-
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Crysis help.
- Thread starter *Light*
- Start date
Tim the turtle
Happy Mudkip
Your graphics card is fine but you're running it with far too little available RAM and a piss poor processor for what you want. Crysis is an absolute ***** to even the most advanced gaming computers.
Seth_X_of_Fortree
Torterra Firma
Umm...
Crysis is complete utter ********, maybe?
It's meant to run on some far future computer, maybe?
Crysis is complete utter ********, maybe?
It's meant to run on some far future computer, maybe?
Tim the turtle
Happy Mudkip
It's a bad card, but I doubt it's the cause of the problems Light is having... maybe.Actually the GeForce 8500 is a poor choice to run Crysis.
I'm inclined to agree. My PC plays it brilliantly with all the settings on Very High... right up until the snow level where it lags like a *******, had to put everything on medium settings just to proceed with the game.It's meant to run on some far future computer, maybe?
Your graphics card is fine but you're running it with far too little available RAM and a piss poor processor for what you want. Crysis is an absolute ***** to even the most advanced gaming computers.
So....will an extra GB of RAM help?
Seth_X_of_Fortree
Torterra Firma
I figured it out.
My computer, as reference, runs with dual SAPPHIRE X1550 Graphics cards, has Duo Core 2 Processors at 2.4 GHz, and @ GB RAM.
CRYSIS reccomends 2.2 GHz from a Duo Core 2, whilst a more successful game, Call of Duty 4, needs all 2.4 GHz. Simply put, if you add the Gig of RAM and a better processor, if it runs Call of Duty 4, I'm willing to bet it'll run Crysis. In fact, on mine, it does, only skipping maybe once every few hours.
My computer, as reference, runs with dual SAPPHIRE X1550 Graphics cards, has Duo Core 2 Processors at 2.4 GHz, and @ GB RAM.
CRYSIS reccomends 2.2 GHz from a Duo Core 2, whilst a more successful game, Call of Duty 4, needs all 2.4 GHz. Simply put, if you add the Gig of RAM and a better processor, if it runs Call of Duty 4, I'm willing to bet it'll run Crysis. In fact, on mine, it does, only skipping maybe once every few hours.
Yes, you seem to be underestimating how advanced Crysis is. There is NO other computer game invented that puts more workload on your system components. As Latios has said, the top notch PCs of today, with adjusted everything from FSB speed to CAS Latency, come to a grinding halt when faced with something a bit graphics intensive that Crysis throws at it. In fact, Crysis is a benchmark nowadays - if you can play Crysis smoothly, you can play ANY other game. And I guarantee it, you won't be able to play Crysis acceptably with any brand name computer.
And also, if you didn't understand what Latios was saying about the dual-core processors thing, try this.
Think of each core as a truck which carries information. The speed that the truck goes is the clock speed of your CPU. If you have two trucks (or cores) going along at 100km/h, that doesn't mean the total speed is 200km/h. It just means that in theory you can transport twice as much information in the same amount of time (but not the other way around, ie. a piece of information in half the time).
However, some games and other programs require your truck (or core) to have a faster top speed. It doesn't matter whether you have 1, 2, 4, or 8 cores - if your trucks aren't getting there fast enough then it just won't happen.
With that in mind, you should also realise that at the moment quad-core processors are overrated. In terms of real-life usage, you will never optimally utilize all four cores efficiently. Especially given that the clock speeds of quad-cores are lower than dual-cores of the same price, you would be wasting your money purchasing such a processor in the hopes of getting amazing performance from a single application.
You're much better off getting a dual-core with a high clock speed until multithreaded applications become mainstream.
And also, if you didn't understand what Latios was saying about the dual-core processors thing, try this.
Think of each core as a truck which carries information. The speed that the truck goes is the clock speed of your CPU. If you have two trucks (or cores) going along at 100km/h, that doesn't mean the total speed is 200km/h. It just means that in theory you can transport twice as much information in the same amount of time (but not the other way around, ie. a piece of information in half the time).
However, some games and other programs require your truck (or core) to have a faster top speed. It doesn't matter whether you have 1, 2, 4, or 8 cores - if your trucks aren't getting there fast enough then it just won't happen.
With that in mind, you should also realise that at the moment quad-core processors are overrated. In terms of real-life usage, you will never optimally utilize all four cores efficiently. Especially given that the clock speeds of quad-cores are lower than dual-cores of the same price, you would be wasting your money purchasing such a processor in the hopes of getting amazing performance from a single application.
You're much better off getting a dual-core with a high clock speed until multithreaded applications become mainstream.
Last edited: