Crysis vs Laptops

I have an xps m1710 with 7950gtx. This is meant to be the most powerful graphics card out there but will it handle crysis? i just downloaded the lost planet demo which the 7950gtx can only handle 10x7 screen resolution for it to play at a comfortable 25-30fps. How on earth will current laptop owners handle crysis? Will it only be played on future graphics cards on laptops? This laptop has a clean hard disc and xp home. What the hell? Did i waste my money? Cant a brother just play games like crysis on the move? Is it too much to ask? get back to me on that...

 

The Lost Planet demo is notoriously poorly coded. Even high-end desktop GPUs have struggled with it, I believe. I have no doubt your laptop will be able to run Crysis very well. You can also get increases in performance if you upgraded your drivers.

 

crysis wins







don't worry you're fine by the looks of it so far. More information will come up in the following weeks I'm guessing because this game is slated to be released September

edit: u said crysis vs laptop, it was a joke. Nvm.. =p

 

What do u mean crysis wins...?

@Rocafella - thank the lord. btw i have the latest driver update

 

Crysis will be a tuff nut to crack. I would think we would be able to run Crysis at 1280 x 800 on a mix of medium / low settings. The guys at crytek are taking their time and I believe their engine will be much more optimized, compared garbage that is the lost planet demo, when it is released.

I just hope my go 7900GTX (OC'd 550/700), basically equivlent to a desktop 7900GT, can handle it with some kind of eye candy.

 

speakin of overclocking... how can i do it? is the 7950gtx overclockable? i got rivatuner once and i had no idea what to do lol

 

and also can anyone name me what they think is the most graphically intensive game is at the mo? i wanna test out my laptop.

 

Its basically at its limits at stock speeds. I wouldn't mess with it. Just use rivatuner to monitor your gpu temps. Gophn has a great guide on that. Its stickyed somewhere.

 

Supreme commander will stress your GPU and your CPU to a fair extent.

 

Try Oblivion on ultra high settings.

 

Even the sight of RTS games make me wanna throw up. I h8 em soo bad. I check it out anyways lol. I promise i will change my ways for halo wars....

Its all about FPS. BTW this is a bit of a mystery but one time when my laptop was still on vista premium i opened up half life 2 and with everything includin screen res, AF and AA maxed out i got 200-300fps but then after 10mins it dropped back to 100fps and now i dont get anythinig that good, even on xp home. bit wierd. lol.

 

ok cool. oblivion on my xbox360 looks great. ill check it out

 

Sometimes when I play DoD:S and when I first join a server it will cap my fps at 30 for some reason. But if I cycle the resolution it fixes it. I haven't fired up DOD in quite some time, so I don't know if that problem still exists for me anymore.

 

Negative.

Have you ever played Rome: Total War, the good 'ol Starcraft and Warcraft and even Command & Conquer (I loved Red Alert II the best)? There are plenty of good RTS's out there, just give 'em a chance.

Oh yeah, Homeworld and Medieval II: Total War are awesome RTS's as well.

 

I'm commited to my 1720 so that means the 8600GT is the best its going to get for me and Crysis. I've been looking forward to this game since I first saw the first pictures of the Cry Engine 2.0. Hopefully it runs okay enough on this rig for me to enjoy it.

 

Don't forget Age of Empires I and II as THE BEST strategy games as of today. Now they're all too fancy... Ooo! Lookatme! I'm hiding behind a wall! Oo! You can't shoot me! Ooo! I just got uberpowerlulzer gun! Modern RTS games just piss me off.

The reason I chose the notebook I did was bcause it has a great card (7950GTX), but it will be upgradeable to an 8 series (possibly 9 series) if the need arises. Which I don't think it will within the next two years.

 

it should run just fine on your 8600m gt. maybe download atitool

 

with PC parts so cheap these days, sometimes I ask myself whether I should have gotten a nice c2d system for ~$1000 (e4300 OCed to 3 ghz, 2 gigs ram, 8800gts, 19 inch monitor, 320 gig hard drive, etc) and then bought a dirt cheap laptop. Seriously prices are so cheap to build such a good system. Pay $100-200 more than a ps3 or 360 and you got a gaming rig that can play games just as good and probably better. Even dell is stepping it up with the offers (quad core for $650 on slickdeals.net).

Anyways there's more to do in college than gaming so I probably won't mind. Still Crysis should be treated to a nice gaming rig to play on =[.

 

That sounds a bit pessimistic. Crysis is pretty and hardware intensive, but not that intensive. Heck, in FEAR at 1440x900, 0xAA, and shadows turned off (all other settings at max), I average 110 frames per second. Even if Crysis were four times more hardware intensive than FEAR is (which is extremely unlikely considering FEAR is only two years old, and Crytek has been optimizing the heck out of Crysis), you'd still have about 30 FPS. Crytek has said that an 8800 GTS can handle maximum settings, and a desktop 7800 GTX/x1800xt-class card can handle the game well (and the 7950 GTX is slightly more powerful than those two).

I reckon Crysis at 1440x900, 0xAA, mostly high settings except for lowered shadow quality (since that's usually the biggest framerate killer) should be nice and playable.

 

Considering Crysis ran "beautifully" on a X205, I'm pretty optimistic about it's performance.

 

I'm hoping that with an 8600GT I'll be able to run it around medium settings. Key word there is hoping ^_^ No idea how that will actually turn out. Hopefully it will be optimized as much as possible though.

 

Well, considering that I'm getting a 14.1" laptop soon, I'm praying that an 8600M-GT will be able to run Crysis, as that's the best GPU I'll likely get.

 

Thats no longer the case at E3 they were running on a Core 2 Duo, an 8800GTX, 4GB Ram at very high settings and it still had hiccups. Cervat said that hardware 18 months from now will be able to handle the game at max settings.

 

But that's with very high settings. I'll be checking for tweaking previews to see which is better for performance: max. dx9 settings or min. dx10 settings.

 

Thats what interested in as well.

 

Well, that depends on what your definition of 'Max' is really. Max settings for eye candy is different than max resolution settings. Resolution is the biggest performance hit, so if you scale down, FPS increases should be in the double digits easily.

 

Actually at E3-07 they had Crysis running on several different system setups. In DX9 Hiccups were not apparent from reports, it was in DX10 that complete max settings running at high resolutions (1920x1200) were it had hiccups. But hell, the game isn't fully optimized yet, they can do a lot in a month for optimizations.

Either way, it seems that even at Med settings Crysis will look better then other games at max settings, so whatever. /shrug

 

At what resolution and settings...DX10??? FPS..??

 

Does it even matter? Considering that the whole point is to have the game run at good enough settings so that it "looks good," it doesn't really matter what settings produce those results. Also, I seriously doubt any reviewer would call it running "beautifully" if the FPS were unplayable, and as long as the fps is 25-35+, it really doesn't matter, at least to me.

 

I don't even care. As long as I can run it at medium-low settings, I'm set. I don't see what all the big hype is anyways. It's like Metal Gear Solid, Half Life 2, and Far Cry smashed together on three trains heading towards each other at 500 miles per hour. Just your average FPS with vegetation you can chop down with bullets.

EDIT: It's actually very reminiscent of a game I played a couple of years back. Sci-Ops or something. It was a sci-fi shooter, and you had different powerups like armor, invisibility, super-speed, super-jump, etc. Man, that was fun. I can't find it anymore

 

lol clocking a 7950GTX.... now thats ironic..

 

Obviously to me it does,otherwise I wouldn't have asked.

I just want to know the truth about performance,thats all,not some BS nvidia benchmarks or a so called review that only mentions that something plays beautifully with not a scrap more information than that,it stinks of a toshiba or nvidia backhanding to me.
I don't doubt Crysis will be more optimised than Call of juarez or lost planet....but it would want to be wouldn't it,considering the high end desktop cards can't run the latter two at anything like high res with decent framerates in DX10.
So excuse my disbelief,when I see a review that states that a laptop with less than half the horsepower is "said" to play a DX10 game beautifully,while implying that it was done so in DX10 with a couple of screenshots that might have been running at 6fps for all we know.

Maybe crytek have really got the wood on DX10 performance,they certainly were the major pioneer in DX9,so who knows until it comes out,but the fact there is no actual data from digitimes comments about the toshiba and nvidia blatantly BS'ed 8700M GT benchmarks has made me skeptical of what your actually getting...time will tell I suppose.

Myself,I think it will play on just about anything in DX9 to varying degrees,it would be silly of them to make it so unscalable considering most people don't have DX10 graphics or the fastest last generation

 

Well, I seriously doubt that it was playing in DX10 mode in the test, it's possible I suppose, but I can't see that there would really be a reason to run it in DX10 mode on a laptop, not until 256-bit DX10 GPU's come out. My thoughts are very similar to yours, that it will be scalable enough to play in DX9 mode on a performance graphics card from the most recent two generations.

 

i don't think dx10 is supposed to require 50 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

we will see.

 

I can just imagine the game running like crap, unlike you have a 9800GT or a X3900XTX. It's kinda sad that the power of a 8800GTX (~400fps in CS:S at 1280x1024) is getting sucked up so fast.

 

I really think you're all just worrying about nothing. Even the game on medium settings is going to look absolutely gorgeous. Crytek knows what they're doing, and the optimization is going to be through-the-roof. Just relax and wait until you get to try it for yourselves.

 

Yeah... Sentient seems level-headed.

It would be pure folly from a financial stand point for Crytek to release a game that a majority of the gaming market cannot play without upgrading their systems.

 

how come i have huge framerate drops when i unplug the ac power? i want to have 100% gaing performance at all times so does anyone know how i can fix this? im talkin 600fps down to 50fps or 30fps down to 10fps

 

i think there was a comparable amount of "omg no hardware is ever going to run this game because it is too amazing for any tech available" when half life 2 came out.

...then half life 2 came out...

 

crytek did also mention that they kept the mobile gamer in mind and also old machines. they are taking a blizzard approach. I think it will be fine.

 

Hmmmm... Reminiscent of SC: Double Agent or R6 Vegas... Damn you Shader Model 3.0. I have faith that the guys at Crytek know what they're doing, and that it will be scalable to mid-range systems. Look at Far Cry - it looked beautiful, and was very scalable.