Building a Crysis PC, Part 1

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
you know i was finally ready to put the 8800gtx to the test until i actually started playing the crysis demo.
an 8800gtx just doesn't have the cajones to run this game, i still kinda noobish to this hardware stuff and i dont have the best gaming pc but its no slouch.
this is what im workin with
c3d E6600 @ 2.9
2 gigs of corsair twinx ddr2 800
asus p5n 32 E sli 680i
and ofcourse a bfg 8800gtx oc
vista home premium 64bit
and crysis kix my machines ass all day long. which is rediculous. i was so excited to get my hands on the demo and tear it apart but instead i got the shaft. with all settings maxed i get like 25fps. yea a 550.00grfx card slide show!! and the thing that makes me want to puke is when you let the game pickthe most practicle grfx settings for you it pick all settings at very high. the onlyway i can even play this thing (with a framerate you can actually see what youre doin) is all setttings at low, LOW! im putting the noose around my neck and calling nvidia to kick the chair out from underneath me. I have a few other buddies that are going through the same crisis. hmmmm...cysis=crisis......i was making fun of one of my friends cause he had to get an ultra and out do everyone of us and that poor bastard has to set his settings on medium with a 700 dollar card. I mean do you really have to have a core2 xtreme and sli ultra's and like 8gigs of ram to tame this game??....
 
Hi!
Personaly i think Core2 with higher Clock Speed sould be better
than any quad core with 2.4 ghz

game usualy use only a maximum of 2 core... right
so higher the clock speed with Core2 better are fps !!!

8800GTS is a great choice !

(sorry about poor english not my first language!)
 
game requirements are higher on vista because the vista OS uses more memory (thats why you also see the 512MB (768 for vista) requirement for many games also

vista has twice as many running processes at startup, it uses 8 times as much memory at startup and it's processes take much more cpu time


what they need to do is test the game using the video card 6800-8800 ultra

also test it using processors like x2 3800+ - 6000+ and as many other dual cores as possible and also the high end single cores



and for a final test, get the most high end machine at the lab and overclock it as high as it will go then after that, test the game again


also it is true that theres no need to go overboard with the money and parts because usually a $3000 computer this year will be crushed by a $1000 computer next year, if the current latest hardware cant run the game at 60FPS then why do things upgrade from a 7900 to a 8800 when the 7900 runs every current game except crysis smoothly

when the geforce 9 seres comes out, they will run crysis smoothly and will cost less than going SLI now
 
Well Murdock, I don't know whats wrong with your PC. I am running a supposivley lower video card (HD2900Pro) and I can set it to 1280x1024 very high settings and it runs fine. Then again you might have had a higher resolution than mine. Only thing to suggest is lower the resolution down a step each time to see what you get.

I disagree with darkice00. A Quad core will make more of a difference than a higher clocked Dual core since it has mor cores to run the background apps while the game can run on one or two or three cores. Plus with a Q6600 you can OC it easily to that of a E6850 and still have low temps and with the G0 stepping a low TDP and better performance.

And razor512, Vista is not that bad. At startup My Vista machine uses roughly 350-400 MB ram and my XP machine uses maybe 50MB less. Also the processes used when first installed are maybe 10 more than XP and thats with more features running than XP. Turn them off and it goes to about the same.

I for one think that Crysis requires way too much for resources in a game. Yea you could run it on a older machine with say a P4EE 3.4GHz, 2GB DDR, ATI X850XT AGP but thats at low settings, no AA and probably at 1024x768 which is not very enjoyable visualy.

Thats where games such as HL2 have their strengths. Even though they keep updating the Source engine it will still run on older systems with great graphics at good resolutions.

Don't get me wrong. I think Crysis has great graphics with new features that are great and a interesting storyline but people are not going to be very willing to dish out 3 grand now for a high end PC that wont play a game it was built for. Then have to wait another year to build another PC to be able to play this game like it was meant to be.

I might buy the game but I am kind of dissipointed with one thing from Crysis. The requirements. Then again maybe with driver updates and patches it will run better.
 
for me at startup windows vista only has 11 running processes at startup

windows only uses around 60MB memory st startup

the bootup takes about 17 seconds from when the power button is pressed to when ti is ready to use (took lots of time in regedit to get the startup stripped down )


with vista, no matter what i did I couldnt get the running processes to be as low as in windows xp, i only got it down to around 200MB of memory use at startup

my 3dmark 06 score was over 500 points lower in vista than on windows xp

I'm currenly stuck with ddr400 memory, in windows xp the everest benchmark shows my read speed at around 7000MB/s and the write speed at around 7100MB/s


with windows vista, my read speed is around 6400MB/s and the write speed is around 5000MB/s (if I msconfig it to reduce the running processes, the memory read speed goes to around 6800MB/s and the write speeds goes to around 6200MB/s )

vista just wastes resources on it's self and leaves less for other programs to sue


this is the main reason why requirements for games for vista are higher than on windows xp

vista takes over 4 times as long to startup

my videocard is a geforce 6800 series overclocked using rivatuner I can run crysis with half of the settings on low and the other half on medium and get ok framerates, if I max out everything, my frame rates goes down to the 2-3FPS range which is not very playable

if i still had vista installed, I would try it with the game but i deleted it a while back after beta drivers from creative messed up the vista install so bad that it had a BSOD in both normal and safe mode but I will probably install it again on thanksgiving when I have 4 days off from school
 
Having downloaded the demo and been playing it now for over a week, I have been very impressed.
I am currently running it @ 1680x1050 medium settings on my 22" Asus (2ms response time) the auto detected "optium"
I have zero issues with frame rates or jagging, at these settings I am quite impressed with the picture quality and playablity of the game.

My System:
e6400 (stock)
2GB 667 mhz RAM
2x 160 GB 7200 HDD
x1950 pro Extreme 512mb (factory Overclocked) (7.10)
XP SP2

(I will post exact numbers when I get home and check) EDIT:

With a bit of tweaking I was able to get most settings to high. note: no AA. (1280x800)
If you leave the water on low I was able to get about 18 fps. @1680x1050 with the settings on Medium I can get a respectable 28-32 Fps.


I will be building a "Crysis" machine for a friend of mine with the following specs.
Please feel free to comment
Q6600 (should get it O/C to 3.0 ghz
2GB 1066 mHz RAM (I chose not to go with 4gb + as he will not be upgrading to Vista for at least 12 months)
x/150GB Raptor HDD
8800 GT 512mb
Gigabyte X38-DS5 M/b
Zalman 9700 CPU cooler
Corsair HX-520 PSU
 
I do wonder how the authors can order 8800 ultras and at the same time say they're price concious! two gtx's fine, but ultras are just a waste of money. I wonder if two 8800gt's wouldn't be a more sensible option when price/performance is concerned. 1 gtx can pull the demo at my place at very high in all but water (low), shadows (medium) and shaders (medium) on a 22"
I'd very much expect two gtx's to be enough to get the remaining options up. Though water at very high seems to effectively drain the gtx of power.
 
to me, going SLI is a waste of money. SLI doesnt double your performance, it gives you like a 30% increase (for 100% higher cost, you get a 30% increase)

when nvidia releases the 9800's they will beat 2 8800 gtx cards in SLI and cost the same much as a 8800 GTX


if 1 8800 cant run a game, then 2 wont help much

it is like trying to pull a mobile home using a moped, 1 can probably pull it an inch or 2 every few minutes but that wont get you out of state to camp any time soon, and adding 2 mopeds to pull it wont help much either, as you still wont get there in your life time


the best way to run crysis is to wait for nvidia and ati to release cards that are designed to run games like this.


2 8800 ultras still wont allow you to max the game out and get 60+fps a game can look god but if it doesnt play smooth then it will look like crap

many gamers now are still using their geforce 7800 and 7900's and will continue to use them for probably another year.

if a game is able to lag a 7900 to the point that you cant play it because your getting like 5FPS, then getting a 8800 wont make much of an improvement (it will be smoother but not smooth like how you would want it (60+ fps at a good screen resolution)
 
Soldier37 looks like a good setup until you see the Pearl Harbour poster. Didn't Team America have something to say about that? Plus all those neons/cathodes would annoy the crap out of you trying to actually play games or watch movies.

I'll make do with my 1950s and hope they cut it until the 3800s come out.
 
Is razor512 right? I thought you got near linear performance gain by having two cards in an SLI configuration. Certainly better than 30%. Did THG ever do a comparison?
 
I would really love to see a REAL budget system to try and run crysis. like say an amd dual core 2.6 black edition or 2.8. hopefully on an asus mobo of some sort or another, But i've noticed you don't do much on small form factor so that would be cool as well (cuz i think crysis will be a big lan game if it turns out to be what everyone expects. some inexpensive ram like 50 bucks or so for 2 gigs ddr2 800 (a reliable but inexpensive memory eg: wintec) and the only real budget/performance card thus far, the 8800gt. possibly a nice sub 150 dollar sff case just to get those load temps up for those of us who don't plan on buying massive cases with 20 120mm fans. 😛

or you could do like I just did, sell your pc for too little money, and run an old socket A out of a cardboard box for a substitute untill your crappy job pays you enough to buy a new one and stop harassing THG members on the forums?... oh, and change the article from crysis to "mythtv on crappy systems, yes it's possible"

but seriously, i'd like to see most of the major parts fall around the 100 dollar mark (minus 8800gt) and see what that does.
 
don't freak out... remember quake 2? I remember that nobody i knew, even guys that just built new "top of the line" pc's couldn't max out the settings when it first hit the shelves. Point being... they do this all the time... and it's a good buisness move.. awesome graphics that are scaleable and will get better as time goes on. I mean. most games, you buy, max it out. and be done with it... but there are a few that you buy, play for a bit, then end up getting a new pc when it's affordable, then play it again maxed out. It just adds replay value... and most games now look so flippin good that you almost don't notice the difference for your 1000 dollars worth of video card... that's why I'm not going to buy an 8800 period untill the gt's come down in price or something better comes along... low price... big performance... i can wait a year to max out all these games.... really. I can... i think 😛


i mean, you could be stuck with a "diablo 2" as far as graphics go. Supported the best on a dead card, and the graphics what was expected by most gamers. 😛 but you know you bought it and played it anyway. just like i did. haha.
 


Sadly, Razor512 is prett accurate -- when it comes to SLI, you're spending money for two video cards but only getting a small performance upgrade. In my experience, it usually delivers around a 20 to 30 percent upgrade in frame rates. Sometimes it's higher (depending on the game, the hardware and the settings) and sometimes it's lower. Concerning Vista Games and DX10, we did some comparisons earlier this year, and the results weren't exactly flattering, especially since Nvidia drivers for Vista and SLI were causing some issues. It's important to point out that ATI Crossfire delivers pretty much the same pros and cons.

Still, if an SLI setup means the difference between playing Crysis at "very high" settings and getting an average of 30 FPS instead of 20, then it's probably worth it for our Crysis PC.

Here are the DX10 test articles:

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/06/20/dissecting_dx10/

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/06/27/dissecting_dx10/
 
I have no time and experience to build a PC myself. I've read much about it and came to the decision to buy from Dell...except for the monitor. Maybe other ''Hell Machine'' were better but, i like the design of the XPS 720 and performance are there. Money was no object so, I think I won't have any problems running Crysis with my newly bought PC.

Dell XPS 720 H2C:
NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI Motherboard
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 OC'd to 3,67GHz
Windows Vista Ultimate
4GB Corsair Dominator OC'd to 1066MHz
320GB Performance RAID 0 1st Hard Drive(2 x 160GB WD Raptor)
320GB Seagate 2nd Hard Drive
Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic
Dual 768MB Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra
48x Combo + 16x DVD+/-RW w/ dbl layer write capable
Samsung 22'' 226BW

Hope it'll worth the money 😀
 
What exactly is the hardware used by the developers of crysis in making the game.
I believe if we can get that information maybe we can have a better idea on what PC to build.
 
I am on the verge of ordering a new system to be built to handle the latest games, and while I was going to with eVGA e-GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB, the article on TH re: Radeon HD 3800 series pending product launch on November 15th gave me a pause. Should I wait and look for one of these instead? They will support DX 10.1 while GeForce 8800 supports DX 10.0 only. Alternatively, I could pick either ATI Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB or Radeon HD 2900 PRO 1GB as the top range ATI cards from my local supplier today. I haven't seen too many people wanting to go with ATI for their new Crysis ready rigs. What am I missing?

Appreciate your thoughts
 
Stop-gap upgrade?

My 2-year old AMD 3500+/GeForce 7800 GT rig can barely run Crysis at medium settings. I want to get another year out of my rig before building a new one. Is it worth upgrading to X2 4200+/8800 GT for $370 to run Crysis a bit better? Since my mobo is 939, X2 4200+ is the max cpu I can get for it, but will it be a bottleneck for the 8800GT? Should I save some cash and get an 8600 instead? Or should I not even upgrade at all?

Thanks for any suggestions.
 
Hey RobWright, I only have 1 suggestion which I haven't really seen posted yet.

I'm wanting to see the results of a difference strictly based on 1 GTX VS 2 in SLI on the same rig. I currently have 1 8800 GTX and just want to know if it's even worth it to SLI another one (in Vista) in order to get 40-60 fps.

Thanks.
 
They have already shown that the "exclusive" DX10 effects in Crysis can be enabled in Crysis running on 32 bit Windows XP.

Read about it here

I would think that with that enabled, along with some game configuration tweaking you will get better performance with the game than you would with one running Vista.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom