https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/4940544/
What about posting a link to benchmarks of the patched version of Crysis on different processors?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Crysis On New Mac Pro With 8800!!!
- Thread starter ildondeigiocchi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What about posting a link to benchmarks of the patched version of Crysis on different processors?
Becoming clearer slow fb dimms
This I can understand much better than mumbo jumbo tech talk, If it has to do more work before it's used then of corse it will be a little slower. But how noticeable is it I wonder. I'll have to spend another 3 or 4 grand and find out on my own.
This I can understand much better than mumbo jumbo tech talk, If it has to do more work before it's used then of corse it will be a little slower. But how noticeable is it I wonder. I'll have to spend another 3 or 4 grand and find out on my own.
You will not be able to max out Crysis on a Mac Pro.
I dont know if it's because Mac users usually dont read up on hardware, but the 8800GT is actually a pretty weak card, considering 9800 is weeks away, and that demanding games like Crysis require at least 2 or 3 SLI'd GTX/Ultra for maximum experience..
I dont know if it's because Mac users usually dont read up on hardware, but the 8800GT is actually a pretty weak card, considering 9800 is weeks away, and that demanding games like Crysis require at least 2 or 3 SLI'd GTX/Ultra for maximum experience..
I have a 8 Core 2.8 with ATI 2600 XT. If I do click the optimal settings button it sets it to medium at 1024x768. Everything runs smooth as silk.
NO AA if you put it on a 2x it slows down quite a bit.
NO AA if you put it on a 2x it slows down quite a bit.
From what I read, the 8800GT is a pretty powerful card, only a few frames slower than 8800GTX in real world tests.
Whether it's powerful enough to run Crysis on max is a whole another issue, and no, it's not.
Then again, you'll be able to play Crysis better than on a lot of computers...
On the Mac Pro and any Santa Rosa based Macs you'll have 2 GB for applications and 2 GB for the kernel under 32-bit Windows.
It still amazes me how many people say this with little or no factual basis for their comments. I recently finished Crysis on my old PC, and while my Mac Pro hasn't turned up I can at least give specific feedback on what hardware can and can't run the game in a useful way.
I had quality settings bumped up to "High" in almost every category, with AA enabled at 1680x1050x32 without problems. In intense action scenes there was occassional slow-down, but only briefly. The hardware? No SLI, just one (not three) nVidia GeForce 8800GTS and a Core2 Duo E6600 CPU.
Crysis does NOT require 3 SLI'd GTX/Ultra cards for anything but 100% maxed out settings under Vista at resolutions that nobody actually plays at. If you're going to play it on a normal monitor, and don't see any difference between 30fps and 100fps (which the human eye cannot see) then SLI isn't going to improve your experience.
The 8800GT has consistently been benchmarked as being within 5% (+ or -, depending on the test-cases) of the 8800GTS. No, it isn't the fastest card on the market, but it also isn't any slouch. Sure, the 9000 series of card will be out any month now, but they aren't going to make an immense difference to the average gamer. Not that the average gamer buys a Mac Pro, but even if they did chances are they're running Vista or XP on it so adding a better video card is no real problem.
It is also important to remember that a lot of the perceptions regarding Crysis at max settings relate to Vista. You can't max out the settings in Crysis without DirectX10, which in turn requires Vista (OK, yes there are hacks to make it look like you have max settings under XP but you're actually running DX9 emulations of the DX10 features, which is not the same thing). Vista sucks a large percentage of your performance when compared to XP, and significantly increases your hardware requirements. World of Warcraft, for example, ran at a constant 100fps under XP but regularly dipped below 30fps under Vista on the same hardware. Needless to say, Vista didn't get to stay.
and anyway, the mac pro's support ANY pc video card under windows.
If you really need max FPS, you can always upgrade with a standard PC video card and keep the 8800gt for OS X only.
I'll probably do that eventually, but the 8800gt is fine for now. I'm coming from an AMD fx-60 with dual 7800gtx's in SLI. A single 8800gt beats that set up.
If you really need max FPS, you can always upgrade with a standard PC video card and keep the 8800gt for OS X only.
I'll probably do that eventually, but the 8800gt is fine for now. I'm coming from an AMD fx-60 with dual 7800gtx's in SLI. A single 8800gt beats that set up.
Dudes you all need to see this ....especially LURGEN, Don't knock it until you try it.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/427751/
Even on a 2600XT the game looks Beautiful!
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/427751/
Even on a 2600XT the game looks Beautiful
!Dudes you all need to see this ....especially LURGEN, Don't knock it until you try it.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/427751/
Even on a 2600XT the game looks Beautiful
I think you mean Cindori
I tried Crysis on my 2,8 Octo with 16 GB Ram on WinXp64 yesterday. But I didnt get it running in 64bit mode, there was a secuROM error ... Does anybody know about this issue ?
I took these settings:
1920 x 1080, 2 AA , everything set to high (when I hit the optimize button it goes to high aswell) ... The image quality on my 30" Cinema Display blew me away . Looks like a movie. Plays very smooth . I didnt look up the framerates yet.
I took these settings:
1920 x 1080, 2 AA , everything set to high (when I hit the optimize button it goes to high aswell) ... The image quality on my 30" Cinema Display blew me away
. Looks like a movie. Plays very smooth . I didnt look up the framerates yet.
Nope Lurgen sort of said it was not worth doing your Crysis fix. I totally changed the game for me.
Lurgen Said "It is also important to remember that a lot of the perceptions regarding Crysis at max settings relate to Vista. You can't max out the settings in Crysis without DirectX10, which in turn requires Vista (OK, yes there are hacks to make it look like you have max settings under XP but you're actually running DX9 emulations of the DX10 features, which is not the same thing). "
I tried Crysis on my 2,8 Octo with 16 GB Ram on WinXp64 yesterday. But I didnt get it running in 64bit mode, there was a secuROM error ... Does anybody know about this issue ?
I took these settings:
1920 x 1080, 2 AA , everything set to high (when I hit the optimize button it goes to high aswell) ... The image quality on my 30" Cinema Display blew me away
Do you own a copy? This sounds like a pirating issue, the secuROM
This is one of the biggest myths out there.
You most definitely can tell the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.
While 30 fps is by all means fine, 60 fps is smoother.
Look at this years NCAA Football which ran at 60 FPS on the 360 and 30 on the PS3.
Watch the following:
http://loot-ninja.com/2007/04/29/video-comparison-24fps-vs-60fps/
and to quote from:
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html
"So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? Anything over 60 fps is adequate, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill). Framerates cannot drop though from that 72 fps, or we will start to see a degradation in the smoothness of the game. Don't get me wrong, it is not bad to play a game at 30 fps, it is fine, but to get the illusion of reality, you really need a frame rate of 72 fps. "
No, Dell and HP do for starters.
I have an 8800 related question - would the 8800GTX / 8800GTX Ultra have any possibility of working on the Pro now?
Yea 30 fps is the limit of what is blatantly obvious. That is where we can identify each individual frame. The U.S. Military did a test and i believe they said people could notice the difference up to 250fps. All they noticed was a smoothness to the picture that was not present before.
Exactly, it's not that you can perceive every individual frame's change at 250fps, but it definitely looks smoother than, say, 100fps. This is especially true for real-time computer generated imagery, since it lacks the motion blur inherent to film or television. Pause a movie and you'll see that a high-motion frame is very blurred because of the film being exposed for a fraction of a second in order to receive enough light to develop properly. Because of this effect, movies at 24 frames per second are very watchable because this captured motion blur helps "blend" the frames temporally in our brains.
In comparison, a frame of a video game being rendered by a graphics card is "exposed" instantaneously (because calculating motion blur is very expensive in terms of CPU/GPU time) and lacks this blur. Because of that you will notice a drop or increase in frame rate much more.
hmmm, i just watched this, and maybe its because of the size of the video (its tiny!0, but I really couldn't tell the difference!
It could I suppose also just be my eyes!
Also, an average framerate is that - average. Some scenes could have higher or lower framerates? On my SLI'd 8800 systems I rarely have issues but there are occasional moments in demanding games, especially when I jack everything up, that it does go down in certain situations.
I find what that happens, it's very distracting even if the game is still perfectly playable.
I find what that happens, it's very distracting even if the game is still perfectly playable.
I bought it. I own the original DVD, no copy.
I guess it has to do or caused a windows xp64 Installer Service Error. I cannot install any software on windows anymore. Need to reinstall completely.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/08/intel_skulltrail_part_3/page6.html
Sure about that?
Apple's machines aren't particularly powerful in comparison to what you could build yourself were you so inclined. I could build a Quad-core PC system that ran circles around the 8-core 3.2 GHz Mac Pro in almost every instance, save where it really took advantage of all eight cores. And if I wanted, I could have it do it on Mac OS X. Intel Cores are nice overclockers... speeds reaching 4 GHz are far from unheard of, and the extra memory bandwidth I'd get out of much nicer DDR2-800 DIMMs (or better) would help more. When it came to gaming, of course, the Mac Pro wouldn't be able to compete at all. I could drop in about 8 GB DDR, 2x1TB drives, and have a killer system for less than the Mac Pros.