Crysis...what happened?

K

Katotonic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
320
I remember firing up Far Cry on a 9800pro/ 512mb Sys RAM/ P4 and running at high settings, at the time it was the best looking game out there and I was getting great frame rates.

Just tried Crysis on a 8800GT/ 2GB PC 5300/ P4HT @ 3.6 on medium settings (some low), going through tweak guides for a couple of hours and using the new beta drivers. Long story short I was averaging probably 25fps or less at the med-low settings @ 1280x1024.

I realize my CPU is weak, but I put the settings that are CPU intensive to low and followed tweak guides that helped compensate for low CPU power. I wasn't expecting much, but I was expecting something, at least it should be playable.

To make matters worse I just finished COD4, which I ran maxed out with like 60fps average, and at high settings it looked like 20 times better than Crysis at medium settings, without question. More than double the FPS, better graphics and no tweaking or beta drivers......not to mention I found the game rather dull compared to COD4 (only played the first level, but still, I was bored), am I the only one?

I don't dislike the game itself, and I loved Far Cry, really not trying to piss on this game but I found myself shaking my head and then un-installing it. I will give it another go on my next upgrade, but I'm a little mystified. From what I understand DX10 is literally unplayable at high setting and very high is only being fully enjoyed by those playing in the future.

I also realized there is a different theme, but it felt like Far Cry 2 more than a new game and I really didn't care for the way the weapons handled. Feel the game deserved an 8 but not the 10 it has been receiving. Thoughts?
 
Oh oh... you better be prepared for flames...

I would agree with almost everything you've said. However, nobody said it would be playable at high to very high settings with any current hardware.

Oh and I'll give you the same answer I got when I thought it felt like I was playing Farcry again... Its called CRYsis... made by CRYtek, did you really think it would anything different than FarCRY ?? rofl.. yah I know, I guess I should have expected to buy Farcry again.. How CRAZY of me to think it might have some major differences!! :p
 
it must be your cpu. those with a good dual core cpu and 8800gt can easy average 40-45fps on high settings at 1280x1024.
 
Pentium 4 sucks BALLZ, there's your problem. My c2d @ 3.2GHz and a GF 8800 GTS 640 (650/1600/1000) runs this game everything on high at about 35-40 fps @ 1280 x 1024.
 
ojax said:
Oh oh... you better be prepared for flames...

I would agree with almost everything you've said. However, nobody said it would be playable at high to very high settings with any current hardware.

Oh and I'll give you the same answer I got when I thought it felt like I was playing Farcry again... Its called CRYsis... made by CRYtek, did you really think it would anything different than FarCRY ?? rofl.. yah I know, I guess I should have expected to buy Farcry again.. How CRAZY of me to think it might have some major differences!! :p
Click to expand...

Didn't you notice all the qualifiers I put on that post...LoL...I was putting on my flame suit as I was writing it, almost felt like I wasn't entitled to my own opinion as I was thinking about it.

To be fair, this isn't an "I hate the King" thread, just an some honest insight I thought I would float and see what happened, glad I got your post first TBH.
 
cannondale06 said:
it must be your cpu. those with a good dual core cpu and 8800gt can easy average 40-45fps on high settings at 1280x1024.
Click to expand...

I heard people were struggling even with C2D's in the lower range (1.8 - 2.4) but that's good to know.

To the other guy: it most certainly does suck balls, which I noted, I also noted the rest of my system and the low settings at a lower resolution. I would expect as games become less CPU dependent that this game would at least throw me a bone since COD4 ran like butter.

I'm signing off for the night, look forward to a lot of reading tomorrow evening, probably gonna read like a book.
 
With the system in my sig I can average approx. 22 FPS at 1280*960 with a mix of High and Very High settings, sure I get framedrops once in a while but the game looks fantastic and is very playable so I can live with that :)
 
ojax said:
However, nobody said it would be playable at high to very high settings with any current hardware.
Click to expand...

I remember almost a year ago a Crytek developer said he was getting playable frames with the latest build at 1024x768 high settings on a P4 7800GT system and stressed the game was yet to be optimized ! The game is a slideshow on that old of computer with anything but low settings. :rolleyes:
 
Stereophile said:
I remember almost a year ago a Crytek developer said he was getting playable frames with the latest build at 1024x768 high settings on a P4 7800GT system and stressed the game was yet to be optimized ! The game is a slideshow on that old of computer with anything but low settings. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
the P4 must really kill it. I get 31.25 fps in the gpu benchmark with AMD 5000+ X2 and overclocked 8600gt at 1024x768 and all medium in DX9.
 
You used a P4 for a game that came out 3.5 years ago, and now you're using a P4 for a game that just came out?

I think the answer to your question is obvious.
 
1440x900 2xAA everything on high dips down to 27fps, avg is 40fps , system in my sig.
 
A ton of folks will tell you that the game runs great on their rigs, I call it bullshit. Seen it run on simular setup as mine way worse. I average FPS in the 30's with everything on high @ 1680x1050, I find it unplayable for me. I completely agree with you, I think that Crysis is utter shit. Maxed out, COD4 looks way better than the game, campaign is funner too. I know that most will not agree, but I do believe that it is EA's fault for pushing out an unpolished game that should have been optimized long ass time ago. It looks nothing like the E3 videos I saw a year ago, NOTHING. With no AA it barely looks good, wtih AA on, looks pretty good, but nothing to drool over, like Far Cry was for me.
 
That P4 is, what, 4 years old?

What was a 4 year old CPU when Far Cry came out? Probably not the P4 that you ran back then.
 
With my rig (in sig) I run the game at 1680x1050 with all settings on high except for shaders and shadows on low I average 20-30 fps, which is very playable in crysis.
 
at the time the 9800pro was by far the fastest card available, that was a pretty high end system for it's time, for todays standards you're running a mid range card with a single core CPU, it's a fairly average system and so expect average graphics.

Crysis looks awesome for me in DX9 with mostly high settings in 1920x1200
 
ojax said:
..... However, nobody said it would be playable at high to very high settings with any current hardware.
Click to expand...


I remember multiple events where Devs said the game was running on a single 7800GTX. E3 06 for one.
 
strend said:
I remember multiple events where Devs said the game was running on a single 7800GTX. E3 06 for one.
Click to expand...

Pre-rendered game video. A 8800 GTX can't run the game in real time as well as the demo videos looked.
 
BladeVenom said:
You used a P4 for a game that came out 3.5 years ago, and now you're using a P4 for a game that just came out?

I think the answer to your question is obvious.
Click to expand...

That much is actually quite obvious, I have stated it in explicit terms several times and have a feeling I will be stating several more before this is over, and the P4 I used back then was also 600mhz slower, not that it matters too much and I'm waiting for Penryn to be my next upgrade when your processor will be...oh so obsolete bro! holy shit yo! OMFG!

The POINT (which seems to be lost on a couple now) is that Crysis was not playable for me even at lower settings at a lower resolution, which is absurd when you consider that COD4 ran at 60fps maxed out at the same resolution and looked 20 times better at the respective settings, it wasn't even close so I'm not arguing opinion here, it's an objective comparative analysis that is painfully obvious to the naked eye. I'm sure by itself Crysis is feat of technology, but relative to other games in leaves much to be desired.
 
Katotonic said:
That much is actually quite obvious, I have stated it in explicit terms several times and have a feeling I will be stating several more before this is over, and the P4 I used back then was also 600mhz slower, not that it matters too much and I'm waiting for Penryn to be my next upgrade when your processor will be...oh so obsolete bro! holy shit yo! OMFG!

The POINT (which seems to be lost on a couple now) is that Crysis was not playable for me even at lower settings at a lower resolution, which is absurd when you consider that COD4 ran at 60fps maxed out at the same resolution and looked 20 times better at the respective settings, it wasn't even close so I'm not arguing opinion here, it's an objective comparative analysis. I'm sure by itself Crysis is feat of technology, but relative to other games in leaves much to be desired.
Click to expand...
Crysis is much more graphically intensive than COD4.

What's absurd is that you're comparing the performance of a new game on a then-high-end system to the performance of a new game on a fairly old system and drawing any sort of conclusion whatsoever.

Crysis and COD4 are very different games with very different graphics running on totally different engines. There are no comparisons to be drawn between their performance on identical hardware.

Upgrade your system and quit bitching.
 
Katotonic said:
I heard people were struggling even with C2D's in the lower range (1.8 - 2.4) but that's good to know.

To the other guy: it most certainly does suck balls, which I noted, I also noted the rest of my system and the low settings at a lower resolution. I would expect as games become less CPU dependent that this game would at least throw me a bone since COD4 ran like butter.
Click to expand...

games are NOT becoming less CPU depantant, but more, with multiple cores, more will get offload to your CPU.


COD4 is based of the old quake 3 engine... nothing intensive there. Just because a game is new, doesnt mean it uses the latest and greatest high end engine.
 
kumquat said:
Crysis is much more graphically intensive than COD4.

What's absurd is that you're comparing the performance of a new game on a then-high-end system to the performance of a new game on a fairly old system and drawing any sort of conclusion whatsoever.

Crysis and COD4 are very different games with very different graphics running on totally different engines. There are no comparisons to be drawn between their performance on identical hardware.

Upgrade your system and quit bitching.
Click to expand...


Fairly old in the respect of one component, and you nailed it right on the head, they are very different engines, hence the performance of the respective games and the point I'm driving home. You just paralleled my argument and highlighted a point which is now completely redundant, as it was one of the first things I mentioned and has been said already many times, weak cpu.

As far as bitching, I made it quite clear from the beginning that it was not my intention to do so, just making an analysis, I'm not bitching at all. I also made it quite clear that I'm upgrading to Penryn in a couple of months and have put the game on the shelf until then. Reading = Your Friend.

At this point I going to have to ask that people read through my first post before responding, as repeatedly stating was has already been clarified and covered is something I'm not keen on doing.

Mr. Guvenrment, that much I knew, but new tech doesn't = better product. Again, what is evident to the naked eye is what matters in the end, people can go on and on about Crysis and what an accomplishment it is but how does it play, how does it look, how enjoyable is it?

I want to make it clear again that I don't hate this game, I like it, just making some observations and hoping to gain some constructive insight.
 
SuperKeijo said:
Pentium 4 sucks BALLZ, there's your problem. My c2d @ 3.2GHz and a GF 8800 GTS 640 (650/1600/1000) runs this game everything on high at about 35-40 fps @ 1280 x 1024.
Click to expand...

Same here. I'm running an 8800GT, X2 6000+, and 2 gigs of ram. I've found in Crysis it's better to run a lower resolution (in my case 1280x1024 instead of trying to run my 24" monitors native 1920x1200) and crank everything up to max except for AA. Looks much better than trying to run 1920x1200 and everything on low.

The P4's really don't cut it for gaming - even when new. Remember how the Athlon 64's ate it's lunch in gaming?
 
Yeah running a p4 today and expecting any sort of performance is just silly, I personally am surprised that it wasn't a 24/7 slide show not matter what settings it was on.
 
Katotonic said:
The POINT (which seems to be lost on a couple now) is that Crysis was not playable for me even at lower settings at a lower resolution,
Click to expand...

Lowering graphics settings doesn't really affect how much CPU power is needed. Your CPU is still coming up short for the engine's physics and AI. Turning the graphics down really only makes a noticeable difference when your graphics card is the bottleneck.
 
BladeVenom said:
Lowering graphics settings doesn't really affect how much CPU power is needed. Your CPU is still coming up short for the engine's physics and AI. Turning the graphics down really only makes a noticeable difference when your graphics card is the bottleneck.
Click to expand...

Interesting, what about physics settings and shadows settings, thought those were related. One other that slips my mind as well, but in general, I know what you're saying.
 
Your system is the problem really, I mean, come on, let's be realistic, a P4.

Im averaging 30+ FPS at 1600x1200 on mostly HIGH settings (and even a few DX10 effects enabled for DX9).

Framerates throughout 90% of the game will usually be in the 24-36 FPS range.

Dipping below and rising above that range the remaining 10% of the time I would say, and not by much, only a handful at that in either direction.
 
Katotonic said:
Interesting, what about physics settings and shadows settings, thought those were related. One other that slips my mind as well, but in general, I know what you're saying.
Click to expand...

You're right some of that uses some CPU power, but I don't think anything you can shut off will make a big difference.
 
Katotonic said:
I remember firing up Far Cry on a 9800pro/ 512mb Sys RAM/ P4 and running at high settings, at the time it was the best looking game out there and I was getting great frame rates.

Just tried Crysis on a 8800GT/ 2GB PC 5300/ P4HT @ 3.6 on medium settings (some low), going through tweak guides for a couple of hours and using the new beta drivers. Long story short I was averaging probably 25fps or less at the med-low settings @ 1280x1024.

I realize my CPU is weak, but I put the settings that are CPU intensive to low and followed tweak guides that helped compensate for low CPU power. I wasn't expecting much, but I was expecting something, at least it should be playable.

To make matters worse I just finished COD4, which I ran maxed out with like 60fps average, and at high settings it looked like 20 times better than Crysis at medium settings, without question. More than double the FPS, better graphics and no tweaking or beta drivers......not to mention I found the game rather dull compared to COD4 (only played the first level, but still, I was bored), am I the only one?

I don't dislike the game itself, and I loved Far Cry, really not trying to piss on this game but I found myself shaking my head and then un-installing it. I will give it another go on my next upgrade, but I'm a little mystified. From what I understand DX10 is literally unplayable at high setting and very high is only being fully enjoyed by those playing in the future.

I also realized there is a different theme, but it felt like Far Cry 2 more than a new game and I really didn't care for the way the weapons handled. Feel the game deserved an 8 but not the 10 it has been receiving. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

You system is bottlenecking your card I know this because I have a weaker card than yours 8800gts 320 and get around the same 25-30fps medium. BUT just a tad bit of a bottleneck. Getting better memory and a better CPU would give you some marginal gains. I believe this has been discussed quite a bit already on this forum and people just aren't gonna be satisfied completely until 9800 comes out (pure speculation of course)
 
Just throwing this out there, but I wonder how much the difficulty setting affects CPU usage. The AI can 'see' farther at harder difficulty settings and will react. The difference between easy and hard settings is big (I haven't tried Delta yet) but I wonder how much it really matters. Probably not much since the basic behavior of the game shouldn't change, just the reactions. They can probably see you on easy/normal but they simply don't react because you're out of range.

Then again it seems like the AI behaves a little smarter at hard than it did at normal. Dunno.. Like I said, just throwing it out.
 
eggrock said:
Just throwing this out there, but I wonder how much the difficulty setting affects CPU usage. The AI can 'see' farther at harder difficulty settings and will react. The difference between easy and hard settings is big (I haven't tried Delta yet) but I wonder how much it really matters. Probably not much since the basic behavior of the game shouldn't change, just the reactions. They can probably see you on easy/normal but they simply don't react because you're out of range.

Then again it seems like the AI behaves a little smarter at hard than it did at normal. Dunno.. Like I said, just throwing it out.
Click to expand...

That was the other element I was thinking of, AI, I had it set to normal I believe but I can't remember. AI is usually associated with the CPU so that might be something for me to consider as well.

Kadozer - I was getting around 25fps average, but with that average you have to expect dips into down to 20 and even lower during firefights or massive environments, that is what made it unplayable for me. If it was a constant 25 - 30fps I could live with it.
 
It seems to be very fashionable to bash Crysis atm, and especially to use CoD4 as an example of a game that runs faster and looks better. But it's really the design of CoD4 that makes it look good, it's not in the same league as Crysis in terms of visual complexity and that's why there's a performance difference. Compare the sections of both games that are set inside ships (the only bits I can think of that are really comparable), there's a world of difference in detail and lighting.
This isn't fanboy-ism, I preferred the gameplay of CoD too, especially when the story really kicked in, but just because I enjoyed it more and it ran faster doesn't mean I would claim CoD could ever compete with Crysis visually. There were just too many jaw-on-the-floor "wow" graphical moments in Crysis, whereas CoD was more about the fun set-piece shoot-outs and compelling story (not to mention that odd rim-lighting they put on everything).
 
Litfod said:
It seems to be very fashionable to bash Crysis atm, and especially to use CoD4 as an example of a game that runs faster and looks better. But it's really the design of CoD4 that makes it look good, it's not in the same league as Crysis in terms of visual complexity and that's why there's a performance difference. Compare the sections of both games that are set inside ships (the only bits I can think of that are really comparable), there's a world of difference in detail and lighting.
This isn't fanboy-ism, I preferred the gameplay of CoD too, especially when the story really kicked in, but just because I enjoyed it more and it ran faster doesn't mean I would claim CoD could ever compete with Crysis visually. There were just too many jaw-on-the-floor "wow" graphical moments in Crysis, whereas CoD was more about the fun set-piece shoot-outs and compelling story (not to mention that odd rim-lighting they put on everything).
Click to expand...

Exactly.

CoD4 is not even in the same league as Crysis in graphics, nothing is.
They are worlds apart.

Anyone who says otherwise is basically bitter because they can't run it at High settings with respectable performance.

Of course if you play it on Low/Medium and at like 1280 res, then you could start making some comparisons.

But once Crysis is cranked to High, all comparisons come to an immediate end, bar none.
 
I'm guessing that crysis being huge open environments most of the time and COD4 being in a linear pathway where you can't really do whatever you want is going to make it easier to run
 
You need to upgrade you CPU to an Core 2 Duo dude, that P4 is bottlenecking your card big time.
 
Hamidxa said:
Exactly.

CoD4 is not even in the same league as Crysis in graphics, nothing is.
They are worlds apart.

Anyone who says otherwise is basically bitter because they can't run it at High settings with respectable performance.

Of course if you play it on Low/Medium and at like 1280 res, then you could start making some comparisons.

But once Crysis is cranked to High, all comparisons come to an immediate end, bar none.
Click to expand...
Give me a fun game to play over best graphics ever anyday.
Crysis is "Open" for the first few levels. once you meet the Aliens is pretty much linear and scripted
 
sl3000gt94 said:
Give me a fun game to play over best graphics ever anyday.
Crysis is "Open" for the first few levels. once you meet the Aliens is pretty much linear and scripted
Click to expand...

Fun is subjective, and I for one had a LOT more fun with Crysis than I did with CoD4.
Crysis is what *YOU* make of it.
CoD4 is what the devs make you do.

I also really don't care for the tiny levels, the cramped hallways, the respawning enemies, the dumb as a brick friendly AI, as well as regular AI, the rails that you are forced on, etc. in CoD4.

Give me a FUN and dynamic sandox-type game over a scripted and static shooter any day of the week.


Edit:
Oh, and even on the alien levels, you are not forced to play the game a certain way (for the *most part*).
For example, take the mission down the mountain when you ride shotgun in the jeep.
I jumped out of the jeep about 1/8 mile down the road, hitched a ride down the side of the mountain using a friggin TORNADO! :p
Then happened to find a nice camping spot to pull out the gauss, RL, and sniper rifle from a mile a way on the baddies.

I was never forced to play it just one way.
Also, even on the ice level, you dont have to fight most of the aliens, just stealth by them, take the high roads.
Admittedly, once you meet prophet, you do have to fight a few baddies, but thats just because you have to escort him.
 
Hamidxa said:
Fun is subjective, and I for one had a LOT more fun with Crysis than I did with CoD4.
Crysis is what *YOU* make of it.
CoD4 is what the devs make you do.

I also really don't care for the tiny levels, the cramped hallways, the respawning enemies, the dumb as a brick friendly AI, as well as regular AI, the rails that you are forced on, etc. in CoD4.

Give me a FUN and dynamic sandox-type game over a scripted and static shooter any day of the week.
Click to expand...

So i guess 2nd half of crysis disappointed to you huh. Since you are basically forced on their path to take. I mean its far from being "Open"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top