Are there any games that look better/are more graphically intensive than Crysis?

I don't have Crysis, so I can't say for certain, but Metro 2033 is said to be very GPU and CPU intensive, even more than Crysis. However, I have also heard it doesn't look as good. My GPU (HD5770 Sapphire Vapor-X) at 1280x1024 (small I know) on DX11 High quality was just managing a playable framerate for Metro 2033.

I don't think that there is a game that has a better overall look than Crysis. However, Metro 2033 is incredibly system-intensive and the graphics are stunning at times. Crysis renders large outdoor environments with a vibrance and detail that has yet to be fully matched. I'm also a big fan on the outdoor environments in Far Cry 2. I think it holds it's own against any other game on the highest settings.

I don't think that there is a game that has a better overall look than Crysis. However, Metro 2033 is incredibly system-intensive and the graphics are stunning at times. Crysis renders large outdoor environments with a vibrance and detail that has yet to be fully matched. I'm also a big fan on the outdoor environments in Far Cry 2. I think it holds it's own against any other game on the highest settings.

hartsickdiscipl

Metro 2033 was way harder to run than Crysis. I couldn't run Metro at very high, but it was playable at high (30-50 fps).

Metro 2033 was way harder to run than Crysis. I couldn't run Metro at very high, but it was playable at high (30-50 fps).

RobboElRobbo

What GPU do you have?

Metro 2033 was way harder to run than Crysis. I couldn't run Metro at very high, but it was playable at high (30-50 fps).

RobboElRobbo

As you can see, they didnt even turn on AA/AF for Crysis. Numbers don't lie. At the top end with AA/AF Crysis is still going to burn your bridges.

[QUOTE="RobboElRobbo"]

Metro 2033 was way harder to run than Crysis. I couldn't run Metro at very high, but it was playable at high (30-50 fps).

Rhamsus

As you can see, they didnt even turn on AA/AF for Crysis. Numbers don't lie. At the top end with AA/AF Crysis is still going to burn your bridges.

Numbers themselves don't lie, but perhaps this isn't the whole story. I don't have Crysis so im speculating, but I'm pretty sure I have read that Metro is harder on the CPU than Crysis. Thats why I also mentioned the CPU. Metro is made for Quad Core, so its obviously going to be very taxing on the CPU, whether more or not than Crysis I don't know. Perhaps the reason Robbo is having a hard time running Metro max is not just the fault of the GPU, but also the CPU...

shattered horizons

bfbc2 can be at larger resolutions

pt boats: knights of the sea this is a real dark horse of a demanding game as its a no-name developer and the water detail here is rock slid as such it punishes the hardiest mid range gpu's a 4870 gets barely playable(30-40) frames @ 1680 x 1200 on highest details no aa or af

metro 2033

serioes sam HD :TSE is argueable but its a tough sell

gta 4

games to watch(these titles arent out yet but look to be superheavies for the 2010/2011 year):

ff14 (very unlikely)

TDU2 (very promising)

mafia II (promising but not definite)

[QUOTE="RobboElRobbo"]

Metro 2033 was way harder to run than Crysis. I couldn't run Metro at very high, but it was playable at high (30-50 fps).

Urworstnhtmare

What GPU do you have?

4850 512mb. I got like 15-25 fps on very high (not playable imo) and yeah, 30-50 on high.

I like FSX aircraft details better.