By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Using Crysis to make predictions about the next generation of consoles.

Leetgeek on 18 June 2008
Mummelmann said:

There is no PC that can run Crysis on Ultra High and all settings to full at 60 fps regardless of price, it is too badly optimized.
A steady 60 fps is almost impossible even years down the line; I play Half-Life 2 at 55-60 fps on average and that is a game from four years back that was not even very hardware demanding for its time.
Even on 1024x768 with no AA or other effects it is hard to climb above 65-70.
These mythical PC for a few hundred bucks that can run Crysis with max settings do not exist, simple as that (cue someone to link to Tom's Hardware, neglecting the fact that they did not have all the settings to full, just the overall quality bar that defines sharpness, texture size and level of detail not to mention the fact that their fps averages were quite poor on all resolutions).

http://www.gemaga.com/2007/12/12/over-1800-in-video-cards-to-run-crysis-on-very-high

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/index.html

http://www.ngohq.com/games/14152-crysis-hd3870-veryhigh-1600x1200-vsyncon.html

 

There is a computer out there that can do this. Imagine money was no issue. What would it cost? 6k? 15k? 30k? That is the heart of the question.



Around the Network
Mummelmann on 18 June 2008

I'd wager a guess and say around 20k, and that's a bare minimum, it could just as easily be 2-3 times more.



sc94597 on 18 June 2008
Mummelmann said:

There is no PC that can run Crysis on Ultra High and all settings to full at 60 fps regardless of price, it is too badly optimized.
A steady 60 fps is almost impossible even years down the line; I play Half-Life 2 at 55-60 fps on average and that is a game from four years back that was not even very hardware demanding for its time.
Even on 1024x768 with no AA or other effects it is hard to climb above 65-70.
These mythical PC for a few hundred bucks that can run Crysis with max settings do not exist, simple as that (cue someone to link to Tom's Hardware, neglecting the fact that they did not have all the settings to full, just the overall quality bar that defines sharpness, texture size and level of detail not to mention the fact that their fps averages were quite poor on all resolutions).

http://www.gemaga.com/2007/12/12/over-1800-in-video-cards-to-run-crysis-on-very-high

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/index.html

http://www.ngohq.com/games/14152-crysis-hd3870-veryhigh-1600x1200-vsyncon.html

Well right now no, but the new generation of video cards are about to be launched soon with some cards already launched. I don't think a generation is a small step. Anyway the mid end cards of these bunch do about 90fps on high at 1080p. I believe the highend cards could max out crysis in ultra high pretty close 60fps. Maybe not at 1080p, but resolutions don't matter too much when your screen is only so big, and I could even see cards latter this year maxing it at 1080p. So no a 1,500 pc maxing crysis isn't out of the question.

 



sc94597 on 18 June 2008
Mummelmann said:
I'd wager a guess and say around 20k, and that's a bare minimum, it could just as easily be 2-3 times more.

Are you serious? So you are saying a computer that plays crysis is about as much as some cars? Really????

 



Mummelmann on 18 June 2008

With all settings maxed, full resolution (full AA, HDR, VSYNC, Real Time Shading, Reflections on full, Filtering etc) at a steady 60 fps; yes I'm serious. I've never seen a game this horribly optimized before.



Around the Network
Viper1 on 18 June 2008

$20k? Don't be silly. A crossfired HD4870x2 paired with a Core 2 Quad and 2 GB's of RAM should manage that lofty goal and that's out in less than a month. Well under your $20 grand budget.

I'll use the left overs to buy a massive monitor to play it on, an executive leather chair and mahogany desk to pull up to.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

supermariogalaxy on 18 June 2008

^ There was a video on Youtube with quad-SLi 9800GTX's and he only got about 30FPS average....I think 15 was his minimum...



 

darconi on 18 June 2008
sc94597 said:
Mummelmann said:

There is no PC that can run Crysis on Ultra High and all settings to full at 60 fps regardless of price, it is too badly optimized.
A steady 60 fps is almost impossible even years down the line; I play Half-Life 2 at 55-60 fps on average and that is a game from four years back that was not even very hardware demanding for its time.
Even on 1024x768 with no AA or other effects it is hard to climb above 65-70.
These mythical PC for a few hundred bucks that can run Crysis with max settings do not exist, simple as that (cue someone to link to Tom's Hardware, neglecting the fact that they did not have all the settings to full, just the overall quality bar that defines sharpness, texture size and level of detail not to mention the fact that their fps averages were quite poor on all resolutions).

http://www.gemaga.com/2007/12/12/over-1800-in-video-cards-to-run-crysis-on-very-high

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/index.html

http://www.ngohq.com/games/14152-crysis-hd3870-veryhigh-1600x1200-vsyncon.html

Well right now no, but the new generation of video cards are about to be launched soon with some cards already launched. I don't think a generation is a small step. Anyway the mid end cards of these bunch do about 90fps on high at 1080p. I believe the highend cards could max out crysis in ultra high pretty close 60fps. Maybe not at 1080p, but resolutions don't matter too much when your screen is only so big, and I could even see cards latter this year maxing it at 1080p. So no a 1,500 pc maxing crysis isn't out of the question.

 

They just released some performance results on the next generation of GeForce cards, the GTX280/260 and of course they tried out Crysis on it.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-gtx-280,1953-18.html

Without completely optimized drivers, they were getting performance in the low 20s fps at 2560x1600 without filters and 14 fps with aa4x+af on. 

The results weren't particularly great on the 1920x1200 due to what must be some driver issues but based on those results I would say ultra high at 60 fps will be less than a year away at 1080p (which remember is less intensive than 1920x1200).

 

 

 



sc94597 on 18 June 2008
supermariogalaxy said:
^ There was a video on Youtube with quad-SLi 9800GTX's and he only got about 30FPS average....I think 15 was his minimum...

Link?

 



Griffin on 18 June 2008
sc94597 said:
supermariogalaxy said:
^ There was a video on Youtube with quad-SLi 9800GTX's and he only got about 30FPS average....I think 15 was his minimum...

Link?

 

I found something close to what he is decribing, the second test is 1920x1200, min FPS 13, max FPS 54, with an average of 44.  This is with all settings on very high, with NO AA.  But once you mod the files and get some better looking mods and put the AA up you could expect an average FPS of under 30.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXlR-Sjwg4w