How well does the Crysis demo run on your system?

dave343

dave343

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Messages
1,869
I'm trying to figure out what settings the Crysis demo will be playable at on my system. I run all my games at 1024x768 so keep that in mind.

Athlon X2 4600+
2GB DDR2 667
Geforce 7950GT 512MB DDR3
X-Fi Creative sound
 
Maybe get around 20 FPS on my system on medium settings (1680x1050). It's not very enjoyable since it's so choppy and I'd rather not have to lower the res. Oh well. Time for a new video card I guess.

C2D e4300 @ 2.8Ghz
4GB DDR2 800
Radeon X1900xtx 512MB
Vista x64
 
specs in sig.

running at 1024x768 everything on medium, runs fine for me so far.... And looks kick ass.
 
With all settings to high/sound very high/and three to medium @ 1680x1050 I am able to get a steady 27-33 fps. Vista 32bit with beta drivers.
 
I ran the demo at 1280x1024 on medium on the machine in my signature and it runs pretty good. I am not sure how to check frame rate in Vista though. Will fraps work in Vista??? Thanks in advance.
 
With everything @ Medium (except Sound, which is on High), the game chugs in the 20's.
If I turn the Shadows down to Low, it drastically improves the performance to a definitely manageable 30ish FPS.

Still... I need a new processor, and I plan on getting an 8800GT soon.
 
1920x1200
All settings maxed

I get about 2 fps and with loads of polygonal breakups and missing textures. Water effects look like the liquid effect used on the Terminator 2 bad guy. When there are more than two enemies on the screen my computer freezes.

I refuse to lower my settings.
 
I oc'd the rig in my sig to 3.2 on the processor, and video card to 600/1600 on medium 1280x1024 medium settings. Shadows low, and water low. I manage anywhere from 12.5 to 45 FPS
 
1,280x800, all settings on 'High'.

Athlon 64 X2 @ 2.5GHz
2GB memory
Radeon X1950XTX

Barely playable; managed to complete the demo using these settings. Looks awesome, though!
 
Optimal settings put it on high. running at 1024x768 with AAx4 runs ...ok. When ever I pan around really fast or use the speed on the suit it kind of lags the sound and graphics for a second or two. Haven't ran fraps yet. See sig
 
I play at 1280x1024, all settings medium except for shadows, which is set to low. Specs in sig. I have my 7900GS OC'd to 585/1600. About 20 to 30FPS. Works fine for me. And yes, it still looks awesome on medium.
 
i get about 35-40fps @ 1920x1080 all settings at medium
opteron 175
2gb PC4400 (4 sticks so its all at 333mhz damn u amd)
evga 8800gtx
game run off 74gb raptor
oops forgot to say running 64bit DX10 version in vista ultimate x64
 
Posted this in the other thread:

Anyway I've been playing it on Vista

Played through it twice, first time w/o fraps installed as Crysis was one of the first things I installed and just wanted to play.

Ran it @ 1280x1024 with everything on High. Ran very smoothly and never noticed any stuttering except in the cutscenes where there was some tearing.

Anyway, ran it again with fraps installed and did a very long run through of the level.

Time: 76.58minutes
Min: 0
Avg: 31.042
Max: 61

Think the min was from loading, as I never stopped the benchmark even though I died (wanted to Max str + punch a bunch of guys and lost...badly :p)

Overall I'd say the game ran very smoothly though, w/o fraps I wouldn't think that it was running that low, and my god is the game beautiful.

Anyway, thats with my 8800gts 640mb card @ 621/1458/900

Also my core temp was ~60c max, so not sure why people are getting such high temps.
 
Everything on high besides post effects and physics and I get very playable framerates @ 1600x1200 with 2x AA..
 
I'm playing medium settings @ 1920 X 1080 with no hiccups. I haven't explored any of the other settings so the real performance butter spot is still a mystery on my machine, but like I said the default medium settings play perfect.
 
I played all low at 1280x768 and it is very playable considering my PC is 5 yrs old. Looks just slightly better than Far Cry. Someday I'll build a new PC.
 
Also played with all @ high @ 1600x1200, avg 23.7. Would want to turn down some settings to make it a bit smoother.
 
i play it with everything on very high except shader quality its on high and no AA at 1680x1050 and i get around 20-30 fps. see sig.

and man everyone keeps complaining about the low fps but hell at 25 fps its very playable unlike some games at 25 it starts to be a slide show lol. I'm kinda impressed by that, even at 20 its not choppy it only gets choppy when it gets into the 15-17 range
 
and man everyone keeps complaining about the low fps but hell at 25 fps its very playable unlike some games at 25 it starts to be a slide show lol. I'm kinda impressed by that, even at 20 its not choppy it only gets choppy when it gets into the 15-17 range
Click to expand...


That doesnt even make any sense. 25 FPS in Crysis is the same as 25 FPS in any other game. I think you may just be lowering your framerate standards to cope with the greatness of a new game. :D
 
PornoSatan said:
That doesn't even make any sense. 25 FPS in Crysis is the same as 25 FPS in any other game. I think you may just be lowering your framerate standards to cope with the greatness of a new game. :D
Click to expand...

nope, it actually isn't that bad. when it drops into the low 20's you can barely notice the frame loss. Of course 30+ is preferred... err well 60+
 
I have nearly the same video card as you. It doesn't run that well. I run 960x600 cause that's 16:10, medium for most settings, except a few things on high (sound/physics). It runs about 25-30 fps most of the time, except in firefights, it can get a little choppy sometimes.

The one thing you don't want to switch to low are shaders. That knocks the visual quality down to slightly better than far cry. There are no shadows being cast and it just loses all lighting realism. But it makes a huge difference in frame rates.

Too bad nvidia and ati don't want my money, I'm willing to shell out big bucks for a top end card but nothing new available.
 
Eiolon said:
1920x1200
All settings maxed

I get about 2 fps and with loads of polygonal breakups and missing textures. Water effects look like the liquid effect used on the Terminator 2 bad guy. When there are more than two enemies on the screen my computer freezes.

I refuse to lower my settings.
Click to expand...

Haha just wanted to say this made me LMFAO.

On a side note, I am running everything on medium except sound which is on very high & no AA, and I get 20 fps in the tough areas, but rest of the time it hangs around 35 fps. Any mention of AA and it go's to an unplayable 15fps. This is on an 8800GTX and a Q6600 @ 1920x1200.

I can't see how the game can be sold the way it is though. Not everyone is overclocking their PCs and buying the latest graphics card. When I used to buy games when I was younger, I'd just pick one up and expect to be able to play it - no thought about system requirements etc. At this rate people are going to be buying this game, and asking for a refund because it is stuttering.
 
Boozer said:
nope, it actually isn't that bad. when it drops into the low 20's you can barely notice the frame loss. Of course 30+ is preferred... err well 60+
Click to expand...

right thats what i was trying to say. I'm glad someone knows what I'm saying
 
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1235115

XP sp2

Opeteron 165 @ 2.45 / eVGA 8800GTX stock / forceware 169.01 / 2x1024 G.skill HZ
1680x1050 0xAA All settings @ high
crysis_sp_demo_gpu_benchmark_1680x1050.png



Opeteron 165 @ 2.45 / eVGA 8800GTX stock / forceware 169.01 / 2x1024 G.skill HZ
1920x1200 0xAA Texture/Shadows/PostProcessing @ medium / rest @ high
crysis_sp_demo_gpu_benchmark_1920x1200.png
 
I ran it at 1280*1024 at all Medium settings the first time through and got 30-70Fps.
Then I decided to try and push it a little higher and ran at the same res with everything set to high except Shadows, Physics, Post Processing and Particles which I set to medium, I got 30-50Fps with some 20ish FPS in cut scenes.
 
I ran it on medium at 1280x1024 and it ran great, high was pretty choppy, I just don't have enough video ram to run the game at full settings, but thats perfectly fine for me as it still looks better then anything I've played before, even on medium.
 
Sorta surprised it ran at all to be honest:

P4 Northwood (400 MHz Bus) 2.6 GHz
1 GB RAM
NVidia 6800 Ultra Video Card
Sound Blaster Audigy 2

Upgrading soon, but wanted to try it. Can run it 800 x 600 low, and it's quite playable...for a while (fifteen minutes maybe)...and then it starts to chop to the point of unplayability...once in a while a hang with an audio loop for like 10 or 15 seconds before it starts doing this. Saving, exiting to the main menu, and then reloading the save games seems to temporarily fix this (so I don't think it's a heat issue or anything), but duration of play gets slowly shorter before it starts happening. Thinking it's some sort of memory leak. Bringing down the console with a tilda (did it accidentally) shows LOTS of errors - dunno if that has anything to do with it.

But, slowly getting through the demo via this method and it's quite a lot of fun, even though I'm looking forward to seeing it on a better system. ^.^
 
My avrg fps is 43 at 1920x1200 in the gpu benchmark and I hit 160+ fps looking up at the sky. This is with a 6400 at 3 and a gtx at stock w/ 2 gbs and a raptor.

Settings all high except shadows, game effects on low. Perfectly playable even with no aa at this res the lack of aa is much less noticeable.

Oh btw 25 fps on this game is somehow playable. I barely notice it either. However, that only happens when I try to run it with aa.

The game is awesome, fun and innovative. I really appreciate what Crytec has done for us. They will optimize it and are consistent if you recall that Far Cry was exactly like this in that nothing could run it well until technology caught up.
 
I don't understand whats going on. My system runs it @ 2560x1600, everything on very high except shaders (medium) and shadows (low because I don't care). It's 100% playable and simply never chugs, even during explosions. My system is nothing special either. I don't get why everyone is complaining.

E6700ES @ 3.4ghz
8800gtx @ 650/1950
4GB ram
Raptor

Plenty of other people have my system, so why does it run so poorly on other's machines and so beautifully on mine?
 
computerpro3 said:
I don't understand whats going on. My system runs it @ 2560x1600, everything on very high except shaders (medium) and shadows (low because I don't care). It's 100% playable and simply never chugs, even during explosions. My system is nothing special either. I don't get why everyone is complaining.

E6700ES @ 3.4ghz
8800gtx @ 650/1950
4GB ram
Raptor

Plenty of other people have my system, so why does it run so poorly on other's machines and so beautifully on mine?
Click to expand...

How bout some benchmarks to back up your claims?
 
computerpro3 said:
I don't understand whats going on. My system runs it @ 2560x1600, everything on very high except shaders (medium) and shadows (low because I don't care). It's 100% playable and simply never chugs, even during explosions. My system is nothing special either. I don't get why everyone is complaining.

E6700ES @ 3.4ghz
8800gtx @ 650/1950
4GB ram
Raptor

Plenty of other people have my system, so why does it run so poorly on other's machines and so beautifully on mine?
Click to expand...

Well, you are running OC'd and 4G's of RAM, so I'm sure that's a contributing factor.

asmielia said:
How bout some benchmarks to back up your claims?
Click to expand...

No, I believe him, because I'm running it pretty well myself.

I just started a thread about a possible v-sync issue, in which I listed the following:

I'm running a GTX (stock), E6700 (stock), 2G's Corsair Dominator RAM on a 22" widescreen monitor @ 1680x1050 with 4xAA with no lag getting 20-24 fps. Maybe a hair here and there, but nothing really noticeable as a whole.

I am having, however, what appear to be more of a slight v-sync issue that almost "mimics" lag in a way, but is not actually lag, that I'm trying to figure out.
 
WolfpupNX said:
Sorta surprised it ran at all to be honest:

P4 Northwood (400 MHz Bus) 2.6 GHz
1 GB RAM
NVidia 6800 Ultra Video Card
Sound Blaster Audigy 2

Upgrading soon, but wanted to try it. Can run it 800 x 600 low, and it's quite playable...for a while (fifteen minutes maybe)...and then it starts to chop to the point of unplayability...once in a while a hang with an audio loop for like 10 or 15 seconds before it starts doing this. Saving, exiting to the main menu, and then reloading the save games seems to temporarily fix this (so I don't think it's a heat issue or anything), but duration of play gets slowly shorter before it starts happening. Thinking it's some sort of memory leak. Bringing down the console with a tilda (did it accidentally) shows LOTS of errors - dunno if that has anything to do with it.

But, slowly getting through the demo via this method and it's quite a lot of fun, even though I'm looking forward to seeing it on a better system. ^.^
Click to expand...

hmmm, maybe I should try and run Crysis on my laptop. This post has given me hope....
 
Shaders and shadows are 2 things that really kill games like this, i will try them settings on my rig which kinda similar @ 2560x1600 and see what I get.
 
CPU Benchmark

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 44.62s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 76.65s, Average FPS: 19.57
Min FPS: 12.98 at frame 196, Max FPS: 25.55 at frame 78
Average Tri/Sec: 13619093, Tri/Frame: 695943
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.03
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 73.06s, Average FPS: 20.53
Min FPS: 12.98 at frame 196, Max FPS: 25.68 at frame 105
Average Tri/Sec: 14253351, Tri/Frame: 694253
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.04
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 72.81s, Average FPS: 20.60
Min FPS: 12.98 at frame 196, Max FPS: 25.68 at frame 105
Average Tri/Sec: 14274582, Tri/Frame: 692873
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.04
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 73.19s, Average FPS: 20.50
Min FPS: 12.98 at frame 196, Max FPS: 25.68 at frame 105
Average Tri/Sec: 14394116, Tri/Frame: 702299
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.02
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)


GPU Benchmark

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 75.27s, Average FPS: 26.57
Min FPS: 17.31 at frame 1958, Max FPS: 32.92 at frame 1002
Average Tri/Sec: 19727482, Tri/Frame: 742398
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.23
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 71.96s, Average FPS: 27.79
Min FPS: 16.63 at frame 1943, Max FPS: 37.06 at frame 75
Average Tri/Sec: 20842886, Tri/Frame: 749891
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.22
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 71.86s, Average FPS: 27.83
Min FPS: 16.22 at frame 1949, Max FPS: 37.06 at frame 75
Average Tri/Sec: 20889478, Tri/Frame: 750506
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.22
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 71.67s, Average FPS: 27.91
Min FPS: 16.22 at frame 1949, Max FPS: 37.85 at frame 61
Average Tri/Sec: 20959302, Tri/Frame: 751077
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.22
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

1280x1024 All settings Medium except Sound and Water (high). Vsync off, AA off, AF 8x

Perfectly playable though.
 
Rig in sig..

1280x960
All high
2x AA
Vsync On

In the 30's for the most part. Some dips into the 20's, but it doesn't really seem to get "choppy". Stays very smooth despite the seemingly low framerate.
 
Yeah with shadows on low and shaders on medium 2560x1600 is ALMOST playable for me, I have to drop to 1920x1200 to really get it running well. But sacraficing shadows means a lot in this game, the areas just arent lit at all its all generic same level lighting which makes it look really bad IMO.

Im having trouble balancing this game because my drivers dont allow me 1680x1050 :/
 
With the system in my sig I play at 1680 x1050 all low settings. Pretty sure I'm CPU limited. Good ole single core A64 just isnt cutting it anymore. :(
 
mekkanic said:
hmmm, maybe I should try and run Crysis on my laptop. This post has given me hope....
Click to expand...

If the SFF is your specs for your laptop, I'd imagine it'd play significantly better than on my system for what it's worth. I think if I had more RAM, it'd probably play without that slowdown issue and be quite playable (no point in doing that as I'm planning on a new system soon).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top