crysis 2 not crysis, i know my system will run crysis lol

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/g...ry-2,1808.html

According to that chart baging your self a 250 GTS will run crysis at a good frame rate, even the 240 will handle it.

Thats at 1680x1050 btw, using Far Cry 2, which had similar requirements of a card to crysis.

From personal experience, Crysis was MUUUUUCH more demanding than far cry.

With a single gts 250, I could run it on high at around 22 fps. With them in sli, I get about 40. The numbers drop once AA is turned on though, so I have to play without it, or just 2x. Any higher, and I'd have to switch to medium settings. Of course, there are custom configs that help cut down the game where it is least obvious to make it run smoother.
Note that this is at 1920x1080 res. Overclocking gave me around 3 extra fps in sli.

Crysis 2 should be similar if not better, since they have to cut down for the consoles. I did notice that the console videos had really low poly models and low res textures compared to Crysis 1. It just had better lighting effects to make up for it. And the console video cards are WAY weaker than the gts 250. I'm not sure if the consoles run it at 720p or 1080p though.

well lets hope they stay native to pc instead of making a console port like gta IV which 7 updates later i get 40 fps average in... at 1440x900 all high settings though. i mean crysis is too demanding for what it is honestly, they could have used a few lower poly models and cut back on some of the sun shafts and such and it still would have looked the same. also distant trees and distant landscape screws with performance in crysis. those are mainly the things they turn down in the configs as well as shadow resolutions

but wasn't the purpose of crysis to make the best looking game ever? isn't that what crytek does?

It's just a showcase for how ridiculous over processed graphics look.

when it was released it didn't look ridiculous, it looked amazing at that time. but better looking games have been released since then.

Still took about 2 years to pass the graphics though :]

The game is starting to show it's age though, which is why I can't wait for crysis 2 to come out. Cryengine 3 is a beast with lighting effects and the game looks to be more of a game this time with less focus on showcasing their tech.

Trying to decide myself whether to get a gtx 470 now and start enjoying the dx11 features on several of my games along with smoother framerates or hold off till Crysis 2 comes out and get something even more beastly.

Back ontopic:

Sli HAS been giving me troubles recently though. It would often cause crashing in TF2 and shadow flickering in GTA IV and other games like Serious Sam HD and NFS Shift. Turning of sli fixed this. Fortunately, these games aren't affected much by sli, so it didn't really hurt like it woulda had it been crysis, but it was still bothersome. I'm just scared that one day, it would happen with a newer, more demanding game.

Personally I'd go ATI for DX11, the fermi set up is just not that great, way over hyped by nvidia with very little put out.

the 5k series is more than capable, even if ATI's drivers have been and are a touch shaky, then again I've herd very bad things about the 4xx fermi drivers

SLI gets, given 100% = your cards performance, thus 200% would be what you'd expect from two cards as a laymen, about 130% to 150%, closer to 138% in my experience, same for crossfire. (Then again i'm pretty old school, this is possibly even a year out of date info by now)

I'd recommend one GPU over two in any case, and give two GPU's at $200, vs one GPU at $220 (in example) I'd still go for the one over the two, even with that pricing issue.

considering the fact that the performance to price ratio you would more than likely be getting a higher performing more up to date card than the two less up to date cards i would agree voxus. however it would still be nice to have a good ati dx11 card with an nvidia card for physx, i would personally go with that setup over sli or crossfire