Crysis Image Comparison

S

suqmaster

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
156
I was pretty psyched to get the demo installed today as I was worried crysis wouldn't run that well on my computer. So, I took a couple of photos to share with you folks.

My desktop:
e6600 @ 3.0ghz
2gb ddr2-800 ram
evga 8800gts 320mb @ 580mhz core/882mhz memory
MSI p6n si-fi motherboard
creative audigy 2 zs gamer

All of the screenshots were taken at 1680x1050 with no AA, 169.01 drivers, and windows xp. The first screenshot for comparison has all settings set to medium, with the ones after having one feature set to high (rest for medium still). Fraps was run also as you guys can tell. I really liked this scene because it was just like that first "whoaaaah" moment in far cry when you got out of the bunker...and my fx5200 burned itself.

allmedium1.jpg

Everything on medium. Seriously if I hadn't looked at any other screenshots of crysis I would've been seriously impressed.

shadershigh1.jpg

Shaders set to high. My fps took a huge plummet but of course this was the biggest impact by far in terms of image quality. Unlike the other settings, when I turned this one to high my fps at the fight in the camp below was unplayable (15-20'ish fps).

postprocessinghigh1.jpg

Post-processing set to high. Couldn't really see anything different

shadowshigh1.jpg

Shadows set to high. No difference really, not like i'm gonna be examining the pics with a microscope during play.

textureswaterhigh1.jpg

Both texture and water quality set to high. I first tried textures but I didn't see anything different. With water quality at high its a pretty decent 1 fps loss for that extra light shine.
 
There's a noticeable difference between medium and high inside of the jungle. Some kind of fog/mist which isn't there on medium completely made the game a slide show on my 7900GT. Game still doesn't run to well on medium for me.

8800GT couldn't come at a better time.
 
That's DX9 for sure, doesn't look near as good as DX10 and his FPS wouldn't be nearly that high.

Oh, and give this little tweak a try, it should get you closer to the greyed out "very High" settings, and I tweaked them down to work better with the 8800GTS 320MB. I play with this config @ 1680x1050, no AA, Media texture quality (make sure you set texture quality to medium, otherwise you'll get stuttering), then the following config takes care of the rest (the rest of the combo boxes will show as "custom").

Make a new text file and call it "autoexec.cfg", but it in the folder "...\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis SP Demo\Game\Config\", open it, and add paste this in to it and save the file:

r_DepthOfField=1
r_MotionBlur=3
r_sunshafts=1
r_UseEdgeAA=1
r_Flares=1
r_Coronas=1
r_colorgrading=1
r_GlowScreenMultiplier = 0.2

sys_spec_Quality=4
e_sky_type=1
e_sky_update_rate=1
r_DetailTextures=1
r_DetailNumLayers=2
r_DetailDistance=8
r_HDRRendering=2
r_SSAO=1
r_SSAO_quality=2
r_SSAO_radius=2
r_refraction=1
e_ram_maps=1
sys_flash_edgeaa=1
e_vegetation_use_terrain_color=1
e_terrain_ao=1
e_terrain_normal_map=1
e_max_entity_lights=16
r_UsePom=1
r_EnvTexUpdateInterval=0.05
r_TexturesFilteringQuality=0
r_HairSortingQuality = 1
r_FillLights = 14
e_particles_lights = 1


i_lighteffects = 1
g_ragdollMinTime = 15.0
g_ragdollUnseenTime = 2
g_ragdollDistance = 40.0
g_battleDust_enable = 1


e_obj_quality=4
e_proc_vegetation=1
ca_useDecals=1
e_decals_allow_game_decals=1
e_decals_life_time_scale=2
e_lod_ratio=6
e_lod_min=0
e_lods=1
e_view_dist_ratio_detail=30
e_view_dist_ratio_vegetation=45
e_vegetation_min_size=0
i_rejecteffects=1
e_vegetation_bending=2
sys_flash_curve_tess_error=2
e_view_dist_ratio=60
e_max_view_dst_spec_lerp=1
e_vegetation_sprites_distance_custom_ratio_min=1
e_vegetation_sprites_distance_ratio=1.5
e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy=2048
e_detail_materials_view_dist_z=128
es_DebrisLifetimeScale=1
e_cbuffer_resolution=256
e_dissolve=1
ca_DrawFaceAttachments=1
ca_AttachmentCullingRation=200
e_terrain_occlusion_culling_max_dist=200

r_WaterRefractions=1
r_WaterReflections=1
r_WaterUpdateFactor=0.05
e_water_tesselation_amount=10
e_water_tesselation_swath_width=10
r_WaterUpdateDistance=0.2
r_WaterCaustics=1
r_WaterReflectionsQuality=4
e_water_ocean_fft=1
q_ShaderWater=2
r_WaterReflectionsMinVisiblePixelsUpdate = 0.05

r_Beams=3
r_BeamsDistFactor=0.05
r_BeamsMaxSlices=200
e_Clouds=1
r_CloudsUpdateAlways=1


e_shadows = 1
r_ShadowBlur=3
e_shadows_max_texture_size=512
r_ShadowJittering=2.5
e_gsm_lods_num=5
e_gsm_range=3
e_shadows_cast_view_dist_ratio=0.8
r_ShadowsMaskResolution=0
e_shadows_on_alpha_blended=1
e_shadows_from_terrain_in_all_lods=1
e_gsm_cache = 0

e_cull_veg_activation=50
g_joint_breaking=1
g_tree_cut_reuse_dist=0
p_max_MC_iters=6000
e_phys_foliage=2
es_MaxPhysDist=200
es_MaxPhysDistInvisible=25
e_phys_ocean_cell=0.5
e_foliage_wind_activation_dist=25
g_breakage_particles_limit=250
p_max_object_splashes=3
p_splash_dist0=7
p_splash_dist1=30
p_splash_force0=10
p_splash_force1=100
p_splash_vel0=4.5
p_splash_vel1=10
v_vehicle_quality=4
p_max_substeps_large_group=5
p_num_bodies_large_group=100

e_particles_quality=4
e_particles_lod=1
e_particles_max_emitter_draw_screen=32
r_UseSoftParticles=1
e_water_ocean_soft_particles= 1
e_particles_object_collisions=1


I know it runs around 20FPS constantly but it feels utterly playable with motion blur turned on; it's strange, turn motion blur off and your FPS gets higher, but the game feels more jerky...oh well, it works :)
 
unknown is there anything else I need to do to apply that tweak? I pasted that into a text file and named it autexec.cfg in config but the graphic options doesn't show up as "custom"
 
Heres a few more comparison shots I took out of curiosity. Everything is the same as the first set of pics. I forgot to check the framerate overlay for the fraps screenshots so i'l just note them below.

allhigh.jpg

Everything set to high. 30 FPS

allmedium.jpg

Everything set to medium. 48 FPS

allhighshademedium.jpg

Shade set to medium. Everything else set to high. 39 FPS

allmediumshadehigh.jpg

Shade set to high. Everything else set to medium. 37 FPS

Look at the middle two images, can you really see any vast differences in them that's worth the extra 9 fps difference? personally, hell no
Look at the second image and the last image, can you see any vast differences that's worth the extra 11 fps difference? personally, hell yes
You can argue that sure the shadows are little more sharp and sure the foliage has more leaves, but that personally I found nothing except the shader really contributed to image quality on high setting.
 
not making fun of you or anything, but to me it is pretty funny that you could doubt your system playing that game. I mean, i have a 915 w/7600 and i want this game to play ok. things go waayyy too fast, the last time I was really into building comps, the best CPU was a 165, I must be stuck in the past cause even a 9700 still seems like a good VC to me. God I need a new computer. I have really been behind these past few years, thinking far cry was the forefront of gfx until the UT3 demo came out. Sometime I am gonna "splurge" the 300 bucks I have on an X2 setup ;)
probably as follows:
4000 X2
MSI mobo nforce 560
keep the antec 430
keep the 7600 GS (just bought this summer)
keep winXP
DVD RW silver
160 GB HDD (Finally over 100 GB)
2 GB DDR2 (still using 512 MB 2700)
probably use the same case (I really like the simplicity)
keep my audigy

I dunno, any suggestions, even this system would probably be considered bad, but to me, it seems godly. For some reason I have had trouble keeping a "even" computer, whenever I get 1 new thing it is bottlenecked by everything else.


Oh yeah, 1 last thing, DC support on this game?
 
Video card is always the most important thing for gaming. Hard to have a chip crappy enough to bottleneck a card to unplayable level. Your ram is a bit on the low side though. If you move to AM2 ram will get much much cheaper, the chips are cheaper too. Makes up for the price of the new motherboard very quickly.
 
yeah, my conceptions about the comp world are VERY skewed, somethings are skewed back to the Hardware of 2k3/2k4. Seems like just a second ago that 9800's were THE card to have, and the FX 51 was the CPU to end all others. Those were the days ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top