I'll try to OC my CPU and GPU as much as my laptop will allow me lol. Playing on a laptop sucks. But for games like crysis, I thought my limiting factor would be my GPU and not my CPU.

Buying new hardware for better crysis graphics is a no brainer. I'm just saying that Crysis should look good on medium or high settings given how good it can look when maxed out. My laptop can play most games (CoD4 Fallout 3 Far Cry 2) on Medium/High-High settings nicely with AA on too, so I don't think I'm going to buy a new system right now just for Crysis.

I just installed CCC1.2 (2.1 won't run for some reason). It works pretty well, but I might do a little bit of tweaking myself.

Intel Core 2 Duo, p8400 @ 2.26ghz

4GB DDR2 800 Ram

Nvidia 9600M GT default clock

Vista 64bit.

Medium looks even uglier :?

With those specs, high doesnt run as smooth as I'd like it to =\

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/5484/crysis1lbo.jpg

my screenshot at high with 2xAA

vs

this one at high (which isn't mine)

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s131/muscrat_01/Crysis3.jpg

theirs looks so much better than mine :?

I mean, how could such a such good looking game (only at max settings of course) look so bad on medium and even high (to an extent) settings? I tried playing it on high, and without AA, it still doesnt look that good. Even with AA on, there are still a lot of stuff that have jagged edges (even with edge AA on).

I want the game to look at least decent on medium settings. For me, Crysis on medium is on par, if not worse, than say half life 2 on medium. The graphics need to back up the game, especially since the actual gameplay isn't too good either. But for me, the graphics just arent as good as I thought they would be.

I also tried running the game at max settings (max LCD resolution, 8x AA, DX10 with everything on very high) and even then it looked really bad. Now I'm not saying it runs smoothly at those settings. I just turned it to max to see what it really looks like, and like charles dickens said, it still doesnt look as good as it does in the pictures on the internet.

In game setting thing set everything to medium. Max 1280x800 resolution. No AA. It looks like CRAP! seriously, are my settings wrong or something? Im sorry but Far Cry maxed out looks better than crysis on medium. how come crysis looks so much like crap on medium settings? Jagged everything, and everything just looks like crap. Oblivion looks better than that. Heck, Half Life 2 looks better than that crap on medium. I also tried it on high. It looks a bit better but not much better.

I don't know why people say Crysis looks nice on medium.

I know there are these ultra settings mods that make crysis look beautiful but my computer can't run it that at that high. (which makes the game really not worth it for me). Are crysis graphics just this bad or are some of my settings not correct?

[QUOTE="Sephyzero"]yeah but my crappy CPU and the low RAM were also very limiting. If i had more ram and a better CPU then i can probably run them on higher resolutions.Spybot_9

actually i do need a better CPU and more RAM. in case you didn't know, the sempron is not a gaming cpu and most games today recommend at least 1gb of ram or more.

Hey everyone, just thought I'd share my thoughts on the Nvidia Geforce 8400GS, which I see many people put down.

First of all, the 8400GS is a low end card, but that doesn't mean it's not a gaming card. The one I have is a Foxconn one thats clocked at 459/918/400 with 256mb dedicated ram

Also, my system suck. I have a amd sempron 3400+ with only 256kb l2 cache and only 768MB ram, so I wasn't expecting great performances.

I've played a few modern games, including bioshock, HL2 ep 2, supreme commander, and Gears of War (omg GoW with a 8400!)

For bioshock, it ran suprisingly well, and I'm getting around 40+ fps with all settings high but at 640x480 resolution. However, that is after I overclock the card to 640/1380/428 lol. Without overclocking it runs around 25-30fps. However, I'm sure that if I met the minimum requirements for bioshock, which needs 1GB ram, and if i had a better processor, I would be able to run it at a higher resolution. btw, bioshock with all settings high at 640x480 doesn't look very bad. The occasional stuttering was due to the low ram I have.

Half life 2 episode 2 ran at 40+ fps with settings med-high and 720x540. However, I didn't overclock my card. I know that overclocking when I play source gives me like a 10+ fps boost though.

Supreme commander actually ran Ok. Fidelity was at medium and everything else was at low except textures. it ran at 25fps in the beginning of the game and around 15 i think when i had 500 units. When I overclocked it, I was able to play with 2xAA and low shadows on. However, I'm sure the poor performance I got with supreme commander isn't all due to my video card. If i had a better processor, my fps would definitely have been higher. A sempron, even when it first came out, was not a processor for gaming. Also, you CAN run supreme commander at resolutions lower than 1024x768. I'll post a tut on how to do it later.

Gears of War ran pretty well. I ran it at 800x600 with everything at medium except shadows and decal and I'm getting 45+fps. There is a little stuttering, but that's because the game wasn't ported over well. Lots of people have had trouble with Gears of war on PC.

If I had a core 2 duo and a 8600gt and 1gb ram, my results would be so much better.

so there's my two cents on the 8400gs. Now that you've seen how well I run modern games on a crappy PC, I hope people will see that even low end PCs can run games without too much restrictions. hope it helps