i know it should just be in hardware but that gets ways less reads so i put it in both.

my rig:

Q6600 @ 2.4 ghz

3 gig RAM (2 x 1024, 2 x 512)

8800gtx with 169.28 drivers

vista basic

playing all games at 1440 x 900 -

crysis barely playable on very high (around 20fps) - playable on high but with no AA (25-30 fps + on average)

- on later levels is lagging heavily even on high

company of heroes - high settings and 2xAA but starts lagging when 4 + players on skirmish or in intense battles

forged alliance - highest settings without AA and still lags even on early missions sometimes

Q6600 @ 2.4 ghz

3 gig RAM (2 x 1024, 2 x 512)

8800gtx with 169.28 drivers

vista basic

playing all games at 1440 x 900 -

crysis barely playable on very high (around 20fps) - playable on high but with no AA (25-30 fps + on average)

- on later levels is lagging heavily even on high

company of heroes - high settings and 2xAA but starts lagging when 4 + players on skirmish or in intense battles

forged alliance - highest settings without AA and still lags even on early missions sometimes

i am not one of those ppl who has unrealistic expectations about hardware but this is a great rig and i get the feeling it isnt performing how it should be ? any answers appreciated.

how futureproof is the 8800 GT? lookin around a bit it seems its close to the GTX performance wise. anyone whos got one care to give me couple of benchmarks :D ?

i can get a pre-built system (i know building from scratch is cheaper.etc) quadcore Q6600(2.40GHz) 3 gig RAM and a 8800 GT with all accessoriesfor £650, not bad me thinks. but swapping the 8800 GT for a 8800 GTX increases it by £240, that aint worth it right.

Seeing how Crysis and UT3 sales bombed like they did strangely i was actually glad to see this. Dont get me wrong Crysis was a special experience that i enjoyed and would rate in my top10 FPS of all time. But the monstrous hype levels it received and the raveing reviews which were imo nothing short of madness really showed PC gaming is changing. In that more and more people are obsessed with visuals, and i cant believe how many people i know were blinded by Crysis's graphics and as a result completely missed the shortcomingsof the game. Whereas games such as STALKER which try and push the gameplay barrier IMO have been massively underated and so developers will take less risky strategies in the future.

I was wondering how everyone thinks Crytek will react to such poor sales ? Although the conspiricist in me says they will have received a huge amount of money from nvidia for helping toincrease sales in graphics cards.

I even bunny hop in real life.gozalo

LMAO!

[QUOTE="HaloEleven"]

considering the amount of stuff going on behind the scenes, crysis is one of the best optimised games ever imo.

sasjebus

Some people don't understand that there are 2 options (Texture Quality & Shadows (in dx10 Object Quality as weel I think); but those and low and medium (you need shadows :D); the game looks absolutely fantastic and you don't need th most expencive hardware (I play with those settings with an AMD 4200+; 2gigs of ram and the 8600 GTS (OC edition)

And none of those things cost over 200$ so you have to invest max 1000$ if you have to start from scratch and you can play Crysis on real real nice settings

argh i avoid the shadows they rele bog your framerate down :p but in games like FEAR its crucial to have them on max. something well worth doing is setting post processing at high and it enables some sort of in game AA which rele smoothes out some rough edges.

i know a lot of ppl say bunnyhopping is fine and its part of the game (bf2 is worse culprit)but cmon espicially in online shooters its just retarded when your trying to have a tactical shootout and sum **** is hopping around madly, spoils it imo. and i could be killed less if i bunnyhop but i choose not to.