Will pc ever be able to run Crysis Maxed-out with 24xaa?

I thought pc was so much more powerful than consoles then why cant it do it? Pc gamers brags about Crysis and yet they cant play the game at max settings. I think Next-gen consoles will max out crysis before pc.

Waits for "My GTX 280 can max out crysis at 1920x1080 with 4xaa"

I thought pc was so much more powerful than consoles then why cant it do it? Pc gamers brags about Crysis and yet they cant play the game at max settings. I think Next-gen consoles will max out crysis before pc.

Love-Bank

if next gen consoles will be able to max out crysis, then i highly doubt most people could afford itDante2710

You could make a game run smoothly with acceptable graphics and framerates. You could also go crazy like CryTek did and add extremely high-detailed textures and models plus fancy lighting and mapping techniques, essentially future-proofing it for a couple of years. Unlike consoles, developers don't have to 'stop' adding features since settings are scaleable and PC games are backwards compatible. 

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]if next gen consoles will be able to max out crysis, then i highly doubt most people could afford itnVidiaGaMer

Doesn't make any sense.  Consoles are much better and next gen consoles will have so much processing power as many as 16-48 cores either clocked @ 2.0 Ghz with more cores or 3.2Ghz with less cores and graphics better then GTX 280.  Wait till 2011 and you'll see.  

Even now a 360 puts out graphics better then most PC games and even then there isn't a night and day difference bettween Crysis DX10 maxed and Gears 2 on 360. 

Uh..Multi-GPU solutions with large amounts of VRAM already have enough horsepower to do so..

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]if next gen consoles will be able to max out crysis, then i highly doubt most people could afford itnVidiaGaMer

Doesn't make any sense.  Consoles are much better and next gen consoles will have so much processing power as many as 16-48 cores either clocked @ 2.0 Ghz with more cores or 3.2Ghz with less cores and graphics better then GTX 280.  Wait till 2011 and you'll see.  

Even now a 360 puts out graphics better then most PC games and even then there isn't a night and day difference bettween Crysis DX10 maxed and Gears 2 on 360. 

Hahah. 3/10. Troll harder.

Uh..Multi-GPU solutions with large amounts of VRAM already have enough horsepower to do so..

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]if next gen consoles will be able to max out crysis, then i highly doubt most people could afford itVelocitas8

Doesn't make any sense. Consoles are much better and next gen consoles will have so much processing power as many as 16-48 cores either clocked @ 2.0 Ghz with more cores or 3.2Ghz with less cores and graphics better then GTX 280. Wait till 2011 and you'll see.

Even now a 360 puts out graphics better then most PC games and even then there isn't a night and day difference bettween Crysis DX10 maxed and Gears 2 on 360.

Hahah. 3/10. Troll harder.

Fact:  When PS2 came out it was basically a super computer in terms of power.

Fact:  When Xbox 360 came out it was basically a super computer as well beating any dual core pc in terms of power'

Fact:  When next gen consoles come out in 2010-2012 they will destroy any PC 

I heard NASA is making a computer that can run Crysis with everything maxed out. So far they are able to play it for about 20 mins b4 it crashes.

JK lol

Wow this could be the biggest failure in logic in... at least 15 minutes.

24x AA? Have we even achieved that yet? Anyways, like I said in that other thread, I doubt next-generation consoles would be even capable of pulling that off, unless they don't come out for 4-5 years.GodLovesDead

Fact:  When PS2 came out it was basically a super computer in terms of power.

Fact:  When Xbox 360 came out it was basically a super computer as well beating any dual core pc in terms of power'

Fact:  When next gen consoles come out in 2010-2012 they will destroy any PCnVidiaGaMer

Yes, I know you're trolling (you do a terrible job at hiding it) -- just thought I'd put that out there.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]24x AA? Have we even achieved that yet? Anyways, like I said in that other thread, I doubt next-generation consoles would be even capable of pulling that off, unless they don't come out for 4-5 years.Love-Bank

24x AA? Have we even achieved that yet? Anyways, like I said in that other thread, I doubt next-generation consoles would be even capable of pulling that off, unless they don't come out for 4-5 years.GodLovesDead

24xAA is probably combined supersampling and multisampling. I think the newer generation ATi cards are capable of it.

6x multisampling combined with 2x2 supersampling maybe.

I heard NASA is making a computer that can run Crysis with everything maxed out. So far they are able to play it for about 20 mins b4 it crashes.

JK lol

bluck111

Wrong it was significantly more powerful as is any console when its released excluding some.  I have a PC with a 9800GTX and I still think Gears 2 looks better then anything on my PC so thats that. nVidiaGaMer

If it was indeed "significanlty" more powerful, it sure didn't show early on.

At the second line: you're either lying or delusional.

Crysis Warhead isn't even a nominee for best graphics of the year because its been surpassed and thats all there is to it.

http://www.spike.com/event/vga/page/vote/category/29527 

Not only that but about 10% of all people who own that game actually run it maxed.  :roll:   Shows how smart Crytek is.  :lol:

nVidiaGaMer

Your troll-fu needs alot of work.

I mean, you just linked to the Spike Video Game Awards, instantly rendering most people unable to even take you seriously anymore.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]24x AA? Have we even achieved that yet? Anyways, like I said in that other thread, I doubt next-generation consoles would be even capable of pulling that off, unless they don't come out for 4-5 years.Velocitas8

24xAA is probably combined supersampling and multisampling. I think the newer generation ATi cards are capable of it.

6x multisampling combined with 2x2 supersampling maybe.

I dont know what's the super highest mode of AA for ATI cards but for nvdia it's 16xSSQAA i.e. super sampling quality AA which can be achieved with a single card.It is much much more demanding than 16xQAA.Forget crysis you cant even run most all new games with 16xSSQAA at a high resolution no matter what your setup be. 

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]Wrong it was significantly more powerful as is any console when its released excluding some.  I have a PC with a 9800GTX and I still think Gears 2 looks better then anything on my PC so thats that. Velocitas8

If it was indeed "significanlty" more powerful, it sure didn't show early on.

At the second line: you're either lying or delusional.

I thought pc was so much more powerful than consoles then why cant it do it? Pc gamers brags about Crysis and yet they cant play the game at max settings. I think Next-gen consoles will max out crysis before pc.

Waits for "My GTX 280 can max out crysis at 1920x1080 with 4xaa"

Love-Bank

Who cares about anti aliasing seriously? when you are at resolutions like 1600x1200 or higher jaggies really arent a problem even without anti aliasing.

even if you are running 1280x1024 it's not bad....no aa

anti aliasing doesnt make the graphics better it just smoothes the edges of polygonal objects off

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]Wrong it was significantly more powerful as is any console when its released excluding some. I have a PC with a 9800GTX and I still think Gears 2 looks better then anything on my PC so thats that. Thinker_reborn

If it was indeed "significanlty" more powerful, it sure didn't show early on.

At the second line: you're either lying or delusional.

Lol it still is.

Some games dont really need anti aliasing.

crysis you cant really notice jaggies even at 1280x1024 no aa.

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]Wrong it was significantly more powerful as is any console when its released excluding some. I have a PC with a 9800GTX and I still think Gears 2 looks better then anything on my PC so thats that. Thinker_reborn

If it was indeed "significanlty" more powerful, it sure didn't show early on.

At the second line: you're either lying or delusional.

Upgrade 2.6GHz Dual Core AMD, 2GB RAM, and 9800GTX.  And I played through Crysis ... bad AI at times, lame story, lots of glitches like spinning barrels, getting stuck in debris, the level design is bad and copies far cry.  I can go on and on. 

[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

 

If it was indeed "significanlty" more powerful, it sure didn't show early on.

At the second line: you're either lying or delusional.

nVidiaGaMer

Upgrade 2.6GHz Dual Core AMD, 2GB RAM, and 9800GTX.  And I played through Crysis ... bad AI at times, lame story, lots of glitches like spinning barrels, getting stuck in debris, the level design is bad and copies far cry.  I can go on and on. 

The original Far Cry was from Crytek.  So obviously they would be similar.

[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

If it was indeed "significanlty" more powerful, it sure didn't show early on.

At the second line: you're either lying or delusional.

nVidiaGaMer

Upgrade 2.6GHz Dual Core AMD, 2GB RAM, and 9800GTX. And I played through Crysis ... bad AI at times, lame story, lots of glitches like spinning barrels, getting stuck in debris, the level design is bad and copies far cry. I can go on and on.

far cry was made by crytek.....crysis developers hmmm who would of guessed.

the game is far superior to any console crap game.

there will be video cards years down the road running this game at a few hundred fps.

[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

 

If it was indeed "significanlty" more powerful, it sure didn't show early on.

At the second line: you're either lying or delusional.

nVidiaGaMer

Upgrade 2.6GHz Dual Core AMD, 2GB RAM, and 9800GTX.  And I played through Crysis ... bad AI at times, lame story, lots of glitches like spinning barrels, getting stuck in debris, the level design is bad and copies far cry.  I can go on and on. 

Of course. A couple of years down the road and mid-range cards will max out Crysis with ease. Even farther down the road and motherboards with integrated graphics will max it out without breaking a sweat.

Computer technology is constantly improving and will only continue to get better and better and better.

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]24x AA? Have we even achieved that yet? Anyways, like I said in that other thread, I doubt next-generation consoles would be even capable of pulling that off, unless they don't come out for 4-5 years.Thinker_reborn

24xAA is probably combined supersampling and multisampling. I think the newer generation ATi cards are capable of it.

6x multisampling combined with 2x2 supersampling maybe.

I dont know what's the super highest mode of AA for ATI cards but for nvdia it's 16xSSQAA i.e. super sampling quality AA which can be achieved with a single card.It is much much more demanding than 16xQAA.Forget crysis you cant even run most all new games with 16xSSQAA at a high resolution no matter what your setup be. 

There is no actual limit on anti aliasing. Its just that with realtime rendering anything over 4 is just for show.

I do 64 samples when I do renders:roll: 

[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

 

If it was indeed "significanlty" more powerful, it sure didn't show early on.

At the second line: you're either lying or delusional.

grubsomefood

Lol it still is.

In an 8800GT powered PC,an AMD single core 4000+ CPU at 2.4Ghz runs COD4 at 45FPS in 10x7 at "lowest" settings.

That's much worse than the console COD4.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/p-5.html

i'm sure it will have 3 GeForce 280's with 8 gig of ram and x2 Intel i7 too.

It will fun crysis in 100FPS and it will be cheap too!!!

Good god.

The 360 was slightly more powerful than many higher-end PCs when it first came out, true, but that superiority was very short-lived. Velocitas8

[QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

Good god.

The 360 was slightly more powerful than many higher-end PCs when it first came out, true, but that superiority was very short-lived. Saturos3091

Ok multiplats look better on PC ... of course Gears looks better on PC because it came out later. Bioshock looks the same on my 360 on 720P tv as it does on my PC maxed 1280x1024 and both games use Unreal Engine 3.  Gears 1 doesn't even max out the 360s capabilities.  Heck even Gears 2 doesn't max out the 360.  Its just that the Unreal Engine 3 got updated so now they added in destructable environments, larger environments, more enemies, better lighting, and so much more.  Alan Wake might max out the 360 but we'll have to wait till next year and if Gears 3 does make it to the 360 then it will max out the 360 most likely.  

Any game thats rereleased will look better.  Half Life 1 came out in 1998.  Then in 2000 Half Life 1 was released on the PS2 and it had better graphics then the PC version.  So I can counter that either way you look at it. 

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

Good god.

The 360 was slightly more powerful than many higher-end PCs when it first came out, true, but that superiority was very short-lived. nVidiaGaMer

Ok multiplats look better on PC ... of course Gears looks better on PC because it came out later. Bioshock looks the same on my 360 on 720P tv as it does on my PC maxed 1280x1024 and both games use Unreal Engine 3.  Gears 1 doesn't even max out the 360s capabilities.  Heck even Gears 2 doesn't max out the 360.  Its just that the Unreal Engine 3 got updated so now they added in destructable environments, larger environments, more enemies, better lighting, and so much more.  Alan Wake might max out the 360 but we'll have to wait till next year and if Gears 3 does make it to the 360 then it will max out the 360 most likely.  

Any game thats rereleased will look better.  Half Life 1 came out in 1998.  Then in 2000 Half Life 1 was released on the PS2 and it had better graphics then the PC version.  So I can counter that either way you look at it. 

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

Good god.

The 360 was slightly more powerful than many higher-end PCs when it first came out, true, but that superiority was very short-lived. nVidiaGaMer

Ok multiplats look better on PC ... of course Gears looks better on PC because it came out later. Bioshock looks the same on my 360 on 720P tv as it does on my PC maxed 1280x1024 and both games use Unreal Engine 3.  Gears 1 doesn't even max out the 360s capabilities.  Heck even Gears 2 doesn't max out the 360.  Its just that the Unreal Engine 3 got updated so now they added in destructable environments, larger environments, more enemies, better lighting, and so much more.  Alan Wake might max out the 360 but we'll have to wait till next year and if Gears 3 does make it to the 360 then it will max out the 360 most likely.  

Any game thats rereleased will look better.  Half Life 1 came out in 1998.  Then in 2000 Half Life 1 was released on the PS2 and it had better graphics then the PC version.  So I can counter that either way you look at it. 

[QUOTE="Thinker_reborn"][QUOTE="Velocitas8"]

 

If it was indeed "significanlty" more powerful, it sure didn't show early on.

At the second line: you're either lying or delusional.

nVidiaGaMer

Upgrade 2.6GHz Dual Core AMD, 2GB RAM, and 9800GTX.  And I played through Crysis ... bad AI at times, lame story, lots of glitches like spinning barrels, getting stuck in debris, the level design is bad and copies far cry.  I can go on and on. 

how does it copy Far Cry? Its made by the same developers. They decided to use the same setting which is a tropical island. Nothing wrong with that. And we all have opinions on certain games. I played RE4 on GC and did not like it as much as I thought I would.