CRYSIS on 24" LCD

phinix

phinix

Gawd
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
914
Anyone tried to play Crysis on 24" but different res than 1920x1200?
Just want to know if that game is not playable at 1920x1200 with high details on any card, is there a chance to have a nice effects lowering res to 1680x1050 on 24"...
I have a Dell 2407 rev04.. anyone tried maybe on this on???
 
phinix said:
Anyone tried to play Crysis on 24" but different res than 1920x1200?
Just want to know if that game is not playable at 1920x1200 with high details on any card, is there a chance to have a nice effects lowering res to 1680x1050 on 24"...
I have a Dell 2407 rev04.. anyone tried maybe on this on???
Click to expand...

...the size of the monitor wouldn't make a difference if you lower the resolution to another standard like the 1680x1050 setting. Just find benchmarks for systems similar to yours at that res.
 
Yeah, I've got a Q6600 + 8800GTX + LG 24" L246WP and I've usually played the Crysis demo at 1680x1050 at everything on High, on Windows XP 32. It looks great!

At 1920x1200 it gets slightly choppy (25-30 fps) and even with the motion blur it doesn't look smooth anymore. But at 1680x1050 it's at 30-40 fps and looks 100% smooth and playable to me.

Also, the fact that it's not 1 to 1 pixel mapping gives you a free anti-aliasing effect of sorts, which is fine with me. Some people may not like that, and I guess it depends on how well your monitor handles the upscaling. On my LG it looks completely fine (to me). It's hard to tell the difference between 1680 and 1920 unless you look very carefully at the pixels from up close on purpose while standing still...
 
shurcooL said:
Yeah, I've got a Q6600 + 8800GTX + LG 24" L246WP and I've usually played the Crysis demo at 1680x1050 at everything on High, on Windows XP 32. It looks great!

At 1920x1200 it gets slightly choppy (25-30 fps) and even with the motion blur it doesn't look smooth anymore. But at 1680x1050 it's at 30-40 fps and looks 100% smooth and playable to me.

Also, the fact that it's not 1 to 1 pixel mapping gives you a free anti-aliasing effect of sorts, which is fine with me. Some people may not like that, and I guess it depends on how well your monitor handles the upscaling. On my LG it looks completely fine (to me). It's hard to tell the difference between 1680 and 1920 unless you look very carefully at the pixels from up close on purpose while standing still...
Click to expand...
WELL...in that case look slike 8800GT oc'd would be fine to play this game on 1680, based on your experience. That is kind of relief for me, thanks:)
 
phinix said:
WELL...in that case look slike 8800GT oc'd would be fine to play this game on 1680, based on your experience. That is kind of relief for me, thanks:)
Click to expand...

I am playing it wonderfully at 1920x1200 on my 24"....I have all settings to medium except for post processing to HIGH, the motion blur from that actually makes the framerate seem smoother. This is in DX10 mode from within Vista.

I was thinking of trying the dx9 "high quality" trick though....
 
For me, I opted the other way around. I have a 24" hp2408. I run the game at 1280x800 (yeah, I know - Jaggies from hell), but with VERY HIGH settings across the board. Yeah, the jags are annoying, but I like the details. Admittedly, I haven't had time yet to tweak it properly. Eventually, I would like to up the res to 1680x1050 at the minimum without sacrificing too much.

Running with 4gb RAM, Vista64, 8800GTX, e6700.

Well, at last, I've found a game that actually brings my box to it's knees. :)
 
I will get the game once it comes bundled with a gpu that can handle it at 1920x1200. My GTX does ok but not good enough for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top