Last message on previous page:

Hmmm my system is near enough identical to yours except I dont overclock and I can run at upto 1600x1200 with all those settings on high and 4xaa...

When I was running the demo with the very high settings hack I had to have settings similiar to yours at the same resolution. Once I got the retail version without any hacks I got pretty decent playability (never once had a stutter that caused a problem playing the game from beginning to end) with all settings on high and 12800x1024 with 4xaa.

Since I completed the game the first time Ive been pushing the resolution further and playing through odd levels, Whilst I found 1600x1200 all high with 4xaa playable on the levels Ive tested it on. Ive not played the game end to end like that to be sure.

Of course if you're running DX10 under vista that might be where the difference comes from Im running DX9 under XP. Might also be drivers related Im running the second set of crysis specific beta drivers (the one that cured the odd water reflections) Im not sure if there is a new beta or final version out since then.

Ape get a new hooby instead of just being a professional arse. Why dont u ask the man himself who started this thread.

@systemlord, i get 30-40fps under XP with a 2900pro stock speeds @1152x864 with all high except shadows, post processing, volumetric, and effects at medium. no dx10 hack. Its a bit of a modern legend that crysis only plays on the highest specd systems but u just gotta play with the settings. (like u did I mean im not having a dig at u, cheers)

xbox 360= actually has 360 outsourced ambidextrous crack craving hamsters with TI-85 graphing calulators and etch-a-sketch's...its like super technical and stuff.

ambidextrous? wow that is raw power

You aren't getting an average frame rate of 65 FPS running with any AA setting though. I suggest you get into overclocking because it makes a big difference more so in Crysis than any other game I've played.

I couldn't agree more, changing one setting effects how your next setting will effect overall performance. Taking Post Processing from High to Low gets me 10 fps more with reduced shuttering or blurr. I could most likey push some more setting higher and still keep my fps above 50-60 fps. I haven't played past the first map because I'm waiting for the performance patch in Feb. My OC on my CPU/GPU made such a huge difference in Crysis more than any other game I've played, guess thats because Crysis is so GPU sensitive like F.E.A.R.

if you want to get similar graphics in what sense?

FPS or visual appearance?

BidyBag, you asked the question...but what i dont understand is do you want the same visual appeal, or the same smoothness that you would be getting out of your (assumed) 360?

if you want the same FPS it really depends on your game, on average for new graphic intense games i would recommend a 8800gt 256MB.

if you want about the same visual appeal as the 360, i would recomend a Radeon card over an GeForce card any day, more like a 38xx series card, where visuals are emphasized over FPS

38xx cards emphasize IQ just about as much as Phenom processors emphasize performance-per-watt. Come on now, why can't a slower card just be a slower card?

Don't get me wrong, the 38xx series offers some great value, and if I had to buy a GPU today it would be a 512MB HD3850. Still, I don't hesitate to recognize the fact that AMD can't touch the 8800 series right now, at least in single GPU configurations.

i agree, i have many systems with many different GPUs...when playing games online i tend to use my intel setup with my 8800GT 512MB, i get better framerates and i feel this gives me somewhat of an edge

but when im playing single player mode in most games where as long as i get more than 50FPS i am perfectly fine with, since my brain cant even detect over 70 FPS anyway, i tend to use my 3870 512, in my opinion it looks much nicer than my 800GT

you can hate on based on FPS, i will agree ATi is beat, but the visual appearance ATi has definitely won

it just all depends on what you want more

I have heard stuff in the past likening the technology in Xenos to an X1900/HD 2900 chimera (with some tech new to it as well), with performance in the range of an X800XT, plus effectively "free" 4xAA with the inclusion of the eDRAM. Simply put, there is no good apples-to-apples comparison between the cards, and it depends somewhat on how much you value AA. If you value it highly, it runs about the same as an X1900; if you don't, the X800 reference is probably more accurate.

Why don't you atually read his posts, there's only two and they're very short.
I already posted one for you, here's the other "My friend thinks they are the same as the GeForce 8800. Is the Xbox 360 close to this?" so neither of them say what you're criticizing others for not answering, so seriously get real and stop making up strawmen about people console bashing.

So perhaps you should just stick to the actual comments/thread instead of making up your own.

hooby

Um...this is a quote from your the article you posted:

"On chip, the shaders are organized in three SIMD engines with 16 processors per unit, for a total of 48 shaders."

So this in fact is much more like the X1900 series as it has 16 pipes with 48 unified shaders as well.

Best,

3Ball

Considering Ape answer his question, as did many others, and the fact that this could have been googled or just searched for on these forums and be answered. I believe that there was nothing wrong with his comments. What is it exactly that has offended you here?

Best,

3Ball

Does anyone wanna laugh at the 3.2GHz speeds of the Cell and the Xenon?

lol, clock for clock on a single core process I would prefer a 3.2ghz p4! lmao

Best,

3Ball