8800GT - Crysis at 1920x1200

phinix

phinix

Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
914
Anyone played Crysis in 1920x1200 with this card?
I just want to know how are the results - with very high, high, or medium details. I wonder if there is a point buying it or just wait for that new GTS 1GB to blow away GTX and Ultra in this resolution...
 
I think it should run it fairly well at that res...but some settings are going to have to be reduced and I think you can forget AA.
 
man i feel really laggy play crysis demo with my specs. and im running at medium with no aa at 1680x1050 res
 
antok86 said:
man i feel really laggy play crysis demo with my specs. and im running at medium with no aa at 1680x1050 res
Click to expand...

Well, don't know but looks like your cpu really sucks I had it a year ago, and compare to core 2 duo 6400 it was like 4000 points less in 3dmark06.... its really huge bottle neck in your rig...
 
phinix said:
Well, don't know but looks like your cpu really sucks I had it a year ago, and compare to core 2 duo 6400 it was like 4000 points less in 3dmark06.... its really huge bottle neck in your rig...
Click to expand...

ditto...especially considering how cpu intensive crysis is
 
yep, pretty much...

so hopefully it is possible to play in this res with at least 30fps... no AA, but high details.. casue I dont see point to play Crysis in medium...
This is really pisses me off - why there is no card that could pull Crysis in high res very high details and AA..? Jesus, nvidia should aready pop out with new card - come on!!!
I know not many people will play in this res, but this kind of game MUST have a support in best hardware to show all goodies it has RIGHT??
 
I tried Crysis at 1920x1080 (10% less pixels then 1920x1200) and it was only playable at medium settings. I got about 40 fps. (No FSAA)

Very high = less then 10fps and high = about 25ish fps. No FSAA.

Game still looks good at medium settings, but some FSAA would have been nice. I tested it under Vista. XP probably would have been better, but I wanted to try out DX10.
 
XP would probably get you just around 30 on high settings then, and I've heard that Crysis is very playable at 30.
 
well, vista is a must, if you want to see all dx10 goodies.. xp doesnt have them all.
Looks like 8800GT is a little bit on the edge with this resolution and this settings for Crysis. Maybe OC would help, but I think better would be to wait for that new GTS - looking forward then...
 
Like I said - it wont show all the goodies under XP, some of them, yes...
 
I played crysis at 1920x1200 with my 8800GTX. With everything on very high it plays smooth through the initial beach scene (when it's dark). But as soon as you get to the big view of the island in daylight it winds down to around 17fps. That's when I switch to 1024 heh.

wondering how SLi scales up to 1920x1200 with this game.
 
Yes, I was wondering what SLI will do for this game also. Are there any reviews with SLI results for Crysis ?
Is there a solid release date for the new GTS yet ?
 
In Vista the FPS are about the same on high as in XP. 20-30FPS for me, but XP has less effects that cause slow downs, so XP is much smoother.
 
AA kills performance in crysis pretty bad but what is crysis without AA. U have all the graphics up but no AA thats a waste.
 
It's interesting, some folks have stated that funning FRAPS slows down Crysis performance.

Also for the folks above trying to run the game with 19x12 I mean c'mon this is one of the most advanced games ever to come out on PC. You are playing an unoptimized demo, and you expect to run the game on very high at 19x12 with 8AA and at 60fps?

I have NO problem running the game at 16x10 at high-very high settings at 25-30fps.


See my post for screen shots and settings (including FPS counter)

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1235578&page=2
 
In Vista 32 bit, running in DX10 mode, FRAPS won't display for me at all, but with it running in the background it causes me very choppy performance....I can bring up task manager and kill FRAPS and performance goes back to normal.
 
Try to run it in the background without the FPS counter (disable in the options) just so you can take screenshots. I think it works well this way without a performance drop.
 
You do not need a better cpu for crysis you need a better gpu, as alot of people have tried to express. Crysis at 1920 * 1200 is completelly gpu bound as well as 99% of other games at that rez a new cpu won't help you a bit.
Look at the firing squad article on cpu scaling going from a 4600+ to a overclocked quad core at 3.2 ghz yielded a 2 fps gain and worse in other games.
We all want to believe our super fast cpu's are helping us in games but if you game with a large widescreen save your money for a faster gpu your cpu does nothing at high rez.
 
Yep. I'm happy to say that my 4400+ is not the issue. I need sli to run this at 1920x1200 (no AA plz).

larkin crysis mod #3: it helps if you offload the physics to the CPU

sys_physics_CPU = 1
 
antok86 said:
man i feel really laggy play crysis demo with my specs. and im running at medium with no aa at 1680x1050 res
Click to expand...

That sucks. I have a 7900 GTX with an e6700 that runs it fine with everything on high except shaders, particles, and volumetric on low, at 1680x1050. Its not uber buttery smooth, but its definitely playable. Newest drivers? They supposedly help alot. I think mine runs it pretty ok with most stuff on medium though too, except maybe a few on low. Shaders seems the biggest performance hit (aside from AA), you could likely turn alot of your other stuff up with out too much FPS loss.
 
phinix said:
Well, don't know but looks like your cpu really sucks I had it a year ago, and compare to core 2 duo 6400 it was like 4000 points less in 3dmark06.... its really huge bottle neck in your rig...
Click to expand...

wrong.

I have a 4200+ at 2.9 ghz and this game runs flawlessly. At 1680 x 1050 i do all high:

shaders: med
shadows: med
post processing: med

at 1280 x 1024 i do:
all high
shaders: med
shadows: high
post proc: high

it runs about the same as at 1680 x 1050 with these settings.
 
4400+ X2 (939), 8800GT OC, 2gb RAM..

With everything set to high, at 1680x1050, and no AA, I seem to get about 25-35 fps almost everywhere.

Every now and then it will drop to 18 or so for a second if it has to hit the harddrive, so I'm guessing a little extra memory would help.

With fraps running, it drops the framerate to a pretty steady 17-18 fps whether I'm recording or not.
 
If you wanna enjoy on very high settings than you must wait next high card. GT can't make it from the benches so far.
 
odin30 said:
You do not need a better cpu for crysis you need a better gpu, as alot of people have tried to express. Crysis at 1920 * 1200 is completelly gpu bound as well as 99% of other games at that rez a new cpu won't help you a bit.
Look at the firing squad article on cpu scaling going from a 4600+ to a overclocked quad core at 3.2 ghz yielded a 2 fps gain and worse in other games.
We all want to believe our super fast cpu's are helping us in games but if you game with a large widescreen save your money for a faster gpu your cpu does nothing at high rez.
Click to expand...



Exactly !!! on my oc'd quad (a cpu that Crysis is supposed to use to good effect) the game barely uses core 1 (20 to 40%) while core 0 is at 99%,core 2 gets maybe 5 to 15% with nothing on core 3. :( Hopefully the retail game will make better use of of all four cores.

Which leads me to think I will not / may not be upgrading my cpu for at least a few years The only thing about the Q93/9450 that at all interestes me now,is that it will run a good 10c cooler at the same or slightly higher overclock then what I have now 24/7 (3.2Ghz)...
 
oh my god...lol.....if my game doesnt run at 75 fps vsynced then i cant even play it. I guess itll be awhile before the hardware comes ouit to let me play that way. I CAN NOT play games in the 30s, once you play games in the 75-85-100 fps while synced, you can never go back, but i will say that it is as good as games will run, period! No tearing, and SILKY smooth with no hicups. I tried playing games at real high resolutions but unless its in the 70s and NEVER ever dips, then i just cant do it. Its that simple. Thats why i get really high end cards and processor and overclock em till the cows come home. Its harder, but MAN is it a night and day compairison!!
 
Just in case anyone cares, here are my bench marks. Everything on Very High, r_UseEdgeAA = 0 and sys_physics_cpu = 1

1920x1200 - 8800 GTX 635/1005 - CPU Test

!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 121.15s, Average FPS: 12.38
Min FPS: 7.32 at frame 196, Max FPS: 22.06 at frame 105
Average Tri/Sec: 17718962, Tri/Frame: 1431083
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.50


1920x1200 - 8800 GTX 635/1005 - GPU Test

!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 140.21s, Average FPS: 14.26
Min FPS: 9.68 at frame 138, Max FPS: 16.31 at frame 987
Average Tri/Sec: -9661269, Tri/Frame: -677313
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.35
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top