Crysis on Q9000...

Hey Im getting a new M17x. I was planning to get it with the Q9000 ( 2.0GHz) however, in the Crysis system requirements it says for vista the minimum processor speed is 2.2GHz or faster. Will the notebook play crysis???

Regards,
Darthmaniac

 

ye sit will play it.
it will play it just fine.
you should overclock it to 2.4 though.
also, Crysis is more of a graphic intensive game.
cpu is really the lesser of your worries when compared to gpus.
get dual 260s forsure.
they run it great, but still wont play crysis perfectly because it was optimized so poorly.

 

Thanks... But is there really any difference between the Q9000 and the QX9300
when it comes to gaming???

Regards,
Darthmanaic

 

In most games, no. CPU is rarely a bottleneck.

If I could run Crysis with a C2D 2.0 GHz P7350 and an underclocked GTX 260m, you should have no issues whatsoever.

 

So Forge your saying that with dual 260Ms and Q9000 I could run Crysis at high settings???

Regards,
Darthmaniac

 

With an overclock of 580/1450/880 on the GPU and my X9100 at stock 3.06 I could run it with very high textures and everything else high. Granted my screen has a lower native resolution than yours, but there you go.

You should be able to beast it quite nicely.

 

yes a q9000 will not be any faster then a t9600

its been tested and proven


(it will play )

 

With good GPUs you will have no probs. I'm playing Crysis and it runs quite smoothly - at max settings. (except for anti-aliasing - I rarely see a need for it anyway @1920 X 1200 resolution)

 

actually from 2.0 to 2.4, you will see a 3-5 FPS in crysis and crysis warhead. overclocking your cards will only give you 2-3FPS. i had my cards at 660/1025/1675 and only saw 2-3FPS. so on an overclocked qx9300 you may see up to 7FPS at 2.9. and when your frames drop to 20FPS, 7FPS makes a huge difference. I have custom optimized settings for crysis and crysis warhead that give better performance than very high and graphics looks better than very high(IMO).

 

Just don't think you're going to max it out though.

I'm running an i7 desktop rig with a overclocked radeon 4890 and I only resolution on 1920x1080, with max AA and all other settings on high. I hover around 30 FPS.

 

i'm sorry but i think 2.0ghz was so slow when i clocked down my qx9300. very very very slow. my t9400 in some apps was faster then that. but you can overclock it to 2.4ghz on the m17x. so that makes a difference

 

crysis run fine on my m17 with a q9000 every thing on hig execpt 2 setting that are on very high don't remember what they where it runs about 29 fps i've seen it goes down to 23 -24 in worst cases but hey what do you wan it's a EA game it will never run great on any thing don't dream

 

Seeming as Crysis is quad core optimized, it'll run fine on a Q9000. Even with a single 260M, you should play it on High or even Very High at 1440x900 without a problem. (I've seen my cousin's M17x play Crysis on Very High, 1440x900, with a Q9000 and single 260M and it was completely smooth)

Just don't expect to play smoothly on 1920x1200 with ANY graphics option, unless you're prepared to go down to medium.

 

it's smooth on mine at 1900x1200 it don't get any where hugly sins eyes only see 24 fps so 23 is not bad at all but AA is disabled of course

so it shall run better on the m17x

 

I get about 30ish FPS with my system....running at 1900 by 1200....

 

I'm running Crysis at 19x12 with everything on very high except for shading (high) and anti-aliasing at 2x. Runs very smooth.

My system specs are as follows:

P8600 OC'd to 3.0
dual 260 SLI (stock clock)
4GB ram

 

i thought crysis was only duo core compatible. i don't think it uses all 4 cores. only 2 are being used. i can run on very high at 1920x1200p no AA. i get from 25-30FPS. i'm not too sure about all on very high 1440x900 with one 260m. it would be running average 15-20FPS. my specs are q9000 @ 2.4 with 260m sli.

 

Actually 23-24fps is bad, usually the kind of point when playing an FPS is very hard. The M17x will actually not run better than yours, as you have 4850s which are in between 260Ms and 280Ms.

Okay,
1. When playing on my desktop with my G15 keyboard, the performance monitor would always show all 4 cores being utilised.
2. If you bothered to read my post, then you'd know that I've actually SEEN my cousin's M17x with a SINGLE 260M and a Q9000 playing Crysis on Very High, 1440x900, 100% smooth (so I'm thinking constantly above 30fps possibly in the 40s.)

 

Glad to hear that, cause thats exactly what i ordered, the games i play are way less intensive than crysis so ill be good if i do see any problems crop up, ill just order another 260m, then it should be all good.

 

People have had problems ordering a second 260M from what I've heard. However, if the most intensive thing you play is Crysis on 1440x900 it'll do fine on that (provided you don't put antialiasing on that just kills framerates on any graphics card on Crysis) and anything else you play.

The thing that Mazdaspeed_6 doesn't realise when he says it won't play well on a single 260M is that he plays on 1920x1200...which uses a MASSIVE amount more graphics power than 1440x900. Considering on 1440x900 it has to render 1,296,000 pixels and on 1920x1200 it has to render 2,304,000 pixels-that's a 77% increase.

 

Crysis actually has two internal AA modes.

Your common AA that everybody knows about and what your turning on if you turn on AA in the options, but a lesser known AA is called EdgeAA on Crysis, you can only control it via the configuration options in the config files for the game or it has a preset value based on your visual settings you pick in the game menu.

Here is the problem, you cant have/use both AA modes at the same time and they do different things.

Edge AA is what smooths out the folliage and makes it look a lot better, and it does some other general smoothing, it makes the game look ALOT better and it actually does not have a very high system demand.

Regular AA only effects some general poly's that already look really good even with no AA and you lose the Edge AA making the rest of the game look like crud.

So do not use AA on Crysis, but for other games its generally a good idea to put on 2x AA if you have the power to push it.

 

my m17x was ordered with a 1440x900 screen, its my prefered resolution, on the rare occasion ill play crysis but mostly counter strike/ garrys mod and other source based games, hl2 etc etc all of them should be fine.

If I cant get myself a second 260m it shouldn't be much of an issue
one should pop up at some point

 

In my view, AA is generally not needed for a 1920 x 1200 screen. I prefer to use the GPU resources for more textures details, lighting, physics.

I like the sound of the edge AA. Foilage on my system rocks!

 

Ditto - you wont need AA at 1900x1200 at all. No need.

 

Not on Crysis, but on older games its a must, and also not as intensive.

Judging "you dont need AA at XXXX resolution" is wrong, its based on the game not the resolution, just that a game that looks good can be made to look bad if you reduce the resolution and cause scaling artifacts and AA helps bring it back to looking good again.

If you go play dark forces or something and force 1920x1200 trust me you will still want AA on

 

Yeah, that I agree. Older games used not only lower resolution textures, but also models with less polygons. Thus even on very high resolutions you can still see jaggies. But, by the same token, because lower quality textures and models are being used, AA will not slow down the game.

But for games like GTAIV, Far Cry 2, and Crysis, looks great w/o using AA....

 

Very high 1920x1080 on my 260m sli drops to 20 and rarely passes 30 FPS. there is no way your cousin is getting 30-40 on a single 260m at 1440x900. i just tested very high on 1440x900 and i get on the first level 27-34FPS. so unless your cousin has FRAPS or using r_displayinfo 1, he's not getting 30-40FPS from 1 260m. ask him to run the crysis benchmark. i bet he'll get 25FPS average. even the asus g71 with gtx 260m get's only 30FPS average all on High.