The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Well, to be honest, am CONSTANTLY tweaking my settings in Crysis. I love the game, but in the end I don't think it was well optimized. Exhibit A is the fact that you can have moderate levels of details in the first level (also the demo) and have to crank EVERYTHING down to low when you get to the later levels. This is what disappointed me the most, considering Crysis was one of my main motivating factors for saving up and buying my C90. Regarding the C90's performance, I have seen it blow me away with the performance/graphics of UT3 and CoD4.
As to settings in Crysis, I used to run a mix of medium and high settings in the beginning levels; but I recently found an autoexec.cfg that optimizes settings across the board and I've had some fair success with that. I can't find the link to it. Here is a link that produces similar results.
Medium and High on the first levels? On my C90 I can't even get through the opening videos without everything being set to low and the res being no higher than 1200x800, and even then the sound/video in the sequence on the plane isn't synched and when I land on the beach it's slightly choppy. Is something messed up with my notebook? I've got the E6420, 2GB Ram (Had 3GB, but kept getting BSOD errors), and the 512MB 8600M GT... fairly standard stuff for the C90.
I never take my resolution up higher than 1024. I know some find that unacceptable, but I'd rather have higher settings than resolution. The drivers make some difference as well, you can get the latest from LaptopVideotoGo.com.
I'd have to say I agree with you on that JCMS. It's one of the reasons I put up with the lower performance of 1680x1050. I've done the math on it and here are the advantages.
1440x900= 1296000 Pixels
1680x1050= 1764000 Pixels
1680x1050 has 26.5% more pixels to render than 1440x900.
1280x800= 1024000 Pixels
1680x1050= 1764000 Pixels
1680x1050 has 41.9% more pixels to render than 1280x800.
1024x768= 786432 Pixels
1680x1050= 1764000 Pixels
1680x1050 has 55.4% more pixels to render than 1024x768.
As you can see, the performance gains should be somewhat equal to the percentage of pixels that aren't rendered. I've tried to run 1440x900 scaled and you know...it just doesn't look the same, but I can put up with the slight performance increase. 1280x800 just...no. It depends how desperate I am. Even then I ran 1280x800 with no scaling and found if I stare hard enough lol -> that I don't mind the microscopic screen. 1024x768 is just crazy stretched. If your going to do that might as well do 640x480.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
