rollingstart
Banned
oo Kosma oo said:
do you have a link to the coupons? or is it a one per person type thing?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The $900 PC Crysis Challenge (By Crytek)
- Thread starter Borys
- Start date
do you have a link to the coupons? or is it a one per person type thing?
RubberJohnny
Banned
How much does it cost if you don't build the computer yourself?
RubberJohnny said:
IMO, if you're not competent enough to build your own PC, you probably wanna stick to consoles. PC gaming does require the occasional trouble shooting, and it's a good litmus test as to whether you can handle it or not. That may sound snobbish, but in my experience it's true.
You're making a mistake then. Turn that 2x AA off. Seriously. It's worthless.strange_booj said:
Now, if you are talking about EDGE AA (built into Crysis), that is different. I use "r_useedgeaa 2" within the game. This improves the appearance of foliage. Regular AA only applies to hard structures, not foliage, and it has a MASSIVE impact on performance. It simply isn't worth it. I'd highly recommend using edge AA and disabling regular AA if that's not already what you are doing.
What CryTek is showing us is nice, but you can have even better visuals without a significant drain on performance. I don't understand why they disable so many visual features in DX9. I mean, object motion blur is slightly broken in DX9, so I can understand why it isn't included (it also kills framerates), but many other Very High features work flawlessly and are locked out.
The simplest ones are things like sunshafts, which is a beautiful effect that has little impact on performance. Why not use it? How about depth of field at maximum? This adds a nice smooth effect to distant objects that is very subtle but really improves distant image quality. What about parallax occlusion mapping? It's disabled in their video, yet it looks awesome and barely impacts the framerate. I also find their default lighting choices to be odd. The engine is capable of so much more, yet things look somewhat bland by default. By upping things like SSAO darkening and the HDR, you can create vivid contrasts and much more impressive landscapes. At the very least, they could have offered different "appearance" settings (ala Far Cry and most UE3 games).
Their game can look insane on regular PC hardware, but their default "high" settings don't quite cut it. The current "Very High" should have been bumped up to "Ultra" and a happy medium between High and Very High should have been introduced.
You don't buy for one game, though. I've gotten so much use out of my new PC already. I love it. Crysis was one of many reasons. I've discovered that many console games perform far better on a fast PC than they did in their original format. All UE3 games, for instance, run at a rock solid 60 fps on my machine with cleaner image quality. All of these new games even have perfect support for the 360 pad (you can turn it on during the game and immediately start using it just like a console). That works for those who wish to maintain the console feel.
:lol (Don't listen to this guy)1-D_FTW said:
It'll cost around $50-100 if you know the person building the PC, provided you have all the parts and cables (thermal paste is cheap (~$6) and important)
Why get rid of it? It will come in handy eventually and the OS itself will run faster on your machine. I think you'll be surprised to find that XP will not run anywhere near as quickly as Vista does on the right hardware.Vitet said:
If you are seeing your PC run just a bit faster, well, that's pretty accurate. Crysis IS demanding and there isn't going to be much of a difference between the rig they've built and what you are using. The 8800 Ultra will probably only net you an extra couple of frames per second and the CPU really doesn't make a difference with the game (when we're talking such small increases in speed).
You won't be able to use that much ram with XP either, but it wouldn't have had any impact on Crysis to begin with (2GB is more than ample for Crysis).
Borys said:
The thing is, you can play MOST of those games on a cheaper machine.
The rig I built for ~$600 can run the Crysis demo perfectly at medium settings, or with a choppy framerate at high. This is mostly because I refuse to splurge on a top of the line video card that is going to be outdated in a matter of months. I have basically the cheapest video card you can get and still have DX10. I only got that video card by chance, because when I first built the PC, back during the summer, even it was too expensive, but the card I had was causing scompatability issues, and making my PC reboot/freezeup, so I eventually had to replace it.
That's the thing with PC gaming. You have to keep upgrading to get top of the line games. That's why I use my PC for things like Sam & Max or Darwinia, and save the more intensive games for my consoles, where I know that they'll run without having to go buy a new video card, or having to double my RAM, or needed to spend hours troubleshoot driver incompatabilities.
Zombie James
Banned
xabre said:
PS3 + Linux.
Not true.Oneself said:
I've found that Vista is a shockingly optimized OS. It is more demanding up front, but even with everything I've installed, performance remains just as fast now as it was when I first built it. Crysis has taken no impact in performance.
monkspider
Member
QFTdark10x said:
The myth of Visa being some highly inefficient resource hog needs to die. Like yesterday.
Zombie James
Banned
bee said:
Borys said:
Draft said:
So, wait, running Ubuntu on the PS3 doesn't let you surf the net, check email, create and print documents, or run spreadsheets? Wow, the more you learn...
Hmm, the animation looks nice and fluid still, and I guess it's playable, but I wouldn't say it's running well on that machine, with all the tearing / framedropping.
Doesn't look quite so amazing on high either, especially with all the pop-in.
How far off are we from a system that can run very high at a minimum of 60fps? The next generation of GPUs?
Doesn't look quite so amazing on high either, especially with all the pop-in.
How far off are we from a system that can run very high at a minimum of 60fps? The next generation of GPUs?
Seriously, though, it takes no skill to build a PC these days.
I even have water cooling in my rig (the self-contained Aquagate Viva system from Cooler Master.) I rarely have CPU temps above 30.
Most componants these days are built to just snap together. The toughest part of building a PC is installing the CPU to the mobo, and putting on your heatsink, and even that is made insanely simple by CPU/mobo combos you can buy, and the availability of thermal pads as a substitution to thermal paste.
Honestly, though, I WOULD recommend building your own machine over buying a store bought to anyone who has the time (takes a bit of time to research which parts you want + a little more if you are thrifty/budget constrained like me, and want to find the best prices. Also, it took me a full day to put my machine together and run some initial tests, plus more time to install the OS and other essential software/drivers.) The benefits to building your own machine are plentiful, though. For one, you save not only on the individual parts, but also because you don't have to pay for non-essentials that you may bestuck with on a store bought. This includes certain peripherals, like a dial-up modem, or an on-board video card built in to your mobo., but also pack-in software, which you have to pay for, but may not want, or ever use. I also, personally, sleep easier with the piece of mind that iTunes has never, and will never, beeen installed on my PC. You also have a bit more pride in your acomplishment, and understand your PC a little better, so that if something does go wrong, you can fix it yourself, rather than having to pay some one to fix the minor little problems.
Honestly, the most trouble I've had with my PC is simply internal wire management, with certain cables being just a little shorter than I'd like. This is only because I didn't bother buying all new cables, but used whatever I could from what I already had lying around in an older store-built machine that I canabalized (the impetus for my build came from my five year old Gateway suddenly dying.)
I even have water cooling in my rig (the self-contained Aquagate Viva system from Cooler Master.) I rarely have CPU temps above 30.
Most componants these days are built to just snap together. The toughest part of building a PC is installing the CPU to the mobo, and putting on your heatsink, and even that is made insanely simple by CPU/mobo combos you can buy, and the availability of thermal pads as a substitution to thermal paste.
Honestly, though, I WOULD recommend building your own machine over buying a store bought to anyone who has the time (takes a bit of time to research which parts you want + a little more if you are thrifty/budget constrained like me, and want to find the best prices. Also, it took me a full day to put my machine together and run some initial tests, plus more time to install the OS and other essential software/drivers.) The benefits to building your own machine are plentiful, though. For one, you save not only on the individual parts, but also because you don't have to pay for non-essentials that you may bestuck with on a store bought. This includes certain peripherals, like a dial-up modem, or an on-board video card built in to your mobo., but also pack-in software, which you have to pay for, but may not want, or ever use. I also, personally, sleep easier with the piece of mind that iTunes has never, and will never, beeen installed on my PC. You also have a bit more pride in your acomplishment, and understand your PC a little better, so that if something does go wrong, you can fix it yourself, rather than having to pay some one to fix the minor little problems.
Honestly, the most trouble I've had with my PC is simply internal wire management, with certain cables being just a little shorter than I'd like. This is only because I didn't bother buying all new cables, but used whatever I could from what I already had lying around in an older store-built machine that I canabalized (the impetus for my build came from my five year old Gateway suddenly dying.)
Those videos are nothing.andrewfee said:
First of all, those quicktimes are insanely demanding. My Crysis PC can display them, but my Centrino Duo laptop could barely display the video without constantly chopping up and tearing. The videos are recorded at a framerate higher than 30 fps, it would seem, as they were much smoother on my rig at home and did not exhibit tearing. The performance issues you witnessed were your PC struggling with the video.
It's odd that they wanted to demonstrate performance and then went with such a demanding codec.The game can look MUCH better than that with very little performance loss. These shots are taken in DX9 mode with custom CVARs in place. Performance is generally smoother than 30 fps. I should also note that animation becomes far more impressive with object motion blur (some cutscenes look like pre-renders). As expected, the shots look quite a bit worse to my eye viewing them on this LCD I'm using. On my CRT, the colors are much richer. I've also further enhanced my config since snapping these.
Also, take a look at these shots and you'll notice how much improvement can be made over what CryTek uses as a default...
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
Wow the same tired ignorant responses, you can tell it's a pc thread :/ Anyhow, you can get it for even cheaper than $900 considering most people already have some of that stuff.
Sadly Crysis is one of the only PC games worth building a $900 machine to play. Most PC devs see PC gaming as in a slump and are targetting consoles first. When epic sells less than 100k copies of UT3 on the PC and missed selling millions on the 360 I can't blame them.
I blame mmorpgs, $500 video cards, and piracy for bringing PC gaming to the breaking point.
I blame mmorpgs, $500 video cards, and piracy for bringing PC gaming to the breaking point.
Zombie James
Banned
Draft said:
Personally, I don't, but you can. The argument was the you could only do those things on a PC. Fuck, look up, even a cell phone can compete apparently.
That's right, you don't, and no one else does either. The cell phone can now browse the web, but everyone still needs their terminal to update myspace and type long, angry forum posts about how PC gaming is awesome. No alternative to the traditional desktop/laptop PC has yet to actually surpass it in terms of usability, which is why the PC is still ubiquitous._leech_ said:
Strange that they went to all that trouble just to show off videos that...well...frankly aren't very impressive.
High settings may let you play the game, but they hardly blow the doors down.
Also, the whole "a computer also surfs the web and processes documents" argument is lame. Problem remains - most people already have a computer that can do basically everything they could ever need besides these fancy high-end video games, so all of those new components? It comes across as a $900 video game expense just the same.
Combining the two, you get a $900 video game that sure doesn't look like a $900 video game. Bad mix.
And this is coming from someone who's already running a 8800/dual core/DX10 machine. If it can't even look like a justifiable argument to me...well.......I'd say the pitch was poorly made eh.
High settings may let you play the game, but they hardly blow the doors down.
Also, the whole "a computer also surfs the web and processes documents" argument is lame. Problem remains - most people already have a computer that can do basically everything they could ever need besides these fancy high-end video games, so all of those new components? It comes across as a $900 video game expense just the same.
Combining the two, you get a $900 video game that sure doesn't look like a $900 video game. Bad mix.
And this is coming from someone who's already running a 8800/dual core/DX10 machine. If it can't even look like a justifiable argument to me...well.......I'd say the pitch was poorly made eh.
Zaraki_Kenpachi
Member
"The problem with Vista isn't resources, it's compatability.
It's to be expected with ANY new OS, but it still stops me from wanting to jump on board before it's been patched a bit, and the rest of the market has gotten familiar with working with it."
And what horrible compatability issues are you experiencing?
It's to be expected with ANY new OS, but it still stops me from wanting to jump on board before it's been patched a bit, and the rest of the market has gotten familiar with working with it."
And what horrible compatability issues are you experiencing?
Moor-Angol
Banned
My PC matches almost perfectly the configuration gave by Crytek, except for CPU, i have a 6550...
there is a big difference between 6550 and 6750 ?
there is a big difference between 6550 and 6750 ?
Try this...Vitet said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9256118&postcount=533
You need to create a system.cfg file and place that in the root of your Crysis folder.
I'd also recommend changing...
r_ssao_darkening = 1.2
to
r_ssao_darkening = 2 or
r_ssao_darkening = 3
It should produce results like that pic, but at a smooth framerate. If you need further performance improvements switch
r_motionblur = 4
to
r_motionblur = 3
Well, Quicktime was saying it was running at a locked 60fps (the video) so I don't think that was the problem. (I checked that it was running ok as the fans spun up)dark10x said:Those videos are nothing.
First of all, those quicktimes are insanely demanding. My Crysis PC can display them, but my Centrino Duo laptop could barely display the video without constantly chopping up and tearing. The videos are recorded at a framerate higher than 30 fps, it would seem, as they were much smoother on my rig at home and did not exhibit tearing. The performance issues you witnessed were your PC struggling with the video.
I'm not sure about those comparison shots though. In the custom one, the HDR seems very over-exaggerated, but the Crysis defaults do seem a bit "off" too.
I guess we're ages away from running v.high at 60fps then?
rollingstart
Banned
oo Kosma oo said:
well damn.
Prime crotch
Banned
The hardware market will have to evolve in a diferent way sonner or later. It's kinda sad but I doubt we'll ever see another game like Crysis, pushing foward the hardware and betting on that future hardware.