• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Crysis performance question.

olsonpm said:
Damn this ATI vs. Nvidia stuff is hilarious. Look, my comments have had absolutely nothing to do with "who wins and who loses". The O.P. never asked who wins, who loses.
I'm just trying to help the guy out.
Click to expand...

"Crysis is a TWIMTBP title. Maybe that helps."

in your own quote, TWIMTBP does not help at all.... it means nothing, which is what I am trying to prove...
 
all this and no one has answered why? all I use crysis for is a benchmark now. if some new games come out using that engine I will think differently but right now maxing out crysis has all the merit of maxing out super PI. I have spent far more time (and gotton so much more for my money) from DMC4, COD4, and the first bioshock to make this came suck ass ass an entertainment investment.
 
SoFGR said:
who gives a shit about mainstream - gamer - enthusiast presets ? as long as the game has a nice balance of eye candy and smooth framerate you shouldn't be thinking of cranking everything up to the max in order unless you're craving to enlarge your e-peen

Try some tweaks too, cuban LVL4 + ToD worked wonders for my system in the past

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=18999

http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=23117
Click to expand...

TBH, that mod is horrible...

it gives worse quality than preset...
 
I really don't know what the big deal with Crysis is. My comp runs it with everything on Very High (execpt shadows set to High) and 4xAA at 1680x1050 with no slowdowns. The thing about Crysis is that you don't need high FPS to experience smooth gameplay. So just run it, enjoy the game and play it :)
 
event_horizon said:
I really don't know what the big deal with Crysis is. My comp runs it with everything on Very High (execpt shadows set to High) and 4xAA at 1680x1050 with no slowdowns. The thing about Crysis is that you don't need high FPS to experience smooth gameplay. So just run it, enjoy the game and play it :)
Click to expand...

I assume you've upgraded from the 4870 in your sig then, because those settings are not remotely playable with that card.
 
I don't post here much but I have been watching this thread and wondering if your talking about Crysis Warhead! because I play this game with all settings set to extreme on a 1920 x 1080 monitor, with a second monitor on and it plays smooth without stutter or jerks.

The GTX 260 never gets above 75c and the i7 turbos up to about 3.5Mhz but no over heating, so maybe you guys are talking about another crysis game.

David
 
djmorgan said:
I don't post here much but I have been watching this thread and wondering if your talking about Crysis Warhead! because I play this game with all settings set to extreme on a 1920 x 1080 monitor, with a second monitor on and it plays smooth without stutter or jerks.

The GTX 260 never gets above 75c and the i7 turbos up to about 3.5Mhz but no over heating, so maybe you guys are talking about another crysis game.

David
Click to expand...
what is "extreme" settings? and you must have one magical gtx260 if you are playing Crysis Warhead smoothly at 1080 with the highest settings. of course your sig does say that your gtx260 is "unclocked" so maybe thats how. lol
 
cannondale06 said:
what is "extreme" settings? and you must have one magical gtx260 if you are playing Crysis Warhead smoothly at 1080 with the highest settings. of course your sig does say that your gtx260 is "unclocked" so maybe thats how. lol
Click to expand...

Aye, another poster making outlandish performance claims. The only thing extreme there is the level of exaggeration!
 
Sorry I should have said 'enthusiast' settings instead of extreme, and I'm sure you know you find those setting under options > system settings

As to exaggeration, well I have completed the game and I can tell you I would have un-installed it if it was not playable or a pain to play due to poor performance I also have both the COD4 MW, so Crysis would not have stayed if not worthy.

Sorry but it works more than fine on my system.

David
 
I play Crysis Warhead now. Everything on Enthusiast settings 1900x1200 on Radeon 5870.

It F..ing perfect game. Finally I can play it smooth - I use suit speed mode and shotgun - so much fun :)
 
MW2 19x12 I am in the upper 80s with everything turned up ... I will try crysis tomorrrow in high mode and post the fraps observed. Thanks for all the info.
 
djmorgan said:
It seems to me rincewind is trying to justify his inability to play the game!
Click to expand...

event_horizon said:
Yeah I'll say bro. Very High settings are very possible on a 4870 @1680x1050. It's not a slow card by any means at that res.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion, but the 4870 (which is now in my second rig) was not playable at those settings. The OC'd GTX260 (running @ 810/1620/1296) in my main is also incapable of delivering smooth gameplay at 1680x1050 with everything maxed out.
If you can tolerate the performance then fair enough, I'm simply coming from the angle that most enthusiasts probably can't. Right here at [H] a recent review (I'm aware drivers have come along since I finished the game so no point referecning old data) had the 4890 'only' capable of gamer settings. They managed to tack on 2xAA, but not a single enthusiast setting in sight.
My flatmate (at the time) played through Doom 3 at really low framerates - it was about as fluid as a 15FPS webcam recording to my eyes, but it ran "just fine" in his opinion.
 
rincewind, maybe you should post the specs of your rig so we can help you enjoy the game :)

It's not just the GPU! it's the CPU, Memory and how everything works together even monitor refresh rate has a part in it.

I just ran a stage (airfield final) with the console showing the fps and it was ranging from 22 to 28 fps, now that is not 60 or 80 fps but you wouldn't know unless you were monitoring. and I have not over-clocked a thing, I don't need too.

And as I spin 360 everything keeps up!

I watch HD TV watch Bluray and std DVD and never once do I ask myself "I wonder what the fps is?" gaming isn't about mine being bigger than yours, it's being able to enjoy what you have paid for and with Crysis I got my monies worth.

David
 
Last edited:
celeron300 said:
MW2 19x12 I am in the upper 80s with everything turned up ... I will try crysis tomorrrow in high mode and post the fraps observed. Thanks for all the info.
Click to expand...


I am running crysis high 19x12 and only gettting 17 fps max... on nvidia 197.13 drivers with a picture "shimmy" what is up with that do you think?
 
I know when I played crysia I got good framerates from a c2d and 9800gtx+
I was playing on high @ 1280x720 no aa/af. E8400 @4.2 ghz and the 9800gtx+ was severely overclocked. I can't imagine playing crysis @19x12 on high with a min of 40fps without a oc i7 and a gtx 295 or better. I know when I turned on aa it made it unplayable even at such a low res. Crysis needs a beast CPU and beast video card to play on high with a good framerates.
 
I'm a videographer, meaning I shoot photographs and HD Video, I use my computer for the purpose of editing and compiling in that medium.

FPS has always been used as a measure as to how much grunt your computer has in reality it has very little to do with what you actually see, anything above 18 fps the brain via the eyes sees as fluid motion, depending upon the phase of power supplied 25 or 30 fps are deemed to be the optimal rates for flicker free vision of video.

Beyond that it is simply for bragging rights.

David
 
djmorgan said:
I'm a videographer, meaning I shoot photographs and HD Video, I use my computer for the purpose of editing and compiling in that medium.

FPS has always been used as a measure as to how much grunt your computer has in reality it has very little to do with what you actually see, anything above 18 fps the brain via the eyes sees as fluid motion, depending upon the phase of power supplied 25 or 30 fps are deemed to be the optimal rates for flicker free vision of video.

Beyond that it is simply for bragging rights.

David
Click to expand...
Flicker free is not the "end" of the eye's FPS detecting capabilities. The eyes can "see" over 200FPS in the correct lighting and environment
 
djmorgan said:
I'm a videographer, meaning I shoot photographs and HD Video, I use my computer for the purpose of editing and compiling in that medium.

FPS has always been used as a measure as to how much grunt your computer has in reality it has very little to do with what you actually see, anything above 18 fps the brain via the eyes sees as fluid motion, depending upon the phase of power supplied 25 or 30 fps are deemed to be the optimal rates for flicker free vision of video.

Beyond that it is simply for bragging rights.

David
Click to expand...
a video game is NOT a movie.
 
With all due respect David,

If I was getting higher framerates... I wouldn't be mentioning it here in the forums because I probably wouldn't have noticed the lag and skitter of the slow fps. It was only after noticing it that I ran Fraps and determined the actual rate.
 
a video game is NOT a movie
Click to expand...

Both work on the same principle a single frame either shown or drawn at a determined speed. A camera captures images called frames, which are a singe image in time, a computer game draws a single image (frame) and then another and another.

In reality a digital camera creates an image based on light hitting a sensor and converted into 1's and 0's, where in a film camera a chemical process takes place on a negative. A video game is as much a movie as is if it came out of a digital camera.

David
 
Last edited:
djmorgan said:
I'm a videographer, meaning I shoot photographs and HD Video, I use my computer for the purpose of editing and compiling in that medium.

FPS has always been used as a measure as to how much grunt your computer has in reality it has very little to do with what you actually see, anything above 18 fps the brain via the eyes sees as fluid motion, depending upon the phase of power supplied 25 or 30 fps are deemed to be the optimal rates for flicker free vision of video.

Beyond that it is simply for bragging rights.

David
Click to expand...

You should try playing a game at 18fps vs 60fps. Get back to me when you notice the difference.
 
djmorgan said:
Both work on the same principle a single frame either shown or drawn at a determined speed. A camera captures images called frames, which are a singe image in time, a computer game draws a single image (frame) and then another and another.

In reality a digital camera creates an image based on light hitting a sensor and converted into 1's and 0's, where in a film camera a chemical process takes place on a negative. A video game is as much a movie as is if it came out of a digital camera.

David
Click to expand...
Man, I'm completely with you on this, but just a warning, your opening up a can of worms. There are people here that claim to be able to tell the difference between 100 fps and 200 fps and are willing to call you and your mother every name in the book to prove it to you. There's nothing you can say to people like that so unless you want to start a war, let them have their way and be at peace.

For me, I usually stop seeing lag around the 30-35 FPS mark is where I no longer see an noticeable lag in frame rate.
 
You should try playing a game at 18fps vs 60fps. Get back to me when you notice the difference
Click to expand...

Of course there is a difference I never indicated there wasn't I said anything above 18 fps creates fluid motion below that it does not, optimal is 25 - 30 fps as in video movies above that is very good but the game is still very playable in the 20's

David
 
djmorgan said:
I'm a videographer, meaning I shoot photographs and HD Video, I use my computer for the purpose of editing and compiling in that medium.

FPS has always been used as a measure as to how much grunt your computer has in reality it has very little to do with what you actually see, anything above 18 fps the brain via the eyes sees as fluid motion, depending upon the phase of power supplied 25 or 30 fps are deemed to be the optimal rates for flicker free vision of video.

Beyond that it is simply for bragging rights.

David
Click to expand...

Your argument would make more sense if it weren't for the added complexity of minimum FPS. Average FPS of 18 or 24 or 29.97 does not matter, since there is no such thing as locked FPS in PC gaming unless you have an overpowered card and use VSync or are playing a framerate-capped game.

Also mice are polled at 125hz to 1000hz. 18-30fps might have issues with making the polled movement appear smooth on the screen.
 
Man, I'm completely with you on this, but just a warning, your opening up a can of worms. There are people here that claim to be able to tell the difference between 100 fps and 200 fps and are willing to call you and your mother every name in the book to prove it to you. There's nothing you can say to people like that so unless you want to start a war, let them have their way and be at peace.

For me, I usually stop seeing lag around the 30-35 FPS mark is where I no longer see an noticeable lag in frame rate
Click to expand...

Thanks for that but I'm not a kid my mum passed on long ago, my first computer was a commodore 64 and for a very short period of time I had the fastest Amiga 1000 in the world according to Commodore magazine.

I have built boxes, modified them cooked them in the quest for speed, then 1 day as I had reached the summit at the time, I looked at it and said what for! I'm not a rocket scientist or mathematician that needs anywhere need the speed I have just created except for my own ego.

I then actually spent many years just using a laptop, only recently went back to a desktop for HD Video rendering and photograph processing, got interested in the forums again and found little has changed in 6 years..... boys and their toys with no real function or purpose.

It's like climbing a mountain, it's there so you climb it but it has no productivity in the act itself.

So they can call me all the names they like, if they would like to pop around and talk face to face well I'll give them my address but they should come with flak jacket and tin helmet (body armour & Kevlar for the modern term) :)

David
 
Last edited:
Your argument would make more sense if it weren't for the added complexity of minimum FPS. Average FPS of 18 or 24 or 29.97 does not matter, since there is no such thing as locked FPS in PC gaming unless you have an overpowered card and use VSync or are playing a framerate-capped game.

Also mice are polled at 125hz to 1000hz. 18-30fps might have issues with making the polled movement appear smooth on the screen.
Click to expand...

Never created the post as an 'argument' simply stated a point of view based on known fact.

David
 
Replace the word "argument" with "point of view" if that helps you actually respond to an actual argument based on known fact.
Click to expand...

I didn't see a question in your post sorry! but then you say no such thing as locked FPS and go onto say "or are playing a framerate-capped game" and then to give details about mouse movement!.

To recap this thread is about playing Crysis in a enjoyable manner, my point of view is that it is not about FPS but about the games playability I and others can and have played the game without issues on stock machines with reasonable specs. if some want to play the game at 100FPS then fine away they go, but many people in the world do and are playing this game at much lower FPS.

David
 
sorry to interrupt the discussion but...what the hell... I get 90 + fps on modern warfare 2 but only 20 max on crysis on high... any constructive suggestions please :D
 
celeron300 said:
sorry to interrupt the discussion but...what the hell... I get 90 + fps on modern warfare 2 but only 20 max on crysis on high... any constructive suggestions please :D
Click to expand...
Update your drivers if you haven't yet. Are you trying to run any anti-aliasing? My GTX295 was buggy as hell with Crysis for a bit, but that was a year ago.
 
there is no practical way to play crysis 1920x1200 with everything max (4/8xAA and 16xAF. there just isnt. There will always be constant be dips below 30 fps which is not acceptable. Maybe in 5 years.
 
djmorgan said:
Both work on the same principle a single frame either shown or drawn at a determined speed. A camera captures images called frames, which are a singe image in time, a computer game draws a single image (frame) and then another and another.

In reality a digital camera creates an image based on light hitting a sensor and converted into 1's and 0's, where in a film camera a chemical process takes place on a negative. A video game is as much a movie as is if it came out of a digital camera.

David
Click to expand...
its not the same thing because everything in the movie is pre determined. a game is completely different because you are in control of the movement. also every game engine is different so one game at 25-30fps can be horrible to play while another feels really smooth. the vast majority of games that are capped at 30fps feel like shit and are annoying even when just looking around. also for those that use vsync 60fps is preferable especially for action type games.
 
LawGiver said:
there is no practical way to play crysis 1920x1200 with everything max (4/8xAA and 16xAF. there just isnt. There will always be constant be dips below 30 fps which is not acceptable. Maybe in 5 years.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. 5850CF does it just fine. I can play at 1920x1200 with 8x AA at an average of 60FPS. I never see it drop below 40FPS.
 
djmorgan said:
I'm a videographer, meaning I shoot photographs and HD Video, I use my computer for the purpose of editing and compiling in that medium.

FPS has always been used as a measure as to how much grunt your computer has in reality it has very little to do with what you actually see, anything above 18 fps the brain via the eyes sees as fluid motion, depending upon the phase of power supplied 25 or 30 fps are deemed to be the optimal rates for flicker free vision of video.

Beyond that it is simply for bragging rights.

David
Click to expand...

As the other guys said, a video game is not a movie. Try playing an intense game at 25-30fps and tell me it's smooth, then try it at double and tell me it's not 100% better...
 
its not the same thing because everything in the movie is pre determined. a game is completely different because you are in control of the movement. also every game engine is different so one game at 25-30fps can be horrible to play while another feels really smooth. the vast majority of games that are capped at 30fps feel like shit and are annoying even when just looking around. also for those that use vsync 60fps is preferable especially for action type games
Click to expand...

This is really going nowhere and is becoming boring, nothing in a movie is pre-determined! you are shooting as events unfold but you are only capturing images, in a computer wether it is a word program or a game the screen is being redrawn (an image created) over and over again reflecting any change such as a letter being typed or a bullet being fired.

The more information being drawn reflects in how long it take,s just as shooting video at low resolution takes less resources and computing power than capturing at HD 1920 x 1080.

If you don't understand that then start hitting the books to learn.

A badly written program, will not perform as well as a well written one.

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top