Far Cry on Mobility X600

i was wondering if Far Cry will run perfectly on my X600 on full settings. i have the Latest Catalyst drivers. should do a little yreaking to the GPU?

 

Far Cry may not be demanding for the newer, top-of-the-line hardware, but for the X600 and similar cards, it will pose a challenge. You should be able to run at XGA (1024x768) at Medium-high settings, or SVGA (800x600) at high settings.

 

you will be able to run it on high settings but you will have to turn shadows on low....other than that...everything high will be ok (works on my geforce 6200 like that...and the x600 is more powerful that a 6200 desktop version)

 

I have the x600 and have played far cry. it's playable on max settings, but slows down in high intensity parts. i keep things on high.

 

i posted a video on my x600 playing a demo version of far cry and idk some guy thinks that my video card is the worst in the world and stuff saying that it cant play Fear on MAX settings. It kinda puts me and my computer down since i worked hard on getting this laptop for Games and work. =(

Heres the video for it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37TK983tALU

 

Haha Sony what a great video man! Holding the camera with one hand, and try to play with the other hand... very funny

Charlie

 

Haha, great video. Love when the guy shoots you in the face

The X600 is a grand card. I mean, to be honest, as long as you can play the games you want at a level that still looks nice, who cares? I bought my laptop for games, but I only have a 6400 - fairly similar to your x600 performance wise. And it can run Far Cry fine - well enough that I get plenty fun outta playing it and still think it looks nice

 

What I like about FarCry is that it looks absolutely great, yet still runs efficiently on lower-end hardware. It just solidifys my view that if developers really took the time to optimize their graphics engines for PC's, we'd see a much wider range of machines able to run high-end games. F.E.A.R to me is another great example of a well developed PC game. Outstanding graphics & hardware efficient.

 

I would not call FEAR hardware efficent!

I know it can run on low end cards but to be honest, it's one of those games not overly worth playing unless you have a fairly decent card in my opinon.

The Source engine, now THATS hardware efficent. Can run on high on even a lowish end card like the x600 or 6400 (What I have), and still looks pretty **** nice.

 

Just because FEAR is demanding doesn't mean it isn't efficient. My machine runs it great at medium-high settings and I have a mainstream video card. On the other hand, Oblivion struggles at high-medium and I don't consider it a lot more graphically intense than FEAR. Not trying to get into a debate over FEAR, my real point was how well FarCry does.

 

Yes, Far Cry is very easy to run. Runs at max settings on my computer no problems at all. F.E.A.R. on the other hand... not max settings, but pretty much (I have to turn soft shadows off) and it still runs fine most of the times. I was even running it with 4xFSAA for a little while. Still some slowdown. RAM helps a lot.

 

I maxed out most of my settings (except AF) on Far Cry and run it at 800x600, and find it looks a lot more attractive than 1024x768 with medium settings (your mileage may vary). I'm picky about having a good, fluid framerate, though (and given how much sharpshooting there is in this game, you might want to be, too).

As for F.E.A.R., no, I'm sorry, that game is coded horribly. I have a friend with a 6800GT in his desktop who concurs - that game isn't efficient in the least. I reduced all the settings in that game to minimum in the demo on my notebook and it was STILL choppy. He said he had a hard time getting a fluid framerate on it, too. It's just not a well-coded game. And from looking at it, I just can't understand why it needs all that hardware. Far Cry is pretty efficient. Half-Life 2 is insanely efficient. Even UT2K4 and Doom 3 are remarkably efficient (the latter especially, given how good it looks at even the lowest settings). F.E.A.R. is not efficient.

But then, I think Oblivion's hideous no matter how much horsepower's running behind it (pixel shaders do not replace good art direction), so I may not be the one you should talk to.

 

I completely agree. Since my last post, I have turned F.E.A.R. down to medium GPU settings and minimum CPU settings, and I was still averaging about 16-17 fps according to the built in test. At max GPU and CPU settings... 15-16. I don't get it. No matter what settings I use, I'm not getting an average above 20 ever. Far Cry runs flawlessy. I must also agree that the Doom 3 engine is very efficient. The Quake 4 and Prey demos both run flawlessy at max settings with higher resolution, and Prey even has 4xFSAA turned on. Hardly ever a glitch. F.E.A.R. is just insanely taxing on a system. I will say that I love the game though, and have played a LOT of it in the week since I got my computer.

 

Far Cry was the most demanding game when it initially came out. Reminds me of the glory days of my 256MB ATI 9800XT...

Half-Life 2 and the Source engine are the best, without a doubt, when it comes to compatability. HL2 runs even on a humble X200M and can look great. Why game makers can't make games run similarly on anything but the highest end hardware is beyond me.

 

Well Guys its the moement of truth. Just Brought Far Cry from EB Games for $20 and installin now. is there a way in the game to check Framerates?

 

Yes, type "~" to bring down the console at any time during the game, then type in "\R_DISPLAYINFO 1" to display FPS. All of this without including quotes, obviously.

I concur that Far Cry is very well coded - I get above 30 FPS at all times with maximum settings + 8xAF/4xAA, and let me tell you does it look fantastic. And I could even run it at decent settings (WXGA, mostly high, 2xAF/0xAA) on my old 64MB Mobility RADEON 9600.

 

for some reason the game locks up . is there a Bug in the game or something has to be done to it like a Patch or something