Korean Job Discussion Forums

cubanlord · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Location: In Japan!

Well...the game looks good, so, I am going to buy it. Have you played it? Thoughts? Was it as good as the original F.E.A.R.?

My PC should be able to handle it. But, I am wondering if my 7900GTX OC with 512ram will handle it on all high settings. F.E.A.R. and oblivion run flawlessly on high (about 72fps).

chevro1et · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Location: Busan, ROK

depending on what res you are running, you may be able to get away with all high settings, extreme slide show on all very high.

eamo · Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.

The game is pretty good and looks wonderful. The totally damage-able environment is a lot of fun. I played it to finish about 5 months ago. I'm playing it again now.

The 7900GTX has a 3Dmark06 score of around 6000. That's about half of what the 8800GT/HD3870/9600GT can do.

3Dmark06 is an artificial benchmark but it has been shown to accurately show performance in most games.

For a 3 year old design the 7900GTX is bearing up very well. But if you want to play 2008/2009 games at High settings you will need to upgrade. As mentioned before, I'd wait for this summers next-gen cards to come out before you buy.

Gaber · Joined: 23 Apr 2006

on my 8800GTS i have to drop the res to 1360X768 or whatever that LCD "hi-def" TV res is and fiddle around with some settings on med and some on high to get a stable and pretty experience. I think medium at 1024X768 would run okay on a 7900. 9600GTs are awful cheap these days. Some are listed on danawa at like 140.
It's a lot more expansive than fear. Think Farcry with the ability to jump 4 meters in the air and throw suckers through walls.

cubanlord · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Location: In Japan!

okay, here is the verdict:

and

Anti-aliasing x4 and everything on high. The game doesn't studder either. Thus far, I have been in 4 fights and nothing. the environment is great. I am sure the 8800GT can produce better results, but, thus far, everything is great.

Temporary · Joined: 13 Jan 2008

You haven't got to big fights yet.. Razz

It get pretty intense in a lot of the parts

keetrainchild · Joined: 06 May 2008

My specifications (built about two years ago, except for the CPU, which is a more recent upgrade):

Athlon X2 4200+ overclocked to 2.475Ghz (stock 2.2Ghz)
ASUS A8N-E (onboard NIC)
EVGA 8800GTS 320MB overclocked to 650/950 (stock 513/792)
2GB Kingston HyperX DDR400 overclocked to 450Mhz
Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic
Aspire X-Dreamer chassis
Aspire somethingorrather transparent 500W power supply, looks like an aquarium
Seagate 320MB 16MB cache 7200RPM HD
Seagate 80MB 8MB cache 7200RPM HD (swap file, backup drive)
2x DVD writers, 16x and 18x
Dell 1907FP 19" LCD monitor, 1280x1024 at 60hz

My results:

Crysis is beautiful but too choppy to play comfortably on medium settings at 1280x1024 without antialiasing or VSync.

JustJohn · Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Location: Your computer screen

So am I getting this right? Cuban has a 7900 and he's running it fine on high while train has a 8800 and can't run it on medium? Seems rather odd.

Demophobe · Joined: 17 May 2004

Temporary · Joined: 13 Jan 2008

Maybe he is running at 640X480 Razz

Res has a lot to do with it.

cubanlord · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Location: In Japan!

Temporary · Joined: 13 Jan 2008

JustJohn · Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Location: Your computer screen

Still doesn't explain the discrepancy. The two guys in this thread were both running the same res and the guy with the older graphic card can run the game a lot better according to the posts.

cubanlord · Joined: 08 Jul 2005 Location: In Japan!

keetrainchild · Joined: 06 May 2008

I agree that my CPU and RAM are almost definitely part of what brings my performance down. An outdated X2 4200+ is definitely a bottleneck compared to just about any Core 2 Duo. Also, the other person's RAM is DDR2. Also, my video card has 320MB RAM whereas his has 512MB.

Also, just because I think Crysis was too choppy to be playable doesn't mean that everything would think so. Actually, unless I'm in an area with many buildings, my framerate is quite acceptable. However, whenever there are buildings in view, my framerate drops, Wham. It's playable, but definitely annoying. This is the main thing that keeps me from playing it much; if I could have the same framerate in the developed areas as in the natural ones, I'd consider it more or less smooth.

Just as a note, my PC can play Call of Duty 4 on all high settings with AA and VSync quite smoothly. It's also good for Falcon 4: AA, Il-2 1946, Bioshock, and most other games. They're not choppy under any circumstances.

However, I do disable any unnecessary services and processes, even when I'm not playing games. I generally keep only essential things running. In any case, I've basically decided to wait a year or so until I really upgrade my computer with a quad-core processor, a 9xxx series card, and some really fast RAM so I'll be able to play it more comfortably.