Upgrades are over: Viva Crysis!!!

In the forseeable future I cant see ANY PC game more demanding or even as demanding as Crysis.....

Its a very nice sign for PC gaming that a $700 PC can MAX out Crysis at 1280x1075.....

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

mingo123

And upgrade to run what again? ANy games more demanding than Crysis? Oh wait there arent....

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

mingo123

I think you missed this part

In the forseeable future I cant see ANY PC game more demanding or even as demanding as Crysis.....

I think he should change that ANY to MANY.

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

mingo123

no it will not, new stuff keep coming but you dont need to buy them in order to play new games. same as you dont need to buy each console version (xbox360 arcade-premium-elite etc) that comes out.

[QUOTE="mingo123"]

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

Espada12

I think you missed this part

In the forseeable future I cant see ANY PC game more demanding or even as demanding as Crysis.....

I think he should change that ANY to MANY.

I whanna hear about that demanding game....Far Cry2? Oh wait thats running on the old FC engine.....Diablo3/SC2? Oh wait these are Blizzard games....

That 700$ can't max out Crysis:warhead (according to Brad Shoemaker)Krigon

Who is that? Crytek says it goes on high at 30 FPS.

[QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="mingo123"]

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

True_Gamer_

I think you missed this part

In the forseeable future I cant see ANY PC game more demanding or even as demanding as Crysis.....

I think he should change that ANY to MANY.

I whanna hear about that demanding game....Far Cry2? Oh wait thats running on the old FC engine.....Diablo3/SC2? Oh wait these are Blizzard games....

Project offset and the new 3dmark game, but I'm agreeing with you but saying you can't see ANY game more demanding than crysis in the future is a bit extreme.

[QUOTE="Krigon"]That 700$ can't max out Crysis:warhead (according to Brad Shoemaker)Espada12

Who is that? Crytek says it goes on high at 30 FPS.

Hmm whom should we believe the one who WROTE the code itself....or the one whos pulling stuff out of his rear?

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Espada12"][QUOTE="mingo123"]

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

Espada12

I think you missed this part

In the forseeable future I cant see ANY PC game more demanding or even as demanding as Crysis.....

I think he should change that ANY to MANY.

I whanna hear about that demanding game....Far Cry2? Oh wait thats running on the old FC engine.....Diablo3/SC2? Oh wait these are Blizzard games....

Project offset and the new 3dmark game, but I'm agreeing with you but saying you can't see ANY game more demanding than crysis in the future is a bit extreme.

Benchmarks? Hmmm...as for PO its an Intel bench/demo....

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Krigon"]That 700$ can't max out Crysis:warhead (according to Brad Shoemaker)True_Gamer_

Who is that? Crytek says it goes on high at 30 FPS.

Hmm whom should we believe the one who WROTE the code itself....or the one whos pulling stuff out of his rear?

How about the one that is reviewing the game and is not biased.

Max out Crysis?... well... yeah, at an unsteady 25-50fps with no anti-aliasing.

Future (and cheaper) PCs will run Crysis how it was meant to be played (at a rock steady 60FPS+ with 4-8x anti-aliasing)

Max out Crysis?... well... yeah, at an unsteady 25-50fps with no anti-aliasing.

Future (and cheaper) PCs will run Crysis how it was meant to be played (at a rock steady 60FPS+ with 4-8x anti-aliasing)

FamiBox

You have to excuse me for not being an impaired 10yo that needs to be told how a game "is meant to be played"....

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Krigon"]That 700$ can't max out Crysis:warhead (according to Brad Shoemaker)Krigon

Who is that? Crytek says it goes on high at 30 FPS.

Hmm whom should we believe the one who WROTE the code itself....or the one whos pulling stuff out of his rear?

How about the one that is reviewing the game and is not biased.

But everyone says the game runs fine on the 700 dollar rig except this one guy.. link please to him?

I played Warhead on a high-end machine with a quad core CPU and the latest Nvidia graphics card at high resolution (1680x1050) with all the details set to Enthusiast, which is essentially very high. It looked cutting edge and the frame rate was solid. Next, I checked the game on a slightly older PC with a two-year old 8800GTS and I was still able to crank it to Enthusiast settings and the same resolution and get solid results. Finally, I checked it out on the "$700 PC" that Crytek and EA have been touting. It really is a $700 machine built on the latest mainstream parts (the video card is a 9800GT), and I was able to play the final boss battle at the same resolution and at Enthusiast settings and get solid frame rates. I also tried it the Gamer setting, which is essentially high, and the frame rate was buttery smooth. You do lose some visual quality stepping down from Enthusiast, but even at Gamer Warhead still looks better than almost every game out there.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/909/909584p2.html

Here's my reviewer from IGN.

Problem is that crysis is just not fun to play though :/ Confirmed by Jeff GerstmannNaiKoN9293

Cool I mean everyone else is saying it is AAA but jeff gerstmann is soo good that his opinion counts for more than everyone elses.

I'm not so sure about that. My 4870 still struggles with Crysis on very high settings.

However it's a good thing the game still looks positively phenomenal at High settings or better. :D
Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="NaiKoN9293"]Problem is that crysis is just not fun to play though :/ Confirmed by Jeff GerstmannEspada12

Cool I mean everyone else is saying it is AAA but jeff gerstmann is soo good that his opinion counts for more than everyone elses.

yes I know. I am glad some people manage to see the truth!

[QUOTE="Krigon"][QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Krigon"]That 700$ can't max out Crysis:warhead (according to Brad Shoemaker)Espada12

Who is that? Crytek says it goes on high at 30 FPS.

Hmm whom should we believe the one who WROTE the code itself....or the one whos pulling stuff out of his rear?

How about the one that is reviewing the game and is not biased.

But everyone says the game runs fine on the 700 dollar rig except this one guy.. link please to him?

I played Warhead on a high-end machine with a quad core CPU and the latest Nvidia graphics card at high resolution (1680x1050) with all the details set to Enthusiast, which is essentially very high. It looked cutting edge and the frame rate was solid. Next, I checked the game on a slightly older PC with a two-year old 8800GTS and I was still able to crank it to Enthusiast settings and the same resolution and get solid results. Finally, I checked it out on the "$700 PC" that Crytek and EA have been touting. It really is a $700 machine built on the latest mainstream parts (the video card is a 9800GT), and I was able to play the final boss battle at the same resolution and at Enthusiast settings and get solid frame rates. I also tried it the Gamer setting, which is essentially high, and the frame rate was buttery smooth. You do lose some visual quality stepping down from Enthusiast, but even at Gamer Warhead still looks better than almost every game out there.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/909/909584p2.html

Here's my reviewer from IGN.

OH WOW... he was able to play the final boss battles at solid frame rates.... BIg Whoopie?!?!? I prefer to play the entire game thanks.... and solid frame rates? how about clarifying that with a freaking number. Instead of leaving it open to guess work.... Is that a solid 5 frames per second.... a solid 10 frames per second?

OH WOW... he was able to play the final boss battles at solid frame rates.... BIg Whoopie?!?!? I prefer to play the entire game thanks.... and solid frame rates? how about clarifying that with a freaking number. Instead of leaving it open to guess work.... Is that a solid 5 frames per second.... a solid 10 frames per second?

Veterngamer

Obviously it was good framerates stop trying to nitpick, also he probably just played the last boss battle using the PC because he played through the rest on the high end rig, also I'm glad to know that a two year old card can max the game out, so the point still stands.. no need for upgrades.

That 700$ can't max out Crysis:warhead (according to Brad Shoemaker)Krigon

The Warhead PC is meant to play the game at Gamer settings, which is equivalent to High, not the Enthusiast settings.

[QUOTE="Krigon"]That 700$ can't max out Crysis:warhead (according to Brad Shoemaker)Einhanderkiller

The Warhead PC is meant to play the game at Gamer settings, which is equivalent to High, not the Enthusiast settings.

IGN said they put it on enthusiast and still got decent frame rates, but yes Gamer setting seems to be the real focus point of this computer. Fortunately an 8800GTS which is two years old, with comparable parts can run the game on enthusiast! So yay no upgrades :D

In the forseeable future I cant see ANY PC game more demanding or even as demanding as Crysis.....

Its a very nice sign for PC gaming that a $700 PC can MAX out Crysis at 1280x1075.....

True_Gamer_

[QUOTE="Krigon"][QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Krigon"]That 700$ can't max out Crysis:warhead (according to Brad Shoemaker)Espada12

Who is that? Crytek says it goes on high at 30 FPS.

Hmm whom should we believe the one who WROTE the code itself....or the one whos pulling stuff out of his rear?

How about the one that is reviewing the game and is not biased.

But everyone says the game runs fine on the 700 dollar rig except this one guy.. link please to him?

I played Warhead on a high-end machine with a quad core CPU and the latest Nvidia graphics card at high resolution (1680x1050) with all the details set to Enthusiast, which is essentially very high. It looked cutting edge and the frame rate was solid. Next, I checked the game on a slightly older PC with a two-year old 8800GTS and I was still able to crank it to Enthusiast settings and the same resolution and get solid results. Finally, I checked it out on the "$700 PC" that Crytek and EA have been touting. It really is a $700 machine built on the latest mainstream parts (the video card is a 9800GT), and I was able to play the final boss battle at the same resolution and at Enthusiast settings and get solid frame rates. I also tried it the Gamer setting, which is essentially high, and the frame rate was buttery smooth. You do lose some visual quality stepping down from Enthusiast, but even at Gamer Warhead still looks better than almost every game out there.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/909/909584p2.html

Here's my reviewer from IGN.

crysis warhead =/= crysis

crysis warhead =/= crysis

jiggawho2006

Nitpickers are cool, news at 11. Obviously people aren't going to use thebest optimized version of the engine for future projects.. right??

So you're saying PC games have hit a graphical brick wall?

How is this good news?

[QUOTE="Veterngamer"]

OH WOW... he was able to play the final boss battles at solid frame rates.... BIg Whoopie?!?!? I prefer to play the entire game thanks.... and solid frame rates? how about clarifying that with a freaking number. Instead of leaving it open to guess work.... Is that a solid 5 frames per second.... a solid 10 frames per second?

Espada12

Obviously it was good framerates stop trying to nitpick, also he probably just played the last boss battle using the PC because he played through the rest on the high end rig, also I'm glad to know that a two year old card can max the game out, so the point still stands.. no need for upgrades.

They picked the final battle because that has the worst framerates anywhere in the game. If that runs fine then the whole game runs fine...what did Veterangamer expect? That he would sit and monitor the framerates for 6 hours while the guy played through? :lol:.

Veterangamer - Is your name some sort of oxymoron?

I'm not so sure about that. My 4870 still struggles with Crysis on very high settings.

However it's a good thing the game still looks positively phenomenal at High settings or better. :D
Teufelhuhn

It's just crytek are horrible at optimizing their games....also the 4870 drivers arent totally optimized for crysis yet.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]I'm not so sure about that. My 4870 still struggles with Crysis on very high settings.

However it's a good thing the game still looks positively phenomenal at High settings or better. :D
woobabooba

It's just crytek are horrible at optimizing their games....also the 4870 drivers arent totally optimized for crysis yet.

2 Year old PC maxes warhead, which looks better than the original crysis.. try again, the IGN reviewer confirmed this btw not crytek.

So you're saying PC games have hit a graphical brick wall?

How is this good news?

RuprechtMonkey

doom4 laugh's at crysis.

[QUOTE="woobabooba"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]I'm not so sure about that. My 4870 still struggles with Crysis on very high settings.

However it's a good thing the game still looks positively phenomenal at High settings or better. :D
Espada12

It's just crytek are horrible at optimizing their games....also the 4870 drivers arent totally optimized for crysis yet.

2 Year old PC maxes warhead, which looks better than the original crysis.. try again, the IGN reviewer confirmed this btw not crytek.

Of course warhead will run better it's matured code....but far cry when it was released back in the day was pretty horribly optimized....original crysis is also...they've never been the best.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]I'm not so sure about that. My 4870 still struggles with Crysis on very high settings.

However it's a good thing the game still looks positively phenomenal at High settings or better. :D
woobabooba

It's just crytek are horrible at optimizing their games....also the 4870 drivers arent totally optimized for crysis yet.

[QUOTE="woobabooba"]

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]I'm not so sure about that. My 4870 still struggles with Crysis on very high settings.

However it's a good thing the game still looks positively phenomenal at High settings or better. :D
Teufelhuhn

It's just crytek are horrible at optimizing their games....also the 4870 drivers arent totally optimized for crysis yet.

The drivers are holding back the 4870 from running the best it can.....drivers about a year from now...will run crysis better than your current drivers....

But the game will always be horribly optimized....the game doesnt need a dualcore it has no advanced physics really...they just didnt optimize for a singlecore cpu.

But the game will always be horribly optimized....the game doesnt need a dualcore it has no advanced physics really...they just didnt optimize for a singlecore cpu.

woobabooba

[QUOTE="woobabooba"]

But the game will always be horribly optimized....the game doesnt need a dualcore it has no advanced physics really...they just didnt optimize for a singlecore cpu.

Teufelhuhn

My 9800 pro back in the day ran doom3 better than far cry.

proving they've never really been good at optimization plus....ati cards are supposed to be better at directx api rather than open gl.

doom4 will graphically own this game graphically easy and most likely be more optimized.

[QUOTE="mingo123"]

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

True_Gamer_

And upgrade to run what again? ANy games more demanding than Crysis? Oh wait there arent....

The world progresses.It wont just stop at Crysis.Two years more and that rig will be outdated.

Doom3 runs much better than half life 2 does on my 8800 GT even though nvidia cards known for being best at open gl....but dude doom3 is more advanced lighting model and crap..makes no sense.

Hell doom3's lighting is better than crysis....the night on crysis isnt even night lol, darkness on doom3 is pure pitch black cant see crap.

rage will most likely look better on pc than this...and run better supposed to have huge open/outdoor areas....doom4 though it supposed to have way better graphics than rage though.

doom4 will be the game to show off idsoftware's tech5 engine...not rage...

My 9800 pro back in the day ran doom3 better than far cry.

proving they've never really been good at optimization plus

woobabooba

Doom3 runs much better than half life 2 does on my 8800 GT even though nvidia cards known for being best at open gl....but dude doom3 is more advanced lighting model and crap..makes no sense.

woobabooba

Hell doom3's lighting is better than crysis....the night on crysis isnt even night lol, darkness on doom3 is pure pitch black cant see crap.

woobabooba

Doom3 runs much better than half life 2 does on my 8800 GT even though nvidia cards known for being best at open gl....but dude doom3 is more advanced lighting model and crap..makes no sense.

Hell doom3's lighting is better than crysis....the night on crysis isnt even night lol, darkness on doom3 is pure pitch black cant see crap.

rage will most likely look better on pc than this...and run better supposed to have huge open/outdoor areas....doom4 though it supposed to have way better graphics than rage though.

doom4 will be the game to show off idsoftware's tech5 engine...not rage...

woobabooba

You mean Doom 3 the corridor based shooter that has you in total darkness 90% of the time, with no open spaces, horrible widescreen support and huge amounts of grey?

Yeah, that black lighting is awesome....

Ever thought that it isn't pitch black at night if the moon is out? Or that playing a game where you can't even see the 'amazing' graphics 90% of the time just isn't fun? No, thought not.

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

mingo123

lol? you upgrade PC only when SOFTWARE (games) cant run fine on your PC not when new hardware comes out :roll:

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]I'm not so sure about that. My 4870 still struggles with Crysis on very high settings.

However it's a good thing the game still looks positively phenomenal at High settings or better. :D
woobabooba

It's just crytek are horrible at optimizing their games....also the 4870 drivers arent totally optimized for crysis yet.

They optimised it good for low end,problem is with high end (you expect to get fps boost with kick as*s card,but you dont get it)

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

mingo123

You can build an awesome rig for about a 1000$

4 GB of DDr2, a nice processor, one or 2 powerful graphic cards, a good mobo, a great PSU and about 2 HDD of 1TB each...

hell, if you got an HD TV, you can even use an hdmi cable and run your pc at 1080.

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

mingo123

.. How do you know? We have yet to see any game in the forseeable future upwards to late next year that will surpass the freak thats called Crysis.

[QUOTE="mingo123"]

:| just coz $700 pc can run crysis doesnt mean you wont be upgrading anymore, that hardware will be outdated next year

sSubZerOo

.. How do you know? We have yet to see any game in the forseeable future upwards to late next year that will surpass the freak thats called Crysis.

[QUOTE="woobabooba"]

My 9800 pro back in the day ran doom3 better than far cry.

proving they've never really been good at optimization plus

Teufelhuhn

crytek suck at optimizing for hardware...their past proves it.

Crysis is nothing but....far cry with updated graphics ability to pick up physics based items and throw them and shoot down trees and blow up predetermined hit points on houses...yea it's got alot of physics based stuff in the level...but a single core processor could run it better than it runs it now...they didnt even try to get most out of single core cpus...basically only designed it for dualcore cpus.