Hey, guys. I just bought a new gaming system and I want to know what you think:
-Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66ghz
-PNY XLR8 GeForce 9800gt Performance Edition (1024mb)
-4gb DDR2 RAM
-150gb HDD (not the biggest, but it works)
-Windows Vista Home Premium 32bit
I have a question though. Crysis Warhead works on Enthusiast (Very High) settings on this rig but my FPS stays from 20-30 and almost never goes over. While this is easily playable, it is not as smooth as it should be in my opinion. I think I should be getting 30+ FPS. My question is do any of you know how I can get better performance out of Crysis Warhead without lowering the graphic settings? Thanks for any help you can give me.
Replies
I would have just stuck with windows XP or Microsofts next OS that they'll officially make with no hiccups. Only because Microsoft is now only going to support it (Vista) for 6 more months then it's bye bye.
then yes, you can use those in XP, they're just blocked out in the game, and it's possible to activate them in the settingsfiles.
You're not one of those guys who actually believes that Microsoft wants to abandon ship on Vista as soon as possible, are you? If so, you might be interested to find out that Win7 is (at the moment) still very much a slight tweak of Vista. Not the total abandoning you were hoping for?
Also, telling someone to wait for the next OS and just switch immediately at launch is a far more stupid idea than telling someone to use Vista (which has had two Service Packs, the latter of which I believe is still in testing)
So, yeah. Any sources you want to share with me to back up that claim?
That said, on a spankin' brand new machine, running Vista should be all right.
As for the topic at hand, I think other than doing the usual thing of updating drivers, and tweaking the settings, you'd probably have to upgrade your CPU and/or your GPU. The E6700 and 9800GT aren't really enthusiast level hardware, and probably won't give you enthusiast level performance.
crysis(everything on high) runs actually faster on my workmashine than cod 4(everything on high) ...
6 compared to 4 fps, or something like that
There have been issues with compatibility mostly, and people for some reason have forgotten that XP was never perfect from day 1, either.
And really, east, would you recommend anyone switch to 7 at launch? Re-read what I said (especially the 'AT THE MOMENT'-bit). Every recent Microsoft OS has been based on a previous one, but did that guarantee instant stability? Ofcourse not, they still introduced a lot of new stuff.
Why the fuck does it feel like now there's not only the MacOS vs Windows discussion, there's also the equally idiotic Xp vs. Vista one? Let's up the stakes a bit, shall we? Xp vs. leopard! Vista vs. snow Leopard! Xp vs. Tiger!
And to get fully crazy: 'Lol leopard sux Cheetah 4 lyf'
As for the problem? I do agree with crazymatt, vista can be a bit of a bugger when playing games. First off, forget about DX10, for all the urban legends that are being called in this thread, this is the biggest one. No real difference imo, for the hit.
But I do like Vista myself, use it myself, so im not biased. I just feel vista causes a little more performance hit on games than XP did. Aside from that, I do agree with East, also. But man, keep the big picture. Enthuasist, I assume, is the highest. Just knock it down to the next step and no doubt itll still look amazing and run better. I know what its like, (I got my new rig completely owned by Crysis instead of a gentle telling off like you) but it still holds up real nice on slightly lower settings.
BTW, are koreans still pretty much immortal?
For CPU choice it's ok, but you could have gotten more power at least for gaming. A duo 8600 3Ghz outperforms any quad on crysis @ 1680x1050, except the QX9770 which is a real bargain at 1319$!
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-1680x1050,818.html
The pattern changes for UT3, the quads are in the lead but the 8600 is still in there with the big boys:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-q3-2008/Unreal-Tournament-3-1680x1050,819.html
As for the video card, it depends on your gaming resolution, but if you pick something that can run as high as 1920 then you shouldnt have problems getting great performance at a more reasonable res.
I would have recommended the "new" Nvidia GPU, the GTX 280. The 9800 is just a slightly modified g92 if i'm not mistaken, nvidia milked that processor 'til the end and then finally came out with the "real one".
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Crysis-v1-21,758.html
And yeah, XP vs. Vista is a dumb discussion. Anyone who knows anything about computers knows Vista is shit, and XP is the shit. Yes. That's me being facetious.
And to answer the topic: No. Your computer isn't good enough. Just give up.
I dunno.. I always thought the unreal engine 3 was overhyped till I switched to dx10 and Vista. Nothing but love now.
Is there a setting to get anti-aliased hdr in dx 9 using unreal?
Another game that got a quality performance boost on my machine when making the switch was Assasin's Creed?
Crysis is Crysis, don't ask much to your computer hehe.
4gb ram and vista 32? 9800gt?
What fails mainly is the graphic card, not so powerful for Crysis. You can have a gtx 280 and having x8AA x16Anisotropic and high quality at 1920x1280... won't be enough to play very well (280=too much noise, heat, and watts). No matter what cpu you have, if you own a bad graphic card to play crysis... don't expect much.
The 9800gt is a great videocard to play too many games, but not for crysis at 24" as all pc gamers do.