: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_169.04.html
XP64: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp64_169.04.html
Vista32: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_169.04.html
Vista64: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x64_169.04.html
I can't be bothered benchmarking them at the moment, though.
XP32: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_169.04.html
XP64: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp64_169.04.html
Vista32: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_169.04.html
Vista64: http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x64_169.04.html
I can't be bothered benchmarking them at the moment, though.
Similar threads
