# How to run crysis at Very High



## BluePlum (Dec 29, 2007)

Wassup everyone, If youv've read my new computer thread you no my specs, If not Two Nvidia 8700 gt, 512 ram for graphics card, 2042 ram for computer, 4.8 ghz. Now why cant i play crysis at high? over heatment? Its a laptop so not big fans? After a while of playing on medium it was A. Start to get Laggy, Or B. Freeze a bit, Then More And More. Any idears? or am i stuck with medium? Medium looks great but high looks spectactular


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Dec 29, 2007)

probably because it is a laptop.


----------



## Ramodkk (Dec 29, 2007)

Crysis Recommended System Requirements: 

QX9650 Processor
8800GTX/Ultra Three-Way SLI
4GB RAM


----------



## BluePlum (Dec 29, 2007)

I orderd a cooling pad and a bought a mini fan to put on it lol. I hope it helps, AND WERE DOES IT SAY THOS SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS?


----------



## hpi (Dec 29, 2007)

BluePlum said:


> I orderd a cooling pad and a bought a mini fan to put on it lol. I hope it helps, AND WERE DOES IT SAY THOS SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS?



it doesn't, it's a system out of very iother few options that can max max out everything.

Your cpu is at 4.8GHz ?? wtf


----------



## BluePlum (Dec 29, 2007)

to 2.4 ghz = 4.8 right?


----------



## Motoxrdude (Dec 29, 2007)

No, dual core does not mean you add the ghz, lol. It just means two cores running at 2.4ghz, not one core at 4.8ghz.


----------



## hpi (Dec 29, 2007)

BluePlum said:


> to 2.4 ghz = 4.8 right?



We all wish.

both cores are running at 2.4 but they don't add up.


----------



## BluePlum (Dec 29, 2007)

NOOOOOOO YOUR SOOOOO RONG! lol now get back on subject ay?


----------



## Motoxrdude (Dec 29, 2007)

Two 8800ultras can hardly play crisis on very high, what makes you think your laptop can?


----------



## hpi (Dec 29, 2007)

BluePlum said:


> NOOOOOOO YOUR SOOOOO RONG! lol now get back on subject ay?





Motoxrdude said:


> Two 8800ultras can hardly play crisis on very high, what makes you think your laptop can?



pwned, see everyone will tell you your no way in hell going to max out crysis on a laptop. No laptop can max it out up to date, hardly any desktops can.

Give it up, run it on low.


----------



## Ramodkk (Dec 29, 2007)

Imagine a laptop with 3-way SLI'ed 8800Ultras!! 

Maybe what, 5 times the weight of the laptop?


----------



## Motoxrdude (Dec 29, 2007)

ramodkk said:


> Imagine a laptop with 3-way SLI'ed 8800Ultras!!
> 
> Maybe what, 5 times the weight of the laptop?



Rofl! That laptop would have like a 10 minute battery life!


----------



## Ramodkk (Dec 29, 2007)

/\ Haha, that's for sure!


----------



## Kornowski (Dec 29, 2007)

Motoxrdude said:


> Two 8800ultras can hardly play crisis on very high, what makes you think your laptop can?



I can run some things on Very High and the rest on High, I get 20-30FPS


----------



## Freestylingford (Dec 29, 2007)

Me Too. I would say that the patch will help a little too. But nobody really knows till it gets here.


----------



## Motoxrdude (Dec 29, 2007)

Kornowski said:


> I can run some things on Very High and the rest on High, I get 20-30FPS



Just curious, are you SLIing your 8800gt or just a single card?


----------



## Freestylingford (Dec 29, 2007)

For me they are SLI


----------



## Ramodkk (Dec 29, 2007)

Motoxrdude said:


> Just curious, are you SLIing your 8800gt or just a single card?



Judging his sig, he has a 8800GTS not a 8800GT


----------



## Kornowski (Dec 29, 2007)

Freestylingford said:


> Me Too. I would say that the patch will help a little too. But nobody really knows till it gets here.



Do you know when it's supposed to be released?



Motoxrdude said:


> Just curious, are you SLIing your 8800gt or just a single card?



I don't have an 8800GT, I have the new GTS 

And it's just the one card for me


----------



## Freestylingford (Dec 29, 2007)

Last update was supposedly  January 08 but not day specific.


----------



## Kornowski (Dec 29, 2007)

Ah right, I guess only time will tell, to see if it makes a difference...


----------



## zaroba (Dec 29, 2007)

i don't se why a laptop couldn't play it if it had good enough specs.  its no different from a regular pc except its smaller.
but anyway, you definitely need more then 2gb of ram if you want to run crysis maxxed out.


----------



## hpi (Dec 29, 2007)

zaroba said:


> i don't se why a laptop couldn't play it if it had good enough specs.  its no different from a regular pc except its smaller.
> but anyway, you definitely need more then 2gb of ram if you want to run crysis maxxed out.



It can't, the laptop would have to be huge and have an insane amount of power.


----------



## Kesava (Dec 29, 2007)

hpi said:


> It can't, the laptop would have to be huge and have an insane amount of power.



yeah hes right. the "specs" would come from big hardware that wouldnt fit in a normal laptop. such as sli ultras


----------



## Motoxrdude (Dec 29, 2007)

Think about it, laptops have to run on very low power. Also, you have to sacrifice some power to fit it in such a small space. It's mainly the motherboard that bottlenecks.


----------



## Ramodkk (Dec 29, 2007)

Also, I don't think HSF on laptops (they do have HSF's don't they? lol) are really good to put big loads on the CPU...


----------



## BluePlum (Dec 29, 2007)

Well i can run COD4 maxed out fine, Bioshock with my hands behind my back. But crysis will start to lag after awhile on medium. MEDIUM! i have 2042 ram, 512 ram for gpu, Duel nvidia 8700gt with sli, intel centrino duo 2.4 ( thats to 2.4 chips ) and my computer can do light shows. The most powerfull laptop in the world, AND YOUR TELLING ME I CANT PLAY CRYSIS LAG FREE? ILL KILL U! lol jks, My cooling pad should be coming soon, But want i want to no is does anyone have any tips? like how to get maximum airflow, Do all my lights that i have on decrease performance? Usualy when i run crysis my 2nd LCD panel ( thats right my laptop has a cool 2nd LCD, displaying emails, performance, time, you name it. The ram gets higher and higher until it can get up to 90%.

Dell XPS M1730, Well time to watch a light show. ( i have vista )


----------



## zaroba (Dec 30, 2007)

to put it in perspective, the PC in my sig only gets 20-25fps in crysis with everything on very high @ 1280x1024 and AA disabled (was just playing it for the past few hours).  but i haven't gotten to the snow yet which is the real fps killer.

last time i played it i only had an e6300 and 5gb of ram.  was getting the same FPS with everything on high and a few on medium.  in the snow i had to lower some settings to low to maintain 20 fps.

like i said earlier, you need more then 2gb of ram for crysis.  thats probably why its lagging.  you can have the worlds fastest video cards, but if you don't have much ram your pc will lag since it will have to constantly access the hard drive for textures, sounds, etc that the game needs.


----------



## BluePlum (Dec 30, 2007)

OOOOo what resouloution should i have it on? 17 inch screen. and i have more the 2gb of ram


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Dec 30, 2007)

i only get around 25FPS on high settings with my pc...i wouldn't expect a laptop to top that.



BluePlum said:


> Well i can run COD4 maxed out fine, Bioshock with my hands behind my back. But crysis will start to lag after awhile on medium. MEDIUM! i have 2042 ram, 512 ram for gpu, Duel nvidia 8700gt with sli, intel centrino duo 2.4 ( thats to 2.4 chips ) and my computer can do light shows. The most powerfull laptop in the world, AND YOUR TELLING ME I CANT PLAY CRYSIS LAG FREE? ILL KILL U! lol jks, My cooling pad should be coming soon, But want i want to no is does anyone have any tips? like how to get maximum airflow, Do all my lights that i have on decrease performance? Usualy when i run crysis my 2nd LCD panel ( thats right my laptop has a cool 2nd LCD, displaying emails, performance, time, you name it. The ram gets higher and higher until it can get up to 90%.
> 
> Dell XPS M1730, Well time to watch a light show. ( i have vista )



Yes, thats because they are them and Crysis is Crysis...just because you can run those on max doesn't mean Crysis can. Crysis is pretty hardware intensive and even very very high end computer can't run it perfectly on the highest most settings.


----------



## BluePlum (Dec 30, 2007)

what if i get more cooling?


----------



## Motoxrdude (Dec 30, 2007)

BluePlum said:


> what if i get more cooling?



Dont you understand? You can't max out crisis on that setup. You simply don't have a powerful enough computer to max it out.


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Dec 30, 2007)

BluePlum said:


> what if i get more cooling?



Cooling won't do you much good, if you want to play the game max...drop a load of cash when the next video card series come out and then try. Your laptop, nor any laptop for that matter, will run Crysis on high smoothly


----------



## BluePlum (Dec 30, 2007)

Will More Cooling Help At All? Because After Awhile Of Playing It Will Become Laggy


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Dec 30, 2007)

BluePlum said:


> Will More Cooling Help At All? Because After Awhile Of Playing It Will Become Laggy



It may help resolve the laggy part, but don't expect it to cure it. The lag _may_ be caused by overheating...so the extra cooling could help that.


----------



## Motoxrdude (Dec 30, 2007)

BluePlum said:


> Will More Cooling Help At All? Because After Awhile Of Playing It Will Become Laggy



It might help the "laggin over time" because your laptop may be heating up and clocking down to reduce heat. But it may have a memory leak as well, so who knows.


----------



## Froboy7391_99 (Jan 4, 2008)

The computer with the best Graphics setup *in the world* can not play it with repspectable fps when maxed out(1920x1080 4xAA).
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/12/13/nvidia_3-way_sli_on_nforce_680i_preview/5


----------



## BluePlum (Jan 4, 2008)

Wats Anti-analizing and wats the best screen size?


----------



## Kornowski (Jan 4, 2008)

AA is going to reduce your FPS majoly, so don't use it, it basically softens the edges of things to make them look better.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 4, 2008)

Kornowski said:


> AA is going to reduce your FPS majoly, so don't use it, it basically softens the edges of things to make them look better.



Thats AF actually (calculate pixels along edges to mane a 3d object appear more smooth )  AA is a means of filtering textures, to reduce the weird effect you can get when moving around. 

stuff like this:




(that effect is called aliasing, it happens when you compress an image, wich happens when you change the perspective you look at something in a 3d application all the time   (with an increased samplerate of the original picture, the card can calculate the compressed picture much better again, wich takes a lot more resources tough ^^)


----------



## zaroba (Jan 4, 2008)

Froboy7391_99 said:


> The computer with the best Graphics setup *in the world* can not play it with repspectable fps when maxed out(1920x1080 4xAA).
> http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/12/13/nvidia_3-way_sli_on_nforce_680i_preview/5



lol, hardly the best.  with high settings, my pc can get 20-30 fps.
i really hope you wont believe that having three 512mb ultras will only provide a 10-20 fps increase over a single 640mb gts.

most of the time these people who do  benchmarks are brainless when it comes to comparing things and testing whats needed for things (look at the vista vs xp benchmark they did after completely ignoring system requirements).  i'll bet that pc only has 1gb of ram in it, maybe 2gb, and that is why there fps is quite low.


----------



## Froboy7391_99 (Jan 4, 2008)

zaroba said:


> lol, hardly the best.  with high settings, my pc can get 20-30 fps.
> i really hope you wont believe that having three 512mb ultras will only provide a 10-20 fps increase over a single 640mb gts.
> 
> most of the time these people who do  benchmarks are brainless when it comes to comparing things and testing whats needed for things (look at the vista vs xp benchmark they did after completely ignoring system requirements).  i'll bet that pc only has 1gb of ram in it, maybe 2gb, and that is why there fps is quite low.



But your not running on 1920x1280 are you? They had a OCed Q6600 and 2 Gb of ram


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Jan 4, 2008)

zaroba said:


> lol, hardly the best.  with high settings, my pc can get 20-30 fps.
> i really hope you wont believe that having three 512mb ultras will only provide a 10-20 fps increase over a single 640mb gts.
> 
> most of the time these people who do  benchmarks are brainless when it comes to comparing things and testing whats needed for things (look at the vista vs xp benchmark they did after completely ignoring system requirements).  i'll bet that pc only has 1gb of ram in it, maybe 2gb, and that is why there fps is quite low.



Is that a joke? there is no way in hell you're running this game at the resolution with the aa and all that good stuff they ran at on a 640mb 8800GTS. You might have the settings on high, but you probably don't even have AA turned on, and you're probably playing at 1024x768.


----------



## BluePlum (Jan 5, 2008)

Amen!


----------



## zaroba (Jan 5, 2008)

Iluvpenguins said:


> Is that a joke? there is no way in hell you're running this game at the resolution with the aa and all that good stuff they ran at on a 640mb 8800GTS. You might have the settings on high, but you probably don't even have AA turned on, and you're probably playing at 1024x768.



the only difference is that i can only get upto 1280x1024.  personally, i've never seen an fps difference with resolution changes with this pc.  i tested and found that crysis with 800x600 res is the same fps as 1280x1024 res.  I'd go ingame and take some pics as proof, but my power supply died last night so i have to wait until the new one comes from newegg





Froboy7391_99 said:


> But your not running on 1920x1280 are you? They had a OCed Q6600 and 2 Gb of ram


they only had 2gb of ram in that pc?  lol, that is exactly what i'm talking about.  they would have had possibly double the fps if they had maxxed out the ram in the pc.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 5, 2008)

2Gb of RAM is actually enough..   when playing crysis (with 2gb) the usage of if, at least for me, never went over 80% ram used.

anyways, there's a slight difference on the workload for the grafic's cards here 
1280x1024 = 1310720 pixels needing to be calculated.
1920x1280 = 2457600 pixels, the load on the grafix's cards is at least twice as high  (considering it also does full screen AA and AF etc in some tests)


----------



## Dollar (Jan 5, 2008)

I am using the follwing rig and I am playing at 1024x768 all on medium settings and fps is 20 to 30. It is very very lag sigh. And there are also freezing sometimes in the mniddle of somewhere.


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Jan 5, 2008)

if you turned up AA or you are using your own settings via nvidia panel, thats why. You need to force vsync off and you need to make sure that AA is application controlled or turned off.

and as Archangel said, 2GB of ram is enough for the game, 4gb of ram wouldn't of doubled fps let alone change it. If any change, it'd be a 1-2fps difference most likely...because its not going to utilize more than 2gb anyway.


----------



## zaroba (Jan 6, 2008)

just because it wont use 100% of the ram doesn't mean it wont make a difference.
in every instance i have seen, it actually HAS made a difference.

hmm..oblivion...1gb+xp = maybe it was 10fps with maxxed settings, vista + 3gb = around 20fps with maxxed settings, vista + 5gb = 30+ fps with maxxed settings and modded to remove LODs and add higher definition models etc.  besides FPS, there were also drastic increases in load/save times, and map transition times.
everything else in the pc was exactly the same.




Archangel said:


> anyways, there's a slight difference on the workload for the grafic's cards here
> 1280x1024 = 1310720 pixels needing to be calculated.
> 1920x1280 = 2457600 pixels, the load on the grafix's cards is at least twice as high



yea, just like the load between 800x600 and 1280x1024 is drastically different, yet there was no fps effect.
ram really does help a graphics card work better.


----------



## Motoxrdude (Jan 6, 2008)

zaroba said:


> just because it wont use 100% of the ram doesn't mean it wont make a difference.
> in every instance i have seen, it actually HAS made a difference.
> 
> hmm..oblivion...1gb+xp = ok, vista + 3gb = better, vista + 5gb = yet better.
> everything else in the pc was exactly the same.


Where's your proof?


----------



## zaroba (Jan 6, 2008)

erm...because i was playing oblivion on those things.

like i said, every time i have seen, it actually did make a difference.  if your not even going to bother trying it, then don't sit there and act like i'm lying just because your too stubbern to upgrade.


----------



## Motoxrdude (Jan 6, 2008)

Hmm, i never noticed a difference in oblivion when i went from 1gb to 2gb.


----------



## zaroba (Jan 6, 2008)

thats a shame.

what else was in your computer at the time?  maybe something else was limiting it.
when i did it, the other main things in my pc were an IDE hard drive, 640mb 8800GTS, and an E6300 @ 1.86Ghz.


----------



## Motoxrdude (Jan 6, 2008)

Keep in mind, this is when oblivion was first released. I had a x2 3800+, x800gto, 1gb dual channel (then 2gb dual channel).


----------



## zaroba (Jan 6, 2008)

ahh, could have to do with the newer cpu/gpu.  maybe they were able to push the game alot farther.


last gaming pc i had also displayed a ram related fps increase.

long, long, long ago (around 2003).  2.4ghz p4, win2k, PCI 64mb GeForce2 mmx, Asus P4C800 Deluxe Mobo.
going from 1gb of ram to 4gb of ram resaulted in an FPS jump as much as %200 in some games (seriously, 20->60fps).  I then replaced the GeForce2 with an 8x AGP 256mb GeForce 4 5600.  FPS in games changed by not even %10.  I was so ungodly pissed off that the card i just spent some $200 on barely did squat in my games.  i was considering returning it, but i needed its pixel shader 2.0 for a game i had recently gotten.


----------



## Motoxrdude (Jan 7, 2008)

zaroba said:


> ahh, could have to do with the newer cpu/gpu.  maybe they were able to push the game alot farther.
> 
> 
> last gaming pc i had also displayed a ram related fps increase.
> ...



Sorry, but i seriously doubt that in 2003, you had 4gb of ram. For one, windows xp 64bit was released in 2005, so you could only use 3gb, and no desktop motherboard supported 4gb of ram in 2003.


----------



## taylormsj (Jan 7, 2008)

Owned


----------



## mep916 (Jan 7, 2008)

Motoxrdude said:


> Sorry, but i seriously doubt that in 2003, you had 4gb of ram. For one, windows xp 64bit was released in 2005, so you could only use 3gb, and no desktop motherboard supported 4gb of ram in 2003.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 7, 2008)

zaroba said:


> yea, just like the load between 800x600 and 1280x1024 is drastically different, yet there was no fps effect.
> ram really does help a graphics card work better.




My gues would be the fps gets limited at one point.   whats the point of going over 70fps for example.   I mean, great, the grafic's cards would run at full load all the time, even on low setting, good for heating up your room I gues.

I know what you mean, don't get me wrong there.    but when I set it to 800x600 or 1280x1024, I dont notice a difference either.   but when I turn it up to 1600x1200, the fps drops really low.   so yes, there definately is a difference between them


----------



## zaroba (Jan 7, 2008)

taylormsj said:
			
		

> Owned





Motoxrdude said:


> Sorry, but i seriously doubt that in 2003, you had 4gb of ram. For one, windows xp 64bit was released in 2005, so you could only use 3gb, and no desktop motherboard supported 4gb of ram in 2003.




*1.* i did say i had an Asus P4C800 deluxe motherboard right?  its generally good to look up specs if you have questions about a persons hardware..
*2.* who says you can only use a desktop motherboard in a desktop pc?  i think it was classified as a workstation motherboard.
*3.* just because windows couldn't use all but 3.5gb of the ram doesn't mean you can't have 4gb in there.
*4.* The board was released IN 2003 and I think it was the most powerful motherboard at the time.  Heres a news article from May 8th, 2003 about the Asus P4C800 Deluxe: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcw.  Feel free to read it.
*5.* look at the specs for yourself: http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=12&l3=30&model=175&modelmenu=1


> -4 x 184-pin DIMM Sockets support max. 4GB PC3200/PC2700/PC2100 ECC/ Non-ECC DDR SDRAM memory


not exactly hard to put in 4 1gb sticks of ddr.

any more questions?
it's lovely how people think that just because its old means it can't be good for its time.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 7, 2008)

just wondering, but if windows cant use all the ram, why spend money to put it in there?
anyways, 3Gb of ram was way over the top at that time, even for hardcore gaming (at least in my oppinion)   I mean, yea, sure, I gues its nice to have bragging rights at lan parties or so, but in terms of actual performance increase of the system in total, I'd rather spend a bit more money on a better grafic's card


----------



## zaroba (Jan 7, 2008)

well, at the time i wasn't aware of the 32bit ram limitation 

and i was often doing 3d modelling and sometimes making videos of games so needed alot of ram.
pretty sure the Geforce FX 5600 was the best card at the time (sorry, think i said it was a geforce4 earler?  give me some slack though, it's been 5 years  )


----------



## Motoxrdude (Jan 7, 2008)

zaroba said:


> *1.* i did say i had an Asus P4C800 deluxe motherboard right?  its generally good to look up specs if you have questions about a persons hardware..
> *2.* who says you can only use a desktop motherboard in a desktop pc?  i think it was classified as a workstation motherboard.
> *3.* just because windows couldn't use all but 3.5gb of the ram doesn't mean you can't have 4gb in there.
> *4.* The board was released IN 2003 and I think it was the most powerful motherboard at the time.  Heres a news article from May 8th, 2003 about the Asus P4C800 Deluxe: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDcw.  Feel free to read it.
> ...



So you spent more money on the ram then you did on everything else combined? I highly doubt that.

And the best video card at the time was a 9700PRO.

EDIT: O and you linked two different motherboards their. First link is of the P4C800 Deluxe, second one is P4C800-E Deluxe. The P4C800-E Deluxe used DDR instead of SDRAM. Also it supported prescott.


----------



## zaroba (Jan 8, 2008)

hmm... *grabs the board out of the closet*.  P4C800 deluxe.  you can look up the specs etc yourself.  would you like to see a picture of it as proof that i still have that too?  Click Here.  so, sorry, it was 4gb of sdram, not ddr.

why do you doubt the ram purchase?  are you now saying that for some reason you think i can't spend *my* money how *i* want to?  good grief.  seriously, it sounds to me like for some unknown reason you have this idea that i'm not allowed to upgrade my computer with what i want.  as for the vid card, who says i wanted a radion instead of nearly the best geforce that was out at the time?  I've always used geforce and probably always will.

you got people buying pre made PCs for sometimes 3x the cost to build them, yet you suddenly think that somebody can't build themselves a good pc using there money the way they want to?


if you have any other doubts, feel free to look up all the hardware that i mentioned to see that it actually WAS out in 2003.  also feel free to get that idea out of your mind thats telling you i can't spend my money on what pc hardware i want to.


----------



## Motoxrdude (Jan 8, 2008)

zaroba said:


> hmm... *grabs the board out of the closet*.  P4C800 deluxe.  you can look up the specs etc yourself.  would you like to see a picture of it as proof that i still have that too?  Click Here.  so, sorry, it was 4gb of sdram, not ddr.
> 
> why do you doubt the ram purchase?  are you now saying that for some reason you think i can't spend *my* money how *i* want to?  good grief.  seriously, it sounds to me like for some unknown reason you have this idea that i'm not allowed to upgrade my computer with what i want.  as for the vid card, who says i wanted a radion instead of nearly the best geforce that was out at the time?  I've always used geforce and probably always will.
> 
> ...


Heh, I was looking around on that server and the funny thing is, there is another picture on there that listed you being 19 with a nazi symbol avatar. So unless I see a picture of that motherboard next to a peice of paper saying "Are you happy now, Motoxrdude?", I won't beleive you.
And why would you spend over $1600 dollars on 4gb of ram when at the time nothing requires it, loading all four slots of ram actually causes super high latency, and you could upgrade other components that will boost your game performance (like a 9700PRO) for 1/3 the price? And what games did you see a 40fps by upgrading from 1gb to 4gb? Kinda funny since no game in that time even used 512mb ram, lol.


----------



## zaroba (Jan 8, 2008)

lol, i have a pic of a 19 year old with a nazi thing on the site?
hmm...*goes off to look*


*edit*
oh, lol, that decahwn a-hole.  long story short, he was a player in the game http://www.theuniversal.net who got banned for such actions.  if you notice, the picture states that i was TARGETTING him.  search for decahwn on the forums there and you will find tons of hate posts about him.  like this one: http://theuniversal.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6524

also, whats not to believe?  to be honest, i want to appologise if i came off rude in my posts.  its because even when i HAD the pc, people acted like you and pretty much acted like i couldn't have had it when i posted it on gaming forums.  whats not to believe though?  look at the pc in my sig, 8gb of ram (4x 2gb), look at PCs owned by others.  so what if you can't think of a need for it (or the 8gb in my current pc) does that mean i can't buy it and put it in if i want?  no.  so once again i ask you why would you think somebody is lieing just because they have a good pc?

said earlier, I had a lot of ram for 3d model editing and video recording.  simple as that.  if you want a simpler answer, then how about 'because i wanted it'.  i don't have to follow yours or anybody elses rules when it comes to building a pc like you seem to think, i can but what i want in my pcs.  if they end up being better then your PCs and offering better FPS rates then your PCs in games, then guess what, they do.  get over it instead of acting like people are liars just because they found a better solution when you can't even try new things.

as for games, i can remember Trainz and The Universal.


----------



## BluePlum (Jan 11, 2008)

GET OUT OF MY THREAD U HI-JACKERS! " shackes fist and puts hand under neath shirt and makes a gun symbol to scare them out "


----------



## zaroba (Jan 13, 2008)

sorry blue 

blame the little punk that for absolutely no reason decided to come in here calling me a liar.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 13, 2008)

zaroba said:


> said earlier, I had a lot of ram for 3d model editing and video recording.  simple as that.  if you want a simpler answer, then how about 'because i wanted it'.  i don't have to follow yours or anybody elses rules when it comes to building a pc like you seem to think, i can but what i want in my pcs.  if they end up being better then your PCs and offering better FPS rates then your PCs in games, then guess what, they do.  get over it instead of acting like people are liars just because they found a better solution when you can't even try new things.



tough,   with the games of that time, there wouldnt have been an advantage of having more than, well, 1Gb if i remember right.   if anyone build a pc purely for gaming, I dont think anyone would put that much ram in it.
but like you said, 3d modeling and video editing, i gues it could be usefull there.  (and no, you cant go tell me I'm wrong here,  because i tried 2Gb of ram back then, and never came over 60% useage with games  )


----------



## zaroba (Jan 13, 2008)

i wont say your wrong, i wasn't trying to say anybody was wrong.

different people have different computers and thus will see different outcomes from the same type of upgrade.  it doesn't mean anybody is lieing.  we come here to share our knowledge and experiences, not lie to people.  so why somebody would think others are lieing just because they experienced something different from them is beyond me.  maybe motox will return and explain exactly why he thinks its a lie.  i've asked him several times, he still has yet to answer.


----------



## Motoxrdude (Jan 13, 2008)

Eh, I just dont see how you could get such insane performance boosts going from 1gb to 4gb back in the day when 512mb was plenty for games. I'm not doubting you having 4gb of ram, just doubting that you got 200% fps increase, that's all.


----------



## zaroba (Jan 13, 2008)

ahh.  might have been some other changes too.  don't know.  like i said, it was 5 years ago so i don't exactly remember.
maybe i had changed the cpu too.


----------



## Motoxrdude (Jan 13, 2008)

Heh, ok. It's not that big o' deal. It was stupid of me to even argue something so inconsequential in the first place.


----------



## zaroba (Jan 13, 2008)

hmm...thinking about it...
when i built the gaming pc with the 4gb of ram in it, previously the computer i was on was only a 512mhz P3 with the 1gb of ram.  the upgrade from the 512mhz P3 to the 2.whatever ghz P4 probably accounted for alot of the fps.

doesn't explain the pretty much zero performance gain when going from the pci 64mb GeForce 2 mmx 440 to the 8x agb 256mb GeForce FX 5600 though.


----------



## Archangel (Jan 13, 2008)

them mx440 was a (high end)  geforce 4 if I remember right, the fx5600 was a mid range 5 series card (and the 5 series did suck (only had 2 vertex sharders etc, not really an improvement over the 4 series))    altough, I do think there should have been some improvement (so yea, that doesnt explain why you didnt get any improvement  with it  )


----------



## BluePlum (Jan 14, 2008)

O i dont care anymore! U ALL WIN! TAKE MY THREAD! " sobs "


----------



## newguy5 (Jan 14, 2008)

Archangel said:


> them mx440 was a (high end)  geforce 4 if I remember right, the fx5600 was a mid range 5 series card (and the 5 series did suck (only had 2 vertex sharders etc, not really an improvement over the 4 series))    altough, I do think there should have been some improvement (so yea, that doesnt explain why you didnt get any improvement  with it  )



the geforce 3 ti500 was like the only good geforce card pre-pci-e


----------



## elitehacker (Jan 16, 2008)

I tried Crysis on VERY HIGH on my 512MB 8800GTS, it ran like a slideshow, but I have to say it looked stunning though. I don't think an sli setup with my card can run it on MAX.  I overclocked everything, CPU Q6600 @ 3.4GHz and graphics card at 800Mhz/2160Mhz effective.


----------



## Freestylingford (Jan 16, 2008)

Well I play it maxed out at 2xaa with 1240 res with sli and a e6750 dual core after all of new microsoft updates rc refresh and crysis patch and new drivers. 

And thats DX10 so call me a liar but at least i am enjoying it.


----------



## GSAV55 (Jan 16, 2008)

elitehacker said:


> it ran like a slideshow, but I have to say it looked stunning though.


  I did the same thing, it looks so amazing, haha, just can't wait till the hardware comes out to play it like that


----------



## oscaryu1 (Jan 16, 2008)

Is Crysis really that great/stunning?

Currently downloading the single player demo  How far do you think my rig will get me?


----------



## xxxalpinexxx80 (Jan 16, 2008)

my 8800gts 640 can run crysis on very high with almost no lag, only very little when shooting., and i would never buy 3 ultra's  just to play crysis.


----------

