Crysis doesn't need to be played at Very High on the highest res. to look stunning, as it looks very impressive and smooth at High, add in a few tweaks and it looks simply amazing running on XP with a few things on VH.

It's designed to be scalable, so that games that use the engine in the future will look amazingly good, if your designing a game now and it takes 3 years to build it's nice to know it won't look bad compared to the rest of the market when it releases.

If they wanted to create the fastest rig possible they should of used a top end OC'ed duel Quad core processor running on a 64bit OS using 4GB of Ram as Crysis can make use of these extra features it would of been worth the effort.

I expect that the performance will improve as Nvidia releases new drivers that offer better support for 3x Sli

makingmusic476 said: 3 8800s in SLi =/= the combined power of 3 8800s. SLi is pretty inefficient, and is only useful if there are no better cards on the market yet. A nVidia 9800 or whatever is up next will probably be more powerful than two 8800s in SLi. Also, the ram is probably another limitation. They should probably up it to 4 gigs using Vista 64-bit.

 the bolded part is the only part of your statement that is correct. Please research before you post.

As for your 64-bit comment read this: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1 

ssj12 said: makingmusic476 said: 3 8800s in SLi =/= the combined power of 3 8800s. SLi is pretty inefficient, and is only useful if there are no better cards on the market yet. A nVidia 9800 or whatever is up next will probably be more powerful than two 8800s in SLi. Also, the ram is probably another limitation. They should probably up it to 4 gigs using Vista 64-bit. the bolded part is the only part of your statement that is correct. Please research before you post. As for your 64-bit comment read this: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1

To be fair it is fairly inefficient....just not nearly to the degree he was implying.

ssj12 said: makingmusic476 said: 3 8800s in SLi =/= the combined power of 3 8800s. SLi is pretty inefficient, and is only useful if there are no better cards on the market yet. A nVidia 9800 or whatever is up next will probably be more powerful than two 8800s in SLi. Also, the ram is probably another limitation. They should probably up it to 4 gigs using Vista 64-bit.  the bolded part is the only part of your statement that is correct. Please research before you post. As for your 64-bit comment read this: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1

His 3rd sentence in  the first paragraph is also correct, It's logical to expect that the next top of the range graphics card will be more powerfull then two current Sli cards as they double in power every generation.

What he hasn't thought about is that  it costs far more to buy a new card then to buy a second "last gen" card to use in SLI which IMO is what makes it worth while.

ssj12 said: makingmusic476 said: 3 8800s in SLi =/= the combined power of 3 8800s. SLi is pretty inefficient, and is only useful if there are no better cards on the market yet. A nVidia 9800 or whatever is up next will probably be more powerful than two 8800s in SLi. Also, the ram is probably another limitation. They should probably up it to 4 gigs using Vista 64-bit. the bolded part is the only part of your statement that is correct. Please research before you post. As for your 64-bit comment read this: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1

What was wrong with my 64-bit comment?  Only a 64-bit OS can fully utilize 4gb of ram, and a 64-bit OS would probably speed up processes in Crysis overall.

As to my SLi comment, yes, I may have been over emphasizing a bit, but SLi is somewhat inefficient, even if your mobo has two PCIe slots with 16 lanes each.  My mobo is only PCIe x8 when in SLi, which is why I never bothered to pick up a second 7900gtx.

makingmusic476 said: ssj12 said: makingmusic476 said: 3 8800s in SLi =/= the combined power of 3 8800s. SLi is pretty inefficient, and is only useful if there are no better cards on the market yet. A nVidia 9800 or whatever is up next will probably be more powerful than two 8800s in SLi. Also, the ram is probably another limitation. They should probably up it to 4 gigs using Vista 64-bit. the bolded part is the only part of your statement that is correct. Please research before you post. As for your 64-bit comment read this: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1 What was wrong with my 64-bit comment?  Only a 64-bit OS can fully utilize 4gb of ram, and a 64-bit OS would probably speed up processes in Crysis overall. As to my SLi comment, yes, I may have been over emphasizing a bit, but SLi is somewhat inefficient, even if your mobo has two PCIe slots with 16 lanes each.  My mobo is only PCIe x8 when in SLi, which is why I never bothered to pick up a second 7900gtx.

I think what he was pointing out was that a 64bit OS does FAR more then just allow you to access more ram it improves preformance in many other ways - check out the link he posted for more details. From an interview I watched some time ago they confirmed that it runs best on a 64bit OS so I assume they have done some optimizing to take advantage of the 64bit architecture.

Vengi said: ssj12 said: makingmusic476 said: 3 8800s in SLi =/= the combined power of 3 8800s. SLi is pretty inefficient, and is only useful if there are no better cards on the market yet. A nVidia 9800 or whatever is up next will probably be more powerful than two 8800s in SLi. Also, the ram is probably another limitation. They should probably up it to 4 gigs using Vista 64-bit. the bolded part is the only part of your statement that is correct. Please research before you post. As for your 64-bit comment read this: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1 His 3rd sentence in the first paragraph is also correct, It's logical to expect that the next top of the range graphics card will be more powerfull then two current Sli cards as they double in power every generation. What he hasn't thought about is that it costs far more to buy a new card then to buy a second "last gen" card to use in SLI which IMO is what makes it worth while.

Not to mention it doesn't seem like the guy from the OP is to worried about money. 

Also, not all cards drop in price.  7900 gtxs were always hard to come by, and even now an open box card will cost around $300 on newegg, because they're very hard to find.

That card had major manufacturing issues, from what I recall.  I'm still enjoying my BFG, though. :) 

Vengi said: makingmusic476 said: ssj12 said: makingmusic476 said: 3 8800s in SLi =/= the combined power of 3 8800s. SLi is pretty inefficient, and is only useful if there are no better cards on the market yet. A nVidia 9800 or whatever is up next will probably be more powerful than two 8800s in SLi. Also, the ram is probably another limitation. They should probably up it to 4 gigs using Vista 64-bit. the bolded part is the only part of your statement that is correct. Please research before you post. As for your 64-bit comment read this: http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2007/10/16/64-bit_more_than_just_the_ram/1 What was wrong with my 64-bit comment? Only a 64-bit OS can fully utilize 4gb of ram, and a 64-bit OS would probably speed up processes in Crysis overall. As to my SLi comment, yes, I may have been over emphasizing a bit, but SLi is somewhat inefficient, even if your mobo has two PCIe slots with 16 lanes each. My mobo is only PCIe x8 when in SLi, which is why I never bothered to pick up a second 7900gtx. I think what he was pointing out was that a 64bit OS does FAR more then just allow you to access more ram it improves preformance in many other ways - check out the link he posted for more details. From an interview I watched some time ago they confirmed that it runs best on a 64bit OS so I assume they have done some optimizing to take advantage of the 64bit architecture.

 I could have 64-bit Vista Ultimate right now, but I'm an idiot.

About 6 months ago they were giving away copies of Vista (any version, whatever you wanted) for free to students.  I took ULtimate 32-bit, figuring I'd just upgrade from XP.  The upgrade went horribly wrong, and I ended up having to do a fresh install.  If I had known that, I would've just taken 64-bit, but I didn't.

In the end it was probably for the better. Creative's drivers for their x-fi cards for Vista are shitty as it is.  I don't even know if they have 64-bit drivers.

this thread is exactly why i love console gaming - way too much money on upgrades just to keep up to date for pc gaming

gawalls said: this thread is exactly why i love console gaming - way too much money on upgrades just to keep up to date for pc gaming

 exactly, this is why I don't like it when developers do this. My PC is comparable to the PS3 right now. However, because it's a PC, developers always seem increase the minimun requirements to play the newer games after every year without taking seriously time to considering if older PCs can also support it. In five years we'll see much better games on the 360 and PS3 and even the Wii and they all have the same specs yet my PC will be outdated and won't run those games fully. Constant upgrades really put a hurt on my wallet. However, I'm too set in my PC ways so I can't change.