New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Crysis on your Dell - Page 3

Poll Results: Your impressions of the game

Poll expired: Jul 20, 2010 This is a multiple choice poll
  • 36% (21)
    Truly Groundbreaking
  • 22% (13)
    Nice, but its just another FPS
  • 22% (13)
    Im on the fence about this one
  • 15% (9)
    Doesnt live up to hype
  • 1% (1)
    Im going back to Bioshock
57 Total Votes  
post #41 of 262
10/27/07 at 1:17pm
That desktop rig should run it fine. Even if I default my clocks back to stock using the settings you are I should pull 30FPS.

Are you running on vista or XP?

XP, try this driver on your desktop:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_169.01.html

Vista 32 bit
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_169.01.html


Make sure you run driver cleaner first!
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 262
10/27/07 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolApathy View Post
That desktop rig should run it fine. Even if I default my clocks back to stock using the settings you are I should pull 30FPS.

Are you running on vista or XP?

XP, try this driver on your desktop:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_169.01.html

Vista 32 bit
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_169.01.html


Make sure you run driver cleaner first!

Thanks. I'm on vista 32-bit and made sure to install those drivers before I ran the game (I use driver cleaner and CCleaner). I get no more than 14 fps (outside) with all very high settings, 4x AA, and at 1680x1050.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 262
10/27/07 at 1:56pm
I will switch over to Vista & install the Vista 32 169's to see what performance I am receiving over there.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 262
10/27/07 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolApathy View Post
I will switch over to Vista & install the Vista 32 169's to see what performance I am receiving over there.

Thanks Sol, it'd be nice to have a decent comparison to make sure my system's running how it's supposed to. I looked up how other people with similar rigs are running it and my performance seems comparable to theirs, so I'm thinking that's how it is.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 262
10/27/07 at 3:23pm
What I am about to express is an opinion so please don't flame me.

I have been programming computers since the early 1980's, and technology has come a long way. This game is no exception. It is clear that a game of this magnitude has stepped up technology another notch.

That having been acknowledged, I feel as many do that technology has allowed for a degree of sloppiness. Look at Vista. It is a sloppy product. I am about to compare footprints with OSX Leopard just to prove that point. I am not saying Crysis is sloppy, necessarily. But the demands made to run that game are pushing a little high. The optimal demands require a video card that cost half of what my latest laptop did or more.

In the mid 90's I wrote a little audio program that required a Pentium 120 to even hiccup. After several weeks and foul attempts, I had tightened up the code, and it ran smoothly on a Pentium 66. It was not tightened by me for money or even necessity. It was out of pride that it could be done (and the fact that I am a big complainer when it comes to loose coding).

So for the record....ha ha ha

Medium on my XPS 410 at 1280x768.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 262
10/27/07 at 3:38pm
Well I wouldn't really ever put Crytek at the top of the development ladder. I mean certainly they arent at the bottom but there are much higher respected developers out there (for now).
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 262
10/27/07 at 3:48pm
errr...But if they tightened the code & removed the bloat how would they sell hard drives???
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 262
10/27/07 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolApathy View Post
errr...But if they tightened the code & removed the bloat how would they sell hard drives???

lol, or keep people buying the latest hardware
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 262
10/27/07 at 4:36pm
Ok while playing around with the graphic settings I found something very intresting. First off Im playing with t2600 core duo, 2gb ram and the 7950 gtx. 1440x900 AA=off AF=4x and all settings medium.

So what I found is if u start crysis and load into to a game with all settings above but the texture quality set to HIGH then u get the fps below.
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8...exturesgj4.jpg

Now if u set the texture quality to medium and restart crysis and load into a game then u get the following fps:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5...extureslw7.jpg

If u then go into options and change the setting to HIGH u pretty much get no fps drop!
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/642...hightexjp8.jpg

I should also mention that I found that u can load between different saves just can't exit to the main menu or you will get a huge FPS drop when starting a new game. Same happens with alt-tabbing into windows and back.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 262
10/27/07 at 4:58pm
http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/forum/...howtopic=15708

no, not vista only
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 262
10/27/07 at 5:51pm
Hi

I'm now getting mostly 24-35 fps. Very playable. Settings: 1280x800, everything set to High except Shadows and Shader Level which are at Low. Increasing them causes massive drop in fps, rendering the game unplayable.

Any ideas why this could be?

thx
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 262
10/27/07 at 5:52pm
Err perhaps that should read: quite playable...!
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 262
10/27/07 at 7:24pm
low settings on all,no AA,1024x768 resolution and using Windows XP Home sp2.Gave me about 50-60 frps.I tried the auto detect which gave me med settings on all and it sucked so bad at 24frps and kept freezing a few seconds at a time.

Ko
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 262
10/27/07 at 7:32pm
It is REALLY sad that after wait for quite huge time to get hands on this game (at least, the demo) it won't run 'nice and playable'... I thought that C2D 2Ghz, 2GB, 7900 would give me what I couldn't play FarCry back in 2004 with my Gateway M675 (Radeon 9600 -> damn bad card).

Really really sad... anyway, whatever let's back to work and forget about games, LOL
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 262
10/27/07 at 8:02pm
Quote:
Ok while playing around with the graphic settings I found something very intresting. First off Im playing with t2600 core duo, 2gb ram and the 7950 gtx. 1440x900 AA=off AF=4x and all settings medium.

So what I found is if u start crysis and load into to a game with all settings above but the texture quality set to HIGH then u get the fps below.
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8...exturesgj4.jpg

Now if u set the texture quality to medium and restart crysis and load into a game then u get the following fps:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5...extureslw7.jpg

If u then go into options and change the setting to HIGH u pretty much get no fps drop!
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/642...hightexjp8.jpg
that's only, because your changes were not applied. if you check the screenshots, you'll see, that the textures are slightly worse in the second picture
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 262
10/27/07 at 8:06pm
btw: game works not really nice on my laptop, either.
i played bioshock, enemy territory: quake wars, unreal3, sega rally revo,
everything on 1280x800, max settings, very fluent.
this game stutters even on medium settings and 1024x640 resolution.
it only gets better, if i set shader quality/shadows to low. but have a look at
the textures then...
maybe it looks good on a 8800gtx, max res, max settings, dx10, but i definately
won't buy it for my 7900 card...

edit: i wonder, why crytek stated, the ps3 wouldn't be fast enough to run this game.
i don't believe it. they just want to push the graphic card sells and then, after everyone with
a pc got one, they'll release it for consoles.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 262
10/27/07 at 8:12pm
Here's a good article on the kind of performance a 8800GTS and 8800GTX are getting, it coincides with the kind of performance my desktop rig w/8800GTX in DX10 is getting:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=470

It's looking pretty sad atm
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 262
10/27/07 at 8:35pm
hmm doesn't stutter on my M1710 at med settings. I play it on my desktop machine max settings /w 8xQ and get around 45 FPS. If I turn off AA all together I jump to around 60.


I think "playability" judgement needs to be held back until the final product is released. I am sure there are plenty of optimizations that were not instituted in the demo because they were still in the bug-fix phase.

I can play it on my laptop on medium settings, which is fie for me. If it could play on high settings on a mobile rig, well there would not be much of a need for the 8 series at all, right? Remember the Go 7900GTX is on par with the 7800 desktop GPU in terms of performance, which isn't bad at all. It's massive outdoor enviroment
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 262
10/27/07 at 8:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by felixbrenner View Post
that's only, because your changes were not applied. if you check the screenshots, you'll see, that the textures are slightly worse in the second picture
I know the textures are worse in the second picture. I think ur missing what I'm saying. Look at the first picture and the last picture and look at the FPS in both corners. Both look identical other than the fps correct? If you start a game with HIGH textures (pic 1)u will get the 9fps. If u start a game with medium (pic 2) and change during the game to HIGH (pic 3) you will have the look of pic 1 with the fps of pic 2.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 262
10/27/07 at 8:50pm
Quote:
I think ur missing what I'm saying.
you're right, sorry!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home