Heard SLI doesn't work that great, if at all.
Edit: For Crysis, with the drivers he was using.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Holy crap my Crysis framerate!!
- Thread starter xp3nd4bl3
- Start date
Heard SLI doesn't work that great, if at all.
Edit: For Crysis, with the drivers he was using.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
v6maro
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,552
this blows =(
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
High. 0x AA... I don't use Vista, so...
Well motion blur creates a bigger strain on the graphics cards because they have to render everything as well as adding the blurring effect. (Pretty sure anyway) Movies can get away with it since they are all pre rendered
You have a single card and are trying to play the newest game with maxed settings at a huge resolution..
Don't see how its really surprising
You're saying manufacturers should completely skew their product release timelines because of specific titles created by incompetent developers..?
Borgschulze
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2005
- Messages
- 3,579
Consoles aren't really cheaper. Just use tv out from your computer to a TV/ huge LCD and run the games @ 1024x768 like many of them use
Consoles are cheaper than building my current computer, period. Therefore, consoles are cheaper than PC gaming.
To make an upgrade to my system that is more than just slightly faster in the video card department, I would have to spend around $300.
CPU would be another $100 and possibly not as high clocked.
RAM would be another $50 to make 2gb.
My point was consoles run at very low resolutions and most time w/o AA. You can easily build a cheap computer that can do that.
Halo 3 supposedly runs @ 1138x640 and is upscaled. You can do that with a cheap card for way under $300.
Also, games cost at least $10 more for consoles so after a few games that adds up quick.
Borgschulze
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2005
- Messages
- 3,579
No you can't, Halo 3 is XBox 360 only.
Back on topic, I have to upgrade if I want to play Crysis anyways, and I'll spend $300 to get a good upgrade, when it's worth it, right now it's not worth it to me.
He was just comparing resolutions I believe, not saying you can play Halo 3 on PC.
And if it's not worth it to you... then NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!
|CR|Constantine
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 218
LOL how is it that they could have shown us all those demo movies this past year at E3 and such with the cards out then but now it runs like hummus?
Something cannot be right, unless of course that explains why AMD is pushing quad Crossfire and Nvidia's tri fire
Something cannot be right, unless of course that explains why AMD is pushing quad Crossfire and Nvidia's tri fire
v6maro
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,552
my friend ran his crysis on a system exactly like mine, 2560x1600 on LOW settings, and its still a slideshow, in vista.
Reading Comprehension FTL
I was comparing screen resolutions and used Halo3 as an example as its the new big thing yet only runs @ 1138x640 while most computer games don't run under 1280x1024 which is a lot bigger.
I don't think I've run a PC game under 1024x768 (which is more pixels than 1138x640) in years. However if you want to say a PC is comparable to a console for price, then buy cheaper parts and run at very low resolutions on a TV screen vs a Monitor.
Battleneter2
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2006
- Messages
- 973
I expect Crysis to be unplayable at 2560x1600 at any setting.
The developers stated clearly they scaled the graphics settings high to allow for best possible graphics on later generation rigs.
They COULD have nerfed the graphics and allow you to set it to "Ultra High" at 1600x1200 and get 40FPS to make people feel better. But personally I prefer the best possible graphics just so long as its scalable.
Many games look NO better in my honest opinion at ridiculous resolutions, the problem is not with Crysis, the problem is with the way some enthusiasts are thinking.
The developers stated clearly they scaled the graphics settings high to allow for best possible graphics on later generation rigs.
They COULD have nerfed the graphics and allow you to set it to "Ultra High" at 1600x1200 and get 40FPS to make people feel better. But personally I prefer the best possible graphics just so long as its scalable.
Many games look NO better in my honest opinion at ridiculous resolutions, the problem is not with Crysis, the problem is with the way some enthusiasts are thinking.
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
No dude, whats crazy is that you expected a one year old card to play a revolutionary game with ultra high settings on a very immature operating system (assuming Vista, since its a DX10 game with a DX10 card), but even so, even in XP, 1 year old card, brand new revolutionary game.
Justintoxicated
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2002
- Messages
- 14,519
so I have to downgrade my monitor and upgrade my video cards? Guess I'll just skip this title then.Or just don't run the game with everything maxed?
I think what people aren't realizing is that this game on lower setting looks better than most games on their high / maxed
If they replaced the wording with:
Low - Med - High - Ultra
Hight - Ultra - Damn Sexy - OMGWTFBBQ
would that make people feel better?
I think what people aren't realizing is that this game on lower setting looks better than most games on their high / maxed
If they replaced the wording with:
Low - Med - High - Ultra
Hight - Ultra - Damn Sexy - OMGWTFBBQ
would that make people feel better?
A ridiculous resolution of 2560x1600 is not ridiculous at 30", it's around the same pixel pitch as a 24" or 20" monitor. You can't blame people who have the cash to buy these huge monitors because they want to enjoy their games on big screens.
Yea, and look like crap due to interpolation. This is the problem with using LCD's for gaming.
I don't have the option to use 1:1 pixel mapping either on my LCD because i use the analog connection due to my KVM and you can only get 1:1 by using DVI connection so games that don't support widescreen are stretched to full screen.
I guess the real reason Crysis wasn't ported to the 360 is because Microsoft don't allow games on that system that perform so poorly. If a game only got 12fps on the 360 the game's developers would get lynched.
No Crysis for me from the sounds of it because my current 256mb 7900GT at 1680x1050 on my LCD would completely suck. I hate game developers who make games for future systems and are unplayable on current hardware. WTF are they thinking? I buy games to play today and not two years from now. I guess they think eye candy is so important to sales that they don't give a damn whether the game is actually playable or not on current hardware. That's the reason I didn't buy FSX. I don't want a flight sim that runs at 18fps.
Man people are never happy...
There are tons of people asking for BETTER looking games, and when they come, people complain that they look so good that they run bad.
See my above comment.
Edit:
Also, your card came out on March 9th 2006, so your comment about new games needing hardware 2 years from now doesn't mean squat. Maybe upgrade to new hardware to play new games?
nissanztt90
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 3,858
Lol i was just about to say...who the hell does this kid think hes kidding? Over 18 months old on that high of a resolution and he wants to play Crysis on high? And he blames game developers...lol.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
how did you get 2560x1600 resolution in the game? i'm only seeing 1920x1200 max
v6maro
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,552
I'm not sure how he did it, but he said he did and he's a trustworthy guy. So i believe him. I have to get out of work and try it when I get home.
well the way i see it is he is only 2 genrations behind. maybe if nvida released a new high end card and stoped pushing the 8800 for a year now........
Battleneter2
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2006
- Messages
- 973
Sure you have purchased an enormous monitor and have to run much higher resolutions.
2560x1600 is still ridiculous considering rigs were struggling to run 1280x1024 with the latest games 3 or 4 years ago.
The technology is not there yet to run 2560x1600 on "ALL" the latest games and upcoming games, unless the developer's nerf the graphics.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
lol www.crysisdemo.com got pwned
And here I was thinking there was another reason Crysis performs so poorly besides it looking "so good"...when [BETTER looking games] come, people complain that they look so good that they run bad.
Can anyone with a 320MB GTS comment at 1680x1050? What settings do you have to run it at?
By the way guys, the demo is available at fileshack. Go and grab it! I'm in line as we speak
I'm getting around 23 on High in XP with beta drivers, no AA.
Blackstone
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,580
Guys, from my experience with the beta, the first thing to drop is textures and shadows. Those are probably the two settings that have the biggest impact on frames.
I'm downloading the demo now. I suggest you guys try textures and shadows on medium, everything else on high. Also, remember that the issue is whether it looks good subjectively. There is no law that says you are entitled to run every game on all "high."
I would rather have a game that exceeds the capabilities of my GTX but can be made playable than a game that can be run "maxed out" but doesn't take advantage of every drop of processing power I have.
GTX owners up to this point have been spoiled by games like Bioshock and Team Fortress which were codeveloped for console and thus were not designed to push hardware. Crysis is the real deal. In a year or two when the hardware catches up we'll be grateful that Crytek actually made the effort to implement high-end features.
I'm downloading the demo now. I suggest you guys try textures and shadows on medium, everything else on high. Also, remember that the issue is whether it looks good subjectively. There is no law that says you are entitled to run every game on all "high."
I would rather have a game that exceeds the capabilities of my GTX but can be made playable than a game that can be run "maxed out" but doesn't take advantage of every drop of processing power I have.
GTX owners up to this point have been spoiled by games like Bioshock and Team Fortress which were codeveloped for console and thus were not designed to push hardware. Crysis is the real deal. In a year or two when the hardware catches up we'll be grateful that Crytek actually made the effort to implement high-end features.
Brent_Justice
Moderator
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2000
- Messages
- 17,755
I like my textures of high quality, I'd definitely suggest lowering shadows first though, those are typically huge performance hits at the highest setting.
Thanks. I'll see if dropping shadows will get that up. With regards to the 320MB, is the amount of RAM a significant limiting factor at this resolution? If not, OCing would help, in theory.
Guess I will find out soon enough..downloading at ~570 KB/s
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,823
A game sucks cause it kills hardware?
and ya,1 year in computer years is OLD, news flash for ya
dont forget nvidia and ati new lines are coming out soon around crysis