backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by Armorize.. on Nov 3 at 9:59 PM

Crysis demo released; gamers lament the weakness of their PC hardware

Gamers who recently spent a considerable sum of money on a high-end video card will finally find that their piece of hardware is no longer overkill. That’s right, the Crysis single-player demo is here as promised by the developers late last month.

The demo was originally set for release on September 25, but developer Crytek decided to push the public debut date back a month in the interest of quality. The retail date of November 16 still appears to be on-track.

“We are taking some extra time to make sure you that you have an amazing experience but also we did not want to risk the release date of Crysis at this stage,” Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek, explained regarding the delay. “To get the game into your hands by November the 16th, we had to make this call.”

The demo may be downloaded directly from an EA Canada web server. The 1.77GB download includes the entire first level and the CryEngine 2 - Sandbox 2 game editor, giving the community an opportunity to get familiar with the tools before the retail game ships.

As should be well known by now, Crysis is the most hardware-demanding game to ship this year. Those who are interested in diving into the demo should read the official system requirements and recommendations before downloading.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

25 Fps average on my setup..
By Soldier38 on 10/28/2007 1:58:04 AM , Rating: 3
My GTS 640 did it justice even though Im not getting 30+. Its still very playable on all high settings at 1920 x 1200. Nice job on the demo. Its not just Far Cry polished like some have said. Looking forward to full version on the 16th!

X2 6000+ at 3.2 Ghz
2 Gb Gskill DDR2
GTS 640 OCed to 550/1700
2 x Raptors 150 Gb Win Xp
24 " Flat panel 1920 x 1200
XFI Sound




RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Le Québécois on 10/28/2007 2:27:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
X2 6000+ at 3.2 Ghz
2 Gb Gskill DDR2
GTS 640 OCed to 550/1700
2 x Raptors 150 Gb Win Xp
24 " Flat panel 1920 x 1200
XFI Sound


If you're running it on Windows XP, you don't have everything at the Highest settings. The game uses some heavy DX10 graphics enhancement. Just look at some of the DX10 VS DX9 trailers from http://www.gametrailers.com.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Omega215D on 10/28/2007 3:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
Gotta admit, it still looks good at DX9. As for me and my GeForce 7900GS we'll stick to 800x600 or 1024X768 which is what I usually play at for almost all my first person shooters.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By StevoLincolnite on 10/28/2007 9:46:26 AM , Rating: 5
Great! Now to fire it up on my trusty Voodoo 2!


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By AzureKevin on 10/28/2007 3:23:28 PM , Rating: 3
I prefer my Voodoo 3 PCI version.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By das mod on 10/29/2007 11:18:30 AM , Rating: 2
pfffft !! n00bs

integrated video chipset FTMFW !!!


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By StevoLincolnite on 10/29/2007 2:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
If you haven't heard, the Voodoo 2 12mb card has been capable of running Quake 4, Doom 3 and Half Life 2, Integrated Cards these days have TnL and Pixel shading, which is what the Voodoo 2 lacks, it actually never officially came out with Windows XP drivers either, and people with a Geforce 3 Ti200 are able to play Oblivion :)

People with a Radeon 9500/9550/9600 can run Bioshock as well ;)
Isn't it amazing how far technology has come?


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By SlyNine on 10/31/2007 10:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
People can play modifide version's of said games. Oldblivion. still kinda nice for people with older hardware but not as seemless as it sounds.


By murphyslabrat on 11/1/2007 9:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, I played Oblivion using OldBlivion and a PCI Radeon 9200. I had several of the visuakl settings turned off, and it got a little choppy when I got into complicated heavily populated scenes. So, while it looked a lot like the kind of game that the R200 core was designed to run, it was definitely playable, even as a wizardly char (meaning lots of flashy magic effects). And you'd better not be expecting much more than that from integrated graphics or such an old card (yeah, 2001)


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By semo on 10/28/2007 9:42:35 AM , Rating: 1
and some people wonder what's the point of consoles and predicting their immediate demise. here is a current gen pc (bleeding edge in my eyes) and already there's a game that overtaxes it in terms of graphics and cpu power. also there was recently an article on at anandtech about games running on vista struggling with their memory allocation.

i don't mean to start a flame war (i mean it, fanboys need not reply) but i find it interesting how demanding pc games have become.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Sahrin on 10/28/2007 9:58:37 AM , Rating: 4
The Ars memory article was about the 32-bit memory allocation limitation - NOT Vista (though 32-bit Vista was mentioned to demonstrate the limitation, so was XP - and Vista x64 resolves the issue). The article was about how Vista fixes the problem, not about Vista's "memory allocation issues."

Please stop spreading Vista FUD - if you don't know what you're talking about shutup. Real people are coming to this site taking your bad information and making the wrong decisions because of it.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=30...


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By semo on 10/28/2007 10:40:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. Vista is using more address space than XP in all situations
2. The amount of address space used with Vista seems to be related to the amount of video memory on our video card
3. XP on the other hand does not fluctuate at all, the address space usage is the same no matter what card we use.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
it doesn't matter what the issue is. "real people" would find their game using quite a lot of memory if they installed a recent game on their shiny new dell xps running vista instead of winxp
quote:
Unfortunately the fix is not all roses at this time. Microsoft classifies this as a hotfix which may still be undergoing further testing, which means they aren't recommending that most users install this fix, nor are they even making the fix easy to get.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=30...
i.e. not for "real people" just yet.
quote:
i don't mean to start a flame war (i mean it, fanboys need not reply) but i find it interesting how demanding pc games have become.
you've totally missed the point of my post


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By DesertCat on 10/28/2007 11:28:47 AM , Rating: 5
While it's still considered a hotfix, that patch fixes the issue and has been out since August (which is the date of the Anandtech article). For most people gaming on Vista, that's old news on a resolved issue. Thus, bringing it up again sounds like Vista FUD, whether that was your intent or not.

Yes, it's not officially released for everyone through windows update, which is MS being conservative (e.g. average Joe business user doesn't need it anyway). Gamers should go get the hotfix. Nvidia even includes the link on their recommended hotfix page for Vista.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/windows_vista_hotfixe...

For Vista users that keep their rig patched, seeing posts that claim "Vista is struggling with memory allocation in games" is bringing up an issue that was resolved months ago.



RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By DesertCat on 10/28/2007 11:35:46 AM , Rating: 5
As to the original intent of your post, there have always been demanding PC games that push people to upgrade their rig. It's part of being part of pushing things to the next level.

Kings Quest (1984) got people interested in VGA graphics over CGA

Wing Commander (early 90's) got people to upgrade to a Soundblaster card so that they could buy and hear the optional "voice packs"

Diablo was the "killer app" that finally got me to upgrade to Windows 95.

Yes, consoles are nice because they provide platform stability. Some people prefer computer games, however, and these days it's where the tech is being pushed.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By semo on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By hubajube on 10/28/2007 12:17:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
i'm not mentioning ms or their products in my posts ever again on this site.


"Screw you guys I'm going home."


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By aos007 on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Ringold on 10/28/2007 3:01:50 PM , Rating: 5
It has to at least be accurate.

For example: Game performance sucks in Vista.

That'd be FUD.

The truth, but never often said by detractors, would be: Game performance sucked for about two months, and now it's geat.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Screwballl on 10/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By DEVGRU on 10/30/2007 11:36:29 AM , Rating: 1
I call BS.

Game performance in Vista sucks compared to XP.

Which, in shorthand, and IMHO, means it sucks.

If Microsoft wants people to shell out insane amounts of money for an under-performing, DRM'd, asinine EULA'd, bloated, and promise-broken featured OS - then it sure as hell better perform head and shoulders above their last OS released 5+ years ago (nevermind "tying" DX10 to Vista, FORCING people to 'upgrade' instead of a general release which would have benefited everyone.).

It doesn't. And its Microsoft's fault. THEY wanted to change the driver model and layering. Nevermind if the majority of vendors are having serious issues coding them, thats MS's ball to drop - which is not surprising as they decided to change the rules of the game - and now they get to pay for their shortsightedness.

Vista has EARNED and deserves most of the bad rap its received.

All that being said, I LIKE Vista. I don't use it, but I have - because I'm not one of 'those' people who bag on something they've never actually tried or used. I did, and I liked it - in 2 or 3 years I'm sure it will be a worthy upgrade to XP. As it stands now, its just too much BS to worry about. I'm a gamer. And DX10 aside, and all things being equal (i.e. PC hardware) Vista simply doesn't cut it for compatibility, reliability, or SPEED.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Targon on 10/28/2007 6:27:01 PM , Rating: 4
There are also the "true" computer people who will have their preferences, yet still dislike seeing FUD spread about ANY product. Too many people bash Microsoft because it's Microsoft, not because of any other reason.

There are valid issues with Vista, and it's fair to comment on those, but at the same time, too many people who have never used Vista(other than for a few minutes) will say how horrible it performs.

I am NOT a fan of Microsoft, but many of the issues we see are related to the limits of 32 bit. Linux may not have the memory footprint of Vista, but even then, if you managed to get some of these games working under Linux, you would STILL run into memory issues at some point, if not with the current games, then with games that get released in another 2 years.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By codeThug on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Aikouka on 10/29/2007 6:40:49 AM , Rating: 4
If you don't have that hotfix installed when you run the Crysis setup, it will alert you to this and even send you to Microsoft's page for the hotfix.

Personally, I never installed it because I had no problems as I have 4GB of RAM (in Vista Ultimate x64) anyway. So the entire point of your post is really not a big deal.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Ringold on 10/28/2007 2:57:29 PM , Rating: 3
I don't get the point. You can run these games with the IQ you find on a console, or with high end hardware can run it at an IQ level that blows away consoles and won't be matched until 1080i is replaced with a higher resolution and the hardware to drive it all.

I don't predict the demise of consoles, they'll be as popular as ever, but it doesn't negate the fact that for plenty of people PC gaming is vastly preferred. Higher potential image quality, wider variety of games, etc. And yes, higher cost, but every other component beyond the vid card is easily justified without gaming.

Of course, much easier to get the girls in to it with a Wii.. the platforms can all co-exist, I think.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By wallijonn on 10/30/2007 2:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
wider variety of games, etc. And yes, higher cost, but every other component beyond the vid card is easily justified without gaming.


Wider variety of games? I would think the consoles have greater variety and greater number of games released than PCs.

As for costs, upgrading to a PCI-E vidcard will necessitate a whole new PC (versus an older AGP system.) You're looking at about $1200 to $1500 then ($100 psu, $200 mobo, $300 vidcard, $300 cpu, $200 RAM, $100 SATA HD, $50 DVD burner, $200 VISTA.) Other than gaming there is little justification for a PCI-E vidcard since most people don't do CAD/CAM at home. And if you're upgrading from AGP to PCI-E, then you may as well throw in a $700 23" wide screen flat panel display. That will be about $2000 to play 4 or 5 PC games a year.


By Shadowmaster625 on 10/31/2007 4:14:56 PM , Rating: 3
or you could pay $80 for a mobo, $110 for a cpu, $60 for a psu, $60 for ram, $60 for a HDD, $30 for a DVD burner, get an old case, mouse and kb for free, and finally spend $200 on a video card. There you have it. $600 for something much much more powerful than a PS3. :O


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By walk2k on 10/28/07, Rating: 0
By Le Québécois on 10/29/2007 12:28:26 AM , Rating: 3
That wasn't my point at all. I stated than he was not running the game with the the highest settings possible. I have no doubt the game looks good on XP and runs ok but it does not compare to the DX10 version.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By choirbass on 10/28/2007 10:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
i may have not had very high expectations for my hardware being mostly from 2005, and am not much for fps games in general, though i thought i would give the demo a try after hearing about about it for months, but even running the below hardware on the highest settings @ 1280x1024 native, with a few sacrifices too (0xAA, low shaders and shadows, DX9), the game is completely playable, as in above 20fps avg (wasnt using fraps to really tell), since it was playable at those settings, which should be the main emphasis, at least to me anyhow, with graphics quality coming in second.

XP x64 sp2
X2 3800+ @ 2.4
2.5GB PC3200
7800GT 256
74GB ADFD Raptor
19" LCD


By therealnickdanger on 10/29/2007 12:23:35 AM , Rating: 2
Vista 32
E6300 C2D 1.8GHz
2GB DDR2-800
7950GT

65fps
800x600
Combination of low, medium, and high settings. No AA or AF.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By daBKLYNdoorman on 10/28/2007 12:33:31 PM , Rating: 3
I'm getting an average of 40 FPS on my setup:

Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 2.4Ghz
2GB Crucial Ballistix RAM
320GB Seagate PRT HD
GeForce 8800GTS 320 EVGA
ASUS P5B-Deluxe
Windows XP Pro
All new drivers for GeForce

Thats at 1680 x 1050 resolution all on medium.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By fk49 on 10/28/2007 9:34:04 PM , Rating: 3
With all settings on low, I get about 50fps at 800x600 and 25fps at 1440x900.

-Athlon 64 3200
-Ati x1600xt
-2gb ddr2 667
-Vista 64-bit

The grass is very ugly but its still very playable and everything else looks pretty good. Just a reference for those with lower end computers.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By feraltoad on 10/29/2007 4:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
15 FPS avg on High at 1680x1050. Ouch.

q6600 @ 3Ghz
ABIT IP35Pro
2GB Ballistix
1900xtx @688mhz core 7.10 drivers
36gb Raptor(OS)
500gb WD5000AAKS
WinXP MCE

Oh, if your not happy with your framerate max out the AA and play for 5 minutes, then turn it off and play. It will feel like you upgraded. :p

Bioshock ran great w/this setup, but Crysis on High really is phenomenal. The final release might run better, and I'm sure nVidia and ATi will optimize their drivers to squeeze some extra performance. Plus it's so rough on cards it will force the hand of NV and ATi to pump out some better cards. Hell, with all the games out in '07 you could wait a year before you run out of new things to play.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By returnofdjango on 10/29/2007 6:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
I just got my IP35 Pro and I have a G0 q6600.
WOuld you mind sending me all your BIOS settings and BIOS version!!!!, as well as tell me your cooler, and memory? I can't get mine past 2.7Ghz ...thanks.

i really would appreciate it.


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By feraltoad on 10/30/2007 3:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Freezer Pro 7. I found it for like $22 shipped so I couldn't resist. I used the TIM included with the cooler after reading a really positive review of their TIM. The memory is a Crucial Ballistix Kit of 2x1GB BL128664AA804.

Bios version date 9/06/2007 version 1BC14. I used the FlashMenu program to update it. I usually use a floppy but this program worked great to update the BIOS thru windows.

Believe it or not I'm using uGuru program to OC. I used to only go through the BIOS since an windows OCing was unstable but I haven't had a single problem with it. I've ran 2 instances of Prime 95 for an hour and gamed with BioShock and ETQW for hours and hours even while encoding video, probably not the most thorough testing but I've been having 2 much fun using the PC to mess with it. Plus, you can set up profiles with uGuru! Anyway I setup OC Guru profile USER2 with these settings ExtClk 334 PCIEClk 100 VCORE 1.2875 MCH 1.37 CPUVTT 1.20 ICH 1.12 CPUGTLREF 1&3 67% DDR2 2.00 ICHIO 1.6 DDR2REF 0% CPUGTLREF 0&2 67%. It automatically runs the memory at DDR1000 when I enable the OC, I've checked the memspeed through CPUz. Oh, and I set Fan EQ through uGuru to kick in to 100% fan speed at 44c.

Oh, and you need version uGuru v3105. v3104 would NOT load on my system. If you have that problem list ur email here and I will email it to you. I found it on a forum where someone found it elsewhere that ABIT's site only lists v3104 as latest but that POS would not load. But I can't find the forum I found it on to give you a link.

Good Luck!


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By Screwballl on 10/29/2007 1:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
Had no problem in DX9 at medium settings with my system:
E6600, X1950GT, 2GB DDR2, 1440x900

it played smooth as can be and looked great... would be nice to see if DX10 is really worth the extra $$$ or just a little bit of eye candy


RE: 25 Fps average on my setup..
By TxJeepers on 10/29/2007 1:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
IDK what these nubs are complaining about, bad programming aside, it is always nice to see programs that push the limits. Do you want software vendors to always cater to hardware vendors? No, and not the other way either. A balance is what is needed. Each always pushing the other towards further performance. It will happen anyway, but come on, those complaining about programs written for high end machines is so lame.

X2 4200
2GB Patriot
7950 GT
XP
Nvidia drivers from August LOL
Medium settings across the board at 1024x768.
Fraps: averaged around 30fps+
Cut scenes fluctuate up and down to the teens.
Playable but not ideal. I'd like to be getting more.
But you know what, I wanted to build a new box anyway. What a great excuse to do so.


Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By Noya on 10/28/2007 3:56:03 AM , Rating: 2
Can someone with the above hardware comment on gameplay? I want to know if it's worth upgrading now or waiting for the next high-end cards and Nehalem.




RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By shabby on 10/28/2007 12:06:53 PM , Rating: 2
Nehalem is a year away, new high end cards are probably 4-6 months away.
But maybe this will give you an idea how it'll run.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1211/crysis_demo...


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By walk2k on 10/28/2007 1:56:10 PM , Rating: 1
Actually Penryn quad core (Yorkfield) will be out by end of the year and the duos (Wolfdale) early next year. Also the NV 8800GT (512MB) will be out very soon, like next week I read, and will be a very nice DX10 card that outperforms the GTS for less money. Depends on what you have now but if you have a decent 1-2 yr old system they are definitly worth waiting for.

I don't think Crysis is going to be a game worth upgrading your PC for if you already have a modern-ish (less than 1.5 yrs old) system (ie dual core X2 or C2D and NV 7 series top of the line 7900 or NV8 series).

I mean Far Cry was a good game (annoying "knows where you are always" AI though), I played thru it once but that's about it, not like it has multiplayer to bring you back.


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By walk2k on 10/28/2007 1:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
Now Unreal 3 maybe....


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/28/2007 3:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
Q6600 @ 3.06GHz and 8800GTX, gameplay is decent, averaging 60FPS all settings maxed 4Gigs RAM, Vista Ultimate 64.


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By Smoza on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By BitJunkie on 10/28/2007 6:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
Call BS if you want but you'll be wrong. I have a Q6600 (stock speed for now), 8800GTX Evga AC3 oc'd version, 4 GB RAM, and running on Vista x64 at 1920 x 1200. I didn't check the frame rate but it's smooth as you like and looks fantastic.


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/28/2007 8:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm at 1280x1024


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By BitJunkie on 10/28/2007 9:13:46 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not using AA, just played it again at the res you quote and it's noticably smoother, but personally I can handle it at 1920 x 1200....it's not a slide show and being an old git, I don't react that fast anyway :P


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By feraltoad on 10/29/2007 5:00:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I didn't check the frame rate


I hope your not a Doctor. Or at least not mine.

Strange, heres a GTX only getting 37.7 avg FPS at 1600x1200 no AA/AF.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/geforce_880...

Too bad eVGA doesn't offer an AC3 oc'd Honda Fit, it would hold its own with a Murcielago with semi-comfortable seating for 4! ;)


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By BitJunkie on 10/29/2007 6:58:24 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't check the framerate because it plays just fine to my eye.

If you check the graph from that link you'll see they have 8x AA on and get 18 FPS. I added later that I'm not using AA - I think it's a waste of time at that high resolution. Specially when I can get smooth high quality performance with only a small change in IQ (to my eye).

You'll also notice that those benchmarks were peformed with 2 GB of RAM, when I posted before that my system is running with 4GB and using 2.25GB.

The point is that it isn't crawling, and If I set everything at Very High and reduce post processing effects to High it flies at 1920 x 1200.


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By BitJunkie on 10/29/2007 7:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it's 8x AF and 4x AA, Regardless, you'll see that without AA or AF they are showing pretty much 30 FPS for 1900 x 1400 or whatever bizzare res. they used.


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By feraltoad on 10/30/2007 3:40:16 AM , Rating: 1
That is a weird resolution; thought it was 1200. They also only got 38fps at 16x12 no AA or AF. At any rate, I think you have the right attitude that if it looks good and plays good then who cares what the frame rate is. To my eyes anything in the mid twenties looks fine to me as long as it is solid, I thought the 15 fps I was playing at seemed ok since it was steady, I think I have "slow" eyes or low expectations. I was just saying that you weren't getting 60 fps because from what everyone is reporting and from benchmarks I've seen that really isn't going to happen with everything on High at a big resolution with the current hardware available. Which isnt to say it isnt running great on your PC. Since we keep posting you should just check it with fraps, it has that nifty benchmark feature and post it. I think you will find it is not 60 fps average. If it is then I'll say you were correct and maybe I need to get another 2gb of ram! I'm not trying to be a dick, although I am obviously anal :), I just don't think it is very scientific or appropriate to make claims based assumptions and protest people's objections if you won't test it when it is really easy. Fraps is free too! Cheers


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By enlil242 on 10/28/2007 3:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can someone with the above hardware comment on gameplay? I want to know if it's worth upgrading now or waiting for the next high-end cards and Nehalem.


With all do respect to the above poster... I have a q6600 at stock speed and a factory OC'd 8800GTX by MSI. I have not seen fluid FPS with all settings maxed out. I am very disappointed that I have to dumb down the settings so much that it diminishes the look of the graphics just to play it... That said, I do have a 24 inch monitor playing at 1920 x 1200. Perhaps running on a 19 inch at 1280 x 1024 I could get the performance I would appreciate...

I am also disappointed that games like this come out that brings high end systems such as mine to it's knees. For this reason, I am going to pass on this game. I prefer games such as Lost Planet, Half Life 2, Bioshock, COD4 that are great looking as well as run smooth on current gen high end systems.


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By timmiser on 10/28/2007 6:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
That's funny. I personally drool over games that will push my system to the next level. This is when it is exciting to be in PC Gaming.

Bring it on!


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By SiliconAddict on 10/28/2007 8:26:00 PM , Rating: 3
Where is the line between pushing a system to the "next level" (Whatever the hell that means.) and just shit programming? Not claiming that this game is poorly programed but you never saw this shit in years past.
A top of the line, or near top of the line PC could always run rings around any game that came out. Doom 3 changed all this with requirements that weren't even on the market yet. They advertised it as a "game that could grow with your system." which was a load of bullshit. Since then we've seen more and more of these games come out. Games that do not cater to the common denominator in hardware but the absolute high end gamer who has 5K invested in their rig. Instead of upgrading one's hardware a thought....don't buy the game. Developers will get the clue and start coding for high end but not extreme high end rigs.


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By SlyNine on 10/31/2007 10:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
What about Giants Citizan Kubuto SP? . That game was way to much for the Geforce 2 Ultra and If memory serves even the Geforce 3 ( it came out after the game) wasnt able to push it at high resolutions smoothly.


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By enlil242 on 10/28/2007 11:26:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bring it on!

That makes no sense... Look, I don't mind developers pushing the limits of *current* hardware. That is what I expect them to do. But to create a game that only a future video card / processor can handle is plain stupid and I will not buy a game I cannot play with my system plain and simple...

I just did a wholesale upgrade this past summer complete with and Nforce 680i, Q6600, 8800GTX, 2GB of memory and it seems that I am now just able to play F.E.A.R and Rainbow Six at full settings ... so I guess I'll just pick up Crysis next year or whenver I upgrade again. At least then I'll be able to get it for sub $19.99...

I know with the development cycles the way they are, it may be hard to anticipate the technology that might be availbale when your project is released, but I think they can *try* to make $3,000 machines able to play the game at acceptable settings. (again, see Half Life 2: Orange Box, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Lost Planet).

So, for all of you out there with 22+ inch monitors that pick it up, enjoy playing at medium settings! ;-)


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By timmiser on 10/29/2007 12:56:32 AM , Rating: 5
You guys must be new to PC gaming because this is how it has always been.

Wing Commander 2 and Links 386 were two games that came out when the 386 was a $3000 PC and that was the minimum but they didn't run great until the 486 came out!

US Navy Fighters was released during the 486 days but it wasn't until 2 years later when you could run it at full resolution and settings. It featured resolutions that were unheard of, you couldn't buy a monitor for under $5000 that supported the resolutions it could support! That was back when everybody had 14" monitors at 640x480 or 800x600 or if you dropped a grand on a 17" monitor you could do 1024x768!

Nascar Racing 2003 and Rally Trophy were another couple games where you could forget about running them at max settings at the time they were released.

Even last year, Microsoft Flight Sim X you STILL can't run at max settings yet and get decent frame rates even with the hottest hardware.

The point is, this is what makes PC gaming what it is... Bleeding edge technology! Any whiners need to get over it or go back to their Xboxes and Playstations!


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By NicePants42 on 10/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By 1078feba on 10/30/2007 4:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
Gonna run the demo tonight on my dual Ultras, will report back once I get the chance.

I can say it with confidence right now though: if it chugs at all at 1680x1050 at medium/meduim-high settings, I will be pissed rofl.

FX-60 @3.2
4GB DDR-500


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By BitJunkie on 10/29/2007 3:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
It would be interesting to know what is the bottleneck on your system. I just did a check and when I'm running Crysis on my system (spec in a post above) it shows I'm using 2.25GB of memory, 672MB of which is directly for the Crysis exe and there's 15% CPU utilisation.

If you have 2GB of memory then you will probably be hitting the page file at some point. Which then takes you into the realms of disk IO which I always remember as being bad news. Since being a cash strapped student and hearing my 386 dx 40 thrashing away at it's hard drive - I've always attempted to avoid that ;) It still brings me out in cold shivers.

Anyway, I seem to recall that the larger your gfx memory the more main memory is reserved for the game - so 4GB is probably what is helping me out. There'll be a local optima in performance for people with 2GB of memory using graphics cards with less memory than 768MB or whatever is on the 8800GTX.

I think MS put a hotfix out that reduced the reserved memory for 3d games:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa...

Probably worth checking whether you installed that - can't recall if it comes down via Windows Update...


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By enlil242 on 10/29/2007 4:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, I installed the hotfix during the demo install. It is worth noting that it is not by any means unplayable. I just had to lower the settings, turn of AA, AF if I was to keep playing at 1920x1200. And even though I did that, it chugged in parts. I have just been getting used to games finally running like silk on my machine since I upgraded...

To Timmiser: I am by no means new to gaming. Since Pong I think I have played almost all types of consoles and PC games. Plus I jumped on the 3D train full force when I forked over the cash to upgrade my game system with a DUAL Diamond Monster 3D card setup! ($700 for both in 1996/97). My point is, it doesn't make me a n00b or a console head to want *current* games to take advantage of *current* hardware. I guess it's the software that pushes harware vendors to up the ante...

For that I'll wait to play the game until it plays the way I like it. Simple as that. Perhaps when the '9800GTX' comes out.


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By timmiser on 11/1/2007 5:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes new games will come out that push the latest hardware to their limits and sometimes the new hardware that comes out has no software to push it to the limit. Either way, some people get annoyed at this which is what I don't understand.


RE: Q6600 and 8800GTX?
By SlyNine on 10/31/2007 10:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
If you are running a 32 bit OS and didnt do the mod to let you use 3gb for apps 1gig for kernal. Then Crysis will never use more then 2 gigs no matter how much ram or VM you have. So anyone with a 32bit OS shouldnt go out and buy more ram if they have 2 gigs allready.


800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By RMSe17 on 10/28/2007 2:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
Had to dump resolution to 800x600 for it to be really playable on my system, all settings as high as it would let me. (high for everything). 1024x768 showed pretty bad lag (below 20fps) pretty often.

C2D E6600 @ 3.6GHz
GeForce 7950GT 512MB
WinXP SP1
2GB Mushkin Redline 8000...




RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By Exodus220 on 10/28/2007 3:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you only using WinXP SP1...seems like you should have SP2 for all those updates that are necessary. I can't figure out why it is so poor on your system when it seems like a decent one.


RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By goku on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By darkpaw on 10/28/2007 10:00:50 AM , Rating: 4
As a security auditor, any machine without SP2 is pretty much easy prey. I love seeing those.

Not having SP2 installed is asking for it, almost as much as running NT or earlier.


RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By goku on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By mechBgon on 10/28/2007 2:33:51 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Any machine with Windows is easy prey so what is your point?

I disagree :) Windows is quite securable, with my malware-hunting systems being a point in case. For those who want suggestions: http://www.mechbgon.com/build/security2.html

Additionally, anyone reading the Microsoft security intelligence reports ( http://www.microsoft.com/sir ) can see for themselves that SP2-equipped Windows machines are far less likely to be compromised than pre-SP2, and Vista is far less likely yet.

quote:
At least 95% of the security updates can be had separately from SP2, question is, will microsoft continue to issue patches that are compatible with SP1.

No, that era has ended. SP1 support has expired. If you don't have SP2, you will not be able to get security updates that resolve serious vulnerabilities that the bad guys are exploiting right now. Also, there was a great deal of extra hardening and elimination of attack surface that went into SP2. You won't get those benefits on SP1, period, no matter what patches you install. So, given the current security climate, I would suggest getting SP2 immediately.

Here's more food for thought, just one morsel that illustrates the point:

quote:
Real Media has become the latest ad network to be outed as an unwitting ally to cyber crooks. In September, it was disclosed that Yahoo!-owned Right Media served about 12 million ads over three weeks, which silently installed a Trojan back door on unpatched Windows machines. The ads were served on MySpace, PhotoBucket and other popular web destinations.


from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/real_media...

If the relevance isn't quite apparent: normally-safe website can become unsafe . It happens all the time. And no, just using an alternative browser will not make you safe from the tactics being used :) They include exploiting unpatched Windows vulnerabilties and third-party vulnerabilities as well.

Tangentially, check your system for vulns with the Secunia Software Inspector: http://secunia.com/software_inspector Not many people come up 100% patched on their third-party stuff (Adobe Reader, Java, Flash Player, WinAmp, QuickTime, etc). The bad guys are happily exploiting those vulns in the wild, so get them fixed.

MVP, Windows Shell/User


RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By goku on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By mechBgon on 10/28/2007 7:43:53 PM , Rating: 5
goku , the article illustrates my point: you will not necessarily avoid danger solely by what you consider smart surfing. A few weeks ago, we had reports of malware detection on an AnandTech front-page article here. The RealPlayer exploit article isn't meant to illustrate anything specifically about SP2, but simply about the fact that exploits can happen at normally-safe sites. If that were an ANI exploit, for example, you would need SP2 to be immune to it, since the necessary patch is available for SP2 only. ANI exploits are indeed found in infected banner advertisements sometimes.

quote:
And considering you find the "Security Center and Windows Firewall" a "feature" I have to call into question your sanity. Sure Windows Firewall may seem like it's better than nothing except it isn't because it gives a false sense of security which is why it's bad. Install a virus in the system and the "firewall" can easily be disabled which is why I'm against any form of "software firewalls".

I happen to be a SiteAdvisor reviewer with an 8/9 Reputation rating, who deals with live malware and exploits every day, so you can be assured that my advice has faced plenty of live-fire testing ;) and continues to face it practically every day. If you can find me a piece of malware that can disable the Windows Firewall from within a Limited account, which is the approach I suggest to my readers, then I'm definitely interested in hearing about that. The garish Security Center may seem awful to a DailyTech reader, but think about the average un-geeky homeowner who thinks their 4-year-old Norton software is providing protection when it's not. They need a bit of hand-holding ;)

Anyhow, given what I see every day when doing malware research, I would strongly advise using Service Pack 2 on WinXP, and all the other security updates for your software, Microsoft and otherwise, in addition to risk avoidance. The reduction in attack surface, addition of DEP, elimination of known network-worm vulnerabilities and availability of the most recent security updates are plenty of reason. If you feel there is a performance hit involved... then overclock that puppy! ;)

MVP, Windows Shell/User


RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By goku on 10/29/2007 2:20:29 PM , Rating: 1
Well considering that microsoft has provided GDI Vulnerability patches and the like for Windows XP SP2 and Windows 2000 SP4, I'd say that microsoft not allowing the installation of said patch on Pre SP2 systems is their way of forcing the installation of SP2 on systems that haven't had done so. I believe this is what you're referring to:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin... I'll be searching and or working for a way to fool patches/programs and the like into thinking a SP1 equipped system has SP2 and then will see if the benefits can be seen and also if there are dependencies created by SP2 though I doubt this is always the case.

Service Pack 2, excusing all the unnecessary "requirements" that microsoft and others have imposed for the sake of having it installed, is the worst thing to happen to Windows XP since well Windows XP. Personally if I could use all the programs I wanted with Windows 2000 I would, but because developers create arbitrary barriers preventing the installation and use of certain programs, I'm forced to use Windows XP.

Also like I said, if you block the ads that are coming to your computer in the first place, in this specific circumstance you wouldn't have been infected by the malware implanted into those ad serving companies.


RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By SavagePotato on 10/28/07, Rating: -1
By BitJunkie on 10/29/2007 4:27:20 AM , Rating: 4
This post was brought to you by Flames r' Us™. 10/10.


RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By SiliconAddict on 10/29/2007 12:51:42 AM , Rating: 1
That's a load of bullshit. SP2 has been out for over 3 years now. There is ZERO reason to be on it and if some developer has not updated their wares to be compatible with it at this point you should be dropping their ass like a load of bullshit which oddly enough is what this argument boils down to. Seriously most of the reasons an app does not work with SP2 can be mitigated with minor tweaks. At this point in time there are DOZENS of patches that CAN NOT be installed without SP2 and many of those are worm based that can sneak by AV software and even MS's built in firewall.
Again its beyond insane not to be on SP2 at this point and any argument to the contrary is a loosing battle as anyone who deals with IT security will tell you. Year one yes. There were bugs to be worked out. Applications to be fixed. Year two fine. OK. There were still internal apps at many companies that needed to be updated. But at this point? Hell no.


RE: 800x600 HIGH - E6600@3.6 7950GT 512
By goku on 10/29/2007 2:23:22 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong, if you're running legacy applications that aren't being supported anymore then your only choice is to NOT use Service Pack 2, period. Not to mention the additional system resource consumption is reason enough to avoid it.


Put my buddies PC through the ringer
By Nik00117 on 10/28/2007 5:15:23 AM , Rating: 2
I have the follow system
E6600 no OC
8800GTS 640 MB
4 GIG RAM

I haven't played crysis yet but will soon

My buddy has a better system

E6850
8800GTX
2 GIG Of very high quality ram

It takes his system and simply trashes it. However he stated he didn't have all the updates tiher.




RE: Put my buddies PC through the ringer
By Lankym on 10/28/2007 10:47:06 AM , Rating: 2
Im running the following and it did pretty good.

E6600 @ 3 GHz
2 Gigs of XMS2 800
8800 GTX
Vista up to date

it ran absolutely fine on Very high at 1680 x 1050 with 4xAA

I dont get what all the problems are. Get your drivers and OS up to date and it'll work fine.


RE: Put my buddies PC through the ringer
By shabby on 10/28/2007 12:09:21 PM , Rating: 1
30fps is not absolutly fine imo.


By walk2k on 10/28/2007 3:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
30fps at high IQ is VERY good for an offline game.

This isn't a twitch-based online deathmatch game.

Now for Unreal 3 you will want 50-60 fps. :)


By Screwballl on 10/29/2007 1:36:59 PM , Rating: 2
30fps is very acceptable for a game such as this. People are so stuck on seeing 200fps in CS:S or other older games and they think anything under 100 is useless. Its been so long since we've had a game that taxes our hardware and got away from seeing how 30fps really is not that bad. Its all in our heads that anything under 60fps is not playable. the thing is that one game may look and run great at 30 fps yet another game is choppy and doesn't run well at 60fps.


For those of us with modest rigs...
By sh3rules on 10/28/2007 5:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
...not all is lost. I have to run everything on low, but I still get some decent gameplay. I can still have fun with the game until I get a new rig, since the gameplay is better than FarCry. I had fun with the demo, even though I had to run it at 1024 x 768 (the game looks like FarCry at this setting, which is not that bad).




RE: For those of us with modest rigs...
By walk2k on 10/28/2007 7:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
Plays great at 800x600 on Low settings and still looks pretty good. Not nearly as good as High/etc but not horrible either, totally acceptable for a low spec.

AMD X2 4400+ (dual core 2.2ghz) 2GB ram, 7800GT (256MB)


RE: For those of us with modest rigs...
By walk2k on 10/28/2007 7:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
Now set rez to 1280x1024 panel and Medium settings, bit choppy but very playable. On High it really grinds though.

For reference this system gets 4000 in 3dMark06


By sh3rules on 10/29/2007 8:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
At least you have double core. My rig:

Athlon 64 3000+
2GB RAM
6800GT 256

Probably I have the lowest specs here, but Crysis still runs on the lowest settings. With everything on high the game looks amazing (since it's a slide show, you have time to appreciate the details). Sometime in the next 4-5 months I'll be getting a new machine, and I'll get one of those quad core CPUs; I've been saving for a while.


just played it
By TMV192 on 10/28/2007 1:58:42 AM , Rating: 1
Definitely an improvement over the beta, but it's no Unreal 3 Engine. I haven't tried scaling it much but I can say at medium it looks a lot like Far Cry on Ultra High. Mostly my Orleans 3500+ holding me, I got 2GB DDR2 800 RAM and an X1900GT




RE: just played it
By Griswold on 10/28/2007 5:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
No, its not your CPU its your D3D9 card that holds you back.


RE: just played it
By hadifa on 10/28/2007 6:14:17 AM , Rating: 2
It is both the CPU and the GPU but considering this game can benefit from a quad core and considering the resolution (800*600) it is more the CPU.

I read a post from Crytech developers a few days ago which said if you have a balanced PC, you should first try to upgrade the CPU or something like that.


RE: just played it
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/29/2007 7:31:23 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't seen it taxing my quad core, but it does beat my graphics card into the ground.


15 FPS
By AggressorPrime on 10/28/2007 2:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
I get about 15 FPS on 1280x720, all medium settings, DX10 mode.

Core 2 Duo T7300
GeForce 8600M GT 256MB
2GB DDR2 667MHz
Windows Vista Ultimate x86

Sad thing is, playing at my native resolution (1920x1200), kills my system even with everything on low. Really wish Dell put 512MB GeForce 8600M GT's in their Inspiron 1720's.




RE: 15 FPS
By BitJunkie on 10/28/2007 6:43:08 PM , Rating: 3
That's a laptop spec. What were you expecting?


Here's hoping!
By tallguywithglasseson on 10/28/2007 3:23:10 AM , Rating: 2
Oi! Just bought a GeForce 8800GTS 320MB. Running with 2 GB of ram and a core 2 quad Q6600, hoping this will run Crysis OK on at least 1280 x 1024!




RE: Here's hoping!
By Domicinator on 10/28/2007 6:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
I have an identical system to yours, except I have the 640 MB GTS. I'm getting pretty good frames at 1280x1024 with everything on high EXCEPT for post processing, which I have on medium. The motion blur was destroying my fps, but it's better with that setting turned to medium. (It just means I don't get motion blur, which kind of annoys me anyway.)


Settle down
By Egglick on 10/28/2007 6:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly, the Far Cry demo wasn't completely polished either. Performance improved a bit with the final release, and also when ATI/NVidia optimized their drivers.

Bottom line, you can still expect a decent percentage of improvement with high-end cards. Midrange and older cards, not so much (or not enough to change a whole lot).




RE: Settle down
By mmntech on 10/28/2007 11:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
It could possibly be a beta demo. I know the Flight Simulator X demo didn't run as well as the final version.

Looks like I'm going to have to skip this one. If it's putting 8800 systems through the ringer, I doubt my 7600GS will even load the title screen. lol. That's why I've kind of given up on PC gaming. I enjoy it but my banker doesn't. Hopefully they'll follow through with the rumored console version, even at reduced quality, because Crysis does look like a decent game.


This game hates my CPU.
By jadeskye on 10/28/2007 1:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
Playing fine 1650x1080 on medium. 8800GTS 320 but my 939 AMD 3800+ X2 is failing me :(




RE: This game hates my CPU.
By jtemplin on 10/28/2007 9:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 939 3800+ @ 2740Mhz and an 8800gtx overclocked to 650/950. I will report back (sometime in the next week) with my results. Oh yea, and same resolution too!


FWIW...
By Gholam on 10/29/2007 4:59:17 AM , Rating: 2
Q6600, 4GB RAM, 8800GTS 640MB, no OC, Vista x64 Ultimate, ran almost smoothly at 1680x1050 4xAA all high settings.




RE: FWIW...
By CrimsonFrost on 10/29/2007 4:38:58 PM , Rating: 2
e6600 @3.2GHz CPU
EVGA 8800 GTX Superclocked Vid
4GB PC8500 Corsair Dominator RAM
Vista Ultimate 64-bit
1680x1050 22 inch LCD

Runs fine for me at all settings on "very high" with 4xAA. I did run into one problem on my first run when I tried nVidia's new beta driver 169.75 or something like that, really choppy gameplay(even though nVidia recommends it) reverted back to EVGA's 163.75, everything worked fine after that.

Something to keep in mind for all you framerate junkies, 30 FPS is the speed your movies play at, and anything past 60 FPS your eye can't tell the difference at that point. So at 60 or averaging, you can complain all you want that you expect higher, but you're simply being foolish.


My results
By FITCamaro on 10/29/2007 7:08:11 AM , Rating: 2
E6600 @ 3.0GHz
2GB RAM
512MB X1950XTX w/ Catalyst 7.10
2x74GB Raptors in RAID0
Audigy
22" LCD 1680x1050

Playing at 1400x1050(I don't know why but 1680x1050 wasn't an option) with everything high but 3 settings (shadows, volumetric effects, and one other) I averaged 20 fps. Was completely playable. I'm sure when I hit some scenes with a lot going on I might slow down a bit but we'll have to see. I'm gonna wait a month and see what the 8800GT and new 3800 series from ATI is like. Might upgrade. Who knows, might grab a quad core too.




RE: My results
By TimberJon on 10/29/2007 12:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
Beautiful! I expect the final to have a little more polish, and perhaps run better when the entire game is installed.

Stats:
Custom CyberPower Infinity SLI KO
X6800 paired w/Asus P5W water cooled
ATI X1950 256 Mb
Raid1 - 2x 250GB SATAII
3 GB PC6400 Dominators
UltraSharp 2007FP


I am impressed!
By Martimus on 10/30/2007 3:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
I have a semi-old system (I bought it around 3 years ago at tax time), yet I was able to play the demo at 1024x768 with low settings without even the slightest noticable frame-rate slow down. Beyond that, the low graphics settings still look very good on the game, so it still looked better than the STALKER game I have at high settings. I thought I would have to wait until I buy a better system to play Crysis like I do with Bioshock (since I don't have SM 3.0 - I have an X800 XL), but it looks good enough to play and enjoy on the computer I already have. I am very impressed that Crytek was able to make such a top line game scale so well to lower end systems without sacrificing much graphically. Other than water, everything on the Island looks great, and even the water isn't bad, it just looks like water from an average game.




RE: I am impressed!
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/30/2007 5:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 2900XT, and believe me, it doesn't look nearly as good on medium or lower compared to high and above. High shaders compared to medium is like night and day on how objects appear lit, and the whole depth of color and brightness in the scence. Other settings which require SM 3.0 also make a huge difference in appearance, and the overall realistic look and feel of the game. Unfortunately, all these great looks come at the cost of performance: Crysis cannot be run as it was meant to be seen on current hardware.


Need an upgrade soon...
By finbarqs on 11/2/2007 5:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
My Specs:
Q6600 @3.256 (1450 QDR)
4x1GB G.Skill 800 (3-3-3-9 1T linked/synced)
1x 8800GTX @ 630/1025
Soundblaster x-Fi
680i EVGA-A1 mobo
74gb raptor
1x500 gb maxtor
1x500 gb hitachi
NEC 20WMGX2

water cooled

my results on VERY HIGH is:
14.74FPS @1680x1050 0xAA
15.23FPS @1680x1050 0xAA

with the CPU and GPU benchmark they had.

Seriously, this game ripped a new one in my system. I had to try Lost Planet in DX10 just to make sure my Video card was running okay.




RE: Need an upgrade soon...
By CrimsonFrost on 11/2/2007 5:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's almost identical to my set up except the raptor, it's sad we spent so much on our stuff and this game trounces it... it does still play well on "High" settings though with 4xAA. I get the dreaded nvdkmblahblahholycrap.dll if I play too long on "Very High" though... nice...


Multi-core scaling?
By Axbattler on 10/28/2007 3:47:13 AM , Rating: 3
Could anyone with quad-core run some test at low resolution to see how the CryENGINE2 potentially scales with more CPU cores? I know that this game will most likely be GPU bound for most gameplay purposes, but I'd like to compare the findings with the Unreal Engine 3: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127...




Stupid 60Hz Bug!
By yxalitis on 10/29/2007 12:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
Damn Microsoft for this...another game that is stuck at 60Hz, joining Bioshock as headache-inducing games!

No, I'm sorry, nothing works, I run Vista X64, and nothing works,

No...

Nooo...!

Tried that

I'm serious here, anything you can think of I've tried, nothing works.

Refreshlock, ATI Tray Tools, RivaTuner, FocreRefresh, the Registry fix, nothing works

Why oh WHY can't game designers add the refresh rate in the resolution settings, crikey's, even Works 4 Mayhem had a refresh rate setting!

Bah, maybe the release will have it, I damn well hope so...




RE: Stupid 60Hz Bug!
By DarkElfa on 10/29/2007 12:46:11 AM , Rating: 1
This game pwned my PC, which I've never had happen before, I don't even think my next upgrade would allow me to master it, what a beast.


More Hardware need it
By DailyRMP on 11/2/2007 2:54:23 PM , Rating: 1
Hello !
Well…
I think that I’m only going to install Crysis when I have this system:

Windows Vista SP2
AMD Phenom X8 4 GHz (8 core)
8 GB Ram
ATI Crosfire HD3900 XTX 2 GB GDDR5
.
.

And maybe playing Crysis at 60 FPS at full 1980x1024 full settings….
How far am I?
Am I going to wait to long?




RE: More Hardware need it
By CrimsonFrost on 11/3/2007 12:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
The RAM seems like overkill, I have 4GB now and with the game running I am not using more than half of it for the whole system. SP2? Hahah, you're funny. Maybe... MAYBE the 3900s in Crossfire would keep this game running at a decent framerate.

I am looking for the next gen cards, I think they'll be the ones to actually whip this game into shape, at least I hope they will.


My pc almost died.....
By CyborgTMT on 10/28/2007 2:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
Just wait another week.
By mWMA on 10/28/2007 6:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
I had issue getting it run on 7800GTX SLI setup but I am glad to have waited upgrading my hardware to DX10.

Those who haven't bought a hardware to play the game just wait another week and half or 10 days and you will be able to buy new RV670 & G92 based video cards that would cost less than $300 and preform unto par with GTX Ultra. Nvidia has also promised new driver to fix SLI issue.

If you really want to play the game. Get the 2-3 of new cards that come out next month. SLI or crossfire em and play at 1920x1200 or 1680x1050 glory with every thing on and possible 4xAA 16xAF for decent enough framerate. Crossfire and SLI might be the only way to get this game to give back some decent framerate at high resolutions.




Performance
By adam92682 on 10/28/2007 12:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
I played it at 1680x1050 with everything set to high and 16xQ AA and it runs fine.




I can play it just fine
By ZaethDekar on 10/28/2007 3:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
running a Athlon 64 3800
4 gigs OCZ PC2700
XFX XXX 8600 GT OCed
sata II 500gig AAKS WD HDD

at 1280x1024 in XP pro SP2
with medium settings with 2x4x

However my new PC will be Vista Ultimate x64 in the next year and a half... so I will update then. haha.




Driver not responding....
By BLHealthy4life on 10/28/2007 5:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone experiencing this error with Vista and a Nvidia card?

I recently sold my copy of vista x64 becuase I could not get rid of that error (Vista up to date, Nvidia driver up to date) with any game as well as watching videos from websites.

Thanks




My Results
By phaxmohdem on 10/29/2007 1:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
AMD Athlon X2 6000+ (3.0gHz)
4GB RAM Crucial XMS2 DDR2 800
eVGA 8800GTX @ stock
Dual Raptor 150GB App/OS Drive (RAID-0)
Win XP SP2
1600x1200 Res

At high settings with 2x AA enabled, I was averaging close to 20ish FPS just wandering around with no action. Low teens under heavy fire.

with no AA, the game would hover between 25-30FPS when there was not crap blowing up all around, during massive action, it would dip into the high teens.

Overall the game was totally playable without AA enabled @ all high settings @ 1600x1200 on my setup, and the picture quality honestly looked about the same as with 2x AA




My results...
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/29/2007 4:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just thought I'd pop in my results with this demo... unfortunately I cannot seem to get it to run properly with fraps (slows down totally, and blocks out most of the resolution choices from the in-game menu... wierd). Anyhoo, my setup:

Intel Core 2 6420 @ 3.2GHz (400MHz*8)
2*1024MB SuperTalent DDR2-800 @ 3-4-3-8 (synchronous to FSB)
2900XT 512MB (stock speeds: no dual PCI-e power connectors)
Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6, F4 BIOS
Vista Home Premium 32-bit

At 1680*1050, 0*AA, High settings: >30fps for the most part; many baddies/complex surrounds, it drops to ~15fps
1680*1050, 2XAA, High: stays around thirty, but in complex scenes becomes basically unplayable
Best playable resolution on high settings for me was at 1440*900, no AA. However, looks crappy due to non-native resolution for lcd monitor.
On medium settings, 1680*1050, no AA becomes fully playable.

Considering my system has no problem running at max settings, and 1680*1050 (w/ AA if available) on all other current shooters (including bioshock, ut3, stalker, coj, graw 2, etc.) it is telling how power hungry this new engine is. I hope further optimizations of drivers and the engine will make this game playable as it was intended to be (image quality wise) for us current gen graphics cards owners, because it is a fantastic game.




I thought the demo was great.
By iFX on 10/30/2007 3:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
Looking forward to the full game.




are u sure thats a quote?
By Armorize on 11/3/2007 9:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
“We are taking some extra time to make sure you that you have an amazing..."

Dyslexia is becoming very predominant these days. =P




"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles
Crysis System Requirements Revealed
October 9, 2007, 3:43 PM
Crysis Demo Delayed Until Oct. 26
September 22, 2007, 12:17 PM
Crysis Demo Set for Release on 9/25
August 28, 2007, 9:46 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki