Crysis Max settings rig for $400

[Urbklr]

I can play Crysis with no configs at 55+FPS...Doesn't feel much smoother than 35FPS, that's what Alex was getting at. Other games don't feel totally smooth unless your at 60FPS+.

 

[alexp999]

ORLY? Erm, 30 FPS is 30FPS, 60FPS is 60FPS. I don't think anyone has a system capable enough of running crysis locked at 60FPS with maxed out settings...

You've lost me there, I never said they did.

Al I was saying is that without the FPS counter it feels like a really good framerate and I dont notice a difference between high fps and low (to about 30). Every other game I have played you can tell when framerate goes below 50.

So I wanted to know what sort of FPS people are getting on these budget crysis rigs. Cus I used to determine maxed out and playable at 60FPS. But with Crysis you can make an exception, it doesnt really stutter till below 20.

I can play Crysis with no configs at 55+FPS...Doesn't feel much smoother than 35FPS, that's what Alex was getting at. Other games don't feel totally smooth unless your at 60FPS+.

Exactly, thanks Urbklr

 

[v-zero]

dont give me that ive been on the forums for a while and i know hardware just admit it celerons are shit and im never going to buy one, why buy a Celeron when you can get a real cpu a core 2 or something

those specs are medium friendly not ALL MAXED OUT

You sir, are a moron.You claim to know hardware, I just juxtapose that you in fact know fuck all to the max. (See what I did there?).

The new Celeron is based upon the Core2 architecture, the reason for its purchase instead of the other processors is two fold. They are cheaper, they do the job required (not beyond it) at such levels of resolution.

Q.E.D.

 

[DrPepper]

i dont see how that rig can run crysis on Very High... i have a q6600 @ 3.2, 8 gig of ram 4-4-4-12 and a GTX 280 and with a custom config (that dose increase performance) i average around the 24>30 fps @ 168*1050, and just rember as i have found the furhter you get into the game the more it takes a hit on the system (i cant rember the level im at but im averaging 18>21 fps on this particular level)

There is no way in hell thats all you are gettin that much even on very high at that resolution I mean you should be at the 50's I get more out of a 8800GT

 

[newtekie1]

dont give me that ive been on the forums for a while and i know hardware just admit it celerons are shit and im never going to buy one, why buy a Celeron when you can get a real cpu a core 2 or something

You really have no clue what you are talking about here.

 

[ENIAC]

Personally, I think this rig would go farther in Crysis (but not max out) and it comes in at $377.43. You may want to consider some of these parts in your build.

9600GT, 320GB HDD, P35 MB to OC the E21080, 2GB OZ, Samsung DVD, nice case (sort of ). The PSU is suckass OEM quality and the weak link in the build.

http://secure.newegg.com/WishList/P...ishListNumber=7845991&W ishListTitle=$377.43

 

[ENIAC]

@Eniac
I didn't remove it, I just put the 2180 under suggested upgrades.

Yep, you were right, the Core2 version Celeron does offer respectable benchies for the money. At only $50, I agree its the best value for a budget gaming rig.

http://computermonger.com/intel-celeron-e1200-review.html

 

[Kei]

Why are you guys shooting him down? I can see these parts playing Crysis on High, and he stated they got 24FPS average at 1024x768...Completely possible.

The Celeron he used is a dual-core C2D based one, perform's better than a AthlonX2. He used them at 2.66GHz, so:

2.66GHz Core-Based Celeron
2GB DDR2
Geforce 9600GSO

I really don't see why this rig wouldn't play Crysis on high, or very high at 1024x768, like he stated.

I completely agree as I have a low power setting I use sometimes on my Phenom 9850BE that runs it on two cores only with a speed of 1.8Ghz and I play Crysis at 1024*768 (on a 32" monitor that's still huge ) on Very High Spec and it runs very nicely. That was using a single HD3870 clocked low as well (this was my low power saving setting) to 600Mhz core and 800Mhz memory. 30fps wasn't really that hard at all.

The game only really gets ridiculous once you up the resolution and/or get to a crazy action kinda scene. So this is 100% believable and a very good price/project.

K

 

[OzzmanFloyd120]

I'm not sure if that rig could handle the levels inside the mountain or the incredibly un-optimized final battle.

 

[JrRacinFan]

Hiya LAN derf! Welcome to TPU!

After seeing and reading this thread I have to point out. When overclocking these e1200 chips, the best thing to do is use CL4 whenever you can. It gives almost a 2 second difference in SuperPI and helps boost overall performance. Just thought I give you my input on this. Also a question for you:

What is the max you have been able to push one of these chips?

@Keiran

Only agree with you to a certain extent. The chips were designed with budget in mind. Not to be a performance monger. If you want the best, then by far you are free to purchase anything you desire. But for budget, they offer a very good price/performance ratio. That is a statement you can't doubt or ignore. I will admit their are cpu's better than it.

 

[newtekie1]

What is the max you have been able to push one of these chips?

I don't know about the E1200, but the E1400 was a pretty decent overclocker in the budget board. Like I said when I posted about my experience with a similar build and budget board, I was able to get the E1400 up to 2.66GHz without even the need to increase voltages, and it hit 3.0GHz with only a mild voltage increase over stock(1.35v in the BIOS, IIRC) and I didn't dare go higher with just the stock cooling. I've really been tempted to see what one will do in a well known overclocking board like my 780i and under my Ultra-120, but I haven't been able to justify buying one and ripping apart my rig to test it.

 

[JrRacinFan]

Thanks newtekie. I am certain you have heard me post it before but my experience with this chip has been great. 3.5Ghz max will not boot over 438fsb, 8x438fsb stable with 1.46 vcore and 58C Load under a stock P4 Prescott Intel HSF on the DFI. I run 24/7 1.36 vcore 3.2Ghz, solid as a rock.

 

[dark2099]

That is a nice temp there Jr with the stock P4 heatsink, for an old piece of metal that took lots of flak for size, sure does its job.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Hiya LAN derf! Welcome to TPU!

After seeing and reading this thread I have to point out. When overclocking these e1200 chips, the best thing to do is use CL4 whenever you can. It gives almost a 2 second difference in SuperPI and helps boost overall performance. Just thought I give you my input on this. Also a question for you:

What is the max you have been able to push one of these chips?

@Keiran

Only agree with you to a certain extent. The chips were designed with budget in mind. Not to be a performance monger. If you want the best, then by far you are free to purchase anything you desire. But for budget, they offer a very good price/performance ratio. That is a statement you can't doubt or ignore. I will admit their are cpu's better than it.

I actually haven't put it in a board that could take it to max yet. The budget boards can't do much over 333 so that's another reason I only set them to 2.66 GHz.

@Eniac
That ram is a good find. As for the board and card, I'm partial to the GSO because the shader count helps out more in newer games, they both give you plenty of performance otherwise. I'm also a bit wary of ECS boards.

Edit* Just added that ram, brings the total down to a crazy $338 after rebates. I now would recommend everyone check out the recommended upgrades section before making purchase decisions, unless they literally can't afford over $350

 

[zithe]

9600gt is 95 dollars now.

Edit: nevermind it went back up

 

[MilkyWay]

talk about frames per second look at my rig and then think to yourself why i wonder why he gets such good speeds and graphics

i get jack on crysis with my rig it runs at 20-30fps medium sometimes high 30s but it goes insane on the high detail places it goes low as hell

i have latest drivers ect and my rig works fine so dont suggest its my own fault

I have to game on a budget no choice personally i wouldn't ever recommend a celeron to anyone even the budget crowd, plus you have the crappy UK prices to contend with so its hard for me

Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 £50 but id spend a little more for a Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 at £75 because its going to last you longer and is 45nm and has much more cache

The E2180 you mentioned isnt so bad either

i wouldnt skimp on the cpu, with a good cooler you can get a lot out of a cpu, i also wouldnt skimp on the psu a 500w is good enuf for the budget user, 9600gso no id get a 8800gt second hand, a single 2gb stick of corsair value ram or some other reputable value brand 1x2gb so you can add in a second 2gb stick later on, coolermaster cases are good id get a cheap Centurion 5, case inside is all that matters and how many fans spaces it has since you can add cooling and paint it with a cheap can of spray


ebay is the budget users friend and so is second hand, you can get good second hand stuff on TPU

cheap and cheerful isnt always the best, budget is about spending a little and making it go a long way cheep and cheerful isnt doing that

 

[pepsi71ocean]

My rig plays the crysis demo in the high 60's in the first mission that the demo plays. im not sure what the average is, but its only varies from 45-60's during the mission

 

[Katanai]

For all you people saying this is BS. I've finished the Crysis demo on an Athlon at 1.8Ghz and a x700 and 1Gb of DDR1. That was at a friends place. It was on medium settings at 800/600. That system would run it on High settings at 1024/768, although you would get black boxes instead of explosions and it was not playable but it didn't get stuck. So I don't see why this system wouldn't run it on Very High at that resolution...

 

[OzzmanFloyd120]

For all you people saying this is BS. I've finished the Crysis demo on an Athlon at 1.8Ghz and a x700 and 1Gb of DDR1. That was at a friends place. It was on medium settings at 800/600. That system would run it on High settings at 1024/768, although you would get black boxes instead of explosions and it was not playable but it didn't get stuck. So I don't see why this system wouldn't run it on Very High at that resolution...

he claims though that his $400 PCs an run it at high specs.

 

[pepsi71ocean]

he claims though that his $400 PCs an run it at high specs.

I'm still not sure how that works tho, my Quad at 3.6Ghz with my gfx card ock'ed to 770 (L/S), and memory at like 1035(i think). pci bus ock was 115, and the ram was running 1100MHz.

 

[OzzmanFloyd120]

I'm still not sure how that works tho, my Quad at 3.6Ghz with my gfx card ock'ed to 770 (L/S), and memory at like 1035(i think). pci bus ock was 115, and the ram was running 1100MHz.

Agreed, my rig with the specs to the left still doesn't average over 25 FPS (Very High 1440*900 4xAA. Even less on High, not sure why.)

 

[pepsi71ocean]

Agreed, my rig with the specs to the left still doesn't average over 25 FPS (Very High 1440*900 4xAA. Even less on High, not sure why.)

Crysis is quite buggy, and at best a system monster. My quad had trouble playing with it at the setting it was, but i blame it to the coding of it.

 

[OzzmanFloyd120]

Crysis is quite buggy, and at best a system monster. My quad had trouble playing with it at the setting it was, but i blame it to the coding of it.

Er, I think you missed the point
Some of us have some pretty high-end rigs (by high-end I mean well worth over $1000 in parts) that can't max Crysis, so I think it would be pretty tough to max the settings on a $400 rig (Granted he didn't say he's maxing res and AA on these systems.)

 

[Gabkicks]

maybe he means max settings at at 320x240? Crysis looks so good... its like I have an eyegasm when I play the game.

 

[OzzmanFloyd120]

maybe he means max settings at at 320x240?

Nah, that would be WAY too CPU-Dependant.