CRYSIS settings

Which Crysis Setting?

  • 1024x768

    Votes: 3 10.3%
  • 1680x1050

    Votes: 26 89.7%

  • Total voters
    29

notguru

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2009
102
0
18,680
Would you RATHER play Crysis @

1024x768 with 8x AA & max settings

OR

1680x1050 with 0x AA & max settings

I have a GTS 250
 

notguru

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2009
102
0
18,680


does dx10 just look better than dx 9?
if so, the drop down in settings is worth it, right? (assuming dx10 > dx9)
 

notguru

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2009
102
0
18,680


so if im a gamer (who plays farcry2 and crysis) i should go w/ DX9?
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
LOL...I just mentioned this in another thread, but when it comes to resolutions and monitors it is all about individual taste. Personally, I am fine running games on a HDtv at 1360 x 768, sitting a little farther back than I would at a small monitor, and every game I throw at it, including crysis runs smooth as butter. I don't have to worry about expensive video card upgrades every year when new direct versions come out, because my system has more than enough cpu and graphics power to play any game that comes out in the next few years at those lower resolutions.

Most gamers who see my rig running a huge monitor playing games at incredible framerates think I've got some crazy quad sli system with a monster processor...they don't realize they could do the same thing by just lowering the resolution a bit and using a HDtv as their monitor. I know some would hate this and consider everything too "big", but that can be adjusted if you want more desktop space. Anyway, its something else to consider.
 

An overclocked GTX 260 c216 is more than enough to run 1280x1024 cranked, even with some AA. Now, the GTS250 mentioned in the OP will struggle slightly at the settings mentioned, but it won't be completely unplayable. I'd probably lean towards slightly lower settings than the ones mentioned though - it would probably run quite well cranked at 1280x1024, possibly with 2xAA, or at 1680x1050 mostly high settings (rather than very high).
 
Crysis will run with everything at very high (except post processing) and AAx4 at 1280x1024 for a GTS250/9800GTX/GTX+ ...this was what I played with when I had a single 9800GTX



So I believe it will run at those settings at 1680x1050 for a GTX260 c216

 
If 1680x1050 is your monitors native resolution, since that would mean you have a widescreen LCD, then that is the res you should go with. LCDs generally look crappy when you try to run them outside their native resolution. If you hook it up to a CRT monitor though then if you can only avoid slowdown by running it at 1024x768 then that is the res I would run it at.
 

michaelmk86

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2008
647
1
19,015
The only thing you can do with the GTS 250 is:

1680x1050 noxAA High DX9 and you will achieve playable fps.

There is no point play with VeryHigh setting and get verylow fps.

VeryHigh setting & verylow fps = frustrating gameplay

High setting & playable fps = enjoyable gameplay
 

boulard83

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
1,250
0
19,290
+1, had a single GTX+ and after a SLI GTX+ and even with a SOLO GTS250 ( GTX+ ) the frame reate was NICE 16x10 HIGH noAA. Was able to crank the AA with the SLI.
 

pauldh

Illustrious

Everyone's idea of playability may differ, but personally I don't agree with you on this. An OC'ed GTX 260 will still see framerates dip in the teens in areas of Crysis, and some prolonged dips in the low 20's. I'd agree that most of the game would be fine, but notice I said through (ie throughout) the game.

My idea of playable isn't that you can actually finish the game at those settings, but rather it has enjoyable performance throughout the the entire game. Getting fragged because of choppy framerates isn't my idea of enjoyable performance. Some low quick dips are hard to avoid, but I would prefer sustained framerates at or above 30 FPS in Crysis, and at least have moments below 25 fps be very brief if present at all. Crysis is better than most FPS games in this respect, but I'd be quite surprised if you can't feel the game change below 25 fps.



 

pauldh

Illustrious

I only specified DX10 very high because there is a hack to allow "very high details" in DX9, which provides higher fps than the games true Very High details (only selectable in DX10). Sorry if that was confusing.

In honesty, if it were me, I'd start in DX10 and your native resolution and experiment yourself what you find to be playable. Enabling the console command or using fraps you can see your fps and at least confirm if the "slow" feel to the game is framerate related. Anywhere from medium/high, high, or maybe even high/very high may be acceptable to you. If low framerates start to ruin the expereince, then tune them down.

Basically only you can decide what's acceptable performance. I've played games on other peoples systems tuned to their taste, that to me are painfully choppy and no fun at all. Do you value max IQ, total smoothness, a compromise, or outright the best of both (which in crysis gets expensive). Typically you will find this game gets more hardware demanding, so settings that are playable early on, need to get tuned down in later levels. People that only play the demo tend to over estimate how good their machine is in crysis. The cutscenes in the demo (or first level) are in a way an indication of what's to come GPU performance wise.

BTW, this article compared DX9 Vs 10 in both performance and IQ. Notice their performance on an 8800GTX at 1280x1024 in actual gameplay. (12x10 medium/high and ave = 26 fps)
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4MCwzLCw2MA==
 

pauldh

Illustrious
You don't have to worry about that. You can just force Crysis to run in DX9 if you would like to try comparing DX10 to DX9. This link shows you how: http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_5.html

edit: but just to be clear, you could just use default DX10. There's not that big a difference between DX9/10 high detail performance. It's one available tweak if you enjoy doing that, but to play it in Vista, I would now just leave it at DX10.
 

notguru

Distinguished
Jun 25, 2009
102
0
18,680


How will I know what settings to turn down if I find the gaming experience to laggy?
 


Generally, Shaders, Textures, Shadows, and AA are the most GPU intensive settings for any game, and the first settings that should be moved down a notch.

For your card, I'd start with everything set to high, 2x AA, and go from there.
 

boulard83

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
1,250
0
19,290
2x AA and everhting HIGH is .... to high to stay @ 30fps and above.

HIGH with NO AA is gona be very playable !

I had an E6850 @ 3.6ghz with a GTX+ OCed and NO AA with HIGH was in the mid 40fps with 1680x1050.
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
AA to me is overrated and a choke on your system. It doesn't really make the graphics themselves look a lot better, but does make the "lines" look better. The tradeoff is much slower framerates though. In your video control panel you can see the difference by messing around with the manual "quality vs performance" settings. Of course ideally you want a rig that can have BOTH, but for most mainstream systems running crysis that is impossible.
 

boulard83

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
1,250
0
19,290
AA wil also reduce/eliminate the "cuting" that can appeir in the image when fast moving you mouse or big action in the screen.

AA wil make the image smoother if your system handle it correctly. With a good computer, AA isnt a choke.
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
Some games give you AA for "free" without slowing down the framerates. But that is the exception, not the rule. Crysis is NOT one of those games. Turn on the AA and you get an immediate loss of frames. As I said, how much you notice the slowdown depends on the quality of your system , but his "mainstream" system will show a very noticeable slowdown with AA enabled vs the same settings with no AA.