But but Crysis is suppose look like this not the one you posted with fraps
AnxietyDisorder
But no hardware can run it like that yet, but its still the best looking game available.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
But but Crysis is suppose look like this not the one you posted with fraps
AnxietyDisorder
But no hardware can run it like that yet, but its still the best looking game available.
[QUOTE="wklzip"][QUOTE="AnxietyDisorder"][QUOTE="wklzip"]Whoever the TC is, he has no idea of PC hardware...
He thinks the 9800GTX is a lot better than the 8800gt :roll:
[QUOTE="AnxietyDisorder"]
[QUOTE="MRCORNBREAD"]Will upgrading to a 8800GT from a X1950 Pro be a big performence gain. Could I play Crysis on high setting with 1280X1024. I can play Crysis with the X1950 pro on medium 1024X768.AnxietyDisorder
It wont be a big performance gain. get a 9800gtx
source
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/5363-bfg-9800gtx-512mb-review-10.htmlif 10 fps in Crysis isnt big of a difference I dont know what is. Now stop licking my ass.
Read again what i said.
The 9800GTX is better than the 8800gt but for those 5-10% higher fps is not worth double the price. And recommending a 9800GTX over a 8800GTS shows you prefer to pick higher numbers before doing some research. :roll:
The truth is that those two cards are very close in performance, im talking in gaming in general not only in crysis.
I recomended a 9800GTX over a 8800GT not a GTs you **** face and its not 5-10% higher its more like 30%to 45% higher you dip****Pretty sad how someone is getting fueled up in anger over something like this...[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]I have an overclocked 8800GTS 512 and I'd be lucky to get 20FPS on 1680 x 1050 on very high. :?That screenshot is ancient ...
Sorry but I can with a 8800 GTS .. with no AA 1680 x 1050, Very High Shaders/textures and it looks exactly like that ( bar some more distant jaggies ) at 25-30 FPS (Playable).
Meu2k7
Mines the 8800 GTS 640 MB model, I also have 3GB RAM... may make teh difference
But the 640 model isn't as good as the 512....strange
I recomended a 9800GTX over a 8800GT not a GTs you **** face and its not 5-10% higher its more like 30%to 45% higher you dip****AnxietyDisorderStill, to be fair, if given the option, the 8800GTS 512MB cards provide a significant bang for the buck which is only slightly lower than that of the 9800GTX.
[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]I have an overclocked 8800GTS 512 and I'd be lucky to get 20FPS on 1680 x 1050 on very high. :?That screenshot is ancient ...
Sorry but I can with a 8800 GTS .. with no AA 1680 x 1050, Very High Shaders/textures and it looks exactly like that ( bar some more distant jaggies ) at 25-30 FPS (Playable).
Evz0rz
Mines the 8800 GTS 640 MB model, I also have 3GB RAM... may make teh difference
But the 640 model isn't as good as the 512....strange
The lower bus width is more than made up with the newer G92 chipset which includes more and faster shaders.is it just me or do pc gamers like to stare at the graphics rather than actually shooting something or actually playing..
there obsessed with graphics
mlbslugger86
Its just you.
[QUOTE="Meu2k7"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]I have an overclocked 8800GTS 512 and I'd be lucky to get 20FPS on 1680 x 1050 on very high. :?That screenshot is ancient ...
Sorry but I can with a 8800 GTS .. with no AA 1680 x 1050, Very High Shaders/textures and it looks exactly like that ( bar some more distant jaggies ) at 25-30 FPS (Playable).
Evz0rz
Mines the 8800 GTS 640 MB model, I also have 3GB RAM... may make teh difference
But the 640 model isn't as good as the 512....strange
depends if your CPU is holding you back.
is it just me or do pc gamers like to stare at the graphics rather than actually shooting something or actually playing..
there obsessed with graphics
mlbslugger86
And what about the lemmings/cows that keep bashing the Wii's graphics? :roll:
[QUOTE="gianshomai"]AnxietyDisorderYour tweaks made it look like Crapsis
LOL mine looks like crap!?!?!? Tell me you joking!! Mine looks 23462456xbetter than yours and I dont need a 9800GX2 to play it at decent and playable FPS. C'mon just admit it. You=Fail.PC is either cheap or expensive.One 8800GTS 512m=less than 200$. If you bought a 9800GTX and can't figure out a way to play it looking great and running great then theres nothing we can do can we?? And I bet most cheaper high end PC's have way better screenshot than the one you used to wipe an elephant's a$s.
More Screenshots.
I'm sorry, but personally no game is worth spending over 1000$ on for graphics alone.bballm10
What game does that?
I'm sorry, but personally no game is worth spending over 1000$ on for graphics alone.bballm10
You don't need to spend 1000$. honestly
I'm sorry, but personally no game is worth spending over 1000$ on for graphics alone.bballm10
I play Crysis for the gameplay not the graphics. ;)
[QUOTE="bballm10"]I'm sorry, but personally no game is worth spending over 1000$ on for graphics alone.Lonelynight
I play Crysis for the gameplay not the graphics. ;)
Same here!
Actually I play for both gameplay and graphics.
[QUOTE="Lonelynight"][QUOTE="bballm10"]I'm sorry, but personally no game is worth spending over 1000$ on for graphics alone.gianshomai
I play Crysis for the gameplay not the graphics. ;)
Same here!
Actually I play for both gameplay and graphics.
I only have the Crysis demo at the moment... but I must have played it 50 times. The gameplay is so fun.
And it's the amazing physics that are possible, combined with the graphics that makes it even more amazing.
[QUOTE="IgorVitaly"][QUOTE="IgorVitaly"][QUOTE="FamiBox"]one 8800GT.... most settings on high (some on medium) 1440x900. Looks good to me.
(dipped down to 21fps for 1 second before jumping back up here.)
Very playable. Mostly 30-40fps average. 25-30 with lots of action.
AnxietyDisorder
This thread /OP owned
Also you can see the resolution is correct becouse of the size of the hud or just do a pixel count to verify native resolution /thread
Absolutely
Everybody can tell the shaders setting is at medium. Look at the first three pics! lol
Actually, it's set on high. .......... lol?
is it just me or do pc gamers like to stare at the graphics rather than actually shooting something or actually playing..
there obsessed with graphics
mlbslugger86
Which is why we all liked S.T.A.L.K.E.R. so much right? Because that has such amazing graphics...
That screenshot is ancient ...
Sorry but I can with a 8800 GTS .. with no AA 1680 x 1050, Very High Shaders/textures and it looks exactly like that ( bar some more distant jaggies ) at 25-30 FPS (Playable).
Meu2k7
no way.....not even my 8800 GT does that...
[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]That screenshot is ancient ...
Sorry but I can with a 8800 GTS .. with no AA 1680 x 1050, Very High Shaders/textures and it looks exactly like that ( bar some more distant jaggies ) at 25-30 FPS (Playable).
MikeE21286
no way.....not even my 8800 GT does that...
What's your CPU?
[QUOTE="MikeE21286"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]That screenshot is ancient ...
Sorry but I can with a 8800 GTS .. with no AA 1680 x 1050, Very High Shaders/textures and it looks exactly like that ( bar some more distant jaggies ) at 25-30 FPS (Playable).
Bebi_vegeta
no way.....not even my 8800 GT does that...
What's your CPU?
I have an overclocked 8800GTS 512 with a Q6600 and there's no way you can get that high of a frame rate with that card unless you have high-end memory and one helluva processor.[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="MikeE21286"][QUOTE="Meu2k7"]That screenshot is ancient ...
Sorry but I can with a 8800 GTS .. with no AA 1680 x 1050, Very High Shaders/textures and it looks exactly like that ( bar some more distant jaggies ) at 25-30 FPS (Playable).
Stevo_the_gamer
no way.....not even my 8800 GT does that...
What's your CPU?
I have an overclocked 8800GTS 512 with a Q6600 and there's no way you can get that high of a frame rate with that card unless you have high-end memory and one helluva processor.I have a 8800GTX OC'ed with Qx6700@ 3.3GHZ... with 2gigs of 800MHZ@4-4-4-12. I play high 1680x1050 @+30fps... ill do a test wait up.
Edit:
I did the insane benchmark test tool and it gave me average of 32fps.
Even that looks better than Console games. And the physics are top notch. I didn't find the game enjoyable however.waynehead895
MGS4 and RE5 smoke that picture of Crysis sorry but you need to play more console games.
Granted you do realize that your setup is better than ours, correct? Overclocked 8800 GTX and a better overclocked processor. So of course you're going to get better FPS than us. :PI have a 8800GTX OC'ed with Qx6700@ 3.3GHZ... with 2gigs of 800MHZ@4-4-4-12. I play high 1680x1050 @+30fps... ill do a test wait up.
Edit:
I did the insane benchmark test tool and it gave me average of 32fps.
Bebi_vegeta
[QUOTE="waynehead895"]Even that looks better than Console games. And the physics are top notch. I didn't find the game enjoyable however.Polaris_choice
MGS4 and RE5 smoke that picture of Crysis sorry but you need to play more console games.
Comon, admit Crysis looks better... saying otherwise is denying or being a fanboy.
[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]Granted you do realize that your setup is better than ours, correct? Overclocked 8800 GTX and a better overclocked processor. So of course you're going to get better FPS than us. :PI have a 8800GTX OC'ed with Qx6700@ 3.3GHZ... with 2gigs of 800MHZ@4-4-4-12. I play high 1680x1050 @+30fps... ill do a test wait up.
Edit:
I did the insane benchmark test tool and it gave me average of 32fps.
Stevo_the_gamer
Your GTS is a bit weaker, but should be able to reach higher clock speed to make up for it. But it's true that the GTX was made for higher resolution gaming in mind with it specs.
But if your CPU is clocked at the same speed as mine, it will go just as fast.
[QUOTE="waynehead895"]Even that looks better than Console games. And the physics are top notch. I didn't find the game enjoyable however.Polaris_choice
MGS4 and RE5 smoke that picture of Crysis sorry but you need to play more console games.
Sorry you need your eyes checked.
[QUOTE="waynehead895"]Even that looks better than Console games. And the physics are top notch. I didn't find the game enjoyable however.Polaris_choice
MGS4 and RE5 smoke that picture of Crysis sorry but you need to play more console games.
You mean combing the graphics of RE5 and MGS4 beats that single picture of Crysis?
Then of course they would smoke it.
[QUOTE="waynehead895"]Even that looks better than Console games. And the physics are top notch. I didn't find the game enjoyable however.Polaris_choice
MGS4 and RE5 smoke that picture of Crysis sorry but you need to play more console games.
Are u blind????? CRYSIS has the best graphics in any game today, The 360 and ps3 cant even handle crysis's full graphics
[QUOTE="Meu2k7"]That screenshot is ancient ...
Sorry but I can with a 8800 GTS .. with no AA 1680 x 1050, Very High Shaders/textures and it looks exactly like that ( bar some more distant jaggies ) at 25-30 FPS (Playable).
AnxietyDisorder
Dou you know that 2 9800GX2s struggle to play at that resolution?
My single 8800GTX plays Crysis at the same resolution, all high except AA.
If so, then why can't MGS4 even be rendered at a native 1280x720@60fps? A slightly-more-than-decent PC system should be able to handle Crysis at this resolution with High detail without any trouble. Meanwhile, a serious gaming PC should max out Very High at 720p.MGS4 and RE5 smoke that picture of Crysis sorry but you need to play more console games.
Polaris_choice
Crysis showed us that traditonal graphics rendering is useless for photorealistic graphics. Ray Tracing is the next step.Wasdie
I don't know about exactly what they'll come up with for the next big step in graphics, but I know what you mean. I don't find that Crysis looks that much better than the best looking console games. Certainly not the "way better than anything on consoles" some people like to claim. For example, even if you have textures set to very high, there are plenty of bland, blurry textures around if you get up close, especially with rocks and leaves. Polygons are often very visible on rocks too.
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]Crysis showed us that traditonal graphics rendering is useless for photorealistic graphics. Ray Tracing is the next step.tubbyc
I don't know about exactly what they'll come up with for the next big step in graphics, but I know what you mean. I don't find that Crysis looks that much better than the best looking console games. Certainly not the "way better than anything on consoles" some people like to claim. For example, even if you have textures set to very high, there are plenty of bland, blurry textures around if you get up close, especially with rocks and leaves. Polygons are often very visible on rocks too.
:roll:
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"][QUOTE="waynehead895"]Even that looks better than Console games. And the physics are top notch. I didn't find the game enjoyable however.Kez1984
MGS4 and RE5 smoke that picture of Crysis sorry but you need to play more console games.
Uh-huh :roll:
Um go play the game on that settings and then go play MGS4 and then get back to me. Untill then just movealong.
But but Crysis is suppose look like this not the one you posted with fraps
AnxietyDisorder
What settings is that one? All the hermits were under the impression there DX9 cards would get close to running that lmao.
[QUOTE="Polaris_choice"]If so, then why can't MGS4 even be rendered at a native 1280x720@60fps? A slightly-more-than-decent PC system should be able to handle Crysis at this resolution with High detail without any trouble. Meanwhile, a serious gaming PC should max out Very High at 720p.MGS4 and RE5 smoke that picture of Crysis sorry but you need to play more console games.
HuusAsking
Um Actually MGS4 is running at true 720p and 60fps yes I have the game you dont. The information you are refering to is MGO online(it was downscaled to I belive 640p) which obviously does not look as good as the single player. You need to get your facts straight before you make more baseless assumptions.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment