• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Crysis, is it still the hardest game on your system?

GTA IV at 1920x1200 and all max settings brings my gtx280 to its knees... much more so than crysis. By the way, love gta iv!
Edit: and correct, fsx at all ultra max settings, will make my gtx weep....
 
I play Crysis at 1920x1200 with extra eye candy no problem. Even with 2xAA there is only slight lag when aliens invade my screen.
 
Is there anyway to lock frames to 30 fps? At very high on dx10 its ok, but it dips down from <40 down to 25 alot and it gets annoying, It might be alot more smoother at 30 fps locked.
 
I think we all should post one famous screenshot with everything on high with fraps and see the performance. Anyone up for it? Btw, keep sound & particles on low, i really don't see the point in putting them on high. I will post my famous shot tomorrow on everything high settings. Its the demo. Going to OC my card too and post one with it at stock
 
crysis best game graphic ever see and other hardest games
GTA but this games depend on high cpu and ram more than graphic card
clearsky but only with ATI when using DX10.1 and high AA it will beat crysis with this setting
 
Probably the origional crysis on all very high with forced AA and AF as far as it goes in the control panel. I heard STALKER Clear Sky is supposed to be a bitch with DX10.1 enabled though.
 
hat said:
Probably the origional crysis on all very high with forced AA and AF as far as it goes in the control panel. I heard STALKER Clear Sky is supposed to be a bitch with DX10.1 enabled though.
Click to expand...

on my system 1280x1024 everything on max setting and max AA
crysis warhead 20-25FPS
clearsky 10-15FPS
 
hayder.master said:
on my system 1280x1024 everything on max setting and max AA
crysis warhead 20-25FPS
clearsky 10-15FPS
Click to expand...

really? I didnt know Clearsky was so Harsh on systems?
 
Clear Sky runs fine for me with DX10.1 on. I had to borrow the PII 920 in my HTPC for it tho haha. My 7750 can't do it tho.
 
xRevengEx said:
really? I didnt know Clearsky was so Harsh on systems?
Click to expand...


clearsky only game Harsh my system

ShadowFold said:
Clear Sky runs fine for me with DX10.1 on. I had to borrow the PII 920 in my HTPC for it tho haha. My 7750 can't do it tho.
Click to expand...

really on max setting with max AA , my cpu q6600 is good enough too also i overclock it at 3.45 and you have 2x4830 so it is bit more performance than 4870
try set max AA quit the game and run it again , the AA in clearsky kill the performance of the GPU
 
Last edited:
Nope. Lost Planet is the most taxing. I can run Crysis DX10, 1400x900, no motion blur, but everything else set to high with ease. Can't do the same with lost planet.
 

Attachments

  • C3.jpg
    C3.jpg
    152.5 KB · Views: 313
  • c4ed.jpg
    c4ed.jpg
    195.4 KB · Views: 348
  • crysis2.jpg
    crysis2.jpg
    201.8 KB · Views: 364
No not by far!

Crytosis is the hardest ive come across!.

But GTA IV comes close, and crysis is one of the hardest though, but is the best looking game EVER, and is quite optimized if you ask me.


Think, Graphics vs requirements, i can actually play warhead on a HD2400 PRO 3ghz E6850 which we have at school (4gig ram).

its worth mentioning THIS:
ATI wasnt told that crytosis was in progress, and havnt heard of it before legitreviews tested the beta, its an "nvidia meant to be playd game".
And ofcourse, physx is utilized, and is almost required, i still have fun playing through the game at 18 fps with my madass system, see specs.
thats 1920x1200 and 0xMSAA shader 3.0 win 7.

thats something crysis does very nice btw ;)
 
yea i recon, when i played the game right through, i every so often i would come across an amazing view, shame i dont have the screemshots any more, the ones i just posted are all within the first 30min of gameplay
 
Imsochobo said:
Crytosis is the hardest ive come across!.

But GTA IV comes close, and crysis is one of the hardest though, but is the best looking game EVER, and is quite optimized if you ask me.


Think, Graphics vs requirements, i can actually play warhead on a HD2400 PRO 3ghz E6850 which we have at school (4gig ram).

its worth mentioning THIS:
ATI wasnt told that crytosis was in progress, and havnt heard of it before legitreviews tested the beta, its an "nvidia meant to be playd game".
And ofcourse, physx is utilized, and is almost required, i still have fun playing through the game at 18 fps with my madass system, see specs.
thats 1920x1200 and 0xMSAA shader 3.0 win 7.

thats something crysis does very nice btw ;)
Click to expand...


im supprised you dont get more FPS than that though, im damn sure i get more than 18fps with my set up (see specs) thats 1920x1080 everything on very high, no msaa
 
damn looks like a fun mod, but i cant play it online, connection too slow
 
JC316 said:
Nope. Lost Planet is the most taxing. I can run Crysis DX10, 1400x900, no motion blur, but everything else set to high with ease. Can't do the same with lost planet.
Click to expand...

agreed , but in same time this game have bad engine cuz you see some high dop in FPS just like farcry2 but you right about most taxing
 
Imsochobo said:
Crytosis is the hardest ive come across!.

But GTA IV comes close, and crysis is one of the hardest though, but is the best looking game EVER, and is quite optimized if you ask me.


Think, Graphics vs requirements, i can actually play warhead on a HD2400 PRO 3ghz E6850 which we have at school (4gig ram).

its worth mentioning THIS:
ATI wasnt told that crytosis was in progress, and havnt heard of it before legitreviews tested the beta, its an "nvidia meant to be playd game".
And ofcourse, physx is utilized, and is almost required, i still have fun playing through the game at 18 fps with my madass system, see specs.
thats 1920x1200 and 0xMSAA shader 3.0 win 7.

thats something crysis does very nice btw ;)
Click to expand...

It doesn't use physx, Nvidia-Ageia PhysX I mean, so a Nvidia card doesn't help at all in that respect. Crysis physics engine is 100% custom made by Crytek, no middleware was used. It just uses the GPU (ANY brand) for some effects physics, which is not the same at all.

Crysis launched a good amount of months before Nvidia bought Ageia anyway and considering that rumors about Ageia being in talk with AMD (yeah according to rumors Ageia did offer to AMD first. = fail AMD, IMHO) arised around SEP 2007, I doubt Nvidia even KNEW they would be offering PhysX in the next months.

Are Nvidia cards better suited for running any kind of physics on the GPU? Sure, thanks to it's "a little bit more CPU-like" cache architecture. But it has nothing to do with any PhysX-like GPU accelerated physics. In fact, after playing a lot with the settings and the cvars, I'm almost 100% sure that what makes Crysis so taxing is the physics system and it would have play much better if PhysX was used.
 
Well these are pretty old but, its me playing around in -devmode. Here is all very high DX10 1680x1050, 64bit, AA x2; r_displayinfo 1 is on. The nuke, moar effects are beautifully done along with the character models!

Hmm... hat or no hat?


HAT!


This is my fictional idea of killing someone


MORE MOARRR!!!
 
farcry 2 is harder on my system than anything else, even crysis, but I think its cause its coded like crap.
 
Far Cry 2 can run like a piece of crap too, mostly due to pagefile problems though. Its not hard to keep it a 60 fps with all ultra.

There's some optimization problems with it as well, DX10 runs better and all but x2 AA running better with no AA is just weird. Although I haven't played the patched versions because after I bought it I could only last 2 hours before noticing the annoying spawn rate of enemy outposts.
 
Flight Simulator X will eat your pc, then crap it out and eat it again.

Stick all the graphics up as high as they go and take off from heathrow, I got about 7 fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top