MickeyKnox
Member
... what are going on about? Did you miss his point or what?alexel said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Crysis: and the specs are...
- Thread starter Jel0man
- Start date
drizzle said:
What does Vista actually do which redeem the extra resource hogging? (actually I can't even really find anything in the GUI which would make my day easier)
I have change from 95->98->XP on several old PCs (before 1GHz) without noticeable drop in performance.
Actually isn't the most important thing about an OS to be a flexible API with as little performance waste as possible?
Kestastrophe
Member
Something tells me that my Radeon 9550 won't be able to handle this..........
Big Chief Crazy Cone
Member
So I meet the recomended except for the HD space (heh) and the videocard. I have the latest rev. MacBook Pro with the 256mb 8600M GT. But I went and put 4GB of RAM in it. Is the 8600 that much worse (as noted in an earlier post) that I shouldn't even bother?
The 640/320 video memory difference has so far been resolution bound, this even applied to the unoptimised to all hell Crysis beta.
A 320 should be able to handle this game at mostly 'high' settings at anything 1440x900 or under, which is alot of peoples native resolution.
When I say "handle" i mean not dipping under 30fps.
But yeh, should. I'm kinda losing faith in this game, especially since the beta.
A 320 should be able to handle this game at mostly 'high' settings at anything 1440x900 or under, which is alot of peoples native resolution.
When I say "handle" i mean not dipping under 30fps.
But yeh, should. I'm kinda losing faith in this game, especially since the beta.
Forgotten Ancient
Banned
Well, I was thinking of upgrading this fall. Now I won't be upgrading until at least next fall (if not later). I probably won't upgrade until there are two generations of cards past the 8800GTS. My current PC meets the minimum requirements, but I'll just wait it out and run my computer into the ground first.
VonGak! said:
Nothing, that's why microsoft made DX10 vista only.
Vista just does things differently, and that's not as optimizeed as XP.
We're talking about Vista32 bits tho. The 64 bits of Vista allows for more stuff, but it's even more resource hogging (because it works in 64 bits).
VonGak! said:
That's called personal taste. I find the system search one of the best vista innovations, and that alone is reason enough for me to use Vista (That and the fact that my computer is "teh powerfulzzz"). But then again, i was never the kind of person that goes through dozens of "folders" (that's directories for the old people) looking for that single icon to click on.
VonGak! said:
XP only became stable and usable after SP1. Only had real innovations on SP2. And even then, the innovations sucked ass (Half open socket limitations, shitty built-in firewall, gymped media center usability).
VonGak! said:
That deppends on what you want your OS to do. I'm pretty sure somebody somewhere uses the Windows XP cd recording (by drag and dropping) functionality. I sure as hell don't, and i hate it, but Windows 98 didn't have that, and i'm sure something new as this uses some processing power and ram to be able to function.
New OS are hardly about better performance, as the PC Market evolves so fast these days that it's not even a point anymore. I know, it sucks ass, but thats how it works. New OS are about new functionalities.
Vista also uses your 3d hardware to render it's desktop. XP doesn't do that. It doesn't seem much (and it isn't), but it's something totally new and, since vista isn't even in SP1, i'm sure there's lots of un optimized code laying there.
Another thing is that Vista manages memory completly different. It actually tries to fill up as much ram as it can with cached data. Differently from Windows XP, which used only what it needed at any given time, meaning that anything that will be loaded will take longer to load, because data needs to fill the ram first.
Vista tries it's best to fill the ram with stuff you will eventually use, to be faster. While that's good for the operating system, it's bad for demanding games (like Battlefield 2, which uses ram poorly, and Crysis), since the OS has to empty that ram down to HD first and then upload the game information.
If you have a better PC when using Vista, those "bottlenecks" are pretty much insignificant.
But then again, this is a Crysis thread. FarCry was a pretty demanding game back when it was released, and Crysis on low looks like FarCry. If your option is to run crysys on low, then you have a computer that was good back when FarCry was released. Not so much right now.
drivingpro
Member
drizzle said:
Winxp uses more resources and is more stable and reliable than 98. Vista uses more resources, and is farrrr from more reliable then xp
and dont get me started on what they did with all the shortcuts which have been around since win95. :\
anyway back to crysis....
drizzle said:
Yeah, it was a piece of shit that I quickly upgraded to an Athlon64 3400+ (FUCKING AWESOME CPU), which pushed the FPS upto 60+ at all times. Still, my point remains.
I'm getting the feeling that 90% of Crysis' revenue is going to come from bundles with the next round of graphics cards, since by the time most people will be able to play it the hype will be long dead.
fortified_concept
Banned
drizzle said:
Couldn't disagree more. XP was 10x better than its predecessor even before SP1 just for the fact that it was stable as fuck and almost as fast. Vista is bloated, less stable and has all kinds of weird problems. The only positive thing about the new OS is the deliberate lack of DirectX10 from the old one. Anyway I think we're kinda offtopic...
WHOAguitarninja
Member
Arthursw1 said:*reads recommeded specs*
*sees PC at home specs*
Intel core 2 duo (2.2 GHz) - check
4GB ram - check
Ati x600 -
Does this game supports 2.0 pixel shaders?
Unless the game has been very heavily optimised from the beta your not going to run it well with that videocard.
speculawyer
Member
drizzle said:
The more I read about Vista, the less I want it. :lol As it is, the first thing I do with any XP PC is bring up the 'system' control panel and click on the 'adjust for best performance' to turn off the useless resource-hogging 'improved' GUI crap.
Arthursw1
Member
Kabouter said:X600 in that PC?
Why? Not a PC gamer?
Not much i only use that PC to play Warcraft 3, halo 1, Half life 2, the last game i played on that PC was FEAR but that's it i rather play on consoles, the 4GB of ram are for graphic design & video edit.
But i will upgrade the GPU till next year.That would explain things thenArthursw1 said:Not much i only use that PC to play Warcraft 3, halo 1, Half life 2, the last game i played on that PC was FEAR but that's it i rather play on consoles, the 4GB of ram are for graphic design & video edit.
speculawyer
Member
Agreed . . . Windows 98 was a buggy abortion.fortified_concept said:
drizzle said:
I use this application on XP called Launchy for that:
http://www.launchy.net/
It's awesome.
I won't upgrade to Vista until I see a performance boost or something that makes the upgrade worthwile. XP is good enough, I know certain people are working on a DX10 port also.
BTW Crysis beta runs like shit on my AMD 3700+,1,5GB RAM, 8800GTS 320 MB. Looks like shit too even in high. I like the blur but that's all. I hope final will be a lot better.
Schwowsers
Member
I remember some interview with that guy from Crytek where he said that if you could run Far Cry at high settings, you can run Crysis at low settings and it will look at least as good as Far Cry. I hope thats true, cause I could play Far Cry on high, but I only just meet the minimum specs for Crysis.
Doc Evils said:I think my system will be able to run it on high.
I'm not sure how much stock I'd place in the Vista performance rating as it pertains to games. Even my piece-o-crap system with a 6600 got over a 4.0.
MickeyKnox
Member
:lolfortified_concept said:
The XP launch was a fucking disaster in the eyes of the same groups that are calling Vista a bomb. There were driver issues up the ass, aplication incompatibilities, severe performance drops in gaming, etc.... Everyone was saying go back to 98se. (ME never existed)
polyh3dron
Banned
I AM JOHN! said:
And this is why I bailed out of PC gaming LONG ago.
ElectricBlue187
Member
haha my computer can technically run it, but it won't look OMG amazing probably so no thanks
GenericPseudonym
Banned
Endless said:Low
Medium
High
Very High
My main problem with PC gaming is that they always advertise using max settings but on the box you see Minimum (low) and reccommended (medium-ish) and are never really given what it takes to run at maximum (the advertised graphics) at 30fps+. The game looks like a more colourful Half-Life 2 until you get to high, and it certainly doesn't look like Crysis until very high.
ElectricBlue187
Member
GenericPseudonym said:
that's a good point. I think the problem is the hardware usually has to catch up to the ultra high settings in games these days. They could put 'dual 8800 GTX required for ultra omg high @60 FPS' on the box but the 9800 comes out or whatever you'll just need one of those cards maybe.
MickeyKnox
Member
Does not compute.GenericPseudonym said: