BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 9d, 4h, 10m | CPU: 46% | MEM: 2023MB of 4919MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Forum rules


Any off topic discussions should go in this forum. Post count is not increased by posting here.
FTP Access status is required to post in this forum. Find out how to get it


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Crysis        Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 9:29 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Hey guys :)

I've just got Crysis and have found that it only performs well if I use mostly "medium" settings for graphics quality and no antialiasing, and I have also been using the DX9 option as it seems to perform better with that yet looks the same (though it seems a bit silly considering I have Vista and a DX10 graphics card...). The graphics are good even with those settings (using 1680x1050 as that's my screen's native resolution), but I was wondering what I would need to put in my PC to be able to use the higher quality settings and AA? As I was under the impression that I had a pretty high-end box and I'm using the 64-bit Crysis for maximum performance, so it seems odd that I can't use at least "high" and 2x AA, for instance, without it becoming too jerky - every other game I have runs fine at maximum settings.

So have any of you got Crysis and been able to use AA, high/very high settings, DX10 mode and 1680x1050 and still get smooth graphics, and if so what do you have in your PC that mine doesn't have? I've got a C2D 2.66 GHz (running at about 2.14 GHz because of my crappy motherboard that won't apply the FSB settings that it's supposed to support), 4 GB Ram, a 512 MB Radeon 2600 XT, and 64-bit Vista, which I had hoped would run Crysis well even at the really extreme graphics settings - would a really expensive graphics card or a quad-core CPU make a lot of difference or not, based on what performance you're all getting?

Thanks :)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:12 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12392

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Even a quad cross fire can't handle Crysis at full graphics (so I've heard). You are best of tweaking the graphics to perform best with what you have. Even the Radeon HD 3870 that I have only manages about 20 frames per second on full (info from DanielC).

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:54 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Thanks for the info :) Hmm, ok then, maybe it wouldn't be worth trying to upgrade to get the best graphics Crysis can offer. Is the 20 fps on the Very High setting then, and is that with or without antialiasing, and DX9 or DX10 mode? It is so annoying how quickly things move on though, I see that Dabs.com have a 3870/512 MB for £113, which is hardly anything more than my card cost last summer. Does CPU clock speed/number of cores make any difference or is Crysis performance mostly GPU-bound?

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 11:56 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12392

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Not worth it if you ask me. Crysis is more GPU based but even todays cards can't handle it all that well. The 3870 for me so far has been brilliant and your price quote is £30 less than I paid for it too.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:14 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
What settings are you using in Crysis with the 3870 then? (you do have it?) On the subject of the price of the card, does the brand of the card make any difference - the £113 one is "Dabs Value", I don't know if cheap brands like that are suspect or if whether they're all the same.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 12:19 am 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12392

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
What settings are you using in Crysis with the 3870 then? (you do have it?) On the subject of the price of the card, does the brand of the card make any difference - the £113 one is "Dabs Value", I don't know if cheap brands like that are suspect or if whether they're all the same.


I don't have Crysis, but DanielC does and he said on full it manages about 20fps. He never specified what "full" was though.

My card is an MSI card, but I don't know what the difference is.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:58 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
What settings are you using in Crysis with the 3870 then? (you do have it?) On the subject of the price of the card, does the brand of the card make any difference - the £113 one is "Dabs Value", I don't know if cheap brands like that are suspect or if whether they're all the same.

Usually, the cards all have the same graphics chipset but depending on the "manufacturer" of the actual card, the clock speed for GPU and memory may vary, it may have a different configuration of ports, another cooling system et cetera. Personally I'd chose at least a somewhat known brand, but then the GPU is supposed to be the same across all of them, so the difference is negligible.

As for optimizing the performance, I think you went the right route, e.g. adjusting the settings to they fit your system. You do have a pretty high-specced box but Crysis is one of the most demanding games out there (is it?). So I'd guess to play it with the "full" settings at 1680x1050 you'd need an even faster CPU (at least an E6750 at stock speed) and the fastest GPU you can get, maybe even an SLI or CrossFire setup.

I agree with Andy, it isn't really worth to upgrade your system/its GPU after less than one year. It may make the game run a bit better than before, but then after some months, you might be running into the same problem, buying another GPU again etc. Better reduce your settings. In games, a slightly lower resolution doesn't matter that much, and once you get like 25~30fps, you're fine.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 4:03 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:30 pm

Posts
156

Location
France

Favourite OS
Windows 7 SP1 x64
I run it in 64 bit / DX10 mode and get the following ...

~ 65 fps @ 1440x900 @ medium, no aa
~ 35 fps @ 1440x900 @ high, no aa
~ 45 fps @ 1280x800 @ very high, no aa

My screen is nativly 2560x1600, but it still looks very good at those lower resolutions.
That's with a C2D E8500 @ 4 Ghz, 4 Gb ram, and a Radeon HD 3870 512 Mb ...

[b]Here are some screenshots :[/b]

Image

Image

Image

Image

The first is at 1440x900 and the others are at 1280x800, at very high.

You need an 3870 X2 or 8800 GTX at minimum, or dual graphics, to play any higher ...

[b]A 2 second search on google found these graphs :[/b]

Image

Image

Image

Image

That should make things clearer ... :wink:

That's the curse of having a big monitor with large resolutions ... :(

Andy and his 17" screen will never have these problems I guess, lol ... :P

_________________
~ Dan


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:18 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:25 am

Posts
224

Location
Yorkshire, England

Favourite OS
Windows 7
As you say your processor is running 500mhz slower than it should be, what motherboard and C2D processor do you have? did you set the FSB and Multiplier your self or leave it on auto?
Fashing the latest Bios update might help you out :)

Looking at the system specs on http://www.crysis-online.com/Informatio ... uirements/ your processor at it current clock rate don’t meet the minimum requirements for the game for running it under Vista (to be fair its only just so I don’t think that will matter too much :)) from my experience Crysis is more of a Graphics demanding game.

My 8800GT will play it at 1400x900 in mostly high detail very smooth (how do you check the FPS?) with no AA. I personally wouldn’t worry about it not playing in Max detail as to be honest I don’t think many current gen graphics cards can, not at 1680x1050 anyway!

If you looking to improve the frame rate I think a new graphics card will help more than anything :)


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:22 pm 
Reply with quote
i run it at high settings on DX9 with 2xAA at 1650 x 1080, i use a config mod to get better graphics. and i have around 20fps.
my system is a C2D @3ghz, 4GB drr2-900, and a 8800GTX.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 5:33 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
InsaneNutter wrote:
As you say your processor is running 500mhz slower than it should be, what motherboard and C2D processor do you have? did you set the FSB and Multiplier your self or leave it on auto?
Fashing the latest Bios update might help you out :)

It's an E6750 and a Gigabyte GA-945P-S3 - the board is supposed to support the 1333 MHz FSB of the processor but you have to enable a setting in the BIOS to do this. When I enable this setting, the PC restarts and it has automatically disabled the setting again. I didn't touch any settings apart from that one, I don't like to fiddle with that kind of stuff. I did look for a BIOS update but the one on their website that says it's for that board actually says for rev. 2 of the board when you download it and mine is a rev. 3.3, maybe both rev.s take the same update but I don't know and don't want to run the risk of bricking my system.


InsaneNutter wrote:
Looking at the system specs on http://www.crysis-online.com/Informatio ... uirements/ your processor at it current clock rate don’t meet the minimum requirements for the game for running it under Vista (to be fair its only just so I don’t think that will matter too much :)) from my experience Crysis is more of a Graphics demanding game.

It also says that on the box but I assume that clock speed is for a single core?


Thanks for sharing your experience with the game Dan - it does look as though having the top of the range card helps (the 2600 being the mid-range of the 2xxx series) I guess. I don't like using non-native resolutions on an LCD at all so have settled (for now at least) on native resolution but mostly medium graphics and no AA. Yeh, I could probably use Very High everything if I played on one of my old 15" LCDs at their 1024x768 instead! :P


empireum wrote:
You do have a pretty high-specced box but Crysis is one of the most demanding games out there (is it?). So I'd guess to play it with the "full" settings at 1680x1050 you'd need an even faster CPU (at least an E6750 at stock speed) and the fastest GPU you can get, maybe even an SLI or CrossFire setup.

I think it is about the most demanding game around at the moment - every other game I have I just put on 1680x1050 and turn all the graphics settings up to full with no problems! It's working pretty well now with high textures and shaders (which makes quite a difference to the graphics quality) and water and medium for most of the others, with no antialiasing sadly.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:29 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
I did look for a BIOS update but the one on their website that says it's for that board actually says for rev. 2 of the board when you download it and mine is a rev. 3.3, maybe both rev.s take the same update but I don't know and don't want to run the risk of bricking my system.

Please, don't even think about flashing a BIOS intended for a board that is, even only slightly, different to yours, unless the manufacturer says it's okay to do. There may be minor differences among the different revisions, in fact, this is mostly the case. You'll likely brick the board. Only flash the 100%, completely, entirely correct BIOS, if at all.
Here is a link to the newest BETA BIOS update (FFd from Jan 25) for your GA-945P-S3, rev.3.3, which is said to add inofficial support for the new 45nm CPUs (E8xx0) which all have a 1333MHz FSB and Gigabyte says these CPUs work at their native clock speed after the FSB1333 overclocking option has been enabled. So, chances are that after flashing this BIOS version onto your board trying to enable this option again will succeed, but then noone can assure it and you'd have to try at your own risk.

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
It also says that on the box but I assume that clock speed is for a single core?

It mentions a Core 2 at 2.0/2.2GHz, seeing that Core 2 Solos are not available with these clock speeds, I'd say it implies two cores at that speed.

Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
It's an E6750 and a Gigabyte GA-945P-S3 - the board is supposed to support the 1333 MHz FSB of the processor but you have to enable a setting in the BIOS to do this.

Problem is, your chipset (945) doesn't support this FSB, so enabling this option "overclocks" the chipset/puts it beyond its limits which is probably the reason it doesn't work. Maybe it also depends on other settings such as memory timings and the like.

As for using non-standard resolutions on an LCD, it doesn't seem to matter too much if you at least keep the correct aspect ratio (i.e. 16:10 here), so try going down to 1280x800 or 1440x900.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:15 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
The BIOSes for the rev 2.0 board do seem to be the same - when I looked at this before the Gigabyte utility that automatically downloads the right BIOS suggested the rev 2.0 one, so I had a dig around on their website and found that the page of download links and the files it points to are the same for the 2.0 and 3.3 revision boards eg the FE BIOS (which was the newest when I looked before - this beta (:o) one is only on the 3.3 page). I did think that it was unlikely the two revisions would have the same BIOS so that's why I didn't try it (I probably would have done it that time if it hadn't been for that, I was quite tempted then), in case the links are wrong or something like that and they are in fact meant to be different :S


I think the FSB setting does depend on memory speed, but my memory is faster than the minimum it says in the manual so it should work - all so annoying! :x


As for non-native resolutions, they always look really bad quality to me, even ones with the same aspect ratio - I just tried Windows at 1440x900 and it looked awful!

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:36 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:25 am

Posts
224

Location
Yorkshire, England

Favourite OS
Windows 7
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:

As for non-native resolutions, they always look really bad quality to me, even ones with the same aspect ratio - I just tried Windows at 1440x900 and it looked awful!


You can always tell your monitor not to scale to fit the whole screen, but you will get black bars around full screen applications then depending what screen resolution there running in, at least it won’t look totally awful though! :) I think I would sooner not use that and lower the detail personally! But its an option.

Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:10 am 
Reply with quote
Yea, Crisis is freaking crazy when it comes to graphics. There is almost no way a average or even above average computer could even handle this game. You would have to have some "Godlike" computer to do high. I thought my computer was good but I can only handle it at medium. Try lowering your resolution that might help.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS