2.5Ghz & 8800m GTX - Can it run Crysis on High Settings with no problem?

Just curious if anyone here tried running Crysis on all High Settings (not very high) but on high settings with best resolution, and if it ran smoothly?

using the 2.5ghz and 8800gtx w/ 4gb ram

I had the 2.4ghz before and I was able to run it on medium with lagging but on high it would be pretty slow... Because im not sure if upgrading to a 2.5ghz processor would make a big difference

 

It should run on "high", but not on "very high".

 

I forget what my setting were for regular Crysis, but it was medium-high on 1920x1200. As for Crysis Warhead, I can run it on mostly high, but not completly, 1920x1200 with decent FPS. There are tweaks to improve performance that you could try out as well. Multiplayer runs even smoother for me. No FPS lag at all in multiplayer modes and straight up all high settings.

 

the 100mhz shouldnt give you any performance boost. maybe 1 more fps

 

with a 1440x900 screen using the tripleC optimization pack or something for Crysis, I could run on all High with playable FPS (30ish).

 

Oh yeah, he's on WXGA+ too, which is a lot less demanding, so you should be able to rock high like Koshinn.

 

its not about 100mhz but cache memory size. with 2.4ghz you get 3mb cache while with 2.5 you get 6mb cache. it might not have impact on fps at all but very much required for consistant smooth gameplay

 

i can run crysis on 1440x900, 2.5ghz , 4gb ram vista x64 , 8700m gt

it works ultra smooth on medium , while very few glitches on high..

 

specs in sig. Crysis at natural res with CCC mod, all high = sweetness

 

IMO, this wouldn't make a very big difference to gameplay. multitasking and/or alt-tabbing while the game was running... you'd see a performance difference, but probably not in-game.

my theory is that you're only running one exec. which doesn't take up a whole lot of cache space to begin with. the extra Cache should enable you to run a multitude of games and apps with minimal slowdown though...

I'm basing my theory on the fact that I saw (a few years back now), P4's compared to celerons of similar stature, which is to say, somewhat the same Ghz ratings. the bottom line was that the P4 wouldn't perform much better in-game, but when compared among many different applications, especially in multitasking, the P4 would rock the Celeron. even now, I see budget CPUs that are rocking games. Celerons were always stunted in both FSB and Cache. (that's how they dropped the cost)

Slower FSB, Less Cache, Similar performance. hense, I don't think the cache will make much of a difference at all.

yes, Crysis is a lot more demanding than previous generation games (even many current games), but still.

 

Right... not much difference... might not be noticeable at all. It was just a comparison between T9200 vs T9300 (not just 100MHz difference but much more..)

My theory is more from architectural design of processors and how they use the cache memory. Most modern processors have 3 independent caches. Instruction Cache, Data Cache, and Translation lookaside buffer (TLB). Data cache is used primarily to cache the frequently used data inside processor and not read it again and again from RAM. Processor cache is much faster then RAM.

Games like Crysis cache so much data in RAM and its like running few small games together. Its better for processor to cache more data inside internal cache rather then picking it from RAM everytime.