How to run crysis on all high settings

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu...id=624620&entity_id=-1&image_id=747469&page=1

It costs $1800 (in just video cards), and a 1200 watt psu. Yikes!

From digg article: http://digg.com/pc_games/Over_1800_In_Video_Cards_To_Run_Crysis_On_Very_High

I think this benchmark test shows why: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu...ty_id=-1&image_id=747513&page=1&show=original

 

woah........

 

Nowhere near worth it. I'd wait for a few patches before trying to get the hardware to run it.

 

Well, summarizing:
The good news: Actual technology 'can' run Crysis with everything on high.
The bad news: Even with that the everage does not go above 40 fps.

 

What is that like, tri-SLI?

Is there a motherboard that you can buy that supports that? I know some boards have 3 x PCI-E slots versus 2, but even still.......

Silly Crysis, the other way to run it on high would be to optimize the engine.

 

With a commodore 64 we were going on the moon,in 2008 with quad core processors and sli video cards we can't run decently a videogame...something is going wrong

 

LOL! Good point!

 

woah. amazing!!

 

Funny thing is that it actually runs well on my 8600m GT @ 1280x800 with settings on medium, some high > 25 fps. And my laptop cost half as much as the video cards.

 

This proves that the game optimization is terrible.

 

crysis isnt even that good of a game

 

LOL @ your avatar.

 

I dont believe the game is that bad optimised. When you play the game at low you still see very much details in the trees. It takes loads of points to build up one tree. But i have to agree the game could be more optimised, but it isn't extreme bad.

 

I run Crysis with everything on 'High' and most things on 'Very High' at 1680x1050 with FPS in the range of 32 - 40. Very playable.

But wow is that an insane machine . . . I can't even imagine how much that setup is priced at.

 

err.... reviews say otherwise

 

Crysis is a very poorly optimised game, I don`t care what anyone says.
I have a friend with SLI 8800 GTXs and he can`t run everything on very high, 1600x1200 , 4xFSAA ...because it lags O_O he payed for the system a bit over the equivalent of 2k in $ and now a silly game makes it obsolete..

Running COD4 makes me believe that Crytek engine is like Vista, all eye candy and low performance.
*awaiting SP1 for Crysis*

 

but crysis is a revolution for the pc gaming industry!!! i think it's awesome that there's a game out there that even 8800GTX's can't handle, but that's just me. feel sorry for your friend though... but if he can afford two 8800s, surely he'll be able to snag up an nvidia 9800 when they come out next year?

must admit though, COD4 is a better game...

 

Exactly...

 

See ? COD4 is what should be called the game of the year based on scalability...I run it all high 1440x900 at averageing 40 fps. And it`s looks stunning.
That`s what I call a cool 2007 FPS !
From my point of view, Crysis is a disaster until a patch which can improve all performance will be released.

 

Revolution for the PC gaming industry? Sure... finally a super resources-eater software that doesn't live up to its eating capacities (in comparison the level of performance/resources like COD4 or Gears of War).

 

Your definition of scalability is backwards. If you can already run it maxed out then it is at the end of its "scalability" while Crysis still has at least a year left.

A disaster? Are you kidding me? The game looks as good at medium as COD4 looks on high...

The people who complain that Crysis is a flop because they can't run it on Very High settings yet at an insane resolution are pathetic. It is a psychological failing, and I do not understand what it stems from.

People don't seem to realize that Crysis is raising the bar in every sense of the term. I consider 'medium' settings in Crysis to be last gen 'high'. People just see the word 'medium' and associate it with 'suck' because the 8800 GTX has been out for so long playing everything at 'max'.

Maybe Crytek should have just locked the very high setting until next year when they could open them up with a patch. Then everyone could play on 'high' settings and their weak egos wouldn't be so injured.

Crysis is top of the line software. It isn't perfectly optimized, but it certainly isn't anything less than the best looking game out there.

I'm sorry eleron, this wasn't meant as an attack on you, but your response has become so typical and I have to say that it doesn't make one ounce of sense to me.

Besides...I can play this game at 1440x900 at all medium-high. On a MAC.

Playing games at 1900x1200 is a new development. Most people still play at 1280x1024 or BELOW. It just so happens that it is considered the new standard.

The whole Crysis issue is a psychological one. People will just have to learn how to deal with it. The bar has been raised in every sense of the word, people just didn't seem to notice anything besides the fact that a card that is more than ONE YEAR OLD cannot run it at max.

 

Sure, there are two ways to get better graphics:
A) Consume more resources, it always works: i.e. Crysis.
B) Optimize the resources management on the engine: i.e. Half-Life 2 and its expansions.

While I agree that Crysis is rising the bar... it is only raising it by consuming more resources. Period.

 

Crysis top of the line? that is a totally subjective opinion. I can`t hit bodies,move item realistically or do a lot of the things I can in do , in HL2 for example. So what if I can kill trees, it`s not like they break in a real fashion.
A revolution?hell yes, shadows are real , grass is moving,water looks stunning.
But a game is meant to be played and enjoyed. Since the top of the line hardware CANNOT fully enjoy the power of Crysis,seems to me that Crysis is to blame, not an uber dupper GPu like 8800M GTX. Check out on youtube maxishine`s system with quad core q6700 and SLI 8800 GTX ULTRAS and his benchmarks. It will make you cry and ask yourself if Crysis really deserves such tenaceous defending.
In a current gaming line which includes HL2 , COD4, Unreal 3, Gears Of War and Bioshock, crysis is nothing more than a pig,a beautiful one , but nonetheless a pig. It eats systems like nothing else.
COD4 is scalable, even people on a 8600GT can max it out.I run it on med/max on a x1600 also.
Hell , my brother can play it on a desktop FX5200.
Crysis? go low and it`s all FarCry. Go medium and a beast like the 7950GTX reaches its limits.
Go high and that`s the best a 8800 GTX can do(this includes shaders and shadows). Go very high and not even SLI ULTRAS can handle it. Averaging 30 fps? you have got to be kidding me..

I will keep my original opinion in which I stated that Crysis is a game that should have been released mid 2008...and far better optimised.

 

amen! what's the point of having an SLI 8800 setup and not stressing it to its maximum potential? it's just absurd people. nvidia and ati would just stop with the cards if the 8800s and 2900s could run everything.

 

YEs crysis .... very bad optimization... but lets hope for a miracle patch/update...


I would say 8800m gtx will run it on high fo'sho (superbad.. good movie )

 

Yea, a card that costs over 500 $ . Are you even serious? from your point of view high End GPUs should be released every 6 months, because every 6 months a new game would choke the older ones,and the customers pocket.
Who says they need new GPU on a regular basys? have you heard people are actually upgrading? and not everybody can afford a high end gpu right now? or a gpu like the 8800 GT is out of stock before even being sold? that says a lot about the market.

 

hmmm... correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't CRYSIS THE BEST-LOOKING GAME CURRENTLY OUT THERE??? look, no game is perfect. and it's not an easy feat pulling off a next-gen, spectacularly looking game while managing resources to the optimum potential like hl2 did. it's give or take; one or the other people. we can only hope that the future sees some changes, but we can only be satisfied with what game developers are capable of today. and besides, one year from now, everyone will be able to run crysis on very high, so just stop with the complaining will you. critics like you will scare game developers from following in crytek's example, preventing us from knowing anytime soon just how realistic-looking a video game can get.

 

Critics like him will force game developers into designing games we can actually play and enjoy. games were made for systems, not systems for games.
It`s like the add that says : "hell, you can go to outerspace.It`s awesome.It`s oneofakind experience.It`s 10 million!"
Seriousely,keep this up and every new game from now one will force you to buy a new system.

 

Well... lets just hope that someone is going to make Crysis like looks with source like engine

woohooo perfect!

 

Don't forget to look at what resolution those benchmarks were run - 2560x1600. Pretty unrealistic for most of us. I would expect that performance is pretty darn good at 1920x1080 and lower, though.

 

Even the 1920x1200 ones were bad. That much firepower didn`t even get him over 50 fps. That in my book is terrible. My point stands, if a new game implies a new system, crytek can to hump a tree.

 

Yes, but there is a point at which software optimization yields no more or very little improvement. While I agree that optimization is VERY important because brute force computing is a waste of energy, you must understand that next gen software requires next gen hardware. There is room for improvement, but at some point optimization in hardware design (considering the Geforce 8 series designs are over 2 years old) need to catch up with software.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear before, Crysis is top of the line graphics software, not a top of the line game. I personally do not find the game all that much fun. I consider Half Life 2: Episode 2 and Mass Effect to have far better storytelling and immersion aided by their respective visual styles. And TF2 is a real gem. I have a lot more fun playing either of those than Crysis. But this does not change the fact that Crysis boasts the most advanced and realistic graphics in a game available right now.

Again, our definitions of scalable are completely different. Your definition of scalable is something like "a game that can be played on max settings at high resolution on medium end hardware." My definition of scalable is more along the lines of "a game that can be played at medium settings on medium end hardware, high settings on high-end hardware, and very-high settings on future hardware."

Again, you seemed to have ignored my previous point that I play Crysis at medium+ settings at my native resolution with 25+ FPS. I'd consider that a good deal, especially when the game looks as good if not better at these settings than other games set at high.

Games such as Crysis are the only reason we have modern GFX hardware. True, you don't want the market flooded with such software, but if you do not have at least one of this type then GFX development slows to a crawl. If you want to see a Geforce 9 some day before 2010, you need games like Crysis raising the graphical bar.

 

I agree about raising the bar. However, I do NOT agree that there should be a game out there than requires more than the fastest possible configuration at the current moment. This guy payed some 5k $ for his system and could not even get 50+ fps from it. I call that a rip off.
My idea of scalability is today`s games with yesterday`s hardware,since you don`t throw 1k$ with every new game release.
Also,mind you, this is a notebook forum. Since the most powerful dekstops can`t fully maximise Crysis,what would the fastest laptop do? dissapoint customers? IT DID. There are people who paid 4 k for their system and can`t play crysis on high without having ocasional stuttering.
I`ve gamed on my 5 year old Fx5200 more than I could ever believe.Even Half Life2 ran beatifully on it. And it was the cheapest thing then. Granted,not MAX,but enjoyable framerates. Now,tell me,since you need a high end system to play it on medium, is that scalable?
What about people who bought 2.5k laptops and curse the game for being badly optimised(can`t argue with me on this one, we all saw the improvement from the demo to the official release).
Crysis was and is overrated. It`s a graphical bomb,but as a game, just another brick in the wall.

 

I agree with stormeffect 100% on this, well said.

+rep

 

hmmm... uhm... 1920*1080 ? isnt it 1920*1450 ?

And... Maybe Crysis is just ment to be the begginer or another "pusher" to promote better graphics on games... You say it cant be enjoyed? I spent half a year playing on an empty map in Garrys Mod on Low settings... probably averaging 4-12 hours a week.

Once I get Crysis (sandbox2) I will be playing like a toddler in a sandbox

Graphics in crysis on very high (which I have played at a friends house at likfe 5fps) are the most amazing graphics I have ever seen... I actually thought I was RIGHT there...

And not to forget... Cryengine2 was created and only AFTER that crysis was created... duh in some way... but the whole point of crysis was show off Cryengines raw advancement and power. Its not even at its full potential yet, neither is crysis.

imo crysis is a hero just like hl2, only downfall is that it doesnt represent much to most users. But anyone looking towards the future of gaming/virtual reality will quote crysis for a darn long time.

 

I more or less agree with your last statement. Crysis gameplay isn't so special.

But let me present you with a hypothetical.

If CryTek had simply locked the "Very High" settings out of the game, then the most powerful systems could run the game at max settings and decent framerate. Crysis high settings are easily mastered by high end hardware, even in the laptop world. Maybe medium wouldn't be considered so low end if there were only one more step to 'max'.

Essentially, this would resolve the issue and fit within the 'current games with last gen hardware MAX' theory.

For all I know, maybe that is what Crytek SHOULD have done! Lock out the ability to play the game at very high settings because people literally cannot handle it. Then they could just release a patch enabling very high a year later; they could just lie and tell people all of the improved graphics were added with the patch and not a feature intentionally with-held from paying customers.

As a game, Crysis is bleh. As a very advanced visual tech demo, I doubt it will be surpassed for at least a year.

EDIT: I should qualify my statements with the fact that I DID enjoy the gameplay, but I am VERY easily impressed with gameplay. My primary factor in self rating games is storyline and immersion, but most others do not share that focus.

 

I think you did not get the point at all:
1) Crysis consumes lots of resources, and sorry if you think I am complaining, but it is a fact (and if you don't believe me look at the recommended settings for the game), not a complaint.
2) Don't ever try to compare it to HL2. When HL2 was released its requierements were not even close (for the hardware 3 years ago) than what Crysis requires with the hardware today.

@StormEffect: I never said that Crysis don't have the best looking graphics, all I said is that the game consumes lots of resources. And yes, it is setting new thresholds for the graphics level... by consuming more resources. And don't get me wrong I am not against improvement in graphics or anything else.
Now, I think a more appropiate expression is that up to now Crysis is 'eating more bars', rather than 'raising the bar'. Is there something wrong with that? Nope. Is Crysis overrated? A little since all the graphical improvement is mostly (up to now) by brute force (consuming more resources).

 

Excuse me Mr. I liek 2 play all gaems at hiest grphx so dey shuld maek dem dat wey.

But did Half-Life 2 run on highest graphics with over 60 FPS on your Fx5200?

I think not.

I have yet to have a system that can max out half-life 2 completely at a native resolution.

You are just being completely obnoxious. Half-Life 2 was made so it could scale. But not everyone can play at max graphics.

My first Half-Life 2 machine was a Radeon 9600SE, and it played half life 2 on like medium.

Now I have a 8600m GT which can play crysis on.. OMG MEDIUM?!?!

I don't seem to understand your whole "its too powerful for the average joes graphics card" arguement.

Please tell me why.

Or has your expectations risen with your age?

 

I think you missed the point: The problem is not that the 8600m GT (which is not a high end gaming system, but nevertheless performs very good) runs it at medium, but rather that no single card today can run it on max everything (actually you need like three, shown on the link at the beggining of the thread).

 

No, just proves that it is very scalable. It can be improved I'll give you that, but considering a mid range notebook video card can run it fine without sacrificing a whole lot, and it taxes even the fastest of systems today shows consideration for the whole gamut of PC's out there.

 

It doesn't matter how the game is coded. Even if you code a lemon to the n'th degree...you still have a lemon.

The games AI sucks, plain and simple. I've beaten the game on Delta and the AI is just stooopiiiiddd.... They run to whatever you shoot at. Not where you are firing from. Cloak, kill, cloak, kill.

The storyline and missions aren't that varied either. It's a bad game. 2/5 in my book.

 

I don't see that as much much of a problem, as it will give it more of a time period to shine.

How is it a problem?

edit: I know the game isn't the funnest to play or anything, I just don't understand this bull about it not being good because peoples PC's can't run it.

 

hahahahahaha!

Brilliant!

Typically, my rule of thumb is Windows OS's become stable after 2 service packs... maybe the same hold true for Crysis?

 

No. It is just that you mentioned that the 8600m GT can run it on medium, which I did not see the point mentioning it.

And like you said, that people cannot run at full the game doesn't makes it bad, but it doesn't makes it good either, like many people claim.

 

MAYBE where just stuck between past and future... were just trying to get over the 128bit 8600 and 8700.... and just wanting to get with 9800gtx and 8800m gtx... idk.... I am just giving a far fetched opinion.

Maybe Crysis is what we need, something that wakes us up and shows where really actually not thinking about jumping forward instead of walking forward...

Why not let us suffer through some periods (now) and then get back on the easy ride? As in... have high taxing games and newest gpu's and then we have normal taxing games (crysis) and super high end gpu's?

Maybe 8800 was too much of a jump and we just want to stick to it... and think its great... but dont forget... its still the begining of DX10... DX10.1 just came out (not really a big deal) and 8800gt beats the crap out of 8800gts imo price wise and performance wise... which is like DX10 GPU 2.0 ... and then idk... maybe somethingnew such as 9800gtx will be finally DX10 "normality"

 

meh, reviews? To me, COD4 is the game of the year, crysis is a hype machine, a pretty one, but a hype machine none the less. I've gotta say that it's a good game tho...... now my real problem is that it's not good enough to spend 1,800 bucks on.

If im going to spend 1,800 on a game, it had better be a game that has infinite replay, and the campaign missions have to add up to atleast 1000+ hours of play

 

A $ per hour of gameplay ey, kewl. Wish that would be the case for most games...$ 40 for bioshock should have yielded 40 hrs of gameplay lol.

If they follow this standard then the prices will drop sharply hehe. Although then they can also screw us over by adding in a crappy multiplayer component which suposably gives you infinite replay ability hehe.

I have no idea what Im saying, its early in the morning....need coffee now

 

Doesn't anyone remember when Farcry first came out? Every single one of these post were voiced as a concern in reviews (pretty but hard on hardware, unoptimized, open based game). In many review sites they were even updating review benchmarks based on patches released for the game.

Dejavoo anyone or we missing the point? Granted I don't think there well be a magic patch this time around that increases framerate based on using different shader paths or ATI being locked out of the realm of HDR when that was first introduced but hey.. Who knows.. Perhaps they could optimized the overhead of the game to get some more frames.. The point is the game is very pretty but COD is doing things within the scope of today's hardware and still pulling off some pretty great looking effects within the scope of todays average baseline hardware. Crytek is a NEXT gen engine using new methods to achieve a sweet looking demo.. Newer isn't always better tho when the same effects can be achieved in a similar path using more of the older engines mixed with some slightly heaver effects. I remember when in a interview the developers of COD4 stated they wanted to add even more effects and graphical tweaks to a already good Engine, but specifically stated that anything that would drop the framerate below 60FPS was ether tweaked until it got above 60FPS or drooped if it wasn't going to cut the requirements.. Granted this is in refrence to the 360 but the engine is the same on the PC and we benifit from COD developer when they set a realistic baseline for hardware.

Putting it short I think COD4 is doing more work with less code (highly optimized engine) while Crytek's engine is doing its best to do the same amount of work (with sometimes similar effect) but with a lot more coded effects.

Personally I think our next gen engines are being spread into 4 distinct parts..


HL2 or Source Engine = Really Sweet Physics Engine with Balanced Graphics

COD4 (OLD But Heavily Modified Q3 Engine) = Story Telling Game that can run on anything

Unreal3 = Well Next GEN Now Engine pushing current technology just a little past expiration but not so much as to leave people out in the cold with bleeding hardware. Perfect balance of RagDolls with awesome textured artwork.

Crytek Engine = Breathtaking Graphics Demo out to make everything obsolete with a decent game play model but out to put more money into the card makers banks so that they can develop a new card that can be the first to claim to run everything MAXED on one GPU @ 60FPS.


Thing is I am really more excited about next get Physics because if developers could find a practical use for some of the physics that are seen in yet another demo game “Cell Factor Revolution” and keep it pretty then we could really have some piratical fun not just a pretty screen saver.

anyways lets all just keep it real what these developers are targeting.. Were not all equal in the eyes of the developer.. Someone's gotta be the bad guy in the name of progress.

Food for thought I would hope.. not meant to step on any body's toes.. we just tend to loose site of the overall picture in the excitement of it all or even when we are disappointed for some reason.

 

Another thing most people forget is that Cod4, Gears of War, HL2 is a "corridor" shooter. You don´t have vast spaces to move on like you have in Crysis. Also the trees, grass, plants etc in Crysis uses lots of polygons.

On the other hand, these Crytek engines are they really so successful? I mean which other game used the first Cry Engine? Not many games right? The source engine and Unreal engine on the other hand many many games use/used. I would consider the source and unreal engines far more successful than the Cry engine. It will be interesting to see if there will be lots of games using Cry Engine 2. I love Crysis, but for me it is just another tech demo.

Oh and those frames per second you show, hell run the game in Very High in XP instead and get decent framerates. It isn´t that much difference between DX10 Very High and DX9 Very High. I have tried both and I can barely see the difference, the difference is very very little nothing that would force me to run the game in DX10 Very High.

I have played the game in DX10 with all options on High except Shaders Very High and numerous other options Very High and it runs great on my 8800GTX that of course without AA.

Now Oblivion on the other hand has a very large world and in my opinion with graphical mods and everything Oblivion outdoors looks very very good and runs a hell lot smoother and has smarter AI. Since Oblivion handles so many different individuals and have a advanced AI system.

 

And then again, my PS3 has nicer graphics at a fraction of the cost