E4500, 8800gt 1gb ram, playing Crysis on Very High

I hate the gaming media, its bad enough that console people think you need to own a $5000 pc to play games. Its worse when all the magazines and websites spew fake stuff on how much of a c you need to run games like Crysis. My new pc cost $600 including a $300 graphics card, things like hd, dvdrom, and case were reused. I have:

a e4500 Core 2 duo,

basic mobo that cant OC (im waiting for an RMA from Newegg that OC like crazy.)

1gb of Crucial Ballistix (memory is so damn cheap now, $35 amazing.

a BFG OC 8800gt 512 mb pcie card, amazing card.

all of these things are clearly within recomended spec but nothing top of the heap in power. I ran Crysis like this:

all settings Very High, (I unlocked its dx10 features through that hack that allows it on WinXP,

so Very High in all catagories, 2x AA, 1024x768 res.

I got about 25-35 fps, though later levels inside the ship it nosedived, but outside very good frame rates.

So why does crysis get so much bad press. You know how many people are waiting to buy it thinking they need 3 gfx cards, and quad core extreme c2d? its sad.

Get another GB of RAM and once you get that Ocing mobo,you'll see a decent performance jump most likely.

Those console fanboys are just sad that they don't have Crysis.

Its mostly because everyone uses vista and then blames the games... Tuzolord

vista is in no way the culprit

Its mostly because everyone uses vista and then blames the games... Tuzolord

Let's hope Service Pack 1 will change that!

It's just a few weeks away from release!

[QUOTE="Tuzolord"]Its mostly because everyone uses vista and then blames the games... Miguel16

vista is in no way the culprit

Haha yeah I agree, his point is hilarious because of how ironic it is.

i think you are a bit lying. i have the exact same rig plus a gig of ram and i play crysis at high with 25-30 fps on high at 1024*768. so did u f*cked you 8800 gt so it gives you 25 fps at very high?onuruca

I may be running it at most 30 or so I dont always look at the fpss but its def playable, i used the sx10 tweak so it may not be full dx10 quality but it is at very high all over, and until the times im inside the ship, here its like 10-20fps at most.

You are running the game in less then 720P. Lots of people have 20-22" WS monitors and running Crysis at 1440 * 900 or 1650 *1080 isn't as easy.CassiusGaius

1440 * 900, and I think I have a few options on Very High. I do get some framerate issues though (when there are a lot of explosions), but so do games on xbox360...

My Rig :-

Athlon 64 X2 3600+

2GB DDR2 667Mhz RAM

XFX 7600GT XXX Edition 256MB

I finished Crysis thrice and now playing it for the fourth time. I run @ 800x600 All settings to High except ' Shaders ' I can get a smooth framerate of 35-40fps. Its looks better than everyother game I've seen. Only if u want 2 run Crysis @ insane resolutions you will blame Cryengine 2. For me Crysis its better than everyother game this holiday season.......

1680*1050 is considered a normal resolution these days. People who play at that resolution normally will think 800*600 is insanely low.

1680*1050 is considered a normal resolution these days. People who play at that resolution normally will think 800*600 is insanely low.

Gog

I play Crysis at an insanely low resolution

BS, I have 3 gb all dual channeled, an e6300 dual core, and a 7900gs oc'ed and I can only play medium with managable frames. My pc cost me about 800 but I bought some of the RAM when prices were high and I had to buy all of my parts, I had none to reuse. I seriously doubt that the 8800gt with only 1 gb of ram and a slower processor than mine would weild such amazing results.

Edit: 1024x768 btw.

BS, I have 3 gb all dual channeled, an e6300 dual core, and a 7900gs oc'ed and I can only play medium with managable frames. My pc cost me about 800 but I bought some of the RAM when prices were high and I had to buy all of my parts, I had none to reuse. I seriously doubt that the 8800gt with only 1 gb of ram and a slower processor than mine would weild such amazing results.

Edit: 1024x768 btw.

flclempire

I had a 7900GS, clocked at 600/800. That was good for about 5700 3dmark06 points. With the exact same system and an 8800GT, I was around 12,500 at 700/1000 if I can remember correctly. Had to RMA the card the day I got it, but it is much more powerful than a 7900GS that's for sure.

CPU's don't matter that much if you have a decent one, clocked my E6600 all the way down to 1.6ghz and still got good fps. The RAM will help the game not to be jerky and stutter, but it'll still display the same fps. I ran the GPU benchmark with 1 gig in and 2 gigs, was the same fps result, but it was really jerky with 1 gig.

Hmmm I just tested crysis out on high and it ran better than I remember it running....whiles its technically managable on high, the frames are jsut low enough to give me a headache after playign for 2+ minutes XD

I suppose that it is quite possible to play nicely on high with a 8800gt o.0 My appologies, me was wrong :D

Hmmm I just tested crysis out on high and it ran better than I remember it running....whiles its technically managable on high, the frames are jsut low enough to give me a headache after playign for 2+ minutes XD

I suppose that it is quite possible to play nicely on high with a 8800gt o.0 My appologies, me was wrong :D

flclempire

You can try this mod on medium and tweak some of the config yourself

http://www.crymod.com/filebase.php?fileid=423&lim=0

[QUOTE="Tuzolord"]Its mostly because everyone uses vista and then blames the games... Miguel16

vista is in no way the culprit

oh yes it is.

EVERYONE (it seems) who has a decent rig and has Vista suffers vs those that have similiar rigs and XP.

I said on a post once that I was doing very high and posted my rig's specs, then people said I was lying. Then I said I was running XP, they said they had Vista, and there you go.

1680*1050 is considered a normal resolution these days. People who play at that resolution normally will think 800*600 is insanely low.

Gog

normal if youre spoiled or very rich.

Jesus, 1680x1050 is insanely high still. And the 2000xwhatever is just sickening.

For the average gamer, I say 1280xwhatever is more reasonable, with 1024x768 still being acceptable. Not everyone has Dx10 cards.

But ya, 800x600 was low. Its funny because not more than a year ago I Was gaming that low and was very happy lol.

I remember I saw someone say "I'm running crysis with 2 9 volt batteries, a coathanger, and a potato. five...million...FPS... No joke!"

It made me "lol".

[QUOTE="Miguel16"]

[QUOTE="Tuzolord"]Its mostly because everyone uses vista and then blames the games... mrbojangles25

vista is in no way the culprit

oh yes it is.

EVERYONE (it seems) who has a decent rig and has Vista suffers vs those that have similiar rigs and XP.

I said on a post once that I was doing very high and posted my rig's specs, then people said I was lying. Then I said I was running XP, they said they had Vista, and there you go.

Again...I say vista is in no way the culprit. I have had ZERO problems with any games under vista. My frames are comparible to my XP installation actually..And just being curious, but what exactly are your specs that allow you to run at very high.

[QUOTE="Gog"]

1680*1050 is considered a normal resolution these days. People who play at that resolution normally will think 800*600 is insanely low.

mrbojangles25

normal if youre spoiled or very rich.

Jesus, 1680x1050 is insanely high still. And the 2000xwhatever is just sickening.

For the average gamer, I say 1280xwhatever is more reasonable, with 1024x768 still being acceptable. Not everyone has Dx10 cards.

But ya, 800x600 was low. Its funny because not more than a year ago I Was gaming that low and was very happy lol.

Also, NO 1680x1050 is a normal resolution today. How old are you? I ask this because you assume that anyone reunnin that resolution is either spoiled or rich. A 20inch monitor is by all means easily affordable. Especially for someone like you. If you can afford the hardware that crysis requires, you should have no problem what so ever getting a 20 inch monitor to game on

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="Miguel16"]

[QUOTE="Tuzolord"]Its mostly because everyone uses vista and then blames the games... Miguel16

vista is in no way the culprit

oh yes it is.

EVERYONE (it seems) who has a decent rig and has Vista suffers vs those that have similiar rigs and XP.

I said on a post once that I was doing very high and posted my rig's specs, then people said I was lying. Then I said I was running XP, they said they had Vista, and there you go.

Again...I say vista is in no way the culprit. I have had ZERO problems with any games under vista. My frames are comparible to my XP installation actually..And just being curious, but what exactly are your specs that allow you to run at very high.

[QUOTE="Gog"]

1680*1050 is considered a normal resolution these days. People who play at that resolution normally will think 800*600 is insanely low.

mrbojangles25

normal if youre spoiled or very rich.

Jesus, 1680x1050 is insanely high still. And the 2000xwhatever is just sickening.

For the average gamer, I say 1280xwhatever is more reasonable, with 1024x768 still being acceptable. Not everyone has Dx10 cards.

But ya, 800x600 was low. Its funny because not more than a year ago I Was gaming that low and was very happy lol.

Also, NO 1680x1050 is a normal resolution today. How old are you? I ask this because you assume that anyone reunnin that resolution is either spoiled or rich. A 20inch monitor is by all means easily affordable. Especially for someone like you. If you can afford the hardware that crysis requires, you should have no problem what so ever getting a 20 inch monitor to game on

ya I was a bit hasty with my comment and sorry about that (concerning spoiled and rich).

But we are talking about Crysis here, and talking about running it at 1680x1050. I dont care who you are, but to play it on very high at that resolution you must have a great (expensive) rig. Do you have to be very rich or spoiled? No, but you do need to be a bit privelaged to be able to do so.

And ya, many widescreen monitors over 20" can be bought for a good price, but what about the hardware to run them?

As for how old I am, I am 23 (almost 24, ugh) and I didnt exactly go over 1024x768 until this time last year, so 1680x1050 is still insanely high for me, but thats my opinion. I guess what I meant to say is that people should be a bit more modest. Lots of gamers are still running 7000 series cards (or ATI equivelent) and even those with 8000 series cards cant run most games at 1680x1050. Dont assume that 1680x1050 is "the norm", because if you do a poll I think you would find out it isnt.

[QUOTE="Miguel16"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="Miguel16"]

[QUOTE="Tuzolord"]Its mostly because everyone uses vista and then blames the games... mrbojangles25

vista is in no way the culprit

oh yes it is.

EVERYONE (it seems) who has a decent rig and has Vista suffers vs those that have similiar rigs and XP.

I said on a post once that I was doing very high and posted my rig's specs, then people said I was lying. Then I said I was running XP, they said they had Vista, and there you go.

Again...I say vista is in no way the culprit. I have had ZERO problems with any games under vista. My frames are comparible to my XP installation actually..And just being curious, but what exactly are your specs that allow you to run at very high.

[QUOTE="Gog"]

1680*1050 is considered a normal resolution these days. People who play at that resolution normally will think 800*600 is insanely low.

mrbojangles25

normal if youre spoiled or very rich.

Jesus, 1680x1050 is insanely high still. And the 2000xwhatever is just sickening.

For the average gamer, I say 1280xwhatever is more reasonable, with 1024x768 still being acceptable. Not everyone has Dx10 cards.

But ya, 800x600 was low. Its funny because not more than a year ago I Was gaming that low and was very happy lol.

Also, NO 1680x1050 is a normal resolution today. How old are you? I ask this because you assume that anyone reunnin that resolution is either spoiled or rich. A 20inch monitor is by all means easily affordable. Especially for someone like you. If you can afford the hardware that crysis requires, you should have no problem what so ever getting a 20 inch monitor to game on

ya I was a bit hasty with my comment and sorry about that (concerning spoiled and rich).

But we are talking about Crysis here, and talking about running it at 1680x1050. I dont care who you are, but to play it on very high at that resolution you must have a great (expensive) rig. Do you have to be very rich or spoiled? No, but you do need to be a bit privelaged to be able to do so.

And ya, many widescreen monitors over 20" can be bought for a good price, but what about the hardware to run them?

As for how old I am, I am 23 (almost 24, ugh) and I didnt exactly go over 1024x768 until this time last year, so 1680x1050 is still insanely high for me, but thats my opinion. I guess what I meant to say is that people should be a bit more modest. Lots of gamers are still running 7000 series cards (or ATI equivelent) and even those with 8000 series cards cant run most games at 1680x1050. Dont assume that 1680x1050 is "the norm", because if you do a poll I think you would find out it isnt.

understandable, except id argue that the poll would be pretty close. Maybe not running games at that exact resolution, but having the monitor capable of it, i think there are quite a few people out there that have it. maybe not majority but close.

I didnt want to ask your age but i felt obligated, considering the earlier comment of spoiled and rich, you know what i mean?

I've been doing 1600x1200 since 2001. That's the beauty of having a high-end CRT, I can go from its max of 2048x1536@85hz, down to as low as I need to in order to get decent frames. I tend to stick to 1600x1200 though, and I really hate going lower, know it's time for an upgrade when I do. This current monitor was expensive yes, but it has been well worth it as it's lasted for going on 5 years now, only my keyboard is older.

I'm 24 and in no way rich, hell I don't even have a job atm, but it doesn't cost that much to run at 16x12. I've never spent more than about $1800 on a pc, but I build my own and overclock to get the most out of them. This one could probably be built for near a grand these days. Every game is a breeze at 16x12 at max settings with the now sub $300 8800gts besides Crysis, but I still played that on all high settings at 16x12.

I am running 1600x1200 and using a Core2Quad Q6600, w/4GB memory on EVGA 8800GTS 640MB. I have played Crysis on both Vista and XPSP2 w/DX10 w/hack, settings all HIGH with no AA at all. No difference in game performance between the two OS.

However I seriously need some kind of upgrade because though I get good fps when nothing is happening, any multiple enemy shooting or big explosion causes major lag. If I back my resolution down to 1280x1024 there is no lag.

Am I missing something, or do I really need to get a 2nd 8800GTS and PSU upgrade in order to improve the game play?