My TV's native resolution is 1366 x 768. My VAIO FW-190 has Intel Chipset and both the Windows built in software and Intel provided graphic card settings software do not show the 1366x768 resolution. I can't find a way to set the Vaio's HDMI output to that resolution.
Well the singple player demo is due on friday, and nowhere on the internet can I find how it will run on my system. Whos getting it? This is one of the main reasons I forked out so much for this thing, so I hope it plays well, even if I do have to use DX9.
Id love to hear from anyone how it goes who ran the MP demo, or plans to get the SP demo when it arrives. On a M1710 - 7950 anyway.
I'm looking into getting the M1730 w/ X9000 (overclocking it to 3.4 Ghz), 9800M GT in SLi and 4 GB of RAM but I wanted to see how would it perform w/ the most demanding games out there i.e. Crysis and GTA IV.
if their settings and resolutions were maxed out. I know that X9000 is slower than the newer X9100 and QX9300 but is it gonna affect perormance a lot. Is it worth getting X9000 or is this CPU getting old now..
I still want a system that would be powerful enough for the next 2-3 years but I'm a bit hesitat to get the X9000. Can anyone let me know how those 2 games perform on the M1730 if the cpu is overclocked to 3.4 Ghz?..
I treated myself to Crysis on Friday night. What a mistake. OK, so I havent got a 3 way SLI rig, water cooled MOFO of a PC. I just have a 7950GTX, dual core 2.0 GHz 1710.
But boy, does Gears of War look amazing on 1400 resolution, so this is going to be OK.
I cant even get the thing running smoothly on low, never mind medium. I have even tweaked the system.cfg file to disable shadows etc. and it still runs like a Pig.
This is lazy programming in my opinion. To write a game that cant run on medium looking half decent, and with decent FPS is just pure lazy. They write this for the minority, not the majority. GOW on the other hand is excellent, they obviously used every trick in the book to get this to look amazing on reasonable spec PCs.
I could of course be wrong, and my computer is screwed...and you are all loving Crysis...in wihch case tell me your secrets!
By the way.....dont make a game that means every scene has 10 million leaves in it.....dont assume we are all millionaires
yesterday a friend asked me to connect my laptop to my tv and show him crysis (i only got the demo).
i did that and the result was surprisingly good. i turned the settings to:
all high, no aa, 1366x768 (tv's native res). the video card @ 600/900.
the game ran really smoothly (no stuttering/slowdown) through the whole demo. and it looked MUCH better than on my laptop screen @ 1440x900. it looked like with aa applied and the overall picture quality and colour was much smoother. i guess the lcd makes the picture a little bit blurry & has better colours than a laptop screen, which makes a more realistic look overall. in crysis on the laptop screen (native res) the picture looks too sharp making it less realistic and when i leave the native resolution it just gets ugly.
a big surprise for me was also the great performance. unfortunately i have no chance to try dx10 (very high), as i don't run vsta. but i heard the to-be-released-soon crysis: warhead will allow you very high settings, even if running xp.
I get an average fps of 31 using DX9 Very High Cvars along with a Very High config, this running in DX9 in Vista with 8800m GTX overclocked to 625/1500/950 and this at 1920x1200 native res on my XPS M1730 ...
I'm just wondering what you guys have set up for tweaks in Crysis and I'd love some help optimizing my copy. I'm playing under Vista with the 1.1 patch and would enjoy getting a few extra frames/options enabled without the high performance cost.
Thought I was on the right track after getting a 14800 in 3Dmark 06 (with x9000 overclocked to 3.4GHZ). But then Crysis killed it. After tweaking away I get 10-30FPS on 1900:1200 with settings on High - which is unfurtunatley unplayable. Not quite what I expected when I decided to shell out £2000+.
System: XPS M1730, x9000 OC to 3.4GHX, 8800GLX in SLI, SS Hard drive
Software: Windows vista 32, Nvidia 175.32 driver (latest), Crysis patch 1.2
is anyone else getting really bad performance, with crysis i get a solid 30 fps, but with warhead i get around 9 fps wasn't warhead supposed to run better than crysis I've tried both the certified 175.32, and the moddded 177.92 i got 8800 GTX SLI
I'm currently working out an optimal set of settings to get this thing running at an average of 40-45 FPS with eye candy and thought I could get some ideas here of where to go. Could we have those users with the game post their settings and driver versions and what performance you're able to land?
And what specific settings dictate the nature of the explosions? I'd be satisfied maxing those out while keeping the other things at "Mainstream."
forgot to mention the game is being run in dx9 mode
I just got this gamer today.Its a great game so far.I had the game on the auto settings for the graphics.Which I think was MAINSTREAM for all the options.Well,I was playing the game quite comfortablely.I was getting about 30fps.I am only guessing.But it was very playable.After about 2 1/2 hrs,the game was extremely choppy.Started to crawl like 5 fps!Did the system get too hot?Is it becuase I only have a single Nvidia 8700GT 256mb video card?
the problem as stated in the subject is that after about 10 minutes of playing crysis on 1024x768 mid settings the laptop simply turns off and when i turn it on it says that it's been overheated and that i should contact dell support with error #m1004.
I've touched the back of the note and it's DAMN HOT, can't hold my hand there for more than a second maybe.
I've seen one more guy complaining about this issue on laptopvideo2go forum but i can't register there (some bug in the registry process) and contact the guy to see if he has resolved the issue.
am running XP 32 SP2 and the problem happend with the dell supplied drivers as well as with 169.04 and with 169.09.
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T9900 (3.06GHz) Microsoft® Windows Vista® Home Premium 64-bit Black 8GB DDR2-SDRAM (DDR2-800, 4GBx2) 500GB SATA Hard Disk Drive [5400 rpm] Blu-ray Disc™ playback/burning ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD4650 graphics card with 1GB vRAM-great for games and movies 16.4" widescreen with XBRITE-FullHD™ LCD technology (1920x1080) No additional Finance Software Fresh Start No additional Anti-Virus and Security Software
How would Crysis run at High-settings @ 1920 x 1080? at 1600 x 900?
I can play Obilivion, Bioshock, UT3, and even crysis (1200x800 medium) at good frame rates with good quality visuals turned on. I had previously just accepted that I was stuck with games like doom3 and quake4 only.
Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question. Traditionally,(well at least for me anyway) laptop/montior screen resolutions are represented by two numbers. E.g. 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050 etc. But on the XPS 16, it's available in 720p and 1080p? What exactly are their resolutions? 1280x720 and 1920x1080(assuming they come in 16:9 aspect ratio?)
If so, Q1) On a 16inch display, wouldn't one want more 'space' than 1280x720 gives? For me personally, the resolution should at least be 1440x900 but better be at 1680x1050. Q2) On a 16inch display, can one REALLY tell the difference between 720p and 1080p?