Can anyone run crysis at full settings?? 13 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

RamboFB

GF makes me horny

50 XP

21st December 2008

0 Uploads

83 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

Hi folks, Just got myself a new rig here goes : intel core duo [EMAIL="e7200@2.53ghz"]e7200@2.53ghz[/EMAIL] 4gb ram, 9800gtx card 512mb, 19" widescreen monitor and still cant play crysis full settings, i mean everything turned up and I know its god damn demanding game but surely i should cope with it?? any thoughts??:mad:




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

216,579 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

19,982 Posts

6 Threads

#2 9 years ago

Crysis at highest possible quality settings won't run very well unless you get a very high end graphics card like the ATI4870x2 or Nvidia 280.

But maybe you shouldn't use Crysis as a benchmark, with the PC you got most games should work perfectly well at quite good quality settings.




RamboFB

GF makes me horny

50 XP

21st December 2008

0 Uploads

83 Posts

0 Threads

#3 9 years ago

thanks for the reply, i can run cod4 and dead space full settings but crysis no chance, i will just have to play it down a few levels thanks




Oblivious

I tawt I taw a puddy tat...

50 XP

30th December 2002

0 Uploads

2,806 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

Crysis is a horrible game for testing performance. It was pretty much the hardest game to run until GTA4 came out recently, thatll make Crysis's perfomance on high settings look great. lol

btw - Crysis is heavily CPU dependent, so it may not be your video card that doesn't like higher settings.




RamboFB

GF makes me horny

50 XP

21st December 2008

0 Uploads

83 Posts

0 Threads

#5 9 years ago
Oblivious;4734224Crysis is a horrible game for testing performance. It was pretty much the hardest game to run until GTA4 came out recently, thatll make Crysis's perfomance on high settings look great. lol btw - Crysis is heavily CPU dependent, so it may not be your video card that doesn't like higher settings.

Thanks for the reply, I didnt know GTA4 was demanding, ive got it for the ps3 the graphics are really great, im just getting into pc gaming. not finding it much fun on cod4 just get my ass kicked ALWAYS, lol. On the PS3 im not too bad just getting use to the keyboard + mouse. yeah my mate told me crysis was the benchmark test for any system, he gave me F.E.A.R to test my system and it came out 419fps at max settings so I thought I was doing well, lol. I wont be able to upgrade my cpu for I while so i will just have to play games a few levels down, no big deal thanks for the info




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#6 9 years ago
RamboFB;4734130Hi folks, Just got myself a new rig here goes : intel core duo e7200@2.53ghz 4gb ram, 9800gtx card 512mb, 19" widescreen monitor and still cant play crysis full settings, i mean everything turned up and I know its god damn demanding game but surely i should cope with it?? any thoughts??:mad:

Wanting to run Crysis at highest settings is an obsession that gets ridiculous, and as mentioned that's way too low spec to expect such a thing.

However, the game is not as resource intense as one might think if you intelligently go for image quality vs effects. Truth is you don't need High or more shadows and shaders, or even Med or more Objects and Particle Quality and Post Processing. In fact much of what's added when you crank up certain settings is blur or ambient occlusion lighting, which actually detracts somewhat from the sharpness of image quality.

One of the best frame rate tweaks to use is setting Objects Quality to Low, then make a text file called System.cfg in your Crysis folder and place in it the commands e_view_dist_ratio_vegetation=31 and e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy=2048. That way you won't get the main trade offs of Low OQ, which are severe beach rock and vegetation pop ins and the cliff sides being blurry.

You can as well add to that file r_TexturesStreaming=0, becauase you have more than enough RAM to not have to use the default texture streaming, which makes the distant rocky peaks blurry. I also highly recommend the command sys_budget_videomem=512 because by default it's set to 256, and you have twice that in VRAM.

It's up to you whether you can suffice with Med shadows and shaders, but all you're getting when you go higher is slightly more resolution on distant shadows, motion blur, and ambient occlusion lighting, which is that milky haze every time you start moving.

Anything higher than Low on post processing is very resource intense for very little gain. In fact the Depth of Field blur detracts from the sharpness of image quality noticeably. Raising particle quality merely feathers the edges of smoke effects, which isn't that noticeable either.

I have a P4 3Ghz, X1950Pro 512MB, 2GB RAM spec on AGP platform and average about 30 FPS on Island @ 1200x900 res. I prefer bumping res slightly to trying to use AA, esp in this game because it requires a couple of settings to be at high to get full AA and 1200x900 removes most of the jaggies anyway with little to no FPS drop.

These are the settings I use, which still kjeep the game looking very good:

Textures=Custom (High with no texture streaming tweak) Objects Quality=Custom (Low with veg & material details dist tweaks) Shadows= Medium Physics=Medium Shaders=Medium Volumetrics=High Game Effects=Medium Post Processing=Low Particles=Low Water=High Sound=High

Motion Blur=Off

With the spec you mentioned you should be trying as best you can to get the best image quality at playable frame rates, and that means sacrificing unnecessary bells and whistles.




RamboFB

GF makes me horny

50 XP

21st December 2008

0 Uploads

83 Posts

0 Threads

#7 9 years ago
>Omen<;4734357Wanting to run Crysis at highest settings is an obsession that gets ridiculous, and as mentioned that's way too low spec to expect such a thing. However, the game is not as resource intense as one might think if you intelligently go for image quality vs effects. Truth is you don't need High or more shadows and shaders, or even Med or more Objects and Particle Quality and Post Processing. In fact much of what's added when you crank up certain settings is blur or ambient occlusion lighting, which actually detracts somewhat from the sharpness of image quality. One of the best frame rate tweaks to use is setting Objects Quality to Low, then make a text file called System.cfg in your Crysis folder and place in it the commands e_view_dist_ratio_vegetation=31 and e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy=2048. That way you won't get the main trade offs of Low OQ, which are severe beach rock and vegetation pop ins and the cliff sides being blurry. You can as well add to that file r_TexturesStreaming=0, becauase you have more than enough RAM to not have to use the default texture streaming, which makes the distant rocky peaks blurry. I also highly recommend the command sys_budget_videomem=512 because by default it's set to 256, and you have twice that in VRAM. It's up to you whether you can suffice with Med shadows and shaders, but all you're getting when you go higher is slightly more resolution on distant shadows, motion blur, and ambient occlusion lighting, which is that milky haze every time you start moving. Anything higher than Low on post processing is very resource intense for very little gain. In fact the Depth of Field blur detracts from the sharpness of image quality noticeably. Raising particle quality merely feathers the edges of smoke effects, which isn't that noticeable either. I have a P4 3Ghz, X1950Pro 512MB, 2GB RAM spec on AGP platform and average about 30 FPS on Island @ 1200x900 res. I prefer bumping res slightly to trying to use AA, esp in this game because it requires a couple of settings to be at high to get full AA and 1200x900 removes most of the jaggies anyway with little to no FPS drop. These are the settings I use, which still kjeep the game looking very good: Textures=Custom (High with no texture streaming tweak) Objects Quality=Custom (Low with veg & material details dist tweaks) Shadows= Medium Physics=Medium Shaders=Medium Volumetrics=High Game Effects=Medium Post Processing=Low Particles=Low Water=High Sound=High Motion Blur=Off With the spec you mentioned you should be trying as best you can to get the best image quality at playable frame rates, and that means sacrificing unnecessary bells and whistles.

cool i tried these settings and it worked fine and looked great I guess it just requires alot of power to run it full, thanks




Lyon

90% sarcastic

50 XP

9th July 2003

0 Uploads

6,161 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago

I think NASA are getting close to running it at full.




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,654 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,496 Posts

35 Threads

#9 9 years ago

NASA can already run it at full. So can any of the government computers. Only things i can have at maximum is the CPU based stuff because i have a QuadCore.




crisissuit3

We will rule you

101,365 XP

17th August 2007

0 Uploads

9,209 Posts

0 Threads

#10 9 years ago
Lyon;4734829I think NASA are getting close to running it at full.

maybe if they sucked some power from a space station they can run it. but i can run it on medium but recently the game has been crashing.




  • 1
  • 2