Personal computing discussed
ludi wrote:Anyone else gone back and dug into Crysis performance now that hardware to run it has gotten up to 10 years newer?
ludi wrote:Anyone else gone back and dug into Crysis performance now that hardware to run it has gotten up to 10 years newer?
setaG_lliB wrote:Surprisingly, Crysis doesn't require SSE2. I loaded it up on my PIII and it actually ran fine. Well, fine if you're OK with 21.3 fps at 800x600 with all details set to low.
just brew it! wrote:setaG_lliB wrote:Surprisingly, Crysis doesn't require SSE2. I loaded it up on my PIII and it actually ran fine. Well, fine if you're OK with 21.3 fps at 800x600 with all details set to low.
There were probably still enough non-SSE2 systems around when it was released that they didn't want to eliminate that potential source of sales.
LostCat wrote:ludi wrote:Anyone else gone back and dug into Crysis performance now that hardware to run it has gotten up to 10 years newer?
Dumbest joke ever? Machines when Crysis was launched could play Crysis. Why should I bother?
whm1974 wrote:LostCat wrote:ludi wrote:Anyone else gone back and dug into Crysis performance now that hardware to run it has gotten up to 10 years newer?
Dumbest joke ever? Machines when Crysis was launched could play Crysis. Why should I bother?
"Can it run Crysis?" has been a running gag since the game come out since the game was one of the most demanding titles at the time.
just brew it! wrote:LostCat obviously knows that. He just thinks it's a stupid joke.
LostCat wrote:just brew it! wrote:LostCat obviously knows that. He just thinks it's a stupid joke.
It always has been. If anything the probable reason it even caught on was how many Intel graphics chipsets back then were incapable of running pretty much anything.
LostCat wrote:just brew it! wrote:LostCat obviously knows that. He just thinks it's a stupid joke.
It always has been. If anything the probable reason it even caught on was how many Intel graphics chipsets back then were incapable of running pretty much anything.
whm1974 wrote:LostCat wrote:just brew it! wrote:LostCat obviously knows that. He just thinks it's a stupid joke.
It always has been. If anything the probable reason it even caught on was how many Intel graphics chipsets back then were incapable of running pretty much anything.
I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.
just brew it! wrote:whm1974 wrote:LostCat wrote:It always has been. If anything the probable reason it even caught on was how many Intel graphics chipsets back then were incapable of running pretty much anything.
I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.
Not surprising. 6600GT was 3 years old at that point, and GPU tech was advancing rapidly.
just brew it! wrote:Yeah, really more of a meme than a joke. Tech site version of a Rickroll, without the YouTube link.
Chrispy_ wrote:just brew it! wrote:Yeah, really more of a meme than a joke. Tech site version of a Rickroll, without the YouTube link.
But Rickrolling is specifically about tricking someone into clicking the link. No link, no Rickroll
just brew it! wrote:Yeah, really more of a meme than a joke. Tech site version of a Rickroll, without the YouTube link.
whm1974 wrote:I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.
Topinio wrote:whm1974 wrote:I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.
Your Pentium D 930 build sucked before you bought it in mid June 2006, and everyone told you to stop and wait for a few weeks to order , but you didn't listen.
AnandTech had already published their performance preview, it was public knowledge that the Core 2 Duo E6300 was to launch at the same $180 price as the Pentium D 930 would be dropping to (from $300+, can't remember if you paid that though) and would blow it away.
This advice was already shown in published articles to be correct, and obviously there was full detail less than a month later. There was an upgrade path there, too, for that Conroe build option, and overclockability.
I know the 6 years on Presler were painful, and sorry to be a bit harsh, but you had no legitimate reason to expect it not to suck.
whm1974 wrote:You were given the advice, though, and it would've been at most $50 more for the Conroe build (including a slightly pricier motherboard and a PATA HBA for the ancient drives you wanted to keep) which you could have saved up while you waited those few weeks.Topinio wrote:whm1974 wrote:I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.
Your Pentium D 930 build sucked before you bought it in mid June 2006, and everyone told you to stop and wait for a few weeks to order , but you didn't listen. [...] you had no legitimate reason to expect it not to suck.
Yes I know I should asked for advice back then, but I didn't. And as I recall the CPU, motherboard, and another 1 GB of DDR memory cost me less then $300 to upgrade from a Athlon XP rig with 1GB of memory, 2 PATA HDDs, and the GF 6600GT, and a pair of of DVD burners.
A whole new rig with "modern hardware" at the time would have cost me at least $700 or more.
Topinio wrote:whm1974 wrote:You were given the advice, though, and it would've been at most $50 more for the Conroe build (including a slightly pricier motherboard and a PATA HBA for the ancient drives you wanted to keep) which you could have saved up while you waited those few weeks.Topinio wrote:Your Pentium D 930 build sucked before you bought it in mid June 2006, and everyone told you to stop and wait for a few weeks to order , but you didn't listen. [...] you had no legitimate reason to expect it not to suck.
Yes I know I should asked for advice back then, but I didn't. And as I recall the CPU, motherboard, and another 1 GB of DDR memory cost me less then $300 to upgrade from a Athlon XP rig with 1GB of memory, 2 PATA HDDs, and the GF 6600GT, and a pair of of DVD burners.
A whole new rig with "modern hardware" at the time would have cost me at least $700 or more.
Complaining now that you couldn't run Crysis 10 years ago on what was a blatant crapbox of a build called out before you ordered it, is i.e. a bit much.
whm1974 wrote:Sorry dude, not wanting to, but using that build as support for a position on games that cannot be run leads to discussing the build itself.Yes I screwed up and I know that now, so you don't have to rub it in.
whm1974 wrote:FEAR was the game at that time that pissed me off since I couldn't play it even at 1024x768 and I started kicking myself for buying a video card with 128MB instead of 256MB.
whm1974 wrote:I played a demo of that game when it was released on my Pentium D 930 w/ 2GB of memory and a Nvidia 6600GT(128MB), and as I recall I could only play it at 800x600 with some of the graphics settings lowered.
setaG_lliB wrote:I loaded it up on my PIII and it actually ran fine.
End User wrote:setaG_lliB wrote:I loaded it up on my PIII and it actually ran fine.
Reminds me of my PIII 550 back in 2000.
Why do you still have it?