Two GTX 280 are enough for Crysis

Ouch, well I wouldnt discredit everything he says yet, they do seem to get cards before everyone else. Take their review of the BFG 8800GT OCX, that was rather fast. BFG annouced at june 3rd while their review was on the 4th.

Buuut who knows, wait a week and see if it comes true :p
 
Crysis will last a few generations of GPU's, I dont think the G2xx series will be the one to run it at "VERY HIGH" at 2560x1600.
 
I just hope Crysis will run fine at a resolution of 1680x1050 with anti aliasing on. Only if NVIDIA would release another GX2, or maybe SLI two 280's would do the trick.
 
John Vuong said:
I just hope Crysis will run fine at a resolution of 1680x1050 with anti aliasing on. Only if NVIDIA would release another GX2, or maybe SLI two 280's would do the trick.
Click to expand...

Im on the same boat, but im not worried
Supposedly it can run Crysis VH settings @ 1920x1200, so im guessing Very High @ 1680x1050 2xAA 16xAF is more than likely at above 30 fps avg ... if not, i ll just disable AA
 
Even Fud admits in that article- despite feeling the need to shroud it in the negativity of not being able to hit 4x"FSAA" (sure, no bias at all...)- that a single GTX 280 will be able to handle Crysis at 1920x1200 on Very High (likely w/16xAF and possibly even 2xMSAA given that Fud only disqualified 4xMSAA and not 2xMSAA- what's not said in a Fud article often speaks volumes)- and remember that on Very High settings, Crysis is already applying a form of AA to its vegetation.

Furthermore, Fud also pretty much also confirmed that two GTX 280's in SLI will handle 2560x1600, once again quite-likely with 2xMSAA. If you really want something beyond that, there's always Tri-SLI (which could actually be useful if nVidia gets PhysX together and manages to get that optimized very well w/SLI). But given that not even EIGHT gpu's currently can tackle Crysis at 1920x1200 Very High settings, that a single GTX 280 can indeed do this is significant. And as far as 2560x1600 goes, imo that's what SLI and even Tri-SLI is for.
 
Where have u seen an Eight GPU benchmark of Crysis ? (That 8 GPU shit for reserch dont count)
Doubt NV even made drivers for that kind of setup to be even worth it
 
At 1920x1200, 2x AA is enough for me. I don't notice the difference as much beyond that. I really can't wait until the 280 comes out! Crysis at 'Very High' all smooth *drool*
 
It doesn't though

Anyways, sources have said 2560 x 1600 Crysis is pretty much not going to happen without the GTX280 in SLI atm
 
ZerazaX said:
Anyways, sources have said 2560 x 1600 Crysis is pretty much not going to happen without the GTX280 in SLI atm
Click to expand...

Which, imo, is fine. 2560x1600 is pretty much what SLI was made for. Just getting Crysis running at 1920x1200 smoothly with a single card will be huge because that basically bumps the "standard" resolution for visually high-end games all the way up to that, and that's a huge accomplishment and very nice advance.
 
Is there not something distastefully obscene about needing over $1200 worth of video cards (assuming a single GTX 280 is rumored to be $600+) to play a $50 video games at top settings?
 
Mr. Wolf said:
Is there not something distastefully obscene about needing over $1200 worth of video cards (assuming a single GTX 280 is rumored to be $600+) to play a $50 video games at top settings?
Click to expand...

It should be multiple $50 games by year's end. But it really depends on what you label as "top settings". A 30" monitor that can even output 2560x1600 will already run you about $1000, so...
 
Mr. Wolf said:
Is there not something distastefully obscene about needing over $1200 worth of video cards (assuming a single GTX 280 is rumored to be $600+) to play a $50 video games at top settings?
Click to expand...

Why is this the case? I always find it odd when people say things like this as though top of the line should be cheap. Why can't I buy a house in Beverly Hills for $100,000? Why can't I get a Lamborghini for $20,000? Why can't I get a meal at Ruth's Chris for $40?

High end in anything just costs more. A LOT more in most cases.
 
Mr. Wolf said:
Is there not something distastefully obscene about needing over $1200 worth of video cards (assuming a single GTX 280 is rumored to be $600+) to play a $50 video games at top settings?
Click to expand...

I don't think so (well obviously I don't since I'm guilty of spending a good chunk of my money on hardware)... It's always going to come at the expense of something else to spend a lot of money on one thing. It's up to every person to decide whether they want to spend their cash on two GTX 280's or spend it on other things (a laptop, a few week's worth of partying, designer clothes, jewelry, a pet dragon). It isn't 'obscene' one way or the other (unless the dragon burns down your village). Something would happen to the money no matter what. So you if the idea of Crysis at 2560x1600 with the 'Ultra' setting enabled gets you as excited as a very excited person, you might as well buy it.
 
why is Crysis so demanding? It seems like every other current video game is a lot less demanding.
 
deft touch said:
why is Crysis so demanding? It seems like every other current video game is a lot less demanding.
Click to expand...

Kyle has explained it well. Crysis draws a lot more polygons in a scene than any other game out. It truly is a next generation game. I think people have gotten spoiled but its been very common in PC gaming to have a game exceed the capability of hardware at maximum settings. The original Far Cry was such as game. Nothing at the time ran it well at maximum settings and high resolutions.

Plus is not like turning down settings doesn't allow the game to be played with curent hardware.

As much as anything, this is why developers DON'T want to make high end PC game exclusives. All the work and effort Crytek put into this game only to have Monday morning software developers second guess them and say things like "its crappy code" when no console game even touches it.

The PC is about to recieve the GTX 280, the most power single core GPU ever created. It will run the most technicially sophisticated game ever created well it appears. Folks this is incredible stuff made by very smart people. We consumers often do not give them enough credit.
 
This would be the $600 part right ? Ive been considering getting the TOP card of the next generation for quite some time, if Crysis at 1920x1080+Very High+4xAA is all that good then damn :D might as well dip in.
 
Nah it won't be 4xAA, most of what I've heard is 1920 x 1200 + Very High but no AA, not sure on AF
 
Mr. Wolf said:
Is there not something distastefully obscene about needing over $1200 worth of video cards (assuming a single GTX 280 is rumored to be $600+) to play a $50 video games at top settings?
Click to expand...

Well you can usually run games at decent settings with a slightly slower CPU/video card, for much cheaper. That's why so many people go for good price/performance parts. The high-end cards/CPUs/etc will always cost a lot. These technologies aren't cheap to develop and produce (just look at AMDs financial problems..), so don't expect them to be cheap to buy.

This isn't the first game that has needed top-end PC either, and it won't be the last. These are the games that ultimately push the industry forward. You can bet on future games being similarly (and even more) demanding on hardware.
 
I've played through Crysis and while I admit it is really nice to look at (I played through the entire game at high settings at 1680X1050 with AAX4) I still don't understand why even next gen cards won't be able to play it at very high settings/resolutions with at least 60 fps. Is it just programmed badly?

As a comparison, has anyone tried the new demo for Devil may Cry 4 for the PC? I realize that this is just a demo, but holy smokes, if the demo is any indication, the people at Capcom are wizards at progamming for the PC. I played the demo at 2560X1600 with 16CQ and every setting on super high detail and I was averaging nearly 50 FPS on the scenes with heavy action. And the game looks drop dead gorgeous. I'm definitely going to get it when the full version is released. Although I think I'll definitely need to invest in a game pad to play it.

In my wildest dreams I can't even think about playing Crysis at those settings and it's not like my rig is weak at all. How much does programming play into this?
 
I totally agree about Devil May Cry 4, what an awesome engine they got going there. Capcom in general actually has a really good history of good engines that look great and run at great framerates.

Its after seeing something like DMC4, that it makes you wonder if crysis really could have been optimized better. Surely their must be something they could have done to improve the framerate at minimal loss of visual quality.

Another good example of a beautiful game at a good framerate (in my opinion) is gears of war on xbox360. You don't know how many titles look sooooo much worse then that AND have serious framerate drops as well.
 
heatlesssun said:
Kyle has explained it well. Crysis draws a lot more polygons in a scene than any other game out. It truly is a next generation game. I think people have gotten spoiled but its been very common in PC gaming to have a game exceed the capability of hardware at maximum settings. The original Far Cry was such as game. Nothing at the time ran it well at maximum settings and high resolutions.

Plus is not like turning down settings doesn't allow the game to be played with curent hardware.

As much as anything, this is why developers DON'T want to make high end PC game exclusives. All the work and effort Crytek put into this game only to have Monday morning software developers second guess them and say things like "its crappy code" when no console game even touches it.

The PC is about to recieve the GTX 280, the most power single core GPU ever created. It will run the most technicially sophisticated game ever created well it appears. Folks this is incredible stuff made by very smart people. We consumers often do not give them enough credit.
Click to expand...

QFT

I've played through Crysis and while I admit it is really nice to look at (I played through the entire game at high settings at 1680X1050 with AAX4) I still don't understand why even next gen cards won't be able to play it at very high settings/resolutions with at least 60 fps. Is it just programmed badly?

As a comparison, has anyone tried the new demo for Devil may Cry 4 for the PC? I realize that this is just a demo, but holy smokes, if the demo is any indication, the people at Capcom are wizards at progamming for the PC. I played the demo at 2560X1600 with 16CQ and every setting on super high detail and I was averaging nearly 50 FPS on the scenes with heavy action. And the game looks drop dead gorgeous. I'm definitely going to get it when the full version is released. Although I think I'll definitely need to invest in a game pad to play it.

In my wildest dreams I can't even think about playing Crysis at those settings and it's not like my rig is weak at all. How much does programming play into this?

...

I totally agree about Devil May Cry 4, what an awesome engine they got going there. Capcom in general actually has a really good history of good engines that look great and run at great framerates.

Its after seeing something like DMC4, that it makes you wonder if crysis really could have been optimized better. Surely their must be something they could have done to improve the framerate at minimal loss of visual quality.

Another good example of a beautiful game at a good framerate (in my opinion) is gears of war on xbox360. You don't know how many titles look sooooo much worse then that AND have serious framerate drops as well.
Click to expand...

You'll have to pardon my contempt, but you guys are dumbasses... DMC 4 doesn't even come close to Crysis as far as image quality is concerned. And Crysis also doesn't require 60fps- it's smooth at 25fps and lightning at 35+fps. Please get a clue before you post again...
 
TerranUp16 said:
QFT



You'll have to pardon my contempt, but you guys are dumbasses... DMC 4 doesn't even come close to Crysis as far as image quality is concerned. And Crysis also doesn't require 60fps- it's smooth at 25fps and lightning at 35+fps. Please get a clue before you post again...
Click to expand...


To add Crysis is a sandbox with a massive view distance, you can see a barrel a mile away, that item is not painted in, it is tracked by the game, it is movable and destructible. The same goes for every bush you can see (and you can see for miles).

The engine is by far the most advanced engine out there, anyone that has played with the sandbox editor will realise this.

Lastly as I have stated before, Crysis started development over 3.5 years ago, you can't blame Crytek for ATI sucking recently and Nvidia sitting on the same architecture for 18 months+, GPU's could have well been further along, its always a guess.
 
Battleneter2 said:
To add Crysis is a sandbox with a massive view distance, you can see a barrel a mile away, that item is not painted in, it is tracked by the game, it is movable and destructible. The same goes for every bush you can see (and you can see for miles).

The engine is by far the most advanced engine out there, anyone that has played with the sandbox editor will realise this.

Lastly as I have stated before, Crysis started development over 3.5 years ago, you can't blame Crytek for ATI sucking recently and Nvidia sitting on the same architecture for 18 months+, GPU's could have well been further along, its always a guess.
Click to expand...

Super QFT
 
TerranUp16 said:
QFT



You'll have to pardon my contempt, but you guys are dumbasses... DMC 4 doesn't even come close to Crysis as far as image quality is concerned. And Crysis also doesn't require 60fps- it's smooth at 25fps and lightning at 35+fps. Please get a clue before you post again...
Click to expand...



Oh, I see, so you've played DMC4 on PC at 2560X1600 with every setting maxed out? (please dont' come back with some crap that you've seen or played the game on 360. You cannot even compare the two. Just like with Bioshock for instance. My neighbor who plays it on an HD bigscreen on his 360 will be the first to tell you that on my PC at 2560X1600 with 16XAA is it FAR superior visually)

Besides you're missing the point we were trying to make

We weren't stating that they're visually superior, merely that at max settings, these games are indeed visually stunning at well. The draw distances, destructible environments, etc. of Crysis are to be lauded for sure. However as gamers, it's sad that hardware that is released nearly a year after the game still won't be able to play the game at the max settings most other games are capable of being played at.
 
Johnny78 said:
Oh, I see, so you've played DMC4 on PC at 2560X1600 with every setting maxed out? (please dont' come back with some crap that you've seen or played the game on 360. You cannot even compare the two. Just like with Bioshock for instance. My neighbor who plays it on an HD bigscreen on his 360 will be the first to tell you that on my PC at 2560X1600 with 16XAA is it FAR superior visually)

Besides you're missing the point we were trying to make

We weren't stating that they're visually superior, merely that at max settings, these games are indeed visually stunning at well. The draw distances, destructible environments, etc. of Crysis are to be lauded for sure. However as gamers, it's sad that hardware that is released nearly a year after the game still won't be able to play the game at the max settings most other games are capable of being played at.
Click to expand...

Because OTHER games don't match the max settings of Crysis...? I mean really... And yeah, I have played the DMC 4 demo and Crysis- both on PC (I've also played DMC 4- and even this same demo- on my friend's 360 and the PC version is definitely visually superior; not to mention, I'm already working on a GlovePIE script for the DMC 4 PC demo 'cause DMC 4 screams Wiimote + Nunchuk). But DMC 4 has nothing on Crysis. It's not doing even half as much work as CryEngine 2 is. You could make an argument that DMC 4, much like Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3, features excellent artistic design that compensates for its lack of technical oomph when comparing it to a game like Crysis. But the fact of the matter is that the texture rez in DMC 4 doesn't match what Crysis does, the draw distance doesn't, the lighting definitely doesn't, the on-screen pixel count is far lower, the normal, spec, etc... maps are lower rez... You simply cannot compare the performance of DMC 4 PC to Crysis because they are both rendering at completely different quality levels. I should also probably mention that DMC 4, like GoW, uses the much more forgiving 3rd person camera...
 
TerranUp16 said:
Because OTHER games don't match the max settings of Crysis...? I mean really... And yeah, I have played the DMC 4 demo and Crysis- both on PC (I've also played DMC 4- and even this same demo- on my friend's 360 and the PC version is definitely visually superior; not to mention, I'm already working on a GlovePIE script for the DMC 4 PC demo 'cause DMC 4 screams Wiimote + Nunchuk). But DMC 4 has nothing on Crysis. It's not doing even half as much work as CryEngine 2 is. You could make an argument that DMC 4, much like Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3, features excellent artistic design that compensates for its lack of technical oomph when comparing it to a game like Crysis. But the fact of the matter is that the texture rez in DMC 4 doesn't match what Crysis does, the draw distance doesn't, the lighting definitely doesn't, the on-screen pixel count is far lower, the normal, spec, etc... maps are lower rez... You simply cannot compare the performance of DMC 4 PC to Crysis because they are both rendering at completely different quality levels. I should also probably mention that DMC 4, like GoW, uses the much more forgiving 3rd person camera...
Click to expand...


Look, you're missing the forest for the trees. No one's arguing that the Crysis engine has to work harder than any other engine out there or that it's rendering more pixels or instructions. That is abundantly clear. To me, I could give a rats ass whether my game engine is rendering 6 pixels or a gazillion pixels every nanosecond. (I'll leave that up to you technie nerds to have wet dreams over the "prowess" of a game engine) On a fundamental basis, all I ask of a game visually is that it make me stop every once in a while and say, "Damn, that looks amazing."

Does Crysis accomplish this? Sure it does. But you know what? So does Call of Duty 4, and Bioshock, and Episode 2, and many other games out there. But the significant difference is that unlike Crysis, with those game I don't have to constantly jack around with configuration files, and resolutions and my AA settings. When you have to do that, it severely tempers the enjoyment of the visuals. Does Crysis look fantastic? Of course it does, but does it look THAT good to compensate for the myriad problems the engine has created? For many people the answer is no.
 
Johnny78 said:
Look, you're missing the forest for the trees. No one's arguing that the Crysis engine has to work harder than any other engine out there or that it's rendering more pixels or instructions. That is abundantly clear. To me, I could give a rats ass whether my game engine is rendering 6 pixels or a gazillion pixels every nanosecond. (I'll leave that up to you technie nerds to have wet dreams over the "prowess" of a game engine) On a fundamental basis, all I ask of a game visually is that it make me stop every once in a while and say, "Damn, that looks amazing."

Does Crysis accomplish this? Sure it does. But you know what? So does Call of Duty 4, and Bioshock, and Episode 2, and many other games out there. But the significant difference is that unlike Crysis, with those game I don't have to constantly jack around with configuration files, and resolutions and my AA settings. When you have to do that, it severely tempers the enjoyment of the visuals. Does Crysis look fantastic? Of course it does, but does it look THAT good to compensate for the myriad problems the engine has created? For many people the answer is no.
Click to expand...


But I think you're missing the point as well. Crysis was DESIGNED from the ground up to be a next generation game. It's bleeding edge and simply does a lot more than all the other games you mentioned. All the other games you mentioned have something in common that they do not share with Crysis, they run on consoles.

Plus, what problems are there with the Crysis engine? It scales pretty well, so if its slow on your system, turn down the settings and it will run and still look great. I do not see the problem.

Crytek built the next generation game that PC gamers said they wanted. We said we were tired of console ports. So Crytek brings it to us and just because the game cannot be maxed out on current generation hardware somehow that's a problem. I just don't get it.:confused:
 
heatlesssun said:
So Crytek brings it to us and just because the game cannot be maxed out on current generation hardware somehow that's a problem. I just don't get it.:confused:
Click to expand...



I think the whole point of this tread is people's reaction to the fact that Crysis won't be maxed out on NEXT generation's hardware either. Not just this one.
 
Johnny78 said:
I think the whole point of this tread is people's reaction to the fact that Crysis won't be maxed out on NEXT generation's hardware either. Not just this one.
Click to expand...

Actually it looks like it can be, but for a price. Fudzilla saif that GTX 280 SLI x2 will run Crysis very high @ 2650x1600 @ 2A. I think that @ 1920x1200 4AA would will probably work. So no, it looks like one card can't do it. But 2 or 3 can, and that's not possible with current gen hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top