|
|
|
The Official Graphics Card and PC gaming Thread
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
19. July 2012 @ 15:44 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Okay, I'll turn off AA. Great!
Hey, for the rest of this post, I'm back over on the builder thread where my link sent me. I'm on your magnificent - best crysis post of all time - post #4500 on page 180.
I have put a huge amount of effort into modding Crysis over the years. My first effort was discovering/creating/tweaking a "Fake" Very High setting that had the performance of High and the visuals of Very High. This was a great asset in the months after Crysis came out. It offered about 90% of the Very High visuals while allowing my hardware at the time to still play the game.
Doing all these tweaks and tests has allowed me to really learn what makes Crysis "tick", so to speak. Long story short, that simple System.cfg is an excellent example of how extra graphics and performance could be attained without altering the game at all. The graphics mods are icing on the cake after years of research and testing.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. July 2012 @ 17:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
19. July 2012 @ 17:45 |
Link to this message
|
In the most basic terms, it means that Nvidia and AMD cards handle memory a bit differently, but because they have different performance goals, not better or worse hardware. Am I even close?
What seemed to jump out at me the most is the argument for Eyefinity, and how AMD's wider memory bus allows more freedom with very high resolutions. Whereas Nvidia's hardware is geared toward mainstream users on regular monitors (ie 1080p, 1200p, etc). But while they are both optimised differently, they can still go head-to-head in most situations because of the relative power of the hardware.
Something else that also stuck out for me was that he figures Nvidia cards do not handle memory as efficiently. This has been a problem for them for a long time. I remember G92 cards facing the same limitations, where they would run out of memory more quickly than the equivalent AMD card and how especially the HD4000 series introduced much better memory architecture for AMD and allowed their cards to handle AA more gracefully than the competition.
So basically ATi/AMD and Nvidia are back to the core battle they have been fighting since the GeForce FX 5 series and the Radon 9000 series(maybe even before that, but that would be before my time). Nvidia aims for more horsepower for the average user while AMD aims for better quality for the advanced user.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. July 2012 @ 17:51
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. July 2012 @ 17:53 |
Link to this message
|
Yeah it's pretty much an official confirmation of what has often been held as 'truths' about the way AMD and nvidia's architectures differ. The different methodologies of multi-monitor tech is as good an illustration as any of AMD's somewhat more 'proper' approach to high-resolution gaming. The current HD7 generation suffers somewhat from ineffective pricing in the face of the GTX6 series, even though they've cut the price a few times. A shame as the HD7900s are still great cards for multi-purpose gamers. Right now I couldn't justify an upgrade until I get a 30" display (or equivalent) again. Even then, I think I'll be waiting another generation. It's got to the stage where I just forget the HD6970s are there - they get the job done, and they don't really make much noise while doing it. A far cry from the old days, in both those ways!
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
19. July 2012 @ 19:46 |
Link to this message
|
I believe the release of the new Xbox and the PS4 will have something to do with that :P
No seriously. Because everything nowadays is basically designed for multi-platform, we are in a period of stagnation for game advancement. Crysis 2, a game which should have been a major leap forward but failed, is a glaring reminder of this. When the power of the consoles increases, games will start to push better graphics again. For better or for worse, the console developers are setting our standards.
Notice how PC exclusives have pushed the envelope. Witcher 2 is a good example. They finally released a console version I think not long ago. The comparison is laughable. Entire areas are stripped of their geometry. Parts of buildings gone and everything. They had to severely limit the game to get it running properly on consoles.
Crysis on the 360 is another excellent example. They had to put it on the less technically capable Cryengine 3, then severely limit everything to lower than low settings. The game uses paper cut-out silhouettes for distant objects and many parts of the game are heavily altered to adjust for the console's power. It's actually pretty nice looking overall for an Xbox game, but Crysis on the PC makes it seem laughable. It is a full port of Crysis, but everything that made Crysis great is gone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQ_1mcnH2yQ
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. July 2012 @ 19:47
|
|
harvardguy
Member
|
19. July 2012 @ 22:22 |
Link to this message
|
I like how the AMD engineer put it. The better looking games tend to use more vram. I like the 3 gigs of memory. Of course, I'm on 30", thanks to Sam's influence, and I'm totally hooked on what I consider the increased immersive factor of that 30" experience.
Originally posted by Jeff:
I have put a huge amount of effort into modding Crysis over the years. My first effort was discovering/creating/tweaking a "Fake" Very High setting that had the performance of High and the visuals of Very High. This was a great asset in the months after Crysis came out. It offered about 90% of the Very High visuals while allowing my hardware at the time to still play the game.
Doing all these tweaks and tests has allowed me to really learn what makes Crysis "tick", so to speak. Long story short, that simple System.cfg is an excellent example of how extra graphics and performance could be attained without altering the game at all. The graphics mods are icing on the cake after years of research and testing.
Wow! All I can say to that is I'm lucky you like shooters, among your favorite genres. If you were totally a Sim City type of guy, all your awesome knowledge would "go to waste" lol.
That xbox vs pc crysis video is awesome.
Actually I think the xbox doesn't look bad. As you guys well know, both owning consoles, consider this - you play on your tv, you buy a box for what - $400. You don't have to worry about hardware or operating systems. You throw a disk on it and if you're not a PC gamer, you're happy. You get 1080p and it's halfway pretty good.
If you go over to Jeff's house and see what "years of knowledge" could bring you, maybe you'll drop dead in astonishment, and then maybe you'll convert. But if not, you're a happy console player, you don't know what you're missing, and the hardware is cheap. What's not to like?
I like consoles. I like game developers developing games for consoles. All those console players buying all those video games keeps the game companies in business. The game developers all own pcs - everybody at valve is on a 30" dell. Miles isn't a gamer, but a lot of those guys are. Good for us PC gamers.
If possible, they will almost always produce a PC version of the game, for the extra 1 million sales, and for themselves and their friends, while the consoles bring in the 10 million sales big profits and pay all those dev salaries.
I love consoles. But I don't want to own one. LOL
Rich
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
19. July 2012 @ 22:45 |
Link to this message
|
problem with game consoles is that they are really not that upgradeable as compared to pc's. pc's can be upgraded with faster cpu's(up to a certain point), more ram, bigger drives & better\faster videocards. consoles only have limited upgradedability in bigger drives & certain optical drives.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
19. July 2012 @ 23:06 |
Link to this message
|
I feel much the same way Rich. Consoles are great for the average Joe. I know plenty of serious gamers who are console exclusive and they get along just fine.
As it happens for me, I was first introduced to PC gaming because I didn't have a console. I had some of the older ones, and some even older ones, lol but no new ones. I turned to PC gaming for my new games fix. First it was a Dell Dimension with a 2.4Ghz Celeron D, 512MB RAM, drop-in X1300 PCI video card, etc. Very very basic. But it allowed me to enjoy awesome games like Rome Total War, Stronghold, Half-Life 2(the engine has since been updated and it's doubtful that PC would handle it anymore), etc. I had a lot of great times with very little power a my disposal. Then I built my first gaming PC. I remember Sam actually advised me about it, because my first ever post here was asking for help on a build. I remember most of the components.
AMD Sempron 3100+ "Palermo"(256K L2) Socket 754 OC'd 1.8 -> 2.4GHz Stock Cooler
Biostar T-Force 6100(nice beginner board for the time)
1GB(2 x 512MB) Patriot Signature Series PC3200 DDR-400 CL-2.5
Sapphire X800GTO -> Varying OC and unlock states
Thermaltake TR2 430W PSU
That was a sweet system, but it really wet my appetite for more. It was able to play a lot of games, but struggled with brand new releases like FEAR and Oblivion. About a year later, I built this:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ "Manchester"(2 x 512 L2) Socket 939 OC'd 2.0 -> 2.6GHz Arctic Cooling Freezer 64 Pro
ASUS A8N-5X later a slightly higher end ASUS A8N-E for better OCing
2GB(4 x 512MB) Crucial Ballistix PC4000 DDR-500 CL3-4-4-8
Sapphire X850XT
Enermax Liberty 620W PSU
In due time, socket AM2 came out and I got the itch for another upgrade. This time I invested in a much newer video card, some high performance RAM, my first kit of DDR2, etc. I went through a LOT of different configurations over time, before I figured screw it, buy something high-end and work from there.
Consoles don't offer this kind of valuable experience. They don't offer this type of satisfaction. I built as I learned and I learned as I built. On an Xbox all you do is hit the power button.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. July 2012 @ 05:52 |
Link to this message
|
Guild Wars 2 Beta
--VERY HIGH DETAIL--
2560x1600 Certified: GTX690
1920x1200 Compliant, 1680x1050 Certified: GTX680
1920x1080 Compliant: GTX670
1600x900 Compliant, 1440x900 Certified: GTX580
1600x900 Compliant, 1366x768 Certified: GTX480,GTX570,HD7970
1366x768 Compliant, 1280x720 Certified: GTX560Ti,HD5850,HD7950
1366x768 Compliant, 1024x768 Certified: GTX470,GTX560,HD6970,HD7870
1280x720 Compliant: 1024x600 Certified: GTX460,HD5830,HD6950
1024x768 Compliant, 1024x600 Certified: GTX465,GTX460,HD6870,HD7850
800x600 Certified: GTX460SE,GTX550Ti,HD5770,HD6850
853x480 Certified, 800x600 Compliant: GTS450,HD5750,HD6790,HD7770
640x480 Certified, 853x480 Compliant: HD7750
No currently available CPUs are 60Hz Compliant for this title.
|
|
Red_Maw
Senior Member
|
22. July 2012 @ 15:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
If you actually played GW2 any thoughts on how good/bad the game actually looks sam? From what I have heard the game does not look as good as it should given the hardware required to play smoothly at high detail would suggest.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. July 2012 @ 16:00 |
Link to this message
|
I haven't personally played the game, at least not yet. However, there is a general benchmark standard for graphics as we progress, and it's relatively rare that new titles push the boundaries for what level of graphical quality can be achieved - those that do almost invariably are very demanding, but more often than not difficult to run games are just badly coded, rather than being demanding because they look so good. This is also typical of Betas of course, with the added downside that they don't support multi-GPU properly. In the case of the GW2 beta, SLI is only supported with the GTX6 series, no previous generations, and crossfire is as-yet unsupported. Given the steep nvidia bias in those results, I imagine it will be a very long time before crossfire is supported, if ever properly.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. July 2012 @ 16:28 |
Link to this message
|
Star Wars The Old Republic
2560x1600 Certified: HD6990, GTX690
2560x1600 Compliant, 2560x1440 Certified: GTX590
2560x1440 Compliant, 2048x1536 Certified: GTX680
1920x1200 Certified: HD7970, GTX670
1920x1200 Compliant, 1680x1050 Certified: HD7950, GTX580
1920x1080 Compliant, 1680x1050 Certified: HD5870, HD6970, HD7870
1680x1050 Compliant, 1600x900 Certified: HD6950, GTX480, GTX570
1600x900 Certified: HD5850, HD7850
1600x900 Compliant, 1440x900 Certified: HD6870, GTX470, GTX560Ti
1366x768 Certified, 1440x900 Compliant: HD5830, GTX560
1366x768 Certified: HD6850
1280x800 Certified, 1366x768 Compliant: HD6790, GTX460
1024x768 Certified, 1366x768 Compliant: HD7770, GTX465
60Hz Certified CPUs:
Dual-core: Core i3 540, Core i3 2100
Quad-core: Core i5 750, Core i7 920, Core 2 Quad Q9650
60Hz Compliant CPUs:
Dual-core: Core i3 530, Core 2 Duo E8500
Quad-core: Core 2 Quad Q8400, Q6850, Phenom II X4 965BE, FX-4100
Hex-Core: Phenom II X6 1100T, FX-6100
Octa-core: AMD FX-8120
|
|
Red_Maw
Senior Member
|
22. July 2012 @ 17:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
Was hoping you could say the game looks great in order to justify it's bad performance but everything so far has indicated that GW2 is just poorly coded (at least for now). I suppose they could improve this in next month before the official release but seeing as how it hasn't improved at all in the last 4 months (from what I can tell) I'm not going to get my hopes up.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
22. July 2012 @ 18:32 |
Link to this message
|
Medal of Honor Warfighter [Alpha]
------HIGH------
1920x1200 Certified, 2560x1440 Compliant: GTX680 [Yes, these are the correct way round :)]
1920x1080 Certified, 2560x1600 Compliant: HD6990
1600x900 Certified, 1920x1080 Compliant: HD7970, GTX580
1600x900 Certified, 1680x1050 Compliant: HD7950
1440x900 Certified, 1680x1050 Compliant: HD5870, HD6970, GTX480, GTX570
1440x900 Certified, 1600x900 Compliant: HD7870
1366x768 Certified, 1600x900 Compliant: HD7850, HD6950, GTX470, GTX560Ti
1366x768 Certified, 1440x900 Compliant: HD5850
1280x720 Certified: 1440x900 Compliant: HD6870, GTX560
1024x768 Certified, 1366x768 Compliant: HD5830, HD6850, GTX465, GTX460
800x600 Certified, 1280x720 Compliant: HD6790, HD7770, GTX460SE
-----ULTRA-----
1680x1050 Certified, 1920x1080 Compliant: GTX680
1600x900 Certified, 1920x1080 Compliant: HD6990
1366x768 Certified, 1600x900 Compliant: HD7970, GTX580
1280x720 Certified, 1440x900 Compliant: HD7950, GTX480, GTX570
1024x768 Certified, 1366x768 Compliant: HD5870, HD6970, HD7870, GTX470, GTX560Ti
800x600 Certified, 1280x720 Compliant: HD6950, HD7850, GTX560
800x600 Certified, 1024x768 Compliant: HD5850, HD6870, GTX465, GTX460
800x600 Certified: HD5830, HD6790, HD6850, HD7770, GTX550Ti, GTX460SE
Video memory requirements:
--High--
1680x1050, 1920x1080: 1.5GB (97% use on nvidia at 1920x1080)
2560x1600: 1.5GB AMD, 2GB nvidia (95% use on AMD)
--Ultra--
1680x1050: 1.5GB AMD, 2GB nvidia (97% use on AMD)
1920x1080, 2560x1600: 2GB
System memory requirements: 1.6GB for application
CPU compliance:
60Hz Certified:
Dual core: Core i3 550, i3 2100
Quad core: Core i5 750, Core 2 Quad Q9550, Phenom II X4 940, FX-4100
Hex core: Phenom II X6 1055T, FX-6100
Octa core: FX-8100
120Hz Compliant:
Quad core: Core i5 2500K, Core i7 950, Phenom II X4 955BE
Hex core: Phenom II X6 1055T, FX-6100
Octa core: FX-8120
60Hz Compliant:
Dual core: Pentium E5500, Core 2 Duo E8200/E6850, Phenom II X2 550
Quad core: Core 2 Quad Q6600, Phenom X4 9850
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
26. July 2012 @ 11:44 |
Link to this message
|
WARNING: Even longer post about nothing than usual. Only read this if you had a childhood and don't suck as a human being.
Went back to some older games in my collection for an afternoon of nostalgia :P
FreeSpace is probably one of my all time favorite space sims. The setting and story are very good but the narration is what sets it off. You get all of your updates and mission objectives in a very military manner with a splash of human nature here and there. There is a sense of weight and purpose to your actions. Like if you are sent on an escort mission, you are given a very clear purpose why it is important. Nothing in the game feels like a "video game scenario". Everything has a very realistic sense to it.
It was pretty advanced for its time and the gameplay is fairly deep. Unfortunately, it was made in 1998 and thus was pretty limited graphics-wise. 640 x 480 only. I was looking for a solution to this exact problem when I found a very interesting project called FSOpen, a mod for the sequel FreeSpace 2.
Volition basically had to declare FreeSpace 2 as a commercial failure due to lack of sales. In turn, they released the entire source code for the game to the modding community, spawning a number of projects.
FSOpen basically uses this source code to provide a much enhanced and more mod-friendly version of the game. It works by the use of a 3rd party launcher and a custom build of the game engine basically dropped onto a retail FreeSpace 2 install($6 at GoodOldGames.com). This allows many graphical enhancements, custom resolutions(ie widescreen), new levels, open source mods, etc.
Now back to my original point: getting FreeSpace 1 working in widescreen. One of the mods released for FSOpen is FSPort, a direct complete port of FreeSpace 1 and its expansion, Silent Threat, into the heavily enhanced FreeSpace 2 engine. So not only is it improved by the new engine, it also takes advantage of the many graphics mods already in circulation for the game.
Not only is there a set of great enhancement mods for FreeSpace 2, there is an entire set of dedicated mods for the FreeSpace 1 Port. Essentially there is an entire community dedicated to modding a mod, a very rare thing.
http://www.gamespot.com/freespace-2/rev...review-2538608/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I also went back to the Star Wars X-Wing series. This is another very detailed and high quality space combat sim. Nothing like it has been made since, so for Star Wars fans this is the zenith of depth and quality.
Star Wars "X-Wing" and "TIE-Fighter" were the first games in the series. They had very crude 3D graphics, almost sprite-based. The multiplayer-only sequel "X-Wing vs TIE-Fighter" introduced 3D Hardware Acceleration which allowed true 3D models and textures, with a limited amount of special effects.
"X-Wing Alliance" was the last game in the series and improved on its predecessors in every way. The story mode was excellent and very long, the gameplay was even deeper, and the engine got some massive graphical updates. This is basically considered the ultimate game in the series, and is the most modded and played. It even still has a dedicated multiplayer community.
It does have some problems of its own, most notably the installer does not work correctly with a 64-bit OS. There are tutorials and 3rd party tools that make it fairly simple to circumvent this issue however.
Adding in widescreen support is as simple as running a batch file. You specify your desired resolution, force it into 32-bit color, and apply some small fixes, all done with the same batch file. It is very simple to get running properly on most systems. You apply this small set of fixes, and crank the graphics as high as they go, and that's it.
It has a HUGE mod community including a dedicated graphical enhancement project called "X-Wing Alliance Upgrade". This is essentially an effort to make the game as pretty as possible, disregarding performance impact due to the very old age of the game. The models and textures included in this pack are awesome and if you are a Star Wars fan, it's all quite a treat to see. As a MAJOR bonus, all of the mods are added through simple exe's.
http://www.gamespot.com/star-wars-x-win...review-2537940/
----------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's AMAZING that old games like these are still played and modded so enthusiastically. I really like to see this type of stuff done. The goal isn't to change the game, but to update it to a modern standard. Those old game engines were far more capable than what they ever got used for. Due to a lack of newer content, the community has taken everything into their own hands.
I live in constant fear of great things being lost to the flow of time or forgotten. These small but dedicated communities are a sight for sore eyes and one of the many reasons I could never go back to console gaming.
I'm also a bit miffed that proper sci-fi simulators have basically gone extinct. These games are a rare breed and we are very lucky that they were of such excellent quality to begin with. The gameplay, story, and setting are so high quality and so timeless that with simple graphical mods, the games play like they came out yesterday. I can't think of very many modern games that will be able to make the same claim when they reach a decade old.
I am very passionate about classic PC gaming as it's where true depth and creativity started. Many of today's great franchises are a watered down version of something that was done way better years ago. Getting to go back and not only play my favorite games from childhood, but with modern graphics, sound, art, etc is really really incredible. It's like reliving my childhood in HD :P
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. July 2012 @ 12:11
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
5. August 2012 @ 09:51 |
Link to this message
|
Have been playing Mass Effect 1 and noticed some interesting stuff with the "Bring Down the Sky" DLC.
All of the characters use higher poly models with higher resolution textures than the rest of the game. Their armor style is also different. I have a really strong suspicion that Mass Effect 2 assets were used to make "Bring Down the Sky." Particularly the Batarians(bad guys) are way higher quality than the rest of the game's characters and the leader wears armor from Mass Effect 2.
Just something I noticed. Am very familiar with the engine and game series and my assumptions on this subject matter are usually correct, lol.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
9. August 2012 @ 14:40 |
Link to this message
|
---End of Nations Beta---
GTX690: 2560x1600 Certified, 2560x1600 120Hz Compliant (provisional)
HD6990, GTX590: 2560x1600 Certified
HD7870, HD7950, HD7970, GTX670, GTX680: 1920x1200 Certified, 2560x1600 Compliant
HD6970, GTX580: 1920x1200 Certified
HD5870, GTX570: 1920x1080 Certified, 1920x1200 Compliant
HD6950, HD7850, GTX480: 1680x1050 Certified, 1920x1200 Compliant
HD5850, GTX560Ti: 1600x900 Certified, 1920x1200 Compliant
HD6870, GTX470, GTX560: 1600x900 Certified, 1920x1080 Compliant
HD5830: 1366x768 Certified, 1680x1050 Compliant
HD6790, HD6850, HD7770, GTX465, GTX460: 1366x768 Certified, 1600x900 Compliant
GTX460SE: 1280x800 Certified, 1600x900 Compliant
HD5770, GTX550Ti: 1280x720 Certified, 1440x900 Compliant
HD7750: 1280x720 Certified, 1366x768 Compliant
HD5770, GTS450: 1024x768 Certified, 1366x768 Compliant
Required video memory:
1680x1050/1920x1080: 768MB
2560x1600: 768MB(95%) nvidia, 1GB AMD
120Hz Compliant CPUs: Core i7 2600K (native), Core i5 2500K+i7 3930K with turboboost (3.5/3.3Ghz respectively)
60Hz Certified CPUs: Core i3 2100, Core i5 2500K, Core i7 950/2600K
60Hz Compliant CPUs: Core 2 Duo E7400/8200, Core 2 Quad Q6600, Athlon II X4 620, Phenom II X2 550, Phenom II X4 920, FX-4100/6100/8100
---Prototype 2---
Resolutions higher than 1920x1200 are not supported by the title.
GTX680, GTX690: 1920x1200 Certified, 120Hz Compliant
HD6970, HD7870, HD7950, HD7970, GTX480, GTX570, GTX580, GTX670: 1920x1200 Certified
HD6950, HD7850, GTX470, GTX560Ti: 1600x900 Certified, 1920x1200 Compliant
GTX560: 1600x900 Certified, 1920x1080 Compliant
HD6870, GTX460: 1440x900 Certified, 1600x900 Compliant
HD5830, GTX465: 1366x768 Certified, 1600x900 Compliant
HD6850, HD7770, GTX460SE: 1366x768 Certified, 1440x900 Compliant
HD6790: 1280x800 Certified, 1366x768 Compliant
GTX550Ti: 1280x720 Certified, 1366x768 Compliant
HD5770, GTS450: 1024x768 Certified, 1366x768 Compliant
HD7750: 1024x768 Certified, 1280x800 Compliant
HD5750: 1024x600 Certified, 1024x768 Compliant
No 60Hz Certified CPUs yet available
60Hz Compliant CPUs: Core i5 760/2500K, i7 930/2600K/3930K
45Hz Compliant CPUs: Core i3 550/2100, i5 750/2500K, i7 920/2600K/3930K, Core 2 Quad Q6850/9300, Phenom II X4 955/X6 1090T, FX-4120/6100/8150
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
23. August 2012 @ 01:16 |
Link to this message
|
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. August 2012 @ 01:18
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. August 2012 @ 04:19 |
Link to this message
|
Not sure if advertising the fact that Crysis 3 will be a PC-eater is a positive selling point? As voiced in some of the comments, it's not as if the performance requirements of the game were really justified, pretty as they were...
It's also somewhat alarming, as we've only now just got to the point where hardware can handle the original properly - if graphics performance is beginning to stagnate, which is starting to look like the case, then getting the hardware to properly run Crysis 3 could take a LONG time!
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
23. August 2012 @ 04:47 |
Link to this message
|
Crysis 2's performance is a joke for me. I honestly don't know how people manage the framerates they claim.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. August 2012 @ 05:01 |
Link to this message
|
I don't remember it being too bad when I played it, although I didn't play much of it I'll admit. It certainly didn't seem worse than the original Crysis.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
23. August 2012 @ 07:16 |
Link to this message
|
For me it runs about half the performance of Crysis. Where Crysis runs say 30-50FPS, Crysis 2 runs 15-35FPS.
It's a known issue with HD6000 series cards. Some have said tessellation causes this(which is partly to blame) but it's also an existing issue in Dx9. It varies depending on the card and manufacturer. Generally 6850s and 6970s have issues with the game individually and in Crossfire. Have met several with single 6870s, however, that manage the game at the same settings with easily 50+ FPS. No typos, seriously.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/crysis-2-...ce-benchmarks/4
My cards should be performing exactly like the 6870s here do. They do not. Also, regardless of that being a 2GB 6870 X2, it is not an issue with memory usage.
BTW you can see on later charts that my CPU is decidedly not the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------
Likewise the tessellation is a joke, and applies to things that don't need it and show literally zero difference. Imagine multiplying the poly-count of a flat surface by many times, then pasting it all over the game. There is also zero LOD for tessellation and the water does not Z-buffer/occlude at all. So at any given point in the game, you are still rendering a limitless expanse of tessellated water with no LOD to speak of. Tessellation was quite literally tacked on.
The game has severe coding and outright quality issues. Crysis 1 was never very polished, but this is a joke. Not to mention I have run into several game-breaking bugs that make it impossible or extremely unpleasant to finish. Crysis 1 had a few very well-known ones, Crysis 2 has dozens.
The shiny lighting is huge contrast from the extremely meticulous art direction that made Crysis 1 seem photo-realistic at times. Most people don't seem to understand the concept of art direction at all. The art direction and attention to detail are what made Crysis so mind-blowingly beautiful, not the fancy shaders.
Even Cevat Yerli agrees that they sacrificed art direction, detail, level design, physics, basically every single notable feature of Crysis, just to fit console constraints. Everything missing is quite simply due to storage and memory constraints.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21404/1
Maybe I've posted this article before but it bears mentioning.
The difference in quality between the two games is so huge that I sometimes doubt the original team worked on Crysis 2.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. August 2012 @ 07:38
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
26. August 2012 @ 12:47 |
Link to this message
|
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
26. August 2012 @ 13:10 |
Link to this message
|
Very excited but in a sort of "meh" way. GTA IV was a big disappointment for me. Not a bad game, but I spent most of elementary and highschool playing Vice City and San Andreas. NO ROMAN I DON'T WANT TO GO BOWLING 3 TIMES A DAY OR YOU'LL HATE ME!!!
The graphics do look quite nice :)
Really really wish they would release Red Dead Redemption on PC. The game is amazing but I'm simply sick of console games. Very few that keep me playing. Dragonball Z Burst Limit is my current favorite on the PS3. My friend and I have put maybe 80-100 hours in it in the last few months just playing 1 v 1. Really fantastic fighting system. Is a hybrid of several games before it :)
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. August 2012 @ 13:11
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
26. August 2012 @ 13:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
Still, if its predecessor is anything to go by, we'll finally have a single-monitor use for that 3GB/4GB fitted to current top-end graphics cards!
|
|
