Lowering the resolution on an LCD makes the graphics and text look like crap. That is not an option for me. My LCD's native res is 1680x1050 and that is where it stays, except in the few games I have that don't support that resolution.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Holy crap my Crysis framerate!!
- Thread starter xp3nd4bl3
- Start date
Lowering the resolution on an LCD makes the graphics and text look like crap. That is not an option for me. My LCD's native res is 1680x1050 and that is where it stays, except in the few games I have that don't support that resolution.
MrLonghair
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,764
Going gold these days seems to mean they can't find any more showstopping bugs and that they have finished the content for the game. So they send the gold master away to the factory and get working on the day 0 patch.
1280x720 looks very good on my 1440x900 native LCD (bought on super sale, viewsonic 19"), but any lower 16:9 or 16:10 resolution and it's like a vaseline filter covers the screen.
Or for cryin' out loud...on what grounds?
r.
for deceiving consumers.
nvidia, crytek, ea and mr. cyril.
DaCoOlNeSs
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,474
PUH. They did nothing of the sort, they straight up said that this game was NOT going to run on very high settings on this gen of video cards, you are dreaming if you think that a lawsuit is going to get you very far on that.
Concentric
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,028
Runs awesome on my 6800GT at 1280x1024 low settingsawesome awesome game!
haha i'm still on my 6800GT too, awesome card
Hornet
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 6,624
I enjoyed my crysis demo
E6550
8600GT
2GB RAM
1440 x 900 res
All LOW setting except for Shader and Water set to Medium
Windows XP
Average FPS 30-40
The 8600GT is a very cheap graphic card, and to be able to run this game at my naive resolution was already like a dream came true for me
With Medium shader quality, there's a huge difference, while the FPS is about 25-40 which is nothing to complain about with my graphic card.
I love the game. The gameplay, its so realistic, and I'm overall satisfied with the graphics which IMO, it's much more beautiful than FarCry, which was more cartoon-ish. I mean yeah it could look much better but I can't complain with a mid range system
I'd say they did well with scaling the game for lower end system. With everything low, I could get fps of 40-70 so, cards that are slower than 8600 GT could also certainly run this game well under Windows XP, to say at least.
I hope the final version will improve things to prevent the occasional stutter and keeps the fps from going below 30... It's gonna be a great game, at least for me
E6550
8600GT
2GB RAM
1440 x 900 res
All LOW setting except for Shader and Water set to Medium
Windows XP
Average FPS 30-40
The 8600GT is a very cheap graphic card, and to be able to run this game at my naive resolution was already like a dream came true for me
With Medium shader quality, there's a huge difference, while the FPS is about 25-40 which is nothing to complain about with my graphic card.
I love the game. The gameplay, its so realistic, and I'm overall satisfied with the graphics which IMO, it's much more beautiful than FarCry, which was more cartoon-ish. I mean yeah it could look much better but I can't complain with a mid range system
I'd say they did well with scaling the game for lower end system. With everything low, I could get fps of 40-70 so, cards that are slower than 8600 GT could also certainly run this game well under Windows XP, to say at least.
I hope the final version will improve things to prevent the occasional stutter and keeps the fps from going below 30... It's gonna be a great game, at least for me
Scotty_SFF
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Messages
- 590
Bit off topic, but if in Nvidia control panel my AA and AF are set to x4 will that effect the game play?
...even on low at 1280x1024 (my laptops native resolution is 1920x1200 BTW), I'm only getting ~15-20 FPS. This is on an 8600M GT.
You've got to be a lot more specific than this. What kind of deception? How so?
I've spoken with my lawyer, it's a legitimate case.
I seriously doubt it. I think it's a bunch of BS and I think you know it.
Thanks for the laugh, though.
DaCoOlNeSs
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,474
Wow, I really do hope you are just kidding aroundI've spoken with my lawyer, it's a legitimate case.
I wasn't "amused" at what you said, someone else was...
I meant to say "my" rig, my bad...
But my point was that my rig was a few generations of hardware past release of Far Cry, and it still is not the best for Far Cry... that was my point...
Sorry, after what I am hearing and seeing myself, a single-card solution that can do Crysis as you wish for is most likely not due out here shortly...
But, I am due for an upgrade... Nothing I've run has needed an upgrade from what I have, so I haven't bothered. But, if Crysis can be what I (and you) hope for, I'd like for you to have proven me wrong, as then I'll upgrade immediately, and we'll both be happy!
(Crytek should take some pride in the fact that I am willing to consider upgrading $K's in a rig just to play their game correctly, though.... I am not much of a gamer, explaining why I don't have an 8800, and why I might be out of the loop a bit... but I still suspect next-next-gen at earliest to play Crysis as expected with a single card...)
no, you misread. I said I found it amusing basically for you say anything on the subject given your lack of knowledge about other related matters. and for the record, SLI 7800 GTX setup will have no problem running Far Cry at settings I described,
The Oatman
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 415
Despite my system being pretty dated, the game is still quite playable for me at 1280x800 on low settings except for textures, sound, and game effects, which are at medium. I haven't bothered with FRAPS but I would guess it varies between 20-40 fps, not as much as I would like but playable on single player. Running a clean / optimized install of XP with the latest drivers for everything. Just thought I would chime in for those of you with older systems who are not sure if it will run.
The Oatman
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2007
- Messages
- 415
Simple: on a game like this I prefer a bit of extra eye candy over FPS. Even at the settings I am running it looks great. On a fast paced multiplayer game like TF2 anything under 60 is not acceptable. When you have an older system you have to make sacrifices...
That said, I have no doubt that the game would be a lot more enjoyable at high settings with a solid 60+ fps. Note: 20 fps would be under the most intense situations.
That said, I have no doubt that the game would be a lot more enjoyable at high settings with a solid 60+ fps. Note: 20 fps would be under the most intense situations.
NIVO
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,253
thx goes out to the fellas who had me alter some settings in the nvidia panel. I really appreciate that, i am now seeing the textures correctly and all appears to be well.
its peoples way to cope when in technological despair. they literally are in shock that their new GTX or Ultra or GTS even cant run this game. they convince themselves that something is true even though its not, like saying anything under 30 fps is "smooth". lmao. they have a hard time with reality basically.
Blackstone
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 3,584
I might have been premature in condemning Crysis as the spawn of the devil.
Today I ran it again and much to my surprise I found it ran much better today. I'm not sure how or why this is this case, but today at 1680 x 1050 I can run 4x anti-aliasing and most of the settings on high, with a few on very high. I know that sounds insane to some of you, but I think there might be something set wrong in the Nvidia control panel, or a shortage of physical memory, or something that is giving people exceptionally bad performance.
Right now I have at it set at:
Vista/DX10
1680 x 1050
4xaa
Texture: Med
Objects: High
Shadows: Low
Physics : High
Shaders: Very High (or High if I want to set Post Processing to Very High)
Vol Effects: high
Game Effects: High
Post Processing: High or Very High
Particles: High
Water: Med or High
And I'm getting framerates in the 20's, which is not great but nowhere near as bad as yesterday. And it is reasonably playable.
What makes the biggest difference in image quality is the shaders and post processing settings. The difference in those settings is very dramatic, and I find that I can have one or the other set to very high, but not both at the same time. Once you get shaders and post processing up to very high levels, the game starts looking a lot more like the demo videos. I can't decide which setting I prefer on very high.
Shadows are a no go they are just a frame rate killer.
I also suggest not changing image quality settings on the fly in game if you can avoid it. Restart the game. I think part of the problem I was having yesterday was that I was trying to change AA modes on the fly, and really you need to restart the game for that I think.
Anyway just a brief update here. I do think this is going to a very good game but the really good looking settings are just a little beyond what an 8800GTX can do.
Today I ran it again and much to my surprise I found it ran much better today. I'm not sure how or why this is this case, but today at 1680 x 1050 I can run 4x anti-aliasing and most of the settings on high, with a few on very high. I know that sounds insane to some of you, but I think there might be something set wrong in the Nvidia control panel, or a shortage of physical memory, or something that is giving people exceptionally bad performance.
Right now I have at it set at:
Vista/DX10
1680 x 1050
4xaa
Texture: Med
Objects: High
Shadows: Low
Physics : High
Shaders: Very High (or High if I want to set Post Processing to Very High)
Vol Effects: high
Game Effects: High
Post Processing: High or Very High
Particles: High
Water: Med or High
And I'm getting framerates in the 20's, which is not great but nowhere near as bad as yesterday. And it is reasonably playable.
What makes the biggest difference in image quality is the shaders and post processing settings. The difference in those settings is very dramatic, and I find that I can have one or the other set to very high, but not both at the same time. Once you get shaders and post processing up to very high levels, the game starts looking a lot more like the demo videos. I can't decide which setting I prefer on very high.
Shadows are a no go they are just a frame rate killer.
I also suggest not changing image quality settings on the fly in game if you can avoid it. Restart the game. I think part of the problem I was having yesterday was that I was trying to change AA modes on the fly, and really you need to restart the game for that I think.
Anyway just a brief update here. I do think this is going to a very good game but the really good looking settings are just a little beyond what an 8800GTX can do.
No, you said "equally" amusing, when I said nothing about amusement myself (except to state that I wasn't amused)... Please re-read your own posts before quoting yourself... (or, perhaps your mention of "none sense" is synonomous with amusement...) I myself certainly was not laughing at you, or amused by you, sir...
(FWIW, I still don't remember my current hardware being all that great on Far Cry... I put together the rig I did when I did specifically for Far Cry, and wasn't anywhere near as impressed as I hoped I would be for the dough...)
But, let's hope you're right about the hardware about to be released... Otherwise, I'm not playing the game for a while... (I still haven't played FEAR...)
And, again, I'm not much of a gamer. Last game I finished (over half a year ago) was Prey, so I expect to be out of the loop... So, forgive my excitement for this new game, and my lower anticipation of next-gen hardware, "LawGiver"
We're in the same boat of being excited for the game, and not being to play it right now... So, let's chill?
I believe even the demo itself is version 1.0.0.1, so they found something to patch!
ok one more time, i did not take it as you being amused by MY post. i meant YOU amuse me for even giving YOUR input considering your obvious lack of knowledge. yes i am chill, dont confuse arguing with not being chill. if i start calling you names, which i have been known to do, then yeah id probably need a chill pill.
Hey, LawGiver, do you also find it interesting that we both joined these forums in the same 24-hr stretch of time? I'm trying to remember what was going on back then that led me to these forums... Actually, I think I was researching parts for my 7800GTX SLI rig!
See, it's all good!
What led you here?
See, it's all good!
What led you here?
Im playing it at 30fps with dips in the mid 20s at 1680x1050 High w/o AA. Image settings on High Quality in the Nvidia Control panel. Was getting mid 20s in 1980x1200 but wld dip into the teens under intense fire. It seems to love using core 3 the most. The game looks and plays like Far Cry to me anyway, but with better textures. I know the game stresses the GPU the most, but I would love to see it better utilize the 4 cores. Maybe there will be a patch or something. Don't think I'm gonna buy this game. Once you get a taste of the perdy colors, it feels just like Far Cry.
exactly. i want to experience itjust like all the hype material that has been released. there is a HUGE quality differene between med and high yet alone low. and an equaly huge difference between high and very high. also, everyone so far has listed no AA/AF, what a joke. until i can get get FPS that will never go under 40 and average around 60, using 16x10 VERY HIGH 8x MSAA/16x AF, i will not be buying the game. lets face it nothing about the game, neither game play or story is unique, only its visuals are. and seeing how radical the G92 architechture with its 56 TMUs is, i don't think ill be waiting long.
LawGiver, since you are saying my 7800GTX SLI rig should be able to do the above just fine, "lack of knowledge" of my part and all, and my insistence that I built the rig for Far Cry, and was not impressed, here are the benchmarks I ran back when i built my rig (FX-60 CPU, 2GB RAM, A8N32-SLI mobo)
The benchmark started at 02/26/2006 01:11:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution: 1600×1200
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: River, demo: hocriver.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 8×
Anisotrophic filtering: 8×
HDR: level 7
Geometry Instancing: enabled
Normal-maps compression: enabled
Score = 36.29 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 36.26 FPS (Run 2)
Average score = 36.27 FPS
Like I am trying to tell you, I WAS NOT IMPRESSED...
(it might have been the last time I tried FC, to be honest... I can't remember the last time I loaded it up... I just remember Volcano wasn't so great, even after SLI...)
Look, I'm not trying to annoy you... I am just saying, my rig wasn't so great for Far Cry, and it is technology that was NEXT-NEXT-gen for when FC was released...
So, I am being realistic about the next-gen hardware about to be released for Crysis, so I am not disappointed...
I am telling you: you are saying my average should be above 60, and my framerate never go below 40. I am telling you my average is below 40, and can dip (at Volcano) to probably slideshow numbers...
Which is when I hung it up, I guess...
(and, if I have some config way off, HL2 (where so many had hitching problems) was fine, Doom3, Prey, Trackmania, TOCA 3... I haven't tried FEAR, as I expect is to be bad... But my system was not-so-hot at FC, that's my memory... Not unplayable (well, Volcano...), but not where my hopes were when building the rig...)
Again, I don't want to be disappointed when the next-gen stuff comes out...
I'm putting up the white flag, but I am just trying to present my case by my experience...
It represent the number of cards you need in SLI to run the game at acceptable framerates for your chosen settings.
So far the best reply out there.
Anyone go into the Editor? It's fuckin awesome!! Install Sandbox2 Editor (C:\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis SP Demo\Sandbox2 Installer) and lauch it from C:\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis SP Demo\Bin32\Editor.exe
Now open Island.cry, or the mp map Shore.cry. Put tanks, vehicles, weapons, AI, buildings, whatever you want, then press Ctrl + G or F12 to play it! pretty fun
Now open Island.cry, or the mp map Shore.cry. Put tanks, vehicles, weapons, AI, buildings, whatever you want, then press Ctrl + G or F12 to play it! pretty fun
I don't think there needs to be a patch to better utilize 4 cores. I think it simply doesn't need that much procesing power, especially considering that the GPU can only process the data from the CPU so fast. IMO, the only "patch" that will better utilize 4 cores is a more powerful GPU as I doubt there will be a patch to offload any workload from the GPU to the CPU.
looks fun, will try. I'm waiting for the game to be released officially to purchase it...
Described settings:
My 7800GTX SLI rig averages 36 FPS in FC at 16x10, and my AF settings are even below what you stated... Not only are my average framerates well below your desired average, but even below your minimum...
It did appear that the above is what you meant, and it's not what my experience was with Far Cry, while my experience with other games at the time was not as bad.
So, I have the same expectations at this moment for the next Crytek game, and the next-gen hardware.
I would love for you to be correct about the next-gen hardware, but I am going off of my own experience.
But that's why my post count is far below yours, Law, although we joined the same day. For some reason, it can get nasty in these forums...
But, we're both shelving Crysis, for now... How long is up to each of us...
(if the next-gen isn't good enough for Crysis for me, at least it'll finally be good enough for FEAR, for me... So, not a complete waste, although FEAR didn't turn out as interesting as hoped, anyway...)