I have it OC'd to 2.7 GHz and the average is below 30 FPS. Now that is using the default High config and at 1280x720 rez. Avg is about 25+ on the bench and the third level is below30 always, I think I need a new socket platform.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Crysis, low fps....
- Thread starter rx jr.
- Start date
I have it OC'd to 2.7 GHz and the average is below 30 FPS. Now that is using the default High config and at 1280x720 rez. Avg is about 25+ on the bench and the third level is below30 always, I think I need a new socket platform.
well with my X2, I do have 4-5FPS increase (not looking a wall.. duh) with lil oc
600 to 670 core
1500 to 1600 Shaders
1800 to 1900 Mem. (ddr3)
I dont need to cook eggs on my vid card to have FPS increase
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 24,418
so it is just made for hardware that doesnt exist, when high end 4ghz rigs with SLI 8800 series cards have trouble breaking 30FPS steady....
i love the game, but would be nice to play it today with todays hardware nice and smoothly, not in 2 years time when cards will let you turn on AA and other details, with out having to tweak the config files to all hell.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,934
Crysis doesn't care about CPU -
http://www.techspot.com/article/73-crysis-performance/page7.html
I call shens...
Between the near slowest core 2 duo and the fastest there is only a couple FPS difference using the 8800GT on High settings
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
...and other games look better and run better.
Crytek's development strategy sucks. No amount of bitching and moaning or new hardware is ever going to change this. They're effectively saying "we refuse to optimize for current high end hardware, our stuff is too hardcore for that." Sounds pretty stupid to me.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 11,934
Silent, I usually agree with you, but not this time. I've not seen a better looking game than Crysis. It does run slow, but I like the fact that it has scalability for future hardware - and given the incredible graphical quality I think it's coded darn well! The reason people gripe so much is that their brand new hardware can't keep up-- The Crysis team didn't intend you to play it on Ultra High...They intended you to play on low, medium, or high and it's like the gift that keeps on giving for the next few years - if you enjoy the game as you get new hardware the game keeps giving back
...There isn't hardware on the market that can run the game smoothly and that's cool. When I turn everything up to Ultra High and max out AA and AF I get like 4 or 5 FPS, but it looks amazing and every bit as good as those screenprints and movies we were shown early on. I even created a thread here not to long ago about the fact that Crysis was the first game in a long time that made my jaw drop the first time I played in in DirectX 10 with all settings maxed and watched my 3-5 FPS slideshow! Wow, it looks fantastic in DX10 with max AA and AF-- dont' let anyone tell you otherwise! ---- I'd like to know what kind of hardware the crysis team showed those demo scenes on that looked that good and was smooth!Oh and by the way
Silent - I think more than anyone else you always post right after me ......Are you following me?
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
This seems to hit AMD CPUs hardest.
Running Crysis, an A64 x2 @ 2.8GHz can only get 80% of the performance from a stock clocked 8800GT.
Running the card at 80% of stock clock gave approximately the same framerates.
Overclocking the GT made no difference to framerate and simply wasnt worth doing.
I tested Crysis with different E8400 CPU speeds on a 120% overclocked 8800GT.
4GHz CPU gave max framerate
3.1GHz CPU gave max framerate
2.65GHz gave 3 to 4% less framerate.
C2D finds it much easier to keep the GT loaded, its not what I expected but those are my findings.
I have reported these results here a few times and no-one has come back with a different experience.
There have been numerous posts from A64 x2 owners that struggle to get decent framerates with the 8800 series.
Due to the lack of performance I upgraded from A64 to C2D and saw a 50% boost in Crysis framerate running a clocked 8800GT.
No lie
(ps that was with the exact same Windows and Crysis installation, I uninstalled the motherboard drivers before plugging the drive onto the C2D motherboard)
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
I'm running a quad at 3Ghz with 2 8800 GTX in SLI -- I'm aware of how good it can look, I'm impressed, it's neat (I don't really enjoy the game, but for the moment that's beside the point -- other than that I would never be compelled to upgrade by it).
I think you (Archaea) misunderstood part of my statement; namely, that things would "look better and run faster." I wasn't talking about now, but 2 years from now.Yes, what Crysis can do at highest settings is currently very impressive. I'm saying that by the time Crytek's code is realistically runnable at max settings (say on something equivalent to a ~$1500 tower equivalent today, but built 2 years from now with better stuff) there will be titles with better engines capable of better output which are built around the usual theory of "make it work well on today's stuff and scale reasonably well" instead of the Crytek theory of engine development.
I think it's reasonable to make this statement when you look at their track record with Far Cry. Sure it was very impressive at launch, but nothing could run it well. When things came along that could run it well it was more or less keeping up, but it didn't look any better than other high end titles of the time that ran just as well on that newer hardware.
I regularly say things like "nobody at Crytek can code" and am pretty well known as a Crytek "hater" but in the end I'm not really questioning their coding ability so much as their rather foolish development theories. That, and the overall mediocrity of their games once you get over the shiny graphics; it's a double-edged sword from where they stand. The "badass" and "unconquerable" engine drives sales -- people want to watch that pretty slideshow -- but it also alienates a huge portion of the market and leaves them pretty weak in comparison with other big engine developers like Epic and ID. If they focus on current and soon-to-arrive hardware like most developers they may be able to appeal to a larger portion of the market... but then the games would have to be better, as the engine's "hardcore" nature wouldn't be enough to hold people's attention.
Opinionated? Yes. I'm not denying that. I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone, either. I'm just saying that my opinions of Crysis and Crytek in general aren't without some reasonably well thought out logical basis, and I do have fairly high-end hardware, so I'm not sitting here with a single core and a 9800 Pro complaining because the game won't break 10 FPS for me. I've seen it. I looked at the ground up close and vegitation... and I declared it crap, just like every other outdoor environment shooter ever.
My little note to Crytek: come up with something better than transparent sprites for grass and leaves (like everyone else does) with fairly low resolution textures, and maybe I'll change my mind about you. Consider it a challenge, a use for all that not-yet-available hardcore next-next gen GPU and CPU power.
I think you (Archaea) misunderstood part of my statement; namely, that things would "look better and run faster." I wasn't talking about now, but 2 years from now.Yes, what Crysis can do at highest settings is currently very impressive. I'm saying that by the time Crytek's code is realistically runnable at max settings (say on something equivalent to a ~$1500 tower equivalent today, but built 2 years from now with better stuff) there will be titles with better engines capable of better output which are built around the usual theory of "make it work well on today's stuff and scale reasonably well" instead of the Crytek theory of engine development.
I think it's reasonable to make this statement when you look at their track record with Far Cry. Sure it was very impressive at launch, but nothing could run it well. When things came along that could run it well it was more or less keeping up, but it didn't look any better than other high end titles of the time that ran just as well on that newer hardware.
I regularly say things like "nobody at Crytek can code" and am pretty well known as a Crytek "hater" but in the end I'm not really questioning their coding ability so much as their rather foolish development theories. That, and the overall mediocrity of their games once you get over the shiny graphics; it's a double-edged sword from where they stand. The "badass" and "unconquerable" engine drives sales -- people want to watch that pretty slideshow -- but it also alienates a huge portion of the market and leaves them pretty weak in comparison with other big engine developers like Epic and ID. If they focus on current and soon-to-arrive hardware like most developers they may be able to appeal to a larger portion of the market... but then the games would have to be better, as the engine's "hardcore" nature wouldn't be enough to hold people's attention.
Opinionated? Yes. I'm not denying that. I'm not trying to 'convert' anyone, either. I'm just saying that my opinions of Crysis and Crytek in general aren't without some reasonably well thought out logical basis, and I do have fairly high-end hardware, so I'm not sitting here with a single core and a 9800 Pro complaining because the game won't break 10 FPS for me.
I've seen it. I looked at the ground up close and vegitation... and I declared it crap, just like every other outdoor environment shooter ever. My little note to Crytek: come up with something better than transparent sprites for grass and leaves (like everyone else does) with fairly low resolution textures, and maybe I'll change my mind about you. Consider it a challenge, a use for all that not-yet-available hardcore next-next gen GPU and CPU power.
wildfire99
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 720
I somewhat agree. You can take the other end of the equation--the Source engine--as a comparison. From what I recall it ran rather well on the equipment of the time, but it very quickly seemed to run out of steam (pun unintended). Even now, it lags behind a lot of these newer engines, and it's not going to be an easy thing to grow into a new generation of technology.
What would have been better: 60fps at release with the current Source engine with all of the delays and hacks for multi-threading and HDR and limited play area, or 25fps at release with the CryEngine engine at release and today, with everything under the sun leveraging it (HL2, HL2:Ep1, HL2:Ep3, TF, Portal, et. al.) we get 60fps or better with modern-day Crysis quality?
It's certainly not an easy choice, but CryTek's choice is still a potentially valid one.
For what it's worth, I don't think it's coded well though, or at least completely optimized. The plethora of easy "DX10 quality in DX9" type mods suggests this, and CryTek's decision to so quickly move on to the Dunia engine is greatly suspicious. They probably simply bit off more than they could chew.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,314
Dont think of the CCC level 4 as bad, its still really good.
I'm running CCC level 3 at 1920x1080 (approx 40fps) and it still looks awesome.
All the CCC levels are optimized to give best quality with acceptable framerates, just choose the one that gives you acceptable framerate.
They all use the highest quality in whichever form can be used while maintaining framerate.
It will take you much less time to try a config than wait here for a response, give it a go!