Another crysis performance moan. GTS to GT

G

Gabe3

2[H]4U
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
3,848
I have a GT now coming from a GTS 320mb and my fps increased running higher resolutions now. But my overall FPS has not gone up much.

For example, with my GTS I got about 15-25 fps on 1024x768 with all high settings. On 1680x1050 resolution I would get 11 fps.

Now with my GT, I get 15-25 fps on 1680x1050 and lowering the resolution does not increase my fps much at all. I was hoping with the GT I could play on high settings but looks like I still cant.

The game is more frustrating then fun for me. At least with COD4 I can worry about getting 2:1 ratios and not how the game is running(btw I run it on all high settings, 4x filtering, 1680x1050)

I just want to kill the big ass alien bosses and play the ice level is all. lol
 
awesome im definitely going to try that thing out...

but I for one, think Crytek is a bunch of wanna be carmacks that, while creating an engine capable of amazing visuals the best we've ever seen, the engine efficiency is absolutely craptastic. It's almost as if they completely forgot that the people they are designing the game for, don't have developer/engineering level graphics card upwards of $1000.

It really just pisses me off.

q6600 @ 3.4ghz
Abit p35 Pro
4GB ocz plat rev 2 @ 934mhz 5-5-5-15
Evga 8800GTS OC'D latest nvidia stable release
vista x64
corsair 620HX
raptor 74GB 10k RPM (where crysis is installed)
etc

I've got a 24in screen, but heh yeah sure I'm gonna be able to play this game @ native res (although all the latest biggest games, I can play @ max graphics native res... smooth as butter). 1680x1050, high settings, like 10-15 fps direct x 10

1280x720p very high, 20fps or so.

@ 1680 high, it looks slighty worse, imo, than cod4 does @ native res max everything. One problem, COD4 @ those settings runs like a dream.

People tell me "oh there is a lot going on in crysis than you can see thats why". Uh huh, sure. I'll just continue like everyone else to just assume, since it's capable of impressive visuals @ 1-2 fps on a standard top of the line gaming PC right now, that that signifies they coded it perfectly.

GAH! I'm sorry I'm just so frustrated with Crytek. It just seems to arrogant to do this to us gamers :p
 
GAH! I'm sorry I'm just so frustrated with Crytek. It just seems to arrogant to do this to us gamers
Click to expand...

I feel sort of the same. This is my first Crytek game as well as anything I ever bought from EA. I'm having fun and I'm optimistic about upcoming patches but I will definitely have second thoughts about buying whatever either or those 2 companies release next. sigh.. well at least this will hold me over until the "next great PC game" for 08.
 
kadozer said:
Try this out lots of people including me have seen huge improvements visually and perfomance wise. http://files.filefront.com/Cubans+CustomCrysisConfigs+12/;9133381;/fileinfo.html

taken originally from here: http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=14544
Click to expand...

I tried that out before posting this thread. I used the high config and it didn't help. It also felt like the HDR was way over the top.


I was going to buy this game if it ran well but iam glad I didn't spend $50 for it
 
I think it's your processor or perhaps that old-school DDR1 RAM in your system that is holding you back, way back.

You can read my specs in my sig, and I have Crysis running at:

1600x1200
2x edge aa (enabled through a custom system.cfg file)
Everything on High, except shadows and postprocessing, which are set to Medium.
16xAF
sunshafts are also enabled by the way

With those settings, I get an average of 30+ FPS, and my framerate almost never sees anything below 22 FPS. I get highs in the upper 40's and low 50's (depending on situation of course, and it's not THAT often)
Low's in the low 20's.
Average sits right around 30 or so a vast majority of the time.

I played it from beginning to end with a 320MB GTS at first, and it did hiccup, it did slow down, it did jerk, and I was eventually forced to play it on mostly Medium settings.

With my 512MB GT Superclocked however, I haven't had to make that compromise. Everything for the most part, is on High.
No hiccups.
No slowdowns (except 1 or 2 cutscenes).
No jerky gameplay.
Smooth ride from beginning to end this time around.
 
Gabe3 said:
I tried that out before posting this thread. I used the high config and it didn't help. It also felt like the HDR was way over the top.


I was going to buy this game if it ran well but iam glad I didn't spend $50 for it
Click to expand...

Guess you answered your own question. But hearing about that dismal fps jump from GTs 320 to GT ouch, I'm glad I didnt spend 250-300 money on the GT( I have same card as your old one). Saving for new GTS.
 
Hamidxa said:
I think it's your processor or perhaps that old-school DDR1 RAM in your system that is holding you back, way back.

You can read my specs in my sig, and I have Crysis running at:

1600x1200
2x edge aa (enabled through a custom system.cfg file)
Everything on High, except shadows and postprocessing, which are set to Medium.
16xAF
sunshafts are also enabled by the way

With those settings, I get an average of 30+ FPS, and my framerate almost never sees anything below 22 FPS. I get highs in the upper 40's and low 50's (depending on situation of course, and it's not THAT often)
Low's in the low 20's.
Average sits right around 30 or so a vast majority of the time.

I played it from beginning to end with a 320MB GTS at first, and it did hiccup, it did slow down, it did jerk, and I was eventually forced to play it on mostly Medium settings.

With my 512MB GT Superclocked however, I haven't had to make that compromise. Everything for the most part, is on High.
No hiccups.
No slowdowns (except 1 or 2 cutscenes).
No jerky gameplay.
Smooth ride from beginning to end this time around.
Click to expand...

Unless you are using that config, I call bullshit.
 
Gabe3 said:
I have a GT now coming from a GTS 320mb and my fps increased running higher resolutions now. But my overall FPS has not gone up much.
Click to expand...

This makes perfect sense. Playable resolution is going to be affected by the amount of memory on the card. your current card has 512Mb, you old card had 320Mb.

But I'm not sure why you thought you would see a big jump in frame rate. Almost every review and benchmark shows the performance differences between the 8800GTS and the 8800GT to be minor.
 
aFive said:
Unless you are using that config, I call bullshit.
Click to expand...

Im running stock Crysis, in DX9 with all settings to high. No special configs.
I was running 1680x1050 and the game ran smooth and without issue. Game ran around 30fps consistently.
It was not until the last mission on the carrier that I had problems.
I dropped my resolution to 1280x1024 for that area and generally use it in MP.

C2D E6400 @ 2.13GHZ
2GB 6400 DDR
8800GTS 320MB factory OC
 
Droc said:
Im running stock Crysis, in DX9 with all settings to high. No special configs.
I was running 1680x1050 and the game ran smooth and without issue. Game ran around 30fps consistently.
It was not until the last mission on the carrier that I had problems.
I dropped my resolution to 1280x1024 for that area and generally use it in MP.

C2D E6400 @ 2.13GHZ
2GB 6400 DDR
8800GTS 320MB factory OC
Click to expand...

Vista or XP? Honestly, I can get it to high 20's, low 30's under Vista 64.
 
kaluminati said:
1680x1050, high settings, like 10-15 fps direct x 10
Click to expand...

From what I've heard, running in DX9 mode can boost your framerate considerably (don't know personally - I don't have a DX10 card). But you might try that and see what it does for you.
 
Joga said:
From what I've heard, running in DX9 mode can boost your framerate considerably (don't know personally - I don't have a DX10 card). But you might try that and see what it does for you.
Click to expand...

I did try that and no notice in FPS. I'm gonna try and mix the settings around and see if I cant get the minimum FPS to above 23ishh.

I'll try the medium config on incrysis. If that wont work then I'm going to lower shaders and post processing to medium, I heard those two make the biggest impact for FPS.
 
huh, well I was reading up on that guys guide... and he says that 1920x1200 no aa very high settings uses like 200-300mb of video ram.

While just playing now using his "high" cfg @ 1680x1050, it was using near a GB of video memory.

......

wtf am I missing here?! =(
 
kaluminati said:
huh, well I was reading up on that guys guide... and he says that 1920x1200 no aa very high settings uses like 200-300mb of video ram.

While just playing now using his "high" cfg @ 1680x1050, it was using near a GB of video memory.

......

wtf am I missing here?! =(
Click to expand...

Theres no way it uses 300mb of ram on that resolution. Otherwise you wouldn't see such a big jump going from a 320mb card to a 512 like I did.
 
aFive said:
Unless you are using that config, I call bullshit.
Click to expand...

You want to make a wager?
Seriously. :rolleyes:

Too many uninformed people running around calling BS on that which they know naught of, and yet do so with such impudence.

Would it help if I recorded a session and posted it up on say, Youtube, just to shut people like you up? :rolleyes:

Go check out some benchmarks for similarly equipped systems, and you will be eating your words thereafter.
 
aFive said:
Unless you are using that config, I call bullshit.
Click to expand...

By the way, so much for your impetuous denunciation.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1211/2

crysisspd_g_02.gif


So bullshit yourself.

You read that? On high settings, at 1680x1050 (which is just a hair off from 1600x1200) they are getting 36 FPS average (on an 8800GT) on the first level, which is indicative of the game's overall performance.

Now have the decency and the humility to kindly apologize. :eek:
 
Hamidxa said:
You want to make a wager?
Seriously. :rolleyes:

Too many uninformed people running around calling BS on that which they know naught of, and yet do so with such impudence.

Would it help if I recorded a session and posted it up on say, Youtube, just to shut people like you up? :rolleyes:

Go check out some benchmarks for similarly equipped systems, and you will be eating your words thereafter.
Click to expand...

Performance is wide spread, theres people with a GTX and a quadcore that cant run high settings without dipping below 30, where other similar systems run it fine. This game is way to unstable.
 
kaluminati said:
awesome im definitely going to try that thing out...

but I for one, think Crytek is a bunch of wanna be carmacks that, while creating an engine capable of amazing visuals the best we've ever seen, the engine efficiency is absolutely craptastic. It's almost as if they completely forgot that the people they are designing the game for, don't have developer/engineering level graphics card upwards of $1000.

It really just pisses me off.

q6600 @ 3.4ghz
Abit p35 Pro
4GB ocz plat rev 2 @ 934mhz 5-5-5-15
Evga 8800GTS OC'D latest nvidia stable release
vista x64
corsair 620HX
raptor 74GB 10k RPM (where crysis is installed)
etc

I've got a 24in screen, but heh yeah sure I'm gonna be able to play this game @ native res (although all the latest biggest games, I can play @ max graphics native res... smooth as butter). 1680x1050, high settings, like 10-15 fps direct x 10

1280x720p very high, 20fps or so.

@ 1680 high, it looks slighty worse, imo, than cod4 does @ native res max everything. One problem, COD4 @ those settings runs like a dream.

People tell me "oh there is a lot going on in crysis than you can see thats why". Uh huh, sure. I'll just continue like everyone else to just assume, since it's capable of impressive visuals @ 1-2 fps on a standard top of the line gaming PC right now, that that signifies they coded it perfectly.

GAH! I'm sorry I'm just so frustrated with Crytek. It just seems to arrogant to do this to us gamers :p
Click to expand...

They made a game that will scale on current and future PC hardware to ensure their game will last. (directly from a podcast with the game director/ceo) They want crysis to be a "classic" someday and that's just what they're setting it up to be.

Just because you can't have liquid framerates on your current setup doesn't mean they did anything wrong with making the game. The game is going to look completely different in about 2 years when they release patches increasing texture resolutions, better shaders, etc.. etc...

I play this on a 37" at 1920x1080 all high settings, I can't complain about the frame rates. Then again I can boot up COD4 at the highest settings and same resolution and it runs much "faster" but is definitely lacking a lot of features that are exclusive to the cryengine2.

And remember, ignorance is a lack of knowledge and/or willingness to learn.

2c

edit: oh, and don't run it in DX10 for god sake, save yourself the 25%~ performance, please. (I play on XP)
 
Hamidxa said:
By the way, so much for your impetuous denunciation.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1211/2

crysisspd_g_02.gif


So bullshit yourself.

You read that? On high settings, at 1680x1050 (which is just a hair off from 1600x1200) they are getting 36 FPS average (on an 8800GT) on the first level, which is indicative of the game's overall performance.

Now have the decency and the humility to kindly apologize. :eek:
Click to expand...

I don't know how their results are so good.
 
Just from my experience...
I run 1680x1050 with all settings on high (DX9) and my average framerate is in the lower 30s. Of course it drops in some areas, but beginning to (nearly) the end it is completely playable and quite sufficient.

Rig is a Q6600 @ 3.4GHz, 4GB XMS Corsair, BFG 8800GT OC all on a Gigabyte DS3R (P35).

My friends with similar setups get similar performance when using the same settings.
 
Gabe3 said:
Performance is wide spread, theres people with a GTX and a quadcore that cant run high settings without dipping below 30, where other similar systems run it fine. This game is way to unstable.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, I know my system, and I know my results, very well.

And yet, many uninformed bigots just can't help themselves. They feel compelled to come out with such hubris and vitriol, almost foaming at the mouth at the thought of someone getting great performance. So much so, that they often want to call people such as myself liars, "Crysis fanboys", or just about anything derogatory you can think of to discredit those of us who actually profess to get very respectable and smooth results in this game.

Once more, they need to just calm the hell down, and at least do a little bit of research before they are so quick to pass judgment.

I disproved him with a well-established review site's article on a system very similarly equipped as mine (less so in fact in that scenario, I have more RAM, i have a higher clocked quad-core, and my GPU is slightly clocked higher than the 8800GT they used as well), but nevertheless their experience with the game mimics mine.

Gabe3 said:
I don't know how their results are so good.
Click to expand...

I average 30+ FPS during actual gameplay as well.
I've benched many a level using both FRAPS and the in-game performance analyzer.

Allow me to repost the previous chart which was removed perhaps due to hosting reasons:

crysisspd_g_02.gif

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1211/2
 
FrozenLiquidity said:
Just from my experience...
I run 1680x1050 with all settings on high (DX9) and my average framerate is in the lower 30s. Of course it drops in some areas, but beginning to (nearly) the end it is completely playable and quite sufficient.

Rig is a Q6600 @ 3.4GHz, 4GB XMS Corsair, BFG 8800GT OC all on a Gigabyte DS3R (P35).

My friends with similar setups get similar performance when using the same settings.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!

Too many "haters" (as much as I loathe trying to use such sophomoric terms) and idiots running around here crying out "nuh uhz, thatz TEH Impossables!, no ways, u r teh LyAR!"

It grows real old, real fast, and yet it's always the misinformed few who are sadly the most vocal.

An 8800GT, 4GB of RAM, and a Quad Core, with settings either all or mostly on HIGH, and with a res of 1600x1200 or thereabouts, will prove to provide a very smooth experience in this game from beginning to end.
 
Too many "haters" (as much as I loathe trying to use such sophomoric terms) and idiots running around here crying out "nuh uhz, thatz TEH Impossables!, no ways, u r teh LyAR!"
Click to expand...

You are right on the money. Its become the norm on message boards and in any game. I think they just do it because it makes them feel special inside as pathetic as it sounds but being negative gives them attention they crave. I blame it on lack of social contact in real life or emo.
 
8800 GTS 640MB from eVGA, superclocked edition, runs at 576 MHz core, if I remember right. On 1680x1050, maybe 2x AA, medium/high settings I hung around 20 FPS average.

Q6600, 4 GB DDR2 4-4-4-12 RAM.


Is it worth it for me to try to sell my GTS online and grab a GT? HardOCP confirms the GT can handle a higher res than the GTS can, with the same settings.
 
Hamidxa said:
Be that as it may, I know my system, and I know my results, very well.
Click to expand...


I was not questioning your results. I was just saying the game feels like its a hit or miss performance wise for systems running almost the same specs.

Its probably my CPU limiting me. But I'm not going to upgrade to play crysis because every other game I can run on the highest settings with some form of filtering and have no problems running in 1680x1050. Once games like crysis become the norm, I will have a reason to upgrade. Maybe 2nd or 3rd quarter next year?
 
This next gen Crysis game is such crap, I can't run at 1680x1050 with everything maxed on my $240 MSRP graphics card. How dare Crytek not make a game with the best graphics ever seen in a video game to run at 150fps???:rolleyes:
 
Gabe3 said:
I was not questioning your results. I was just saying the game feels like its a hit or miss performance wise for systems running almost the same specs.

Its probably my CPU limiting me. But I'm not going to upgrade to play crysis because every other game I can run on the highest settings with some form of filtering and have no problems running in 1680x1050. Once games like crysis become the norm, I will have a reason to upgrade. Maybe 2nd or 3rd quarter next year?
Click to expand...

I barly get 30fps on my GTX, maybe I will format tonight to see if that makes any difference.
 
Gabe3 said:
I was not questioning your results. I was just saying the game feels like its a hit or miss performance wise for systems running almost the same specs.

Its probably my CPU limiting me. But I'm not going to upgrade to play crysis because every other game I can run on the highest settings with some form of filtering and have no problems running in 1680x1050. Once games like crysis become the norm, I will have a reason to upgrade. Maybe 2nd or 3rd quarter next year?
Click to expand...

Maybe Cvat Yerli wasn't kidding about the CPU. I can't* get good frames either.
 
aFive said:
I barly get 30fps on my GTX, maybe I will format tonight to see if that makes any difference.
Click to expand...

Theres an example of what I'm talking about, look at his system.

BTW what res and settings are you using?
 
Hamidxa - can you comment on whether it is worth it to grab a GT, sell a GTS 640 MB superclocked? How is the GT for heat and power consumption? If I end up paying an extra 10-20 USD after I've sold my GTS off and end up with lower power consumption, then I'd go for it, but I'd like your thoughts.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
Maybe Cvat Yerli wasn't kidding about the CPU. I get good frames either.
Click to expand...

He wasn't kidding indeed, he was lying. There are no tangible performance gains from the CPU unless you're running at low and 800x600.


rampantandroid said:
Hamidxa - can you comment on whether it is worth it to grab a GT, sell a GTS 640 MB superclocked? How is the GT for heat and power consumption? If I end up paying an extra 10-20 USD after I've sold my GTS off and end up with lower power consumption, then I'd go for it, but I'd like your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Read up on it. It runs cooler and has less power draw. Its stock heatsink makes it run hotter than a GTS, but with a similar heatsinks the GT would be considerably cooler than a GTS
 
Please stop using that marketing excuse 'this game will scale well in the future' bullshit.

They released the game now. We are playing the game now.

If it was meant for a system next year or two years from now, then why did they release it now?

Why not keep working on the game to make it even better?

Everytime I hear that PR Hype I can smell the bullshit wading through the monitor screen.

I bet next year at this time (when Crysis is playable) there will be a few more games that look just as good, if not better than Crysis.

Then what will people say? It looked great at release even though no one could play it at those 'uber' settings? It was the first to look that good? So what, if less than 1% of gamers can play it at those settings?
 
Dethred said:
He wasn't kidding indeed, he was lying. There are no tangible performance gains from the CPU unless you're running at low and 800x600.
Click to expand...

Really? Because with my 8800GT OC on medium + a few high settings at 1280x1024 I'm lucky to get 20fps on XP.
 
System in sig.
1360x768 everything high.

Running GPU benchmark 1
Results will depend on current system settings
Press any key to continue . . .
Running...
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 51.49s, Average FPS: 38.84
Min FPS: 22.85 at frame 136, Max FPS: 53.71 at frame 1014
Average Tri/Sec: -33412070, Tri/Frame: -860147
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.07
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 44.41s, Average FPS: 45.04
Min FPS: 22.85 at frame 136, Max FPS: 55.42 at frame 86
Average Tri/Sec: -38210332, Tri/Frame: -848386
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.08
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 44.54s, Average FPS: 44.91
Min FPS: 22.85 at frame 136, Max FPS: 55.42 at frame 86
Average Tri/Sec: -38118300, Tri/Frame: -848814
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.08
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 44.54s, Average FPS: 44.90
Min FPS: 22.85 at frame 136, Max FPS: 55.49 at frame 128
Average Tri/Sec: -38147112, Tri/Frame: -849578
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.08
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================
Press any key to continue . . .
Click to expand...

Yawn....
 
Dethred said:
He wasn't kidding indeed, he was lying. There are no tangible performance gains from the CPU unless you're running at low and 800x600.
Click to expand...

are you saying my CPU is not the problem because I think your wrong.
 
Hamidxa said:
EXACTLY!

Too many "haters" (as much as I loathe trying to use such sophomoric terms) and idiots running around here crying out "nuh uhz, thatz TEH Impossables!, no ways, u r teh LyAR!"

It grows real old, real fast, and yet it's always the misinformed few who are sadly the most vocal.

An 8800GT, 4GB of RAM, and a Quad Core, with settings either all or mostly on HIGH, and with a res of 1600x1200 or thereabouts, will prove to provide a very smooth experience in this game from beginning to end.
Click to expand...

Shens.

8800GT, 4gb ram, Brisbane 5000+ dual core, and 1600x1200, and It's FAR from very smooth with everything on high. I'm currently working things down to medium (shadows are there, post processing is next), no AA, no AF... I'm in the low 20's in many places, mid 30's for the best parts. I'm not expecting 60fps, but a steady 30 would be nice.

Your massively overclocked system might be smooth at that, but stock speeds, no where close.
 
rampantandroid said:
Hamidxa - can you comment on whether it is worth it to grab a GT, sell a GTS 640 MB superclocked? How is the GT for heat and power consumption? If I end up paying an extra 10-20 USD after I've sold my GTS off and end up with lower power consumption, then I'd go for it, but I'd like your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late response, I was at work/school all day, ughh.

I had a chance to test Crysis on both a 320MB GTS overclocked as well as a 640MB card, both Foxconn's.

With either of those cards in my system, I could not run 1600x1200 at the settings I currently enjoy (High with the exception of 2 settings, edgeAA=2x, 16xAF, sunshafts) without lots of hiccups and jerky gameplay.

It got to the point, that I was running just about everything but water and shaders at medium (water and shaders were set to high).
Even then, it would not perform as well as my current 8800GT Superclocked does.

What was surprising was the fact that both GTS cards (be it the 320MB or the 640MB) performed almost identically in this game. The extra RAM only made a difference if I switched textures to HIGH, but even then it wasn't much to write home about.

The 8800GT on the other hand provided me approximately a 33% boost in performance, and more importantly, my Min FPS was no longer single digits or in the low teens, but rather in the low 20's, and rarely did it ever get that low (very rarely).

Translation = smoother experience from beginning to end on HIGH settings with minimal slow-downs, rather than a jerky experience with mostly medium (some high) settings.

If I were you, now would be as good a time as any to invest in a GT Superclocked or a similar variant. I got mine for a fairly cheap price ($279), sold off my 320MB GTS for $220 (Ebay), and for the extra $60, not only has Crysis shown a tremendous gain, so too have all of my games, across the board. And to really put things into perspective, GT's cost about half the price of a GTX/Ultra, yet they can hold their own against either of those in many a benchmark.

Edit:
A quick google search netted the following benchmarks (i know they aren't on High settings, medium rather) but they definitely illustrate the difference between an 8800GT and an 8800GTS:
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Nvidia_GeForce_8800_GT_Review/5369-7.html
crysis1920yt4.jpg
 
Very impressive, thanks for the confirmation. I'm waiting on my 8800GT to get here on monday. What doesn't make sense is that it beats a GTX in that test, doesn't sound right
 
Oh, let me also add this about the 8800GT (Superclock/KO/SSC)

They are single slot for one thing.
They do draw less power than GTS/GTX/Ultra's.

However, there is one issue that seems to be prevalent with respect to the GTs.

If you don't change the default/atuo fan speed for gaming, then expect crashes/lockups/freezing/etc.

The default/automatic fan speed for them is set at 29%.
Now, Im not sure if this is a driver issue or a hardware bug, but the fan doesn't seem to speed up during gameplay unless you do a bit of tweaking or you could always Directly set the fan speed yourself.

I just use NTune and set the fan speed to 60% (noise is not really noticable with speakers on during a game), and that way I havent experienced any freezes, lockups, or anything of that nature ever since.

Hope my posts have helped to shed some light on the GT for ya. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top