Monday, December 17th 2007

Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3 Sales 'Tank'

Some of the most anticipated titles of the year, Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis, have failed to sell very well. In contrast to the overly hyped Halo 3, which boosted actual Xbox 360 sales, Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3 sales were, in short, abysmal. Since last month, neither game has managed to sell even 100,000 units. To be precise, EA sold 86,633 copies of Crysis, and Epic Games sold 33,995 copies of UT3. The Inquirer claims that Crysis, despite having a beautiful graphics engine that will have benchmarkers twiddling their thumbs for years, failed to impress anyone without a very expensive gaming machine. And Unreal Tournament, despite being absolutely breathtaking, had gameplay that was uncannily similar to the previous two versions of Unreal Tournament. Hopefully, as systems get better and gamers get more money to spend on games, these sales figures will increase.Source: The Inquirer
Add your own comment

83 Comments on Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3 Sales 'Tank'

#1
Wile E
Power User
by: AddSub
Not really. An older and properly tweaked machine can run Crysis easy. All this Crysis hardware talk is just self-ego-stroking by people who just dropped $3000-$4000 or more on a brand new ultra l33t supa-dupa system just to play games like Crysis, yet they see people with $300 boxes doing that just fine. At least that's the case here on TPU forums. There are maybe two or three threads I can recall where someone with a really, REALLY, old and inadequate system was complaining about Crysis. Myself I don't play Crysis because it's pretty much Far Cry 2.0. It's graphics are hyped and overrated, much like it was the case with Far Cry. Also, who needs another FPS? Right now, bulk of games released are either FPS or generic fantasy MMORPGs. Somebody change the tune already.
Yes, these older systems can play Crysis, but not the way it was intended to be played. The graphics quality must be turned down

Hell, I haven't bought Crysis because of my hardware. If I can't play a game at completely maxed settings (except AA, I'm ok with 2x AA), I don't bother. Oh well, maybe next year.
Posted on Reply
#2
DarkMatter
by: Wile E
Yes, these older systems can play Crysis, but not the way it was intended to be played. The graphics quality must be turned down

Hell, I haven't bought Crysis because of my hardware. If I can't play a game at completely maxed settings (except AA, I'm ok with 2x AA), I don't bother. Oh well, maybe next year.
So he was right. Since you can't play it maxed out, you don't play it at all. No matter that the game on medium/high settings looks better than most of other "next gen" games right? As he said ego...
Posted on Reply
#3
Wile E
Power User
by: DarkMatter
So he was right. Since you can't play it maxed out, you don't play it at all. No matter that the game on medium/high settings looks better than most of other "next gen" games right? As he said ego...
Not ego. I just don't feel I'd be getting what I paid for, if I don't play it maxed out. I'm in the habit of constantly upgrading something, so when the card releases that lets me see Crysis at it's full potential, I'll buy and play the game. I'd feel ripped off playing it at medium settings. It may look absolutely wonderful on medium, but I would know it could look even better.
Posted on Reply
#4
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
If you're selling your 2900, keep me in the know:D

C'mon Wile E, we can't have just everything at our disposal, can we? we have to make do with whatever we have. Would you play UT 3 if I told you that you'd need to buy a $120 PhysX card to experience a tornado and other physics? and attain 'best experience'?? Go to see your 2900 XT would make minced meat out of UT3 and that's a ferocious card. The difference is negligible. If I can get MSAA 4X that's more than enough for my 19" display which obviously isn't the best. End of the day I get the same thrills, chills, excitement that a video-game is supposed to give me, end of the day I'm entertained. and my video-card is worse than yours.:o

:toast:
Posted on Reply
#5
Wile E
Power User
by: btarunr
If you're selling your 2900, keep me in the know:D

C'mon Wile E, we can't have just everything at our disposal, can we? we have to make do with whatever we have. Would you play UT 3 if I told you that you'd need to buy a $120 PhysX card to experience a tornado and other physics? and attain 'best experience'?? Go to see your 2900 XT would make minced meat out of UT3 and that's a ferocious card. The difference is negligible. If I can get MSAA 4X that's more than enough for my 19" display which obviously isn't the best. End of the day I get the same thrills, chills, excitement that a video-game is supposed to give me, end of the day I'm entertained. and my video-card is worse than yours.:o

:toast:
I wasn't very specific as to what I meant by max settings. I'm happy with just 2xAA 16XAF. I'll also sacrifice some physics, as long as I can turn all the rest of the graphical detail all the way up, including all textures, shadows and HDR features. I do have both GRAW and GRAW2 (Tho I wouldn't mind trying out a PhysX card on them.)

The only reason I won't buy UT3 is because I prefer single player shooters. I'm not big on online play. I prefer Unreal over UT.
Posted on Reply
#6
DarkMatter
by: Wile E
Not ego. I just don't feel I'd be getting what I paid for, if I don't play it maxed out. I'm in the habit of constantly upgrading something, so when the card releases that lets me see Crysis at it's full potential, I'll buy and play the game. I'd feel ripped off playing it at medium settings. It may look absolutely wonderful on medium, but I would know it could look even better.
But my friend, that's exactly ego that's driving your acts. Crysis is giving us a lot more than any other game. So your claim would be true if they were selling the game for $70. But for $50 at medium settings they are offering exactly the same as any other AAA title out there, just that they offer a lot more for when we have the hardware to run it. That is you wanting more for less, as if they owed you something, and that's ego asking for more than what you deserve. I am not saying this only because of you, but because of how the gamer community has reacted about this game. IMO there's a big diference between stating that Crysis needs a really powerful PC to run it at max (true), and complain about this game being a crap because it can't run at ubersettings on latest hardware, which BTW it's one year old already.
I wasn't very specific as to what I meant by max settings. I'm happy with just 2xAA 16XAF. I'll also sacrifice some physics, as long as I can turn all the rest of the graphical detail all the way up, including all textures, shadows and HDR features.
I can't believe that you can't play it at High with your rig, since with my much less powerfull PC I can play it on medium with textures, object detail, shaders and water on high. Of course without AA, but the ego is really dominating you if you have to play with AA on. At your resolution AA is desirable, but nothing more. And it's really difficult to notice any difference between 8x and 16x AF, but the performance can drop critically. I haven't tried how much of a performance impact has on Crysis though, but I do have tried the impact on the appearance, negligible. A setting that has a great impact is shadow detail, Crysis shadows at medium are as good as COD4, UT3, GOW or Bioshock at highest, so if those are good enough, why isn't it on Crysis? The impact on performance is enormous, same with postprocessing effects, physiscs and pretty much every other setting really. As long as you keep textures and shaders on high, Crysis looks better compared to other titles. Of course those higher settings are what make Crysis stand over the other games in graphics, but as I said there's a big difference between not maxing t out and not having the better visuals. If Crysis on medium with shaders on high is not enough for you (not just you, anyone), neither is COD4 or any other game out there. If you need to max it out, just for the sake to max it out, that's ego.
Posted on Reply
#7
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: AddSub
Not really. An older and properly tweaked machine can run Crysis easy. All this Crysis hardware talk is just self-ego-stroking by people who just dropped $3000-$4000 or more on a brand new ultra l33t supa-dupa system just to play games like Crysis, yet they see people with $300 boxes doing that just fine. At least that's the case here on TPU forums. There are maybe two or three threads I can recall where someone with a really, REALLY, old and inadequate system was complaining about Crysis. Myself I don't play Crysis because it's pretty much Far Cry 2.0. It's graphics are hyped and overrated, much like it was the case with Far Cry. Also, who needs another FPS? Right now, bulk of games released are either FPS or generic fantasy MMORPGs. Somebody change the tune already.
i tihnk my rig represents exactly what was just said here ;) came out to about $300 yet its playing the game just fine :D


only complaint i have is it freezes with several AI on screen but thats fixable with either the 3400+ sitting on my desk or 2GB of ram...
Posted on Reply
#8
D.F.
by: DarkMatter
So he was right. Since you can't play it maxed out, you don't play it at all. No matter that the game on medium/high settings looks better than most of other "next gen" games right? As he said ego...
I guess there's always some ego (or something like that), but, at least for my part, it's more about respect for the years of work of lots of people, and making justice to that work. It's like movies, I can see a light romantic drama on my 14 inch Tv but I deffinitly won't be seeing Transformers on it for the first time, maybe the second time I could. But how would I be making justice to it's years of work and special effects on a 14 inch tv? It's the same with crysis, you make no justice to it playing it with a 3 year old rig. I guess though you have to differentiate game lovers against those who look for mere entretainment. Myself, as a director of some independent shorts, I care for people to see my work the way it's supposed to be seen and not with low volume, small tv, bad colors, etc. I know how important it is, so I do the same the other way around.
Even though there's money and entretainment all over this medium, there are lots of good artists behind who do it not only for money but because they were inspired to do something and did it with love, and that is something to be respected.
Posted on Reply
#9
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: D.F.
I guess there's always some ego (or something like that), but, at least for my part, it's more about respect for the years of work of lots of people, and making justice to that work. It's like movies, I can see a light romantic drama on my 14 inch Tv but I deffinitly won't be seeing Transformers on it for the first time, maybe the second time I could. But how would I be making justice to it's years of work and special effects on a 14 inch tv? It's the same with crysis, you make no justice to it playing it with a 3 year old rig. I guess though you have to differentiate game lovers against those who look for mere entretainment. Myself, as a director of some independent shorts, I care for people to see my work the way it's supposed to be seen and not with low volume, small tv, bad colors, etc. I know how important it is, so I do the same the other way around.
Even though there's money and entretainment all over this medium, there are lots of good artists behind who do it not only for money but because they were inspired to do something and did it with love, and that is something to be respected.
so me not being able to afford a new rig means i shouldnt be able to play any of the new games?
Posted on Reply
#10
D.F.
by: cdawall
so me not being able to afford a new rig means i shouldnt be able to play any of the new games?
Is up to you. Personally, I prefer to wait and play other great, somewhat older games that I can play in the meanwhile at their full settings. It's not about being that demanding either... If the game runs fine at high settings but not at maximum then I guess it's ok for me. But when it comes to medium-low, then I'd wait.
Posted on Reply
#11
DarkMatter
by: D.F.
I guess there's always some ego (or something like that), but, at least for my part, it's more about respect for the years of work of lots of people, and making justice to that work. It's like movies, I can see a light romantic drama on my 14 inch Tv but I deffinitly won't be seeing Transformers on it for the first time, maybe the second time I could. But how would I be making justice to it's years of work and special effects on a 14 inch tv? It's the same with crysis, you make no justice to it playing it with a 3 year old rig. I guess though you have to differentiate game lovers against those who look for mere entretainment. Myself, as a director of some independent shorts, I care for people to see my work the way it's supposed to be seen and not with low volume, small tv, bad colors, etc. I know how important it is, so I do the same the other way around.
Even though there's money and entretainment all over this medium, there are lots of good artists behind who do it not only for money but because they were inspired to do something and did it with love, and that is something to be respected.
It's completely the other way. They have put a lot of effort to make the game look great on slower machines too and by no buying the game now, just because you can't run it at max, and not any other reason, is somehow despreciative. They worked a lot on the project and by no buying the game, you are not giving them the recognition they deserve. If the sales of the game don't end up better they won't get involved in a game like this again, and not only them but all developers would see that innovating doesn't pay off. I feel a bit sad and dissapointed by the PC gamer community in regards to this. And it's not that they are not offering good quality graphics on current hardware, because they do and better than most others, it's because the people wants more for the same. It's not because they don't offer superb graphics on today's hardware, just like COD4 or UT3, it's because the yet better than that level of quality, despite being there, is not available to the majority of people yet. I sometimes feel that if Crysis would have launched with the same graphics level as COD4 or Bioshock, if a mixture of current Medium/High settings (as the one I wrote before), was the maximum possible, no one would have said anything and would have just enjoyed the game and the graphics. Crytek said long ago and many times that the game would be scalable, both with 2 year old hardware counting from the launch day and hardware that wouldn't be still launched, so that when new hardware came in you could benefit from a new level of realism. It's not as if they tried to fool anyone, they have delivered exactly that. But I guess it's part of human being to want more than what one deserves.
In the end, following your example:
I agree with you in that a film like Transformers should be seen in the best media possible. And the same applies to Crysis. If I did a short film, I would like pleople to see it on the best media possible, but if I had put many efforts in that short beyond how it looks, so that those with 14" screens can enloy it too, I would like that people to:
a- See it on the screen they already have and enjoy it, because I think that on that media my short film is at least as good as any other one.
b- If they think it would look better on a bigger TV, hope they buy a new one and see it as I wanted it to be seen.

But I wouldn't want those people not to see it, and not only that, but I wouldn't want them to blame me and downplay my short just because it doesn't look as good as it does on bigger screens...

End of rant.
Posted on Reply
#12
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
^ This is the level at which people think in the TPU forums. Certainly the standards are raised.
Posted on Reply
#13
D.F.
by: DarkMatter
It's completely the other way. They have put a lot of effort to make the game look great on slower machines too and by no buying the game now, just because you can't run it at max, and not any other reason, is somehow despreciative. They worked a lot on the project and by no buying the game, you are not giving them the recognition they deserve. If the sales of the game don't end up better they won't get involved in a game like this again, and not only them but all developers would see that innovating doesn't pay off. I feel a bit sad and dissapointed by the PC gamer community in regards to this. And it's not that they are not offering good quality graphics on current hardware, because they do and better than most others, it's because the people wants more for the same. It's not because they don't offer superb graphics on today's hardware, just like COD4 or UT3, it's because the yet better than that level of quality, despite being there, is not available to the majority of people yet. I sometimes feel that if Crysis would have launched with the same graphics level as COD4 or Bioshock, if a mixture of current Medium/High settings (as the one I wrote before), was the maximum possible, no one would have said anything and would have just enjoyed the game and the graphics. Crytek said long ago and many times that the game would be scalable, both with 2 year old hardware counting from the launch day and hardware that wouldn't be still launched, so that when new hardware came in you could benefit from a new level of realism. It's not as if they tried to fool anyone, they have delivered exactly that. But I guess it's part of human being to want more than what one deserves.
In the end, following your example:
I agree with you in that a film like Transformers should be seen in the best media possible. And the same applies to Crysis. If I did a short film, I would like pleople to see it on the best media possible, but if I had put many efforts in that short beyond how it looks, so that those with 14" screens can enloy it too, I would like that people to:
a- See it on the screen they already have and enjoy it, because I think that on that media my short film is at least as good as any other one.
b- If they think it would look better on a bigger TV, hope they buy a new one and see it as I wanted it to be seen.

But I wouldn't want those people not to see it, and not only that, but I wouldn't want them to blame me and downplay my short just because it doesn't look as good as it does on bigger screens...

End of rant.
I never said anything about not buying it or not playing it. I said I'd wait. Their efforts will be paid off eventually. You say I'm not giving them the recognition they deserve, but I will, cause I will buy the game, just not now. Who knows, maybe the guys at crytek foresaw this was gonna happen in the first months, and they know sales are gonna boost as people buy their new riggs. Or maybe the game isn't selling well for some other reason. Whatever the reason, I still wan't the most of the game, and I'm free to wait. If the guys at crytek did such an effort in making the game scalable, then that's good, it works for lots of people, that's why they did it, but not for other people like me. Wanting to play the game maxed out (or nearly) is a personal choice which has no reason not to be respected.
Posted on Reply
#14
zekrahminator
McLovin
Don't be hating each other, it's just a game...


I'm getting Crysis as soon as I have more money to spend on video games. And I'm the guy with the X850XT...


Granted, I am asking for a better PSU for Christmas, so I can in turn get a better graphics card ;).
Posted on Reply
#15
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: D.F.
Is up to you. Personally, I prefer to wait and play other great, somewhat older games that I can play in the meanwhile at their full settings. It's not about being that demanding either... If the game runs fine at high settings but not at maximum then I guess it's ok for me. But when it comes to medium-low, then I'd wait.
well i play @ med/high settings on my low-cost, older rig and still pull 10-60fps in game

honestly if i can play it i will, graphics should never supercede gameplay
Posted on Reply
#16
DarkMatter
by: zekrahminator
Don't be hating each other, it's just a game...
Don't worry no hating here. :toast:

by: D.F.
I never said anything about not buying it or not playing it. I said I'd wait. Their efforts will be paid off eventually. You say I'm not giving them the recognition they deserve, but I will, cause I will buy the game, just not now. Who knows, maybe the guys at crytek foresaw this was gonna happen in the first months, and they know sales are gonna boost as people buy their new riggs. Or maybe the game isn't selling well for some other reason. Whatever the reason, I still wan't the most of the game, and I'm free to wait. If the guys at crytek did such an effort in making the game scalable, then that's good, it works for lots of people, that's why they did it, but not for other people like me. Wanting to play the game maxed out (or nearly) is a personal choice which has no reason not to be respected.
Yeah and I respect your decision. Indeed one of the reasons I'm upgrading to a 8800gt is Crysis. The other being that my second rig, with a 6800gt, can't play the games I want as well as I want.
But as I said before, there's a big difference between wanting to play a game at the maximum IQ level posible and what Wile E said, which is to what I responded.
If I can't play a game at completely maxed settings (except AA, I'm ok with 2x AA), I don't bother.
Not ego. I just don't feel I'd be getting what I paid for, if I don't play it maxed out.
I'd feel ripped off playing it at medium settings. It may look absolutely wonderful on medium, but I would know it could look even better.
Not trying to attack you Wile. I think that I do catch your point, and that you didn't really think that way, at least not that radical. But since men are judged by their acts and no by their thoughts, I had to reply to your comments.

Anyway, there isn't anything wrong on waiting until you upgrade for playing Crysis or any other game (I have done that, indeed). There is in downplaying a game because you can't max it out, be it intentional or not. And sentences like "if I can't max it out I don't bother", "I'd feel ripped of" and more importantly "I don't feel I'd be getting waht I paid for" do exactly that. Since all games sell for the same, stating that you wouldn't get what you paid for, is clearly downplaying the game. I like making comparisons with cars so here we go:
Imagine that Ferrari starts selling Modena cars with 200HP, with the option to upgrade to the 500+ HP model later. Apart from the motor, all the other parts are the same. If they sell that car for the same price as most other cars (tet's say $20000), you just can't feel you are not getting what you paid for, just because you are not getting the 500HP model. You can't expect to get the great Ferrari at budget prices. At the price, you get the tyres, you get the suspension, you get everything except over the top horsepower, you get the car, you get the Ferrari.

Wile, I don't have anything against your decisions or your thoughts either. But I do have my reservations about what you said, in the way you said. I hope it's all clear this and that there isn't any harm. :toast:

@ D.F. again

If you care to read my first post(s) again you would realize that I didn't have anything against you in the first place, I'd have replied to post #48 otherwise. But the post in which you talked about the short film, quoted a post that wasn't about you and just didn't make much sense IMO. The more gratificating thing for Crytek would be the next.
Dec. 2007 : "Ey guys, I have played Crysis at medium settings and I loved it!"
Mid 2008 : "I have played it at max and WHOHOHOHOOOOAAAAA!!! :respect::respect::respect::respect::respect:"

See ya! :toast:
Posted on Reply
#17
Morgoth
i downloaded crysis and i'm not hapy with it.. needs more guns and its to short in the snow zone
Posted on Reply
#18
eidairaman1
I My Machine Specs are low and i Ran UT 3 on 1024x768 with Level 2 Detail and 100% Rendering. Crysis im really unsure about.
by: DarkMatter
It's completely the other way. They have put a lot of effort to make the game look great on slower machines too and by no buying the game now, just because you can't run it at max, and not any other reason, is somehow despreciative. They worked a lot on the project and by no buying the game, you are not giving them the recognition they deserve. If the sales of the game don't end up better they won't get involved in a game like this again, and not only them but all developers would see that innovating doesn't pay off. I feel a bit sad and dissapointed by the PC gamer community in regards to this. And it's not that they are not offering good quality graphics on current hardware, because they do and better than most others, it's because the people wants more for the same. It's not because they don't offer superb graphics on today's hardware, just like COD4 or UT3, it's because the yet better than that level of quality, despite being there, is not available to the majority of people yet. I sometimes feel that if Crysis would have launched with the same graphics level as COD4 or Bioshock, if a mixture of current Medium/High settings (as the one I wrote before), was the maximum possible, no one would have said anything and would have just enjoyed the game and the graphics. Crytek said long ago and many times that the game would be scalable, both with 2 year old hardware counting from the launch day and hardware that wouldn't be still launched, so that when new hardware came in you could benefit from a new level of realism. It's not as if they tried to fool anyone, they have delivered exactly that. But I guess it's part of human being to want more than what one deserves.
In the end, following your example:
I agree with you in that a film like Transformers should be seen in the best media possible. And the same applies to Crysis. If I did a short film, I would like pleople to see it on the best media possible, but if I had put many efforts in that short beyond how it looks, so that those with 14" screens can enloy it too, I would like that people to:
a- See it on the screen they already have and enjoy it, because I think that on that media my short film is at least as good as any other one.
b- If they think it would look better on a bigger TV, hope they buy a new one and see it as I wanted it to be seen.

But I wouldn't want those people not to see it, and not only that, but I wouldn't want them to blame me and downplay my short just because it doesn't look as good as it does on bigger screens...

End of rant.
Posted on Reply
#19
AsRock
TPU addict
i stoped buying UT quite some time ago TvT is not my thing any longer. How ever i am interested in Crysis just cannot afford it. Prefure games like OFP Arma ( Human v's AI ) my self now and is only when i'll spend $50 on a game. I'll wait till the price drops most likely as i be only buying it for the SP...
Posted on Reply
#20
DarkMatter
by: eidairaman1
I My Machine Specs are low and i Ran UT 3 on 1024x768 with Level 2 Detail and 100% Rendering. Crysis im really unsure about.
Have you tried the demo? If not give it a try. Acording to gamespot's hardware guide (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-5.html) the 1950 pro runs it better than 7900GTX. Though mine runs the game a lot better than what they state, maybe because mine has pixel shaders OCed from factory and I have overclocked the core a 10% more (shaders overclock acordingly too). Anyway you shouldn't have any problems running it on medium, probaby with shaders on high at 1024x768. I'm taking into account that your CPU is rather old, but I don't think it will have such an impact on your graphics card as the one that is having the 8800gtx in those benchmarks, but it's hard to say. The fourth system in the overview tab (A64 4000+, x1650XT, 2GB ram) suggest you can play it well. Maybe you should put physics on low with that CPU, but that's all. Try out the demo, and do some tweaking. ;)

EDIT: I would have expected better performance on UT3 from your rig though. Anyway your system is a win over the consoles itseft. Except the GPU that rig (the tech under it) has at least 4-5 years and still in the fight. :rockout: Who said you need to upgrade every year?
Posted on Reply
#21
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: eidairaman1
I My Machine Specs are low and i Ran UT 3 on 1024x768 with Level 2 Detail and 100% Rendering. Crysis im really unsure about.
it should run just fine i run it on my rig and with your cpu@2.2ghz it should be even if not better than mine @2ghz

my settings if you want to try them are these (click on it to see full size ;))

Posted on Reply
#22
DarkMatter
by: cdawall
it should run just fine i run it on my rig and with your cpu@2.2ghz it should be even if not better than mine @2ghz

my settings if you want to try them are these (click on it to see full size ;))


:eek: I can't believe your OC on that 7800GS on stock cooler. It's insane!! +86% overclock. :rockout:

I would recommend him everything medium, w/ textures and shaders on high, instead. At least if the 1950 pro is as much better as gamespot said in Crysis, it could be worth a try. Postprocessing on high kills my performance.
Posted on Reply
#23
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: DarkMatter
:eek: I can't believe your OC on that 7800GS on stock cooler. It's insane!! +75% overclock. :rockout:

I would recommend him everything medium, w/ textures and shaders on high, instead. At least if the 1950 pro is as much better as gamespot said in Crysis, it could be worth a try. Postprocessing on high kills my performance.
that was a maxed run i run normal @565/770 and the core doesnt heat up over 50C on the stock cooler :D
Posted on Reply
#24
DarkMatter
by: cdawall
that was a maxed run i run normal @565/770 and the core doesnt heat up over 50C on the stock cooler :D
Anyway nice OC. ;)
BUT LOL. You changed +86% to +75%? :laugh:
7800GS Nvidia's stock is 375. 700/375=1,8666666666666666666666666666666666666 :toast:
Posted on Reply
#25
eidairaman1
Well i have a Sapphire board to send off for RMA, and also my main rig is giving me fits upon OS install, not sure if its the mod bios or ram, but it stops during OS install, so im going to probably end up building a new machine or using my old MSI K7N2 Delta-L motherboard. The speeds i was advertising was on the Radeon AIW 9800 Pro
by: cdawall
it should run just fine i run it on my rig and with your cpu@2.2ghz it should be even if not better than mine @2ghz

my settings if you want to try them are these (click on it to see full size ;))


Posted on Reply
Add your own comment