Could I Run Crysis 3?

  • 87 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] You should see a decent improvement from overclocking. I average 65-90 fps with a single 670 (everything Ultra, 4x AA). Shame you don't have a 120Hz display, though, then all that GPU power would really be worth it.darksusperia

I was thinking about either that or a IPS monitor...might have to buy both.>.>

if I had the money right now... http://www.overlordcomputer.com/overlord_tempest_X270OC_pixel_perfect_display_p/ot_x270oc_pp.htm

If they accept debit cards then count me in!!!:D

#52 Posted by Stinger78 (5826 posts) -
My specs are: AMD FX 4100 Quad Core Processor 3.60 GHz 8GB Ram Nvidia GeForce GTX 550ti 1GB DDR5 GPU Graphics. -How smooth could I run if I could and should I upgrade anything? Thanks.SwiftKill987
I don't know how accurate this is, but the C3 BETA ran just as smooth as Crysis 2 does on my PC, though I have a 6-core 3.3GHz CPU, 8GB Ram and a 2GB GTX560, and I ran it at 1080P. It ran as well for me as the Xbox 360 beta version also at 1080P. You'll be able to run the game, but you'll have to wait and see at what settings, whether you feel like you need to upgrade.
#53 Posted by FaustArp (1038 posts) -

[QUOTE="FaustArp"][QUOTE="mitu123"] For 1200p it's Skyrim, Max Payne 3, Crysis 1, Crysis Warhead, Crysis 2, BF3, Crysis 3, Sleeping Dogs, etc., I know there's more but I been too busy with custom res and seeing over 2GB in most games. 

mitu123

LOL WTF have you been smoking?? Haha. I own every single one those games and I have no issue absolutely dominating them on my PC. I saw Skyrim hit 2 GB like once for maybe half a second, and I still got 60 FPS no problem. And I have over 20 mods installed haha. I would take screenshots showing otherwise but there's no point, because you can't actually be serious. :p. LOL.

I'm not talking about how to run them, it's about how much VRAM they can use. Plenty of games run fine on 2GB at that res. All I'm talking about is what games over go 2GB at 1200p, performance isn't an issue if your cards are strong, however if you game at higher res than 1200p which I wasn't talking about then certain games would have problems with VRAM, for example BF3 chokes a 2GB card at 5760x1080 and 4kres.

Well then if it's not an issue then who the hell cares?  :P  Lol.

I've got 2GB cards and I never even think about it.  Kepler 670/680 SLI > VRAM 

#54 Posted by darksusperia (6899 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="FaustArp"] LOL WTF have you been smoking?? Haha. I own every single one those games and I have no issue absolutely dominating them on my PC. I saw Skyrim hit 2 GB like once for maybe half a second, and I still got 60 FPS no problem. And I have over 20 mods installed haha. I would take screenshots showing otherwise but there's no point, because you can't actually be serious. :p. LOL.FaustArp

I'm not talking about how to run them, it's about how much VRAM they can use. Plenty of games run fine on 2GB at that res. All I'm talking about is what games over go 2GB at 1200p, performance isn't an issue if your cards are strong, however if you game at higher res than 1200p which I wasn't talking about then certain games would have problems with VRAM, for example BF3 chokes a 2GB card at 5760x1080 and 4kres.

Well then if it's not an issue then who the hell cares?  :P  Lol.

I've got 2GB cards and I never even think about it.  Kepler 670/680 SLI > VRAM 

until you run out and stutter.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8a9Jx8WVJA
#55 Posted by evildead6789 (7513 posts) -
You all watch me run it on ULTRA on my Pentium 2 and GeForce MX440 !!!FelipeInside
That geforce mx440 was a total ripoff.
#56 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

 

Well then if it's not an issue then who the hell cares?  :P  Lol.

I've got 2GB cards and I never even think about it.  Kepler 670/680 SLI > VRAM 

FaustArp

I wouldn't knock off VRAM if you game on multi-monitors though!:o

#57 Posted by Stinger78 (5826 posts) -
[QUOTE="FelipeInside"]You all watch me run it on ULTRA on my Pentium 2 and GeForce MX440 !!!evildead6789
That geforce mx440 was a total ripoff.

My experience with a GF 4MX was that it was better than the GeForce 2MX, which I upgraded from. The ripoff was the 'upgrade' from a GF 4 MX to an FX 5200. Very quickly that got replaced with an All-In-Wonder 9800 Pro and I could do justice to games like Half-Life 2, Doom III and Far Cry :)
#58 Posted by evildead6789 (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="FelipeInside"]You all watch me run it on ULTRA on my Pentium 2 and GeForce MX440 !!!Stinger78
That geforce mx440 was a total ripoff.

My experience with a GF 4MX was that it was better than the GeForce 2MX, which I upgraded from. The ripoff was the 'upgrade' from a GF 4 MX to an FX 5200. Very quickly that got replaced with an All-In-Wonder 9800 Pro and I could do justice to games like Half-Life 2, Doom III and Far Cry :)

Yeah those fx 5000 series were even worse, still i really think the geforce 4 mx wasn't all that much better than the geforce 2 mx. The geforce 3 was way stronger than the geforce 4 mx.

Thats why i was a total rippoff to me, That was the first time they actually brought out a new card that was weaker than the previous one. All geforce 2 were stronger than geforce 1 and geforce 3 was always stronger than geforce 2. The geforce was stronger than the riva tnt 2 and so on.

It's a rippoff that's been shamelessly done today though, look at all those cards you have, imagine what a nightmare it must be for someone to buy a videocard that doesn't know nothing about it. He can buy the latest card thinking he did a bargain, and then he can't run the latest games lol.

I will never going to forget the moment when i saw someone play far cry on a ge force 4 mx, it just didn't support all the textures lol.

#59 Posted by FaustArp (1038 posts) -

[QUOTE="FaustArp"]

 

Well then if it's not an issue then who the hell cares?  :P  Lol.

I've got 2GB cards and I never even think about it.  Kepler 670/680 SLI > VRAM 

mitu123

I wouldn't knock off VRAM if you game on multi-monitors though!:o

Well, I play on an HDTV, so it's not an issue for me.
#60 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="mitu123"]Lol, 2GB VRAM for Crysis 3.

mitu123

You need to stop exaggerating VRAM requirements to justify your 4GB GPUs. Unless your monitor res is higher than 1200p, 2GB is ample.

But it is.=O Quite a bit of games go over 2GB now, even worse with AA. Heck some games in 1200p are over 2GB.

unoptimized games... ughhh :|

#61 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stinger78"][QUOTE="evildead6789"] That geforce mx440 was a total ripoff.evildead6789

My experience with a GF 4MX was that it was better than the GeForce 2MX, which I upgraded from. The ripoff was the 'upgrade' from a GF 4 MX to an FX 5200. Very quickly that got replaced with an All-In-Wonder 9800 Pro and I could do justice to games like Half-Life 2, Doom III and Far Cry :)

Yeah those fx 5000 series were even worse, still i really think the geforce 4 mx wasn't all that much better than the geforce 2 mx. The geforce 3 was way stronger than the geforce 4 mx.

Thats why i was a total rippoff to me, That was the first time they actually brought out a new card that was weaker than the previous one. All geforce 2 were stronger than geforce 1 and geforce 3 was always stronger than geforce 2. The geforce was stronger than the riva tnt 2 and so on.

It's a rippoff that's been shamelessly done today though, look at all those cards you have, imagine what a nightmare it must be for someone to buy a videocard that doesn't know nothing about it. He can buy the latest card thinking he did a bargain, and then he can't run the latest games lol.

I will never going to forget the moment when i saw someone play far cry on a ge force 4 mx, it just didn't support all the textures lol.

I loved my geforece 6800Ultra 256mb. favorite card of all time

#62 Posted by evildead6789 (7513 posts) -

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

[QUOTE="Stinger78"] My experience with a GF 4MX was that it was better than the GeForce 2MX, which I upgraded from. The ripoff was the 'upgrade' from a GF 4 MX to an FX 5200. Very quickly that got replaced with an All-In-Wonder 9800 Pro and I could do justice to games like Half-Life 2, Doom III and Far Cry :)_SKatEDiRt_

Yeah those fx 5000 series were even worse, still i really think the geforce 4 mx wasn't all that much better than the geforce 2 mx. The geforce 3 was way stronger than the geforce 4 mx.

Thats why i was a total rippoff to me, That was the first time they actually brought out a new card that was weaker than the previous one. All geforce 2 were stronger than geforce 1 and geforce 3 was always stronger than geforce 2. The geforce was stronger than the riva tnt 2 and so on.

It's a rippoff that's been shamelessly done today though, look at all those cards you have, imagine what a nightmare it must be for someone to buy a videocard that doesn't know nothing about it. He can buy the latest card thinking he did a bargain, and then he can't run the latest games lol.

I will never going to forget the moment when i saw someone play far cry on a ge force 4 mx, it just didn't support all the textures lol.

I loved my geforece 6800Ultra 256mb. favorite card of all time

I couldn't afford that back then, i got stuck with a geforce 3 till 2006 and then i bought an xbox, the hardware you got for a lousy 250$ was amazing. That geforce 3 served me well for a very long time though, i could even run f.e.a.r allthough on low settings, it still looked good .though
#63 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]This thread has turned into a bunch of old people reminiscing. Anyway back on track.........Your CPU will Fail and your GPU will suicide itself! Upgrade, get a couple of 690's, you'll be good.........and a new CPU.............................and a new motherboard........................and a new job.mitu123

Lol, 2GB VRAM for Crysis 3.

 

I've been fine with 1GB at 1080p.  I expect that I'll have to turn some things down in Crysis 3, but 2GB will be more than enough up to about 1920x1200.  

#64 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="SwiftKill987"]My specs are: AMD FX 4100 Quad Core Processor 3.60 GHz 8GB Ram Nvidia GeForce GTX 550ti 1GB DDR5 GPU Graphics. -How smooth could I run if I could and should I upgrade anything? Thanks.Stinger78
I don't know how accurate this is, but the C3 BETA ran just as smooth as Crysis 2 does on my PC, though I have a 6-core 3.3GHz CPU, 8GB Ram and a 2GB GTX560, and I ran it at 1080P. It ran as well for me as the Xbox 360 beta version also at 1080P. You'll be able to run the game, but you'll have to wait and see at what settings, whether you feel like you need to upgrade.

 

I can almost guarantee you that the X360 version is not running at 1080p.  It might be rendering at 720p, max.  

#65 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="FaustArp"] LOL WTF have you been smoking?? Haha. I own every single one those games and I have no issue absolutely dominating them on my PC. I saw Skyrim hit 2 GB like once for maybe half a second, and I still got 60 FPS no problem. And I have over 20 mods installed haha. I would take screenshots showing otherwise but there's no point, because you can't actually be serious. :p. LOL.acanofcoke

I'm not talking about how to run them, it's about how much VRAM they can use. Plenty of games run fine on 2GB at that res. All I'm talking about is what games over go 2GB at 1200p, performance isn't an issue if your cards are strong, however if you game at higher res than 1200p which I wasn't talking about then certain games would have problems with VRAM, for example BF3 chokes a 2GB card at 5760x1080 and 4kres.

4K, who even uses that?

I don't know anyone who does, but I wish I did. Heck, if I combine the 5 flat panel resolutions I might get up to 4k! Lol
#66 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stinger78"][QUOTE="SwiftKill987"]My specs are: AMD FX 4100 Quad Core Processor 3.60 GHz 8GB Ram Nvidia GeForce GTX 550ti 1GB DDR5 GPU Graphics. -How smooth could I run if I could and should I upgrade anything? Thanks.hartsickdiscipl

I don't know how accurate this is, but the C3 BETA ran just as smooth as Crysis 2 does on my PC, though I have a 6-core 3.3GHz CPU, 8GB Ram and a 2GB GTX560, and I ran it at 1080P. It ran as well for me as the Xbox 360 beta version also at 1080P. You'll be able to run the game, but you'll have to wait and see at what settings, whether you feel like you need to upgrade.

 

I can almost guarantee you that the X360 version is not running at 1080p.  It might be rendering at 720p, max.  

That or slightly less if past console Crysis are to go by.

#67 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3665 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Stinger78"] I don't know how accurate this is, but the C3 BETA ran just as smooth as Crysis 2 does on my PC, though I have a 6-core 3.3GHz CPU, 8GB Ram and a 2GB GTX560, and I ran it at 1080P. It ran as well for me as the Xbox 360 beta version also at 1080P. You'll be able to run the game, but you'll have to wait and see at what settings, whether you feel like you need to upgrade.mitu123

 

I can almost guarantee you that the X360 version is not running at 1080p.  It might be rendering at 720p, max.  

That or slightly less if past console Crysis are to go by.

640p upscaled probably, like Halo
#68 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]This thread has turned into a bunch of old people reminiscing. Anyway back on track.........Your CPU will Fail and your GPU will suicide itself! Upgrade, get a couple of 690's, you'll be good.........and a new CPU.............................and a new motherboard........................and a new job.hartsickdiscipl

Lol, 2GB VRAM for Crysis 3.

 

I've been fine with 1GB at 1080p.  I expect that I'll have to turn some things down in Crysis 3, but 2GB will be more than enough up to about 1920x1200.  

not so much as to how much vram you have but what the GPU is. you can have a card with 6gb of vram and if it has 128-bit memory interface then it is useless

#69 Posted by hartsickdiscipl (14787 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]Lol, 2GB VRAM for Crysis 3.

_SKatEDiRt_

 

I've been fine with 1GB at 1080p.  I expect that I'll have to turn some things down in Crysis 3, but 2GB will be more than enough up to about 1920x1200.  

not so much as to how much vram you have but what the GPU is. you can have a card with 6gb of vram and if it has 128-bit memory interface then it is useless

 

Memory bandwidth is very important, yes.  A 1GB card with a fast GPU and 146 gb/s of bandwidth is obviously superior to a card with the same or slower GPU, 2GB of VRAM, and half the memory bandwidth.  

#70 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I've been fine with 1GB at 1080p.  I expect that I'll have to turn some things down in Crysis 3, but 2GB will be more than enough up to about 1920x1200.  

hartsickdiscipl

not so much as to how much vram you have but what the GPU is. you can have a card with 6gb of vram and if it has 128-bit memory interface then it is useless

 

Memory bandwidth is very important, yes.  A 1GB card with a fast GPU and 146 gb/s of bandwidth is obviously superior to a card with the same or slower GPU, 2GB of VRAM, and half the memory bandwidth.  

True. When I purchased my sons gtx460 I made sure to get him the 256bit vs the 192bit. Well, the 460 is a bit dated now, but I does great for him @ 1600 x 900 res.
#71 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]Lol, 2GB VRAM for Crysis 3.

_SKatEDiRt_

 

I've been fine with 1GB at 1080p.  I expect that I'll have to turn some things down in Crysis 3, but 2GB will be more than enough up to about 1920x1200.  

not so much as to how much vram you have but what the GPU is. you can have a card with 6gb of vram and if it has 128-bit memory interface then it is useless

Just curious, are there a lot of cards out there that have 2 or more gb of VRAM, and using 128bit nowadays?
#72 Posted by blaznwiipspman1 (6028 posts) -

i dont know about you but i will probably be maxing this game out :D

#73 Posted by FaustArp (1038 posts) -

i dont know about you but i will probably be maxing this game out :D

blaznwiipspman1

Doubtful on a single card but maybe.  We'll see how demanding it is on Tuesday.

#74 Posted by ferret-gamer (17310 posts) -
[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I've been fine with 1GB at 1080p.  I expect that I'll have to turn some things down in Crysis 3, but 2GB will be more than enough up to about 1920x1200.  

godzillavskong

not so much as to how much vram you have but what the GPU is. you can have a card with 6gb of vram and if it has 128-bit memory interface then it is useless

Just curious, are there a lot of cards out there that have 2 or more gb of VRAM, and using 128bit nowadays?

You will see a lot of low end nvidia cards with a ton of ram at places like walmart or office depot. I still remember seeing a 8400 with 4gb of ram for the same price as a 470. That card only had a 64 bit bus.
#75 Posted by godzillavskong (7891 posts) -
[QUOTE="godzillavskong"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

not so much as to how much vram you have but what the GPU is. you can have a card with 6gb of vram and if it has 128-bit memory interface then it is useless

ferret-gamer
Just curious, are there a lot of cards out there that have 2 or more gb of VRAM, and using 128bit nowadays?

You will see a lot of low end nvidia cards with a ton of ram at places like walmart or office depot. I still remember seeing a 8400 with 4gb of ram for the same price as a 470. That card only had a 64 bit bus.

Wow. I wasn't being sarcastic, I just truly didn't know. That's crazy.
#76 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

^ haha  darksusperia
:lol: exactly this

#77 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="mitu123"]Lol, 2GB VRAM for Crysis 3.

mitu123

You need to stop exaggerating VRAM requirements to justify your 4GB GPUs. Unless your monitor res is higher than 1200p, 2GB is ample.

But it is.=O Quite a bit of games go over 2GB now, even worse with AA. Heck some games in 1200p are over 2GB.

I'll show you a cool graph later that shows 2GB of vram at 2560x1440p is just fine, and only 2-3 frames slower than 4GBvram at the same res. :P Im at work atm..

2GB vs 4GB vram

#78 Posted by soolkiki (1746 posts) -

heh...

#79 Posted by Klunt_Bumskrint (3665 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] You need to stop exaggerating VRAM requirements to justify your 4GB GPUs. Unless your monitor res is higher than 1200p, 2GB is ample. Elann2008

But it is.=O Quite a bit of games go over 2GB now, even worse with AA. Heck some games in 1200p are over 2GB.

I'll show you a cool graph later that shows 2GB of vram at 2560x1440p is just fine, and only 2-3 frames slower than 4GBvram at the same res. :P Im at work atm..

2GB vs 4GB vram

Some nice reading there, of course sensible people already new that. I play at 1200p and have only run out of mem once on Max Payne 3 because it wouldn't let me have everything max and 8x AA, I had to put it down to 4x. Probably more a coding issue than anything else.
#80 Posted by mitu123 (153911 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] You need to stop exaggerating VRAM requirements to justify your 4GB GPUs. Unless your monitor res is higher than 1200p, 2GB is ample. Elann2008

But it is.=O Quite a bit of games go over 2GB now, even worse with AA. Heck some games in 1200p are over 2GB.

I'll show you a cool graph later that shows 2GB of vram at 2560x1440p is just fine, and only 2-3 frames slower than 4GBvram at the same res. :P Im at work atm..

2GB vs 4GB vram

I already know BF3 is fine on a 2GB card for single player on that res though in the end it's never as VRAM hungry as the multiplayer. And even for multiplayer it's fine, and even then the game almost maxed out a 2GB card though still 100% playable.

2GB cards are pretty much fine on single monitors anyways(at least native res). But I tried higher res than 1600p and they don't mess around in performance and vram, lol.

 

 

 

#81 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] But it is.=O Quite a bit of games go over 2GB now, even worse with AA. Heck some games in 1200p are over 2GB.

mitu123

I'll show you a cool graph later that shows 2GB of vram at 2560x1440p is just fine, and only 2-3 frames slower than 4GBvram at the same res. :P Im at work atm..

2GB vs 4GB vram

I already know BF3 is fine on a 2GB card for single player on that res though in the end it's never as VRAM hungry as the multiplayer. And even for multiplayer it's fine, and even then the game almost maxed out a 2GB card though still 100% playable.

2GB cards are pretty much fine on single monitors anyways(at least native res). But I tried higher res than 1600p and they don't mess around in performance and vram, lol.

 

 

 

Yeah, at your Mitu-super-dooper-res 19 monitors lol jk! I wonder if they factor in stuttering.. But yeah like you said, for single monitors 2GB vram is fine for now.
#82 Posted by kraken2109 (13007 posts) -
[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

I've been fine with 1GB at 1080p.  I expect that I'll have to turn some things down in Crysis 3, but 2GB will be more than enough up to about 1920x1200.  

godzillavskong

not so much as to how much vram you have but what the GPU is. you can have a card with 6gb of vram and if it has 128-bit memory interface then it is useless

Just curious, are there a lot of cards out there that have 2 or more gb of VRAM, and using 128bit nowadays?

GTX650 is 128bit and there are 2GB versions, I'm sure there are worse examples.
#83 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"] You need to stop exaggerating VRAM requirements to justify your 4GB GPUs. Unless your monitor res is higher than 1200p, 2GB is ample. Elann2008

But it is.=O Quite a bit of games go over 2GB now, even worse with AA. Heck some games in 1200p are over 2GB.

I'll show you a cool graph later that shows 2GB of vram at 2560x1440p is just fine, and only 2-3 frames slower than 4GBvram at the same res. :P Im at work atm..

2GB vs 4GB vram

Thats because the cards today arent yet powerful enough to fill up that memory before they slow down

#84 Posted by wis3boi (31118 posts) -

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

I remember when i saw my buddies computer with 1GB of ram in it and i was like :o da future

mitu123

pft.... I remember being the first in the suburb to have 64MB of RAM and a huge 20GB HDD.... Pure Pwnage !!!

I remember when Voodoo GFX were all the rage!

I remember banging rocks together

#85 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] But it is.=O Quite a bit of games go over 2GB now, even worse with AA. Heck some games in 1200p are over 2GB.

_SKatEDiRt_

I'll show you a cool graph later that shows 2GB of vram at 2560x1440p is just fine, and only 2-3 frames slower than 4GBvram at the same res. :P Im at work atm..

2GB vs 4GB vram

Thats because the cards today arent yet powerful enough to fill up that memory before they slow down

Precisely.
#86 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="_SKatEDiRt_"]

[QUOTE="Elann2008"]

I'll show you a cool graph later that shows 2GB of vram at 2560x1440p is just fine, and only 2-3 frames slower than 4GBvram at the same res. :P Im at work atm..

2GB vs 4GB vram

Elann2008

Thats because the cards today arent yet powerful enough to fill up that memory before they slow down

Precisely.

zing!

#87 Posted by _SKatEDiRt_ (2570 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] pft.... I remember being the first in the suburb to have 64MB of RAM and a huge 20GB HDD.... Pure Pwnage !!!wis3boi

I remember when Voodoo GFX were all the rage!

I remember banging rocks together

I remember running through schrubs