can it do it?

An AM2 6000+ X2 with an MSI HD 2600XT runs many games on the highest settings. It goes more by what the video card will support by design then the make and model cpu since graphics is where the demand is placed by many newer games.
 
Well we would have to know what resolution you are running it at.
However short answer probably not. Considering the fact that Crytek stated that no current hardware could max crysis.

Bob
 
Gee? I must have done something right when I put the new build together here according the test results seen at the link paratwa provided. :P

 
So based upon that you should be able to play crysis pretty darn well.
For some reason I highly doubt it, those things are junk imo, all they do is
dish out false hope.

Try running crysis at a minimum of 1280x1024 with all high settings and a little aa and af.
I have a pretty strong feeling that you're not going to get good frames.

Bob
 
I've been doing alright with Fear, Prey, Hl2, and a few others at the 1280x1024 default resolution here. That's with all the game setting turned up. I look more at the stabilty then what frames rates I'm getting however. With Vista I see far fewer crashes and lockups due to the better crash control there.
 
From comments posted shortly after Crysis Demo was released, many users of high end performance build, complained they were not able to play at high quality settings without a major lose in FPS. Perhaps the demo will help the developers dissolve some of the issues most of us are facing.
 
The one thing people seem to forget about demos and beta versions of anything is that they are simply designed for evaluation and comment not being a finished product. Then people ocing everything wonder why things don't work?

Another that plays a direct effect on performance at high settings is which version of Windows and the actual hardwares in use. It might be interesting to reboot into Vista to see what the results would be with just that test alone.
 
Well, thats really more along the lines of Alpha and Beta releases.
When they release the demo, that is a pretty good key indicator of what the game will play like.
Granted are they still getting feedback and what not to enhance performance? Yes Of course they are.

Bob

Ps- Right now xp has a pretty substantial lead over vista.
 
One recent comparison made in XP with Call of Duty 2 placed the ATI X1950XTX in the lead over the new 8600GTS model. Why? The new NVidia card is geared for Vista. The drivers/softwares for XP are already well worked out. You're looking at one version of Windows that's been primary for several years with the long delay of Vista's release.

I did come across one review on how NVidia supposedly "cheated"? in order to get past a graphics problem seen in the Crysis demo. That then took a 7% performance hit. Due to the name of the web site :rolleyes: you would have to pm me for it however. They pick stupid names for some sites.
 
Of course a OS thats been out for years is going to be more heavily optimized. We still probably have a good wait till games in Vista perform evenly compared to XP (dx9 and below titles).
However with the release of SP1 for Vista nearing, that might get us the even plane we've been looking for.

Bob
 
On that link I provided, did you click on the (recommended) Fail tab? The tab you showed was for minimum settings, try clicking on the fail tab and it will show you what will fail if you try max settings on Crysis.

I passed all the test on the minimum tab, but my video card failed because it only has 512meg of memory, the recommended says I need 640 megs. So I can play at medium settings at medium res. Not at my full res of 1680x 1050
 
Last edited:
The MSI HD 2600XT is a 512mb mid range model and passed! The "recommended says" is apparently way off base. They want you to believe you need the top card out at the highest price. :rolleyes:
 
PC eye: Have you honestly ever even tried to run Crysis?
People who have a top of the line rig (quad core, 4gigs ram, 8800ultra), are getting thrashed at not even maxed settings and a decent res, lets say 1680x1050.

I really don't even know why people pay attention to those online 'benchmarking tools', they are junk. From what I've seen they base it off of the manufactures recommended settings, and I'm sorry for the people that trust those.

Lets say for argument that I have a 7300 with a gig of dedicated ram on it. Does that mean I'd be able to run Crysis on max settings? I don't think I'd be lying if I said no.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Seriously the 6400+ and two 8800gt in SLI wouldnt run it at high?

That sucks...I just died a little inside...how the hell wouldnt it run it? My 8600gts runs the demo (maybe because its the demo?) on medium (no AA, and at 800 by 600)
 
Last edited:
vroom_skies said:
PC eye: Have you honestly ever even tried to run Crysis?
People who have a top of the line rig (quad core, 4gigs ram, 8800ultra), are getting thrashed at not even maxed settings and a decent res, lets say 1680x1050.
Click to expand...

And a 64bit edition of Windows? at 1680x1050 when games themselves generally see 1280x1024 as the highest? Once you go past the design of the software/game don't expect positive results. I'll take just about any of these games and run them at 1280x1024 and high detail settings and never see any problems if the hardware drivers are good.
 
Alright, when people say high settings I automatically assume everything is on high; including a good amount of AA and AF.
Also a huge key factor which people always leave out is what resolution your playing the game at. I don't normally think of people running high settings to be using anything less than 1280x1024 for a res.

If you don't think I'm right, then by all means go out and buy the two GT's throw them in sli and see for your self. I think it might be of a little help to know that SLI isn't working that well in Crysis atm.

Bob

Just an FYI- If your running at a resolution of 1280x1024 or below you should be fine when drivers and patches are released for Crysis, graphics cards and Vista. Granted can you run the game now, with out a doubt yes, are you going to get total max settings? No. Will you get max settings when those patches and drivers are released? There is a good chance you will, epically if SLI becomes fully optimized.
 
Last edited:
PC eye said:
And a 64bit edition of Windows? at 1680x1050 when games themselves generally see 1280x1024 as the highest? Once you go past the design of the software/game don't expect positive results. I'll take just about any of these games and run them at 1280x1024 and high detail settings and never see any problems if the hardware drivers are good.
Click to expand...

Sure 32 bit, 64 bit XP/ Vista. Of course, the game is always going to run better with new releases of drivers and what not, but I don't base my statements off of events that haven't yet taken place.
I agree that 1280x1024 is probably the most common res for gaming, at least it's moved up from 800x600 or even lower.
If you're having a great time playing Crysis at what you call high detail (which I doubt is including AA, AF and most likely soft shadows or the equivalent), then by all means have a blast.
However for what the OP was asking, this would not cut it.

Bob
 
Last edited:
On the new build the card now used offers support for both AA and AF settings. The last build simply ran with a Radeon X1300 Pro where antiliasing and antisostropic setting had to be disabled for the low end ATI model there.

At first the drivers both on the cd and the 7.9 download were a major haedache. ATI then came out with the 7.10 catalyst version due to the volume of complaints about problems seen in gaming with that initial release for the new DX10 compatible models out. But's typical with any new hardwares where you wait for the bugs to get fixed. I've been hearing about the same problems being seen on 8800s lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top