Crysis on your Dell - Page 7

don't think so. right now i can't see any big difference between
pc and ps3 graphics. of course it depends on the developers.
the ps3 technical specs are on a similar level like my notebook,
but it's a fact, that they can make out of the technic on a console,
as it's ONLY purpose is gaming. have a look at the ps2. it has a
lousy 300MHz processor. now try to run a game like resident evil 4
on a pc with a 300MHz processor...
of course it'll be outdated soon, but it isn't yet. ps3/360/pc versions
of most current games look pretty similar at the moment.

The PS3 has the equivalent of a 7800. Go play Crysis with a 7800 on max settings, see how it looks, thats how it would look on a PS3. Therefore say hello to Mr Scaledown-and-optimize-a-little.

well it probably would play well. You have to keep in mind that the PS3 version of Crysis would be specificlly optimized to run on the PS3 & it's specific hardware set.

Theres still no way in hell it would run at max settings with its hardware. I wish I never even bought one, theres still no decent games out for it.

There won't be a 360 or PS3 port so can we stop talking about them? Please?

Anyways...

My battle-weary XPS Gen 2 w/ 7800 GTX actually plays the SP demo reasonably well with decent settings after some tweaking, OC'ing and driver upgrading.

Main thing that taxes my system are the volumetric clouds in the opening scene with the plane, HDR, and physics. If I set volumetric to Low, Shaders to Medium, and Physics to Low, I can run everything else on medium playably (15-30 fps) at 1280x720. Plus I have added a few VERY nice graphical tweaks you only get at Very High in DX10 normally:

Using Notepad, create a file called system.cfg in your Crysis SP Demo folder and add the following:
con_restricted = 0
r_UsePom=1
r_sunshafts=1

This enables Parallax Occlusion Mapping (POM -- gives depth to certain textures such as the stream bed going up the hill to the final checkpoint), and volumetric light shafts (a.k.a. "god rays", beams of light and shadows that are most noticable underwater or looking through foliage into the sun).

I might do some comparison screens later.

edit: actually you need to use High Shaders to get those effects but you can still disable HDR with r_HDRRendering=0

edit2: here's some comparison pics from DX10 with POM and god rays (note I did not take these):

Hah, good one.

true
as what i wrote: you can't compare a console with a computer.
console can make much more out of lower hardware. as i wrote
before, ps2 "has the equivalent" of a pentium II with less than
300MHz. try to run ANY game on a pentium II pc and make it
look like any ps2 game.

Well, here's Crysis on the 7800Go in my laptop.

7800 go @250/658 (Dell stock)
800x600 @ Low = 30-50fps
800x600 @ Medium = 10-20fps
1440x900 @ Low = 10-20fps

In conclusion, you can run Crysis on a 7800 Go at the lowest res, low-medium settings, and maybe bump it a notch in res OR quality if you OC the card. So, it's playable, but we've finally reached the limits of a two-year-old high-end GPU

I got a Dell XPS M170 with a 7800 GTX running the Xtreme Geforce Dell 92.77 G3 with medium settings and I am receiving from fraps 28-31 Fps with a resoultion of 1280x1024. I had this notebook for 18 months now and I am pleased with the results up to this time. If anybody thinks about this........If someone is going to spend 2,000+ on a laptop u might as well take it and invest in a desktop and be ahead of the world compared to a notebook. I for one, love notebooks, but honestly gamming deserves to be played on a real desktop to get the max out of it. I am however, going to wait and see what is comming out within 2 months and judge it from there.

I'm reserving my judgment on the game (and I encourage others to do so as well) until the final version is released.

I get a laugh out of everyone saying how crappy a "PRE-RELEASE DEMO" runs and how crappy the game is. Take a chill pill guys. It's a pre-release demo for a reason. Not all of the optimizations and tweaks are in place yet. Before you guys continue with your "OMFGTHISGAMESUXPFFTBURNCRYTEKATTHEF00KINGSTAKEPWNED" discussion, remember this .

Sometimes you get a demo within days of a release, or even after the release (ARMA) so that doesn't really count for much, lets hope it does though.

Well, I have yet to install this on my 1710 but I can tell you this... on my self-built rig (specs in sig) I run Crysis @ 1680x1050 (I think) 2xAA, everything on high and with Fraps gave me an average of 25FPS in both WinXP and Vista Ult. So.... needless to say my $4000 desktop = crapola when it comes to this game. Hopefully GeForceTony is right and when this game comes out in a few weeks it will be much more optimized for our systems

Did you try it w/ the crysis drivers?

I am actually quite pleased with how it runs on my system... e6700 @ 3.0ghz and a 7900GTO flashed to a 7900GTX. Not sure on frames but at 1680x1050 and mostly medium settings its quite playable IMHO.

I have no problem w/ medium settings on my M90, I just want to play it w/ high/highest settings lol - seems like it's going to cost alot to do this though.

What resolution?

Oh sorry, I can only play it at 1200x800 due to the LCD I have.

Well... on my Dell i9400 (C2D T7200 + 7900GS stock) I can tell you that is really hard to play at "nice settings" (it does means, at least medium) on resolutions above 1024x768. But I can also tell you that running this game on a 17" WUXGA (1920x1200) at resolutions below 1024x768 @ full-screen surely will be really bad playing FPS game.

The question is, could someone who has a Dell i9400/e1705 like mine but just with a 7900GS Oc'd tell me about the performance? I was thinking in flash my 7900GS but I'm not sure about how much REAL in-game performance will be gained.

I'm pretty disgusted with the performance of the demo. I'm playing it on the system in my sig with my 7950gtx oc'd to 630/700 under Vista with 165.xx drivers and I can tell you that it runs like crap in all resolutions for the most part. I don't consider anything under 1280 even worth using as a resolution in games, so 1280 was as low as I was willing to try. Even at that resolution with medium settings, the frames were atrocious, especially in battles. I think many of you are in denial about the steep requirements of the game and in thinking that very much will be "optimized" by release. I've never experienced any huge engine optimizations after a public demo was released and it would take a massive amount of tweaking to elevate the current level of performance to something acceptable on my systems. I'm so disappointed in Crytek for making this game so unplayable on normal hardware platforms. I can't understand the business decision. At the current state, I would say only the top 5 or 10% of gaming systems out there would be able to play this thing very smoothly. Sure it will scale well, but the reality is that for most of us, we'll have to pick this game back up in a year or two when we have a rig that can deal with it.