How long before playing Crysis Warhead at 60fps constant at 1920x1200

I sincerely hope nvidias single gpu model is going to get close. Maybe not full AA, but at least enthusiast at 1920 @ 60fps.
 
Tolyngee said:
I'm holding off playing Warhead 'til W7 and I put together my tri-SLI system, whenever the new cards come out...

Maybe then I'll check out the FEAR series as well...
Click to expand...

Fear isn't really that graphically intense. I can play on max with my gtx 275 and e7200 @1680
 
Crysis is much more cpu bound then gpu. Gpu's double in power every few years but crysis needs approx 3 cpu cores and they aren't doubling in speed. You'd probably need an 9 Ghz core 2 quad to get that 60fps, and that's not going to happen for a while.

Not the first game that's true of, e.g. ut2004 with 32 players only needed a 6800GT for 60fps, but cpu wise it needed a core 2 running at 3Ghz+ - that cpu is came out several years after the 6800.
 
sbuckler said:
Crysis is much more cpu bound then gpu. Gpu's double in power every few years but crysis needs approx 3 cpu cores and they aren't doubling in speed. You'd probably need an 9 Ghz core 2 quad to get that 60fps, and that's not going to happen for a while.

Not the first game that's true of, e.g. ut2004 with 32 players only needed a 6800GT for 60fps, but cpu wise it needed a core 2 running at 3Ghz+ - that cpu is came out several years after the 6800.
Click to expand...

No,Crysis need more gpu power not cpu.If its about cpu then why 3 GTX285 sli gets big fps
boost comparing 1 GTX285?
 
sbuckler said:
Crysis is much more cpu bound then gpu. Gpu's double in power every few years but crysis needs approx 3 cpu cores and they aren't doubling in speed. You'd probably need an 9 Ghz core 2 quad to get that 60fps, and that's not going to happen for a while.

Not the first game that's true of, e.g. ut2004 with 32 players only needed a 6800GT for 60fps, but cpu wise it needed a core 2 running at 3Ghz+ - that cpu is came out several years after the 6800.
Click to expand...

No,Crysis need more gpu power not cpu.If its about cpu then why 3 GTX285 sli gets big fps
boost comparing 1 GTX285? GTX295 scores 40 fps while 9800GX2 scores about 20 on high resolutions and eye candy so your saying there is no improvements ?
 
sbuckler said:
Crysis is much more cpu bound then gpu. Gpu's double in power every few years but crysis needs approx 3 cpu cores and they aren't doubling in speed. You'd probably need an 9 Ghz core 2 quad to get that 60fps, and that's not going to happen for a while.

Not the first game that's true of, e.g. ut2004 with 32 players only needed a 6800GT for 60fps, but cpu wise it needed a core 2 running at 3Ghz+ - that cpu is came out several years after the 6800.
Click to expand...
sure Crysis needs a good cpu but whats on the market now such as the Core 2 and i7 are plenty for that game. sure running very high end sli setups will require a nice oveclock to fully use those cards but it can be done with current cpus. now the next gen of high end cards being used in SLI may show that some faster cpus could be useful.
 
5870x2 + 5870x2 CrossfireX. :) I think. But it better be on a fast i7 at 4ghz+.
 
when they actually recode the game to work properly in DX instead of only working efficiently on nVidia's hardware
 
Well let me know. I got rid of crysis and crysis warhead a long time ago, so I'm never going to be able to test this out, as I am sure as hell not going to bother playing those games again.
 
MANIST said:
Thanks for compliments on my pc also :D
Click to expand...

What is your DDR2 memory?

Crysis will run at 8xAA 60 FPS when Duke Nukem Forever comes out.

As soon as someone can break the barrier their Quadro farms will release a new level where a hydrogen bomb obliterates a snowy Moscow and rips open a space-time hole that compromises the earth's core. Every doll in the marketplace must splinter and vaporize. Or they'll cap it at 59.
 
RADEoN said:
Crysis uses roughly 4x the power that it should in my opinion. I think there's plenty of games that look just as good as Crysis, but are nowhere near as demanding.
Click to expand...

The only game that will give Crysis a run for it's money as far as graphics go will be Crysis 2. Name one game out now that looks that good. You can't because there still isn't one even close.
 
You may think these games appear to be as good as crysis but it simply isn't the case, in those games if u get extremely close to the objects in the game can u still make out extreme detail; no because those games use illusion of complexity at a distance.
 
Sherloc said:
You may think these games appear to be as good as crysis but it simply isn't the case, in those games if u get extremely close to the objects in the game can u still make out extreme detail; no because those games use illusion of complexity at a distance.
Click to expand...
Crysis still has some ass ugly graphics in certain spots though. some vegetation looks awful and the inside environments are quite awful and dated looking compared to how the game generally looks outside. even the first STALKER game completely obliterates Crysis on those inside environments.
 
Roberty said:
The only game that will give Crysis a run for it's money as far as graphics go will be Crysis 2. Name one game out now that looks that good. You can't because there still isn't one even close.
Click to expand...

As far as shooters, I like cod4, but I know it isn't as demanding as crysis or whatever. Dirt and Grid to me are probably the best looking games I've seen overrall on a good pc. What looks good is kind of subjective though. Crysis and Crysis Warhead are definitely the most demanding, but I wouldn't say the best looking games necessarily.
 
cannondale06 said:
the carrier is one of the most sluggish parts of the game. I wasnt all that impressed with the graphics there so amazing certainly wouldnt be my description.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the 5870x2 is going to break some barriers...maybe average 45-50 fps at 1920x1200 4xaa.
 
no, sorry I was replying to previous post...45-50fps average settings all enthusiast with 4 x AA
 
That is close. 45-50 fps is good even though it took two cards to do it.
 
I think if Crytek updated the game engine to Direct X 10.1 it would solve some of the poor performance issues, especially in newer mobile Nvidia cards (which do support DX 10.1) and ATI cards. I'd love to see this game fixed to maxed settings, but the game has some poor optimitations, and it may take more years necessary had they not been there.
 
Crysis is not poorly optimised, it simply is graphically so far advanced compared with any other game ever released.
GTA4 is what you would call poorly optimised!
2x GTX 275's overclocked and a Core I7 @ 3.5ghz and won't even let me max viewing distance etc...complete BS. it's a console port for FFS!
yeah like a console with a 7800gt is comparable:rolleyes:
 
PlatinumPC said:
Crysis is not poorly optimised, it simply is graphically so far advanced compared with any other game ever released.
GTA4 is what you would call poorly optimised!
2x GTX 275's overclocked and a Core I7 @ 3.5ghz and won't even let me max viewing distance etc...complete BS. it's a console port for FFS!
yeah like a console with a 7800gt is comparable:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Crysis was certainly not as optimized as it could have been and some modders have easily proven that by providing better visuals while keeping or in some cases increasing the framerate.
 
there is a difference between "poorly optimised" and "could have been better"..almost any game released could have been better optimised in hindsight
 
cannondale06 said:
Crysis was certainly not as optimized as it could have been and some modders have easily proven that by providing better visuals while keeping or in some cases increasing the framerate.
Click to expand...

Not true, Crysis was the most optimized game ever released to the pc Sir. I doubt it could have been more optimized. The graphics are just WAAAAAYYYYY Too advanced for our times...Ok, you got me...all these video card refreshes aren't exactly speeding things up :p
 
PlatinumPC said:
Crysis is not poorly optimised, it simply is graphically so far advanced compared with any other game ever released.
Click to expand...
I was saying the same thing just a few weeks ago. Until I got Far Cry 2. I'm not saying it looks as good as Crysis, but it's not too far off at times. And most importantly, it does it at 40-50fps, at resolutions that would put my Crysis framerates in the single digits.
 
I simply refer to the interviews in which Crysis was claimed to have been heavily optimized. When it was evident that it ran slow as shit, Crytek said Warhead would be further optimized. When that ran just as shitty, I saw it as proof that they optimized neither. Why optimize when you can save time, money and an Nvidia sponsorship by making a game that requires $1200 in video cards just to play halfway decent. Do you think when Nvidia was working with Crytek that they were trying to make it run maxed out on existing video cards? how would that sell products?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put two and two together.
 
1. Warhead does run better than Crysis.
2. Far Cry, whilst it looks fantastic, it's no where near as graphic intensive or demanding as Crysis.
The simple fact remains that there is no other game that is as graphic intensive, so who are we to start saying that it's poorly optimized.

As I've mentioned earlier, GTA4 runs worse on systems than Crysis..explain that one!
Personally the only other game that comes close in my opinion, is Modern Warfare..but considering it's on rails..once again is not in the same graphic league.
 
PlatinumPC said:
Crysis is not poorly optimised, it simply is graphically so far advanced compared with any other game ever released.
GTA4 is what you would call poorly optimised!
2x GTX 275's overclocked and a Core I7 @ 3.5ghz and won't even let me max viewing distance etc...complete BS. it's a console port for FFS!
yeah like a console with a 7800gt is comparable:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
+1 on all that

I WISH I had the same frames on GTA4 at low-medium that I get on Crysis at Medium-High.
 
PlatinumPC said:
1. Warhead does run better than Crysis.
2. Far Cry, whilst it looks fantastic, it's no where near as graphic intensive or demanding as Crysis.
The simple fact remains that there is no other game that is as graphic intensive, so who are we to start saying that it's poorly optimized.

As I've mentioned earlier, GTA4 runs worse on systems than Crysis..explain that one!
Personally the only other game that comes close in my opinion, is Modern Warfare..but considering it's on rails..once again is not in the same graphic league.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There is no other game out there that even comes CLOSE to looking as good as Crysis and Crysis Warhead maxed out (if you think so, that's solid evidence you've never played it maxed out). Crysis was way ahead of its time, and I'm glad that we have gaming companies like Crytek that (hopefully) will continue to push the limits.
 
Mr. K6 said:
Exactly. There is no other game out there that even comes CLOSE to looking as good as Crysis and Crysis Warhead maxed out (if you think so, that's solid evidence you've never played it maxed out). Crysis was way ahead of its time, and I'm glad that we have gaming companies like Crytek that (hopefully) will continue to push the limits.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's not much hope at all. CryEngine 3 is being developed for consoles.
 
cannondale06 said:
each version will be different and the pc game will not be some ported crap.
Click to expand...

It's still going to be a console port, so the graphics are inherently going to be no better than what consoles are capable of displaying.
 
AVT said:
It's still going to be a console port, so the graphics are inherently going to be no better than what consoles are capable of displaying.
Click to expand...
absolutely not true. in a few months you will see just how ridiculous that claim is too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top