Crysis is choppy with good comp, and doubling my RAM

[chev65]

Static, you'll play it just fine.

Yea Pparks.. I'm not sure about that either. but he does have a point, and the game wasn't designed like that completely on purpose, but it was technically a Next Gen game in a way, they wanted a game that would help cause a fire under Nvidia and ATI to release better cards, instead of every new release being 7-10% improvements.. we want a real upgrade.. and the 9800GT to the GTX 260 was a great upgrade.

Also that quote about anything less than a 200 series, high Oc and 4GB is also right, but wrong. As the person playing and what type a PC is needed also relies on how well the person wants it to play, and what size screen, my neighbor has an old 16" CRT screen, and an old HP PC with a AMD 4800+ and 3GB of ram. I added a 9600 GSO and it plays fine.. but then he has a low resolution.

Anyone with a screen close to mine (24" LCD) will need a 200 series or similar graphics card to play it and enjoy it.. I did used to play Crysis on dual 22's and that was a blast, and my single 260 did ok.

I agree with this completely. The game can be made to play decently on a lesser system but you need to sacrifice both resolution and game effects.

That means the game won't look nearly as pretty as it could but it might actually be playable.

With my single 8800GT the game was decently playable if I turned down the resolution down and lowered the game settings way down but that was the only way to get a decent frame rate. It looked pretty bad and played ok but not great.

A single 8800GT is barely playable with Crysis and anything less will be that much worse. If you aren't overclocked you can just about forget it.

 

[chev65]

Quite a number of people on these forums have the specs to run and play Crysis.

I'm not sure that I would agree completely with that. While Crysis did/does push a rig pretty darn hard...there are games out now with better graphics that get better frame rates on rigs today.

Again, I'm not in complete agreement here either. I have a quad core (Q9550) with a minor overclock and a GeForce 9800GTX+ (512MB and not overclocked) that runs with almost everything at high at 1920x1080 on my box under 64-bit Windows 7. And back in the day when Crysis was released, these 200 series GPU's didn't even exist.

I was referring to most of the guys in this thread not having the system for it. Not the forum as a whole.

The one's complaining had systems that were woefully short of the requirements needed to play Crysis at anywhere near full settings. I was talking about the guys with the gateways and the wimpy GPU's. That ain't gunna cut it for Crysis. I guess I'll have to be more specific next time...

If you don't believe me about the coding go to the Crysis forum and see what they say about it. They will give you the same answer I just did. The Crysis forum has been round and round on this one a million times.

If your system isn't up to snuff you will suffer in Crysis big time. If your system is fast and well tuned with cutting edge components you will Pwn Crysis without question. I'm pretty sure that anyone claiming it's not coded well isn't playing it well or hasn't been to the Crysis forum to learn the facts. Otherwise why would they say that?

You said yourself it runs it at "high" settings, but high isn't "veryhigh" and there is a huge difference between the two in Crysis. When you add the AA into the mix, your card falls short in a hurry. The point is that you will need to turn down the settings to run the game with anything less than a 200 series card and trust me bro, having an overclocked system helps big time. This has been proven time and time again on a million different bench marks.

And I don't care what anyone says, Crysis does run better with 4GB ram compaired to 2. Yes I've done bench marks to prove this. As far as using 3GB...hmmm ok it's a toss up LOL but who the hell uses 3GB?

 

[pparks1]

You said yourself it runs it at "high" settings, but high isn't "veryhigh" and there is a huge difference between the two in Crysis. When you add the AA into the mix, your card falls short in a hurry.

Well, I'm sure that it does. I built my machine to be a platform for running virtual machines and doing double duty as a Hackintosh. I picked up Crysis just to see how it would perform and was pretty darn happy to see that a 9800GTX+ (which was highest I could get and stay compliant with my hackintosh requirements), managed to run it at high at 1920x1080 resolution. Orignally, I was using a 19" LCD with 1280x1024 resolution which would have been easy..but I upgraded to a 23" widescreen with my new machine after the fact and now have higher native resolution requirements. Maybe some day I will put my 19" LCD back onto the system and crank things to very high with Crysis and try to see what the difference really is.

But all-in-all for the amount I spent on my machine, I'm very happy and Crysis is indeed running pretty darn good. (My cost was about $1200...and that was for a Q9550 CPU 2.83ghz, but OC'd to 3.2Ghz (400x8) on stock cooling, Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD3R mobo, 8GB of G.Skill PI RAM DDR2-800 with 4-4-4-12 timings running 1:1 with cpu, Corsair 620 modular PSU, Antec P182 case, Samsung DVD Burner, WD Caviar Black 1TB drive, Windows Vista 64-ultimate OEM with free upgrade to Win7, and the GeForce 9800GTX+ 512MB card. And in my build, the OEM license for Windows accounted for nearly 18% of my entire build cost. With regards to my OC...it seems to run pretty darn stable at 3.4Ghz (400x8.5)...but temps are creaping up higher than I like and I don't have any interest in going with an aftermarket cooler at the present time...since the small benefits of a little more overclock won't really make much of a difference for the intended purpose of the machine. So, I set it back down to 3.2 and have been pleased. My idle temps are about 32-34C and my load temps are about 60C.