| Mummelmann said: First off; I really quit playing games in s-vga resolution sometime in the late 90's, and secondly; any PC can run Crysis at high or very high settings with everything turned on, just not very well. Someone even tried with a quad-core Intel proccessor clocked at 3.5 or 4 GHz, GeForce 8800 Ultra twin SLi 2GB, 16 GB's of RAM and an insane Raptor drive that easily costs one third of that entire rig you posted, and the FPS average was around 30 with drops all the way down to 7 FPS... Many have claimed to run it at high or very high with decent framerates, but then it turns out that there was no AA, realtime shaders, HDR, any kind of filtering and only a semi-decent resolution. The truth is; the Cry-engine 2, in Crysis at least, is horribly, horribly optimized and hogs a ton more resources than its worth in sheer graphical output. The only game I can think of that has it beat in this is Neverwinter Nights 2, which had some subpar visuals that ate extreme amounts of power with everything turned on. If you consider playing on very high or high (or even medium as is implied) settings with every single advanced graphic option turned off (believe me, that SHOWS) "eating Crysis for lunch", then I have to laugh tbh. For most PC geeks (myself included) running a game at max does not only imply the texture size and overall settings, it includes all shading, lighting, full AA and HDR, filtering, v-sync and a high resolution (1600x1200 minimum, which takes quite an expensive monitor to achieve in and on itself) and none of this is possible on that rig without staying in the 5-10 FPS region which is utterly useless. I'm sorry, but this NewEgg "monster" does not run Crysis on "full settings" (which is different, very different, from the high or very high settings). Also, you'll have to consider for us living outside of NA that hardware is a helluva lot more expensive and that rig will quickly become twice as expensive (mine cost me 3500-4000 $ in todays currency). |
Tell you what, I didn't run the test so write Tom's Hardware and tell them they're full of sh*t. Don't let the mere fact that it's one of the most respected technical testing sites on the internet discourage you. I'm sure they will yield to your greater wisdom.
To me a frame rate of 24.4 at 1600x1200 at AA4x settings are acceptable to qualify as playing the game well. If you have an actual suggestion that will play it better in the price range, please share it with everyone.
I'm grown a little weary with it all. I think I presented a damn fine option with a hell of a lot of bang for the buck. I thought it would actually prove useful. If I had known it would just become a sniping target for everyone who thinks their computer has a bigger dick, I would not have wasted the time. And you can be damn sure I won't again.
