Top
240°

How To Build A Kick-Ass Crysis 2 PC For $600

NVIDIA's GeForce.com has today released a guide showing gamers how they can build a $600 PC based around the newly-released $150 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti, which runs Crysis 2 on Advanced at 1920x1080, at over thirty frames per second.

Screenshots and performance numbers are offered, and the new GPU is also overclocked.

The story is too old to be commented.
Convas2351d ago

WOW ... that Rig looks solid.

Now we just need some PC enthusiasts in here to tell us whether or not this is a good set-up.

AndyB2351d ago

It is a solid setup, and I'm not just saying that because I helped work on the article. And if AMD isn't your cup of tea you can get the Intel stuff instead, as outlined in the piece.

Convas2351d ago (Edited 2351d ago )

Well, I've got no problems with AMD, the CPU I was planning on buying for my upcoming rig is the AMD Phenom II X4 970, but seeing the kind of performance that can be obtained from the Phenom II X4 925, I may have to restructure my plans.

Really, I just want to be able to run Battlefield 3 comfortably.

cakeisalie2351d ago

Personally i would replace the 550 with a with 460 GTX which if searched can be had for the same price and will perform better. I would go for the GTX 460 1 gig version which is a beast of a GPU.

vulcanproject2351d ago (Edited 2351d ago )

Commendable advice from nvidia- good job guys.

However it still made me facepalm looking at the three graphics settings for Crysis 2. How can this be a proper PC game with three graphics settings? The whole thing is a big nasty joke i am afraid. Crytek have just taken so much piss out of PC gamers with crysis 2 i doubt i will need to pee for several weeks.

Urgh. The game still suffers that absolutely horrid vaseline effect and terrible anti aliasing quality. You can see it in the second shot down.

How can you go from the best looking PC game ever made in 2007 to one with abysmal image quality, far worse outdoors, 3 1/2 years down the line?

cakeisalie2351d ago

This is exactly what Nvidia and ATi should be concerned about there arent much games truely taking advantage of the latest hardware.

I bet Crysis 2 is even less hardware intesive then Crysis 1 since its not open world like Crysis 1. which is why i would think aside the DX11 settings which wont be present at launch anyways most 3-4 yr old Midrange GPUs should handle this game fine.

Crysis 2 isnt really a game Nvidia or ATI can use as a marketing point since its just a shadow of what Crysis 1 was for its time.

Computersaysno2351d ago

This will go down as one of the biggest and highest profile failures on PC in the format's long history.

Get ready for the backlash from Pc gamers. Come launch week it will get nasty. You mark my words.

bumnut2351d ago (Edited 2351d ago )

@cakeisalie

Your are correct about new games not pushing pc hardware. Thats why I have bought a 3d monitor to play games in 3d Vision.

Just Cause 2 and Dead Rising 2 look amazing in 3d

nanostar2351d ago

Well at least all the game settings can be changed through a text editor

kevnb2351d ago

Only nerds will rage, so the boards will explode and so will the sales.

Dude4202351d ago (Edited 2351d ago )

@ cakeisalie

People who have played the beta say it's a mixture of narrow path and open areas. You still have different options to tackle a situation.

You play Crysis 1 with big areas, but in a linear fashion and it seems it's going to be that way in Crysis 2. Probably the areas are smaller, but still big enough to play around.

Oh and btw, you don't even know if Crysis 2 isn't as intensive as Crysis 1. Stop judging on the mp demo. The only way to get to max graphics in Crysis 1 is to have DX10 enabled, Crysis 2 is only in DX9 for the beta and MP.

I can run Crysis on max settings now, Crysis 2's maxed DX9 settings run just 30% better on average, so I don't even know how the full experience will affect my framerate.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2351d ago
slyrunner2351d ago

Do I know right!!! Wtf, this looks like the settings (if there was settings) for a console game, this is bs I say

AndyB2351d ago

I can't reply directly to you cakeisalie, but I would say in response that the 550 can be overclocked to the speed of the 460. The 550 also draws less power and produces less heat, and also has a new internal design as mentioned by some of today's reviews. Though I can't guarantee it, I would imagine that the price will decrease in the coming weeks, making it an even better prospect.

Kakkoii2350d ago

Yes, but then the 460 can be overclocked so much higher, even to 1Ghz in some cases. Almost matching the performance of a 470.

TABSF2349d ago (Edited 2349d ago )

Thing is AndyB is wrong

GTX 550 has 192(CCs), 32(TMUs)and 24(ROPs)
GTX 460 has 336(CCs), 56(TMUs)and 32(ROPs)
GTX 560 has 384(CCs), 64(TMUs)and 32(ROPs)

(Engine/Shader/Memory)
GTX 550 is at stock: 900MHz/1800MHz/4104MHz with 192bit interface
GTX 460 is at stock: 675MHz/1350MHz/3600MHz with 256bit interface
GTX 560 is at stock: 822MHz/1644MHz/4008MHz with 256bit interface

The GTX 560 has double the Cuda cores of the GTX 550, it also has a higher memory interface, plus overclocking is great all cards listed above.

The GTX 460 has 144 more Cuda cores of the GTX 550, it has also got a higher memory interface.
For the GTX 550 to even compete with the GTX 460 it would need to be overclocked to about 1415MHZ/2830MHz/7182 which is almost impossible and pointless. (100% on the Engine and Shader calculation but not sure on memory)

I have GTX 460 1GB SLi overclocked to 800MHz/1600MHz/4000MHz
Besides power and heat they destroy everything around the price point.

Also GF100 and GF100 is very inefficient as I've pointed out before.
If the GTX 460 has the same amount of cores as the GTX 470 it would be roughly about 30% quicker

Basically lets say

GTX 460 with 336 is 100%
GTX 460 with 448 is 150%
GTX 470 with 448 is 120%

This is all with the same clock speeds.

jakethesnake2350d ago

I think the 550 is a bit over-priced. Not surprising since it just launched. I would probably spend an extra $20 more and get an AMD 6850 or spend a few dollars less and get a 5770. I know NVidia wants to compete at the $150 dollar range, but I think this card needs to come down a bit ($10-$20 to be competitive).

Ares842351d ago (Edited 2351d ago )

I know I probably get crap from PC fans but I already got a PS3 to play Crysis 2 on. And I'm ok with the lower quality of graphics, I will enjoy the game just as much as anyone on PC will.

cakeisalie2351d ago

You dont know that, since you havent played the PC version. Anways this is a console port hence the experience will be dumped down on the PC as well.

For a multiplayer experience i yet dont find a game that is more fun to play then TF2 or L4D2 in the FPS genre atleast.

BISHOP-BRASIL2351d ago

Does he really need to play on PC to know? It's the same game, devs this gen barely optimize code for each platform, are you waiting for it to have different content?

If I would play Crysis I would do it in PC for mods but people really need to stop with the crap about differences in multiplats... A different effect, performance and graphics here and there (obviously if nothing game breaking, specially on performance) won't make the experience much different around as the content is the same.

Kakkoii2350d ago

Not a console port. That implies the game was created AND coded for a console, and then had it's code and assets ported to the PC. That's now how it works with CryEngine 3. You make the game for all 3 platforms simultaneously and export to them all. Just because it says press start and has 3 graphic options doesn't make it a port. It also has mouse and keyboard options, something that wouldn't exist if the menu was just a copy of the console one.

coldfoot2351d ago

Very interesting for Nvidia to suggest AMD processors :)

Kakkoii2349d ago

Intel has been trying to screw Nvidia over for many years now, since Intel sees how Nvidia is taking over almost all of Intel's markets. So it's not surprising.