Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac and PC Games' started by skyrider007, Feb 11, 2008.
The MacPro is the ONLY Mac that could even attempt to run the non-graphic portion of this game correctly. Even then unless Apple release an SLI'd NVidia card with absolutely stunning drivers it will be a slideshow.
On the largest PC you could buy with the most expensive GFX cards SLI'd, 8 gigs of RAM, RAID'd drives running at 10,000 RPM and 4 cores. Crysis runs at between 20-30 FPS at medium settings and 12 fps at High-Settings. If you set the physics options to correctly model everything, the frame rate can be measured in minutes.
It isn't going to run natively on the Mac unless Crytek want to spend the better part of 1 year converting all the DX10 code to run on OpenGL 2.0> and then sell maybe 10 copies as that is the number of people who would be able to afford the machine capable of running it.
I really enjoyed this answer. Thanks for making me laugh at the extraordinary over-engineering of this game.
Yup. All (not most, but all) video game reviewers with beefy systems said Crysis is designed for a currently non-existing computer of the future.
Funny review: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art.../zeropunctuation/2808-Zero-Punctuation-Crysis
And it can't be just any future computer... we are talking about Quantum-powered computers. Its kind of stupid when you think about. Nobody (NASA? DHARMA Initiative? The Borg?) has the hardware to run the game like its meant to be played so why would anyone buy it? Why spend countless hours and money building a game that only a tiny percentage of players can actually enjoy to its fullest (or any) potential? I wonder if they took a loss on this game or if it actually sells to expectation. If they sell, then who and why is buying it? Is it only rich, hardcore gamers? Or are there more casual gamers that buy it but only have it on their shelf so they can look cool? wheeeoo. Rant over. I guess I'm just getting old.
I actually quite liked the game, up until the aliens that is.
Even on medium settings, it looks ****ing good.
Yeah, I'd be interested in that too. Any NPD numbers released for Crysis?
Well reports are 1024x768 or lower resolution, medium works ok for some people on MacPro, MacBook Pro, and iMac.
care to point out which resolution ? because at 1115x864 my brothers 600 bucks computer can run crysis on all setting to high just fine
and he only has 2 gb of rams and a 59 dollar E2160 combined with a gt8800
I would love to see that machine. Nobody has been able to run this at high-settings even with SLI'd cards at anything above 1280x1024 at anything above 15-20fps. So yes I believe your brothers machine can run it. What I refuse to believe, is it will run it above 30fps and keep it there.
perhaps you mean "very high" running under vista (ressource eater) with the filtering turned all the way up (filtering eats the rest of the performance)
on 1280x1024 and high + perhaps 2x filtering any gt8800 + PC with 2 GB of ram will do .. crysis is a hardware eater but at higher resolutions coupled with vista dx10 and very high filtering
my brother has a e2160 dual core running at 2.4 ghz (crysis got a boost going from stock 1.8 to 2.4 but beyond that very little)
2 GB of corsair DHX memory
250 GB WD sata drive
+ some old siemens CRT who is limited to 115x864 at 75 hz refresh rate
COD4 runs perfectly with everything to maximum and 4x filtering
sure was an upgrade from his old athlon 1.2 ghz, 384 mb ram, 20 GB HD, geforce 4
personally i though about a similiar configuration but i'm going to wait a little bit longer and then get a nvidia card from the 9xxx generation later this year.. perhaps even wait until nehalem or the 4 core successor to the E2140-2200 series comes along
Funny that seeing as I played the demo on my 2006 Mac Pro with ATI X1900XT 512Mb graphics card and found it perfectly playable at 1600 x 1200 on medium settings. God knows what the frame rate was, but there was no noticeable graphics lag at all.
Demo is the least intensive in terms of demand. It gets progressively more requirement intensive as you progress through the game.
Fair enough. I can only comment on what I have experienced .
God this Crysis issue is getting out of hand.
I'll make it simple for the trolls:
1. You don't need max graphics to enjoy a game.
2. An $800 PC can run Crysis at 1280x1024 high settings.
3. Crysis at the above mentioned settings looks better than anything else out there.
4. When faster computers come out Crysis will still be a decent piece of software to test them with, meaning they'll be able to play it at Very High, high levels of AA and higher resolutions.
5. This is it in a nutshell: Crysis was built in order to be future proof; it's not unoptimized (it's actually well optimized, except for SLI) and you do NOT need a computer from the future to play this game; I can't say this enough but you do NOT need max graphics to "play" a game.
TRANSGAMEING CONVERSION.... enough said
I can has computer from the future?
Check this video out:
Crysis would be play so fine on MBP, long as if you turn graphic setting to between low to medium, also add -dx9 on it if you need play in directx 9 instead of directx 10, only for Vista.
Also, download smcFanControl to turn RPM to high or max to keep CPU and GPU so cool or warm instead get very hotter, when run Crysis under Windows.
Is there smcFanControl for Vista?
No, You have to settle it under OS X before boot up into Vista.
First, turn RPM on high or max on OS X then start boot up into Vista then fan speed would be same as you was settled under OS X.
dude I run Crysis at 1440x900, HIGH on all settings and get 35-45fps according to fraps. honestly dude...
What about the guys who designed this game? What the hell did they test it on?