The first time I tried this demo out it crashed my computer on the loading screen before the beginning of the game. The second time it crashed before I could land from the jump in the beginning of the game and the third time I tried it, it crashed... well, somewhere in the bushes but I could play it for a while no problemo without the blue screen of hell it gave me.

I should seriously just start reinstalling my whole system from the beginning since almost every new game crashes, works bad and some just don't work at all. Some older games work well though, haven't had any problems playing America's Army for example but the newers just fuck my computer up.

No, I'm not here asking help for my problem and no, it's not a matter of my computer being too bad for new games. It's not so hot anymore, but I can play Oblivion with Ultra High settings without any problems.. except the crashing every now and then.


Cutting the off topic here, the demo seemed really fun for the time I could play it before it crashed. I'm thinking about buying this game once I've bought a new computer and reinstalled everything

quote:

Originally posted by Ghost Raver The first time I tried this demo out it crashed my computer on the loading screen before the beginning of the game. The second time it crashed before I could land from the jump in the beginning of the game and the third time I tried it, it crashed... well, somewhere in the bushes but I could play it for a while no problemo without the blue screen of hell it gave me. I should seriously just start reinstalling my whole system from the beginning since almost every new game crashes, works bad and some just don't work at all. Some older games work well though, haven't had any problems playing America's Army for example but the newers just fuck my computer up. No, I'm not here asking help for my problem and no, it's not a matter of my computer being too bad for new games. It's not so hot anymore, but I can play Oblivion with Ultra High settings without any problems.. except the crashing every now and then. Cutting the off topic here, the demo seemed really fun for the time I could play it before it crashed. I'm thinking about buying this game once I've bought a new computer and reinstalled everything

It did the same thing here. My computer has been blue screening from time to time even with the Crysis demo uninstalled, but it seems like ever since it happened..it's been doing this. I dunno if it's the demo itself, the hotfix or new Nvidia drivers (I'm using the very earliest drivers now...the factory drivers) because I have no idea what is causing it to blue screen or freeze or just crash. I've been trying to update drivers for all my hardware, trying to scan for viruses, I even lowered my QX6700 back to 2.66 default setting. By the way..do you have Vista? I used to think it was fine, but all of a sudden..in the past week or so..it's been nothing but a headache. Really thinking I should have gone with XP instead of Vista and waited...but DX 10 was inticing especially with games like Crysis.

And by the way..my system is an Intel QX6700 with a GeForce 8800 Ultra with 2gb of 800mhz DDR2 RAM, so it's a pretty high end system (granted not quite the $5,000 extreme PCs from Voodoo or Falcon but good nonetheless). I should have no problem with the full version of Crysis.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 By the way..do you have Vista?

I have XP. Computers can be a pain in the ass sometimes

I ran the demo on a new PC build:

Intel Q6600 @ stock speed
XFX 8800GT 512MB
4GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 RAM

At 1280x1024 (native res for my LCD) at all settings on Very High I get about 15FPS. If I tone the res down to 1024x768 I get about 35ish FPS.

I haven't bought the game yet, but I will when I get more time. From the demo and the video reviews I've seen, I think it's terrific. The demo seems like a VERY small sample of the action in the full-game, see GameSpot video review.
It may not be a revolutionary step forward, but it's definitely evolutionary. I mean ffs it's an FPS. What kind of revolution can they make? It's the most popular genre of gaming, so it's hard to come up with something new. The nano-suit definately adds SEVERAL different perspectives and approaches to the FPS. Try playing the demo through with a mix of approaches. Stealth through it one time. Go balls out Rambo-style another time. Mix it up, whatever you want. The AI is at least as good as FEAR, which makes it fun.

What other game can you scale the side of a cliff using strength-jump, toss a grenade at a group of enemies while on the way back down, which kills half of them and leaves the other half wondering WTF that came from.

Or stealth up behind a guy, grab him by the throat, STR mode, and toss his ass through a building, go back into stealth, and leave his buddies shitting themselves. 8)

quote:

Originally posted by SLR722 I ran the demo on a new PC build: Intel Q6600 @ stock speed XFX 8800GT 512MB 4GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 RAM At 1280x1024 (native res for my LCD) at all settings on Very High I get about 15FPS. If I tone the res down to 1024x768 I get about 35ish FPS. I haven't bought the game yet, but I will when I get more time. From the demo and the video reviews I've seen, I think it's terrific. The demo seems like a VERY small sample of the action in the full-game, see GameSpot video review. It may not be a revolutionary step forward, but it's definitely evolutionary. I mean ffs it's an FPS. What kind of revolution can they make? It's the most popular genre of gaming, so it's hard to come up with something new. The nano-suit definately adds SEVERAL different perspectives and approaches to the FPS. Try playing the demo through with a mix of approaches. Stealth through it one time. Go balls out Rambo-style another time. Mix it up, whatever you want. The AI is at least as good as FEAR, which makes it fun. What other game can you scale the side of a cliff using strength-jump, toss a grenade at a group of enemies while on the way back down, which kills half of them and leaves the other half wondering WTF that came from. Or stealth up behind a guy, grab him by the throat, STR mode, and toss his ass through a building, go back into stealth, and leave his buddies shitting themselves. 8)

Although the best bet is to get a good single card (say GTX or Ultra) if you want to get better FPS in the future...you should see about getting another 8800 GT. You could then have something maybe 5% faster than a single GTX in Crysis perhaps...at 1280 x 1024 and improved AA (which the GT is supposed to have). Also decreasing some like shadows, the AA being at 2x or 4x...you should get more than 15 fps. Even in the future, OC your processor (with proper cooling) to 2.66 ghz or 2.93 ghz. You should be able to do that..just not through the BIOS (with Nvidia's NTune software). I have a QX6700 and it can be OCed to 3.2 (2.93 air cooled)..but I wouldn't go to 3.2 ghz that without liquid cooling. You may be able to do 2.66 on that processor without running into problems (air cooled) and even increase the FSB a little. 4gb of Ram is more than adequate (I only have 2gb..seems sufficient for now, can't do 4gb on 32 bit Vista).

Last edited by Spirit5 on Nov-21-2007 at 03:53

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 Although the best bet is to get a good single card (say GTX or Ultra) if you want to get better FPS in the future...you should see about getting another 8800 GT. You could then have something maybe 5% faster than a single GTX in Crysis perhaps...at 1280 x 1024 and improved AA (which the GT is supposed to have). Also decreasing some like shadows, the AA being at 2x or 4x...you should get more than 15 fps. Even in the future, OC your processor (with proper cooling) to 2.66 ghz or 2.93 ghz. You should be able to do that..just not through the BIOS (with Nvidia's NTune software). I have a QX6700 and it can be OCed to 3.2 (2.93 air cooled)..but I wouldn't go to 3.2 ghz that without liquid cooling. You may be able to do 2.66 on that processor without running into problems (air cooled) and even increase the FSB a little. 4gb of Ram is more than adequate (I only have 2gb..seems sufficient for now, can't do 4gb on 32 bit Vista).

I opted for the Gigabyte DS3R P35 MOBO. It was more cost effective; it does not offer SLI, and personally, I find the SLI-deal ridiculous. My previous PC which is three years old now, came with a 6800 REGULAR! Not even a GT let alone an Ultra. The 6800 Reg was a rare card because the GT was supposed to be so much better. Even then, that card lasted me almost three years. I can still play BF2 on it with pretty high settings. The newer games give it trouble, but thats expected 2+ years out.

So IMO, I would rather save the money and play games on one good card for a couple of years, maybe not at max settings, than opt for two video cards (Two video cards...it just sounds so ridiculous. Just another way for the manufacturers to get my money). A couple of years down the road, you get a single mid-range card thats hot at the time, and your good for another year or two. Don't have to invest $500+ in just graphics.

I've never really done much overclocking. Stock speeds are usually sufficient. What is the performance difference? 10-15%?

quote:

Originally posted by SLR722 I opted for the Gigabyte DS3R P35 MOBO. It was more cost effective; it does not offer SLI, and personally, I find the SLI-deal ridiculous. My previous PC which is three years old now, came with a 6800 REGULAR! Not even a GT let alone an Ultra. The 6800 Reg was a rare card because the GT was supposed to be so much better. Even then, that card lasted me almost three years. I can still play BF2 on it with pretty high settings. The newer games give it trouble, but thats expected 2+ years out. So IMO, I would rather save the money and play games on one good card for a couple of years, maybe not at max settings, than opt for two video cards (Two video cards...it just sounds so ridiculous. Just another way for the manufacturers to get my money). A couple of years down the road, you get a single mid-range card thats hot at the time, and your good for another year or two. Don't have to invest $500+ in just graphics. I've never really done much overclocking. Stock speeds are usually sufficient. What is the performance difference? 10-15%?

Yeah that is a good motherboard, it offers more for DDR3 and the new processors in the future. I have a Nvidia 680i SLI mobo...it's good and may have a BIOS update in the future I heard to offer DDR3 support and the new processors. Would be nice to have one with PCI Express 2.0..but maybe with an upgrade in the future (2 years or so).

I understand what your talking about, I just think because those cards are so inexpensive (the GT) that having SLI may give you even better performance in the long run..that is if you were to play at higher resolutions and that Crysis being a rarity as far as not being able to be played maxed out on newer systems.

But IMO your much better off with a fast single card than two not so fast cards. Two fast cards in SLI like the GTX and Ultra..although nice..is totally not neccessary. I get on most games at least 60 fps maxed out (on a single Ultra)..especially older games like UT 2004, Quake 4 and Painkiller. I can get about 45 fps on Crysis at 1680 x 1050 resolution...with no AA...maybe like 30 fps with 4x AA.

Yeah $500 might not be worth it...if I were building a system now I would have gotten something closer to what you did, but I opted for pre-built (from Dell I know...not the best company but I got a $500 discount, more than Alienware was offering at the time and didn't have time nor skills to build my own over the summer) and felt the extra boost would help with Crysis and future games. Should last me 2 years, yours should as well.

Probably a 5% increase with each increment..2.66 ghz will give you a 5% and 2.93 will give you 10%...3.2 about 15% and so on..but really only if you increase the FSB as well will this be possible. 2.4 ghz is nice if you are running games at lower resolutions without all the fancy details..so you should be okay (you have what a 17'' or 19'' monitor?).

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 Yeah that is a good motherboard, it offers more for DDR3 and the new processors in the future. I have a Nvidia 680i SLI mobo...it's good and may have a BIOS update in the future I heard to offer DDR3 support and the new processors. Would be nice to have one with PCI Express 2.0..but maybe with an upgrade in the future (2 years or so). I understand what your talking about, I just think because those cards are so inexpensive (the GT) that having SLI may give you even better performance in the long run..that is if you were to play at higher resolutions and that Crysis being a rarity as far as not being able to be played maxed out on newer systems. But IMO your much better off with a fast single card than two not so fast cards. Two fast cards in SLI like the GTX and Ultra..although nice..is totally not neccessary. I get on most games at least 60 fps maxed out (on a single Ultra)..especially older games like UT 2004, Quake 4 and Painkiller. I can get about 45 fps on Crysis at 1680 x 1050 resolution...with no AA...maybe like 30 fps with 4x AA. Yeah $500 might not be worth it...if I were building a system now I would have gotten something closer to what you did, but I opted for pre-built (from Dell I know...not the best company but I got a $500 discount, more than Alienware was offering at the time and didn't have time nor skills to build my own over the summer) and felt the extra boost would help with Crysis and future games. Should last me 2 years, yours should as well. Probably a 5% increase with each increment..2.66 ghz will give you a 5% and 2.93 will give you 10%...3.2 about 15% and so on..but really only if you increase the FSB as well will this be possible. 2.4 ghz is nice if you are running games at lower resolutions without all the fancy details..so you should be okay (you have what a 17'' or 19'' monitor?).

Cool. Yeah, right now DDR3 is crazy expensive, too. I was about to buy a Gateway machine from Best Buy and swap out the video card. But on another forum people highly advised I do a custom build. Problem is I don't know how, so I ordered the parts and had someone put it together.

I have a 19" Sony LCD.

quote:

Originally posted by SLR722 Cool. Yeah, right now DDR3 is crazy expensive, too. I was about to buy a Gateway machine from Best Buy and swap out the video card. But on another forum people highly advised I do a custom build. Problem is I don't know how, so I ordered the parts and had someone put it together. I have a 19" Sony LCD.

Yeah DDR3 is, DDR2 is fine in most applications and I doubt DDR3 will take over till 2009. DDR2 still has some life in it. The only thing I would want to upgrade in my setup is the motherboard....dunno how easy it is to take the proc out of the motherboard and place it in a new one. My dad built two computers..well three but the last one never worked right. We have an Alienware that is four years old, and it won't play new games like Bioshock, Crysis or UT3 without a new video card and possibly a new motherboard and processor...it's AGP only.