Crysis performance question.

[cannondale06]

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

really so I am in control of my movement and actions in a movie now? when you watch the movie its the SAME every time because what you are seeing is just the playback so yes what you are seeing is all predetermined. an explosion, fog, or number of people on the screen in a movie have no effect on the framerate.

and I dont need to read a book to know when my actions in a game feel sluggish.

 

[djmorgan]

Look you are now splitting the two concepts beyond where the topic started.

Let's make it simple! you put a DVD into your player on the computer, what are you looking at? your looking at code on the DVD that is converted into a drawn image on your computer screen, forget how it was coded the end result is the viewed image, like a game.

If you try to display an image at a resolution beyond the computers capability or processing power it will draw slowly or not at all. many years ago people complained how DVD's played badly or not at all.

The point is both video and computer graphics are drawn in the same way on a screen using a CPU and GPU

DAvid

 

[cannondale06]

Look you are now splitting the two concepts beyond where the topic started.

Let's make it simple! you put a DVD into your player on the computer, what are you looking at? your looking at code on the DVD that is converted into a drawn image on your computer screen, forget how it was coded the end result is the viewed image, like a game.

If you try to display an image at a resolution beyond the computers capability or processing power it will draw slowly or not at all. many years ago people complained how DVD's played badly or not at all.

The point is both video and computer graphics are drawn in the same way on a screen using a CPU and GPU

DAvid

yes but you WATCH a movie and it has a smooth consistent framerate. a video game is something you PLAY so 20-25 fps can feel very sluggish when you are trying to move fast. again a game and movie are VERY different.

 

[Exeodus]

Please see below.

 

[Exeodus]

37 FPS with 5850 Crossfire.

 

[Conker]

I know people will say its not but i think it wasn't properly optimized. Maybe we'll see much better frame rates in Crysis 3. Even with newer cpus and gpus it doesn't increase performance that much. It doesn't scale well with multi-gpu setups. Somethings not optimized right now i think in the code. A game doesn't last this long without some kind of breakthrough in performance. We got video cards that are 3 generations more powerful than what they had when they created the game. Somethings not right.

 

[Mr Mean]

What graphics card(s) and CPU can run Crysis and Crysis Warhead at very high / Enthusiast with minimum FPS of 40.

As in , what card(s) are needed to run both of these games at the highest settings with FPS NEVER dropping below 40. Anti-Aliasing would be a bonus , but is not necessary.

edit: Resolution is 1920x1200.

From what I understand, Crysis is very nvidia favorable. SLI is the way to go if you want to achieve those goals. My best guestimate is, SLI GTX 480s. You should be golden at 1920x1200 with SLI and some nice AA to boot.

Also, going from a Core2Quad to an i7 did help in the "smoothness" factor. But the rules are still the same as they were a few years back. You will need a high end card in Crossfire or SLI to achieve those 1920x1200 goal with everything on high with AA.

 

[friend'scatdied]

This is really going nowhere and is becoming boring

It's not boring, you're just wrong.

A movie is pre-determined in the sense that it is a straight render with no dynamic inputs involved, but since these concepts seem so difficult to grasp for you I guess you can continue to believe that 24p is sufficient for everything. With games you have render-ahead and you have an input (KB + mouse) subsystem that must be dynamically handled while the GPU renders shit, so it's a whole different game. Making a movie at 24p using the rendered frames from a game (e.g. via FRAPS) is something I'm sure no one would mind, but to play a game at 24 frames per second is a different story altogether.

 

[Valset]

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

others have already covered the other arguments so here is one more, that doesn't work for everyone. I am one of the rare individuals that can tell that the 24fps on planet earth is being render on a non motion smooth tv. bugs the hell out of me too. crysis at 30 bugs me. I like 40+ in that game to be smooth to me. I am aware that I am outside the bell curve here but still it should apply.

 

[olsonpm]

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

SLI scaling in Crysis was very good for me. Made all the difference when I added my second 285 (see sig). Maybe????--- 280\285's will become attractively priced in the used market now that FERMI is out????
Hope that's in some small way constructive. If you don't find it constructive, please don't flame me, my intention's were well meaning and I have a family.

 

[shansoft]

From what I understand, Crysis is very nvidia favorable. SLI is the way to go if you want to achieve those goals. My best guestimate is, SLI GTX 480s. You should be golden at 1920x1200 with SLI and some nice AA to boot.

Also, going from a Core2Quad to an i7 did help in the "smoothness" factor. But the rules are still the same as they were a few years back. You will need a high end card in Crossfire or SLI to achieve those 1920x1200 goal with everything on high with AA.

no, Crysis is very ATI favorable, you got it opposite..

37 FPS with 5850 Crossfire.

that fps is insanely low, that is twice as worse as my old 5970 on stock..

there must be some setting error going on tat you might want to check..

 

[celeron300]

SLI scaling in Crysis was very good for me. Made all the difference when I added my second 285 (see sig). Maybe????--- 280\285's will become attractively priced in the used market now that FERMI is out????
Hope that's in some small way constructive. If you don't find it constructive, please don't flame me, my intention's were well meaning and I have a family.

I appreciate your input. I am running a 295 with the latest drivers... its a mystery why I wouldnt be getting 30 to 40. I dont what to put out for the extra heat and $ for Fermi but am a nvidia fanboy. So I guess I will wait for the 485

 

[SoFGR]

Do you guys REALLY need very high presets and DX10 64bit ? I know I don't











forced DX9, 32bit exe , cuban LVL4 + realistic shadows + 2x AA forced by some lines in the autoexec.cfg generated by CCC 2.21 ( edgeAA = 0 ofcourse ) + 8x AF forced by nvidia control panel + assasin's AI tweak so i can finally play it on delta and get my ass kicked when approaching the koreans like a brainless rambo, stock delta difficulty was too easy for my tastes.
If you can get this kind of performance on a q6700 @ 3.3ghz ( shouldn't be too different from my previous E6600 at 3.3 ) and a slightly oced gtx260 then i can't imagine what the framerate will be like on the hardware you guys are sporting here, the only thing that's really missing IQ wise is ambient occlusion ( i've disabled it in anyway i could ) and a good texture pack

 

[Mr. K6]

Do you guys REALLY need very high presets and DX10 64bit ? I know I don't

forced DX9, 32bit exe , cuban LVL4 + realistic shadows + 2x AA forced by some lines in the autoexec.cfg generated by CCC 2.21 ( edgeAA = 0 ofcourse ) + 8x AF forced by nvidia control panel + assasin's AI tweak so i can finally play it on delta and get my ass kicked when approaching the koreans like a brainless rambo, stock delta difficulty was too easy for my tastes.
If you can get this kind of performance on a q6700 @ 3.3ghz ( shouldn't be too different from my previous E6600 at 3.3 ) and a slightly oced gtx260 then i can't imagine what the framerate will be like on the hardware you guys are sporting here, the only thing that's really missing IQ wise is ambient occlusion ( i've disabled it in anyway i could ) and a good texture pack

If you want to sacrifice image quality, go for it. Some of us don't and want to truly play at maximum settings. This is Crysis in DX10 Very High (32-bit vs. 64-bit really doesn't matter). The most obvious difference is the superior shader quality. DX9 "Very High" hack =/= DX10 Very High.

 

[/rant/]

Wow, crisis in a Crysis thread!

I think people who want to stick to Windows XP / Direct3D 9.0 should do it. But for my eyes, Crysis looks definately much better with Direct3D 10. And I don't care about the fancy hacks some people like to use; you never get the superior image quality of the real experience. There is a freaking reason why this game keeps killing GPUs even after all these years. And that reason is, eye candy.

Anyhow, Crysis is one of the games that you can play without 60 FPS. And at the moment, this is still how it is done with this game, so live with it