Crysis Warhead being a memory hog

[Leepox]

well i dont wanna waste the 0.5gigs lol. Actually, I think its time for me to get 4gb anyway, and move on to 64bit before anyone else does to boost my epeen

 

[Asgard_Thor]

I only have 2gb..

 

[Rebel44]

RAM is cheap as chips right now, if you dont have 4Gb you need to upgrade.

QFT!!!

I had to upgrade from 4 to 8 GB RAM few months ago because it wasnt enough - I often use 3-6GB RAM because some of my games use almost 2GB RAM and I am running several VMs

 

[Silus]

Do people even read the articles these days ?
I'll make it easy for the lazy ones...

Since the version was a prerelease one, it could be that Crytek did not optimize it yet.

But you have to bear in mind that Crytek got a lot of time for optimizations. We are anxious to see the final version.

This is a prerelease version. As ALL prerelease versions, they aren't optimized. Optimizations are the last iteration of a software cycle.

 

[Scali2]

When I went from 3 GB to 6 GB on my system, I found that Crysis performance also improved in some areas (most notably the big compound in the level just after you're done with the tank battle and jumped over the big chasm). So I wouldn't be surprised if Crysis already went over the 4 GB mark there.
I play in Vista HP x64, everything on Very High.

So basically, what I've heard of memory usage and system specs so far, I think it will be about the same as the regular Crysis, it's just that hardware is cheaper now, and more people have upgraded, so it will run better on more systems. Just as the original Crysis does...

 

[Wally]

Fixed.

Well, not really: if they licensed the engine to another company, they could quite probably optimise it fairly well.

Oh, and don't worry, I'll have a custom config ready for you guys that will allow you to play it with a 30-40% performance boost over the standard config while mostly retaining the same level of graphics (speaking of Very High settings of course).

We can all lol now, but you can thank me later.

I hope so, I asked to see your godly config for Crysis months ago and must have missed it.

 

[mobusta1]

hahaha (well played)

I lol'd.


Oh, and don't worry, I'll have a custom config ready for you guys that will allow you to play it with a 30-40% performance boost over the standard config while mostly retaining the same level of graphics (speaking of Very High settings of course).

We can all lol now, but you can thank me later.

My good friend I hope you are the first peson to get this game so you can make us a config EARLY on. I know when this game comes out I'm going to want to play it right away. When the original crysis came out I had a really shitty comp so I had to play on everything low. I'm currently replaying crysis from start to finish on my new comp with your config and it's a tottally different game.

 

[SlimyTadpole]

I am almost positive that the vast majority of users who did that Gaming OS poll were Vista 64.

Nope. The number of people using XP (32 bit) and Vista (32-bit) outnumber the Vista (64-bit) users.

And I'm positive that the readership of HardOCP is not an accurate representation of PC gamers, in general.

 

[Ron FTL]

Nope. The number of people using XP (32 bit) and Vista (32-bit) outnumber the Vista (64-bit) users.

Chombo never said anything about adding vista 32 and xp 32 together.
He is right. a majority of people are using Vistax64 on [H]

Vista 32------------83
Vista 64------------272
XP 32---------------191
XP 64--------------- 18

XP64+Vista64 = 290
XP32+Vista32 = 274

idk, I still see x64 bit more popular.

 

[J-Mag]

well i dont wanna waste the 0.5gigs lol.

I bet you have some free space on your drives though, go fill it up quick!

 

[SlimyTadpole]

Chombo never said anything about adding vista 32 and xp 32 together.
He is right. a majority of people are using Vistax64 on [H]

Vista 32------------83
Vista 64------------272
XP 32---------------191
XP 64--------------- 18

XP64+Vista64 = 290
XP32+Vista32 = 274

He stated that the vast majority used Vista 64. But the reality is that less than 50% do. You're adding XP 64 to Vista 64. I was being generous and leaving XP 64 off the list, because... well, really.

But since you insist on throwing XP 64 into the mix, the numbers look like this:
Vista64 = 272
Non Vista 64 (XP64+XP32+Vista32) = 292

He didn't say "Most people are using 64 bit Windows (Vista or XP)", nor did he claim "More people are using Vista 64 than any other OS". He claimed that "the vast majority were using Vista 64". The numbers do not agree.

Even if we throw him a bone, and add the XP 64 bit numbers, it's still only a small majority. Not the "vast majority" claimed. And it does nothing to address that we're talking about a tiny sample set (< 600) on a hardware-enthusiast message board.

 

[phide]

a majority of people are using Vistax64 on [H]

No, the majority of individuals who took part in the poll answered that they use Vista x64. That certainly doesn't mean the majority of [H] users are using Vista x64.

 

[Brahmzy]

If I was using anything OTHER than Vx64, I'd be ashamed to vote too.

 

[Dethred]

Oh, and don't worry, I'll have a custom config ready for you guys that will allow you to play it with a 30-40% performance boost over the standard config while mostly retaining the same level of graphics (speaking of Very High settings of course).

Makes you wonder why Crytek can't do it?

I am glad everyone is wising up over this. Just like the original game's hype, this POS will be no different. I want a full report from one of the schmucks who buys it as to how many jammers they have to destroy. I am guessing at least 7 missions centered around destroying a jammer or downloading from a laptop in a KPA mobile home.

I bet my 4870x2 would get 100fps with their "optimizations" too. Now, I just LOL'ed at that. Maybe this can be the nail in the coffin for Crytek, because I know only one person that is going to buy this game out of about two dozen friends that are avid gamers.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[Dethred]

Do people even read the articles these days ?
I'll make it easy for the lazy ones...

This is a prerelease version. As ALL prerelease versions, they aren't optimized. Optimizations are the last iteration of a software cycle.

You must have been asleep from June through Mid-November last year. We were told that Crysis would use 64 bit OS's (2+GB of ram), Quad cores, and would be heavily optimized. When the demo came out, people noticed that none of the above were true, so they said the exact same thing you just did: It will be optimized. Quad core CPU's almost appeared to use 4 cores, but the cores traded spikes (probably an attempt to mask Crytek's BS campaign for their sponsor, Intel). System memory never reached above 2gb, even with the highest settings possible, and the 64bit.exe of the game gave absolutely no benefits.

On release, the same people that said the game would be optimized for final release assured everyone that there would be a patch to "fix" the "issues" of none of these optimizations being present. It wasn't until the incrysis.com IRC interview that it because undeniable that Cevat Yerli had been lying on behalf of his sponsors. When asked about when Quad Core support would be added into the game, he said its there, but won't see any benefit until better GPU's are released.

So here I am with my 4870x2, which is over 2x faster in Crysis than my old 8800GTX, and the CPU is stressed LESS than before.

Please don't hold onto false hopes.

 

[pigwalk]

i got 2 gigs because i still have my s939 system....ddr1 isnt so cheap

+1. I can't even find a matching 2x2gb DDR1 set. Too bad too, except the desire for more memory I have absolutely urge to upgrade anything but video yet.

 

[bigdogchris]

I was getting 41FPS on very high at a higher resolution

Same ol' bullshit

 

[Hamidxa]

My good friend I hope you are the first peson to get this game so you can make us a config EARLY on. I know when this game comes out I'm going to want to play it right away. When the original crysis came out I had a really shitty comp so I had to play on everything low. I'm currently replaying crysis from start to finish on my new comp with your config and it's a tottally different game.

Glad to hear.
What a difference a config/customized settings can make for this game.

I'll definitely play around with the Warhead iteration of the engine and see what vars/settings can be tweaked for max looks and performance. I wouldn't be surprised if much of it stays the same, so that my current config can be applied to it also.

I hope so, I asked to see your godly config for Crysis months ago and must have missed it.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1265845

Here you go, I had I believe an 8800 GT at the time I created that config, and it was netting me 30-33 FPS at tweaked very high settings (at 1600x1200 with 16x AF), now with this GTX 260, im getting about 45-50FPS average, and dips below 30 are extremely rare, thus resulting in a smooth and fluid gaming experience.

 

[Silus]

You must have been asleep from June through Mid-November last year.

Not at all, since I was actually playing the game on my 3 year system, while many were too busy complaining that the game couldn't be run at very high settings @ ultra high resolutions or how much memory it actually used...

Please don't hold onto false hopes.

The fact is, that the article posted by the OP, points out that this is a prerelease version and that it most likely doesn't represent what the final product will be, in terms of resource usage and handling. Please don't make assumptions, before the game is actually released

 

[Dethred]

Not at all, since I was actually playing the game on my 3 year system, while many were too busy complaining that the game couldn't be run at very high settings @ ultra high resolutions or how much memory it actually used...



The fact is, that the article posted by the OP, points out that this is a prerelease version and that it most likely doesn't represent what the final product will be, in terms of resource usage and handling. Please don't make assumptions, before the game is actually released

My point was an estimate, an educated guess based on the previous game. I am sure it will somewhat improve, but I would expect any discernible performance increase over Crysis, despite Cevat Yerli's BS campaign to try and assure possible consumers.

 

[phide]

Agreed. I'd have the tendency to believe that Cevat's simply looked at the chief complaints and said "Yeah, we've fixed those in Warhead" regardless of whether they've been fixed or not. I'm really hesitant to believe that any substantial optimizations have been made considering how aggressively NVIDIA pushed on Crysis (pushing too far in a couple driver versions). I don't doubt that NVIDIA examined every single line of shader code before Crysis's release, and I'd like to think that they know a thing or two about shader optimization.

At this point, you'd have to be an absolute fool to believe anything Cevat says about how well his products perform (or anything else for that matter).

 

[Scali2]

Agreed. I'd have the tendency to believe that Cevat's simply looked at the chief complaints and said "Yeah, we've fixed those in Warhead" regardless of whether they've been fixed or not.

And he'd be right. Even the original Crysis has a LOT of options for tweaking the performance to match your PC's capabilities.
You just have to get people in the right mindset to pick the right options (and possibly create some less ambitious default settings, to give off a better first impression).
The technology is there, it's just a psychological thing.

 

[Chombo]

He stated that the vast majority used Vista 64. But the reality is that less than 50% do. You're adding XP 64 to Vista 64. I was being generous and leaving XP 64 off the list, because... well, really.

But since you insist on throwing XP 64 into the mix, the numbers look like this:
Vista64 = 272
Non Vista 64 (XP64+XP32+Vista32) = 292

He didn't say "Most people are using 64 bit Windows (Vista or XP)", nor did he claim "More people are using Vista 64 than any other OS". He claimed that "the vast majority were using Vista 64". The numbers do not agree.

Even if we throw him a bone, and add the XP 64 bit numbers, it's still only a small majority. Not the "vast majority" claimed. And it does nothing to address that we're talking about a tiny sample set (< 600) on a hardware-enthusiast message board.

Wow extra points for trying to split a hair. I wasn't inferring that we add anything together. I was merely stating that Vista 64 has the most votes by a significant margin. I am sorry that the word "majority" made everything go terribly awry.

The sample size doesn't matter as long as your confidence interval is high enough. I would guess that ~600 voters would be close to an adequate sample size to achieve a 95% confidence interval, assuming that the poll takers are representative of general Hard posters.

 

[Ron FTL]

Wow extra points for trying to split a hair. I wasn't inferring that we add anything together. I was merely stating that Vista 64 has the most votes by a significant margin. I am sorry that the word "majority" made everything go terribly awry.

The sample size doesn't matter as long as your confidence interval is high enough. I would guess that ~600 voters would be close to an adequate sample size to achieve a 95% confidence interval, assuming that the poll takers are representative of general Hard posters.

That is what I was trying to point out.
But it seems people over analyze everything so I just left it alone after his comment.

 

[silent-circuit]

Agreed. I'd have the tendency to believe that Cevat's simply looked at the chief complaints and said "Yeah, we've fixed those in Warhead" regardless of whether they've been fixed or not. I'm really hesitant to believe that any substantial optimizations have been made considering how aggressively NVIDIA pushed on Crysis (pushing too far in a couple driver versions). I don't doubt that NVIDIA examined every single line of shader code before Crysis's release, and I'd like to think that they know a thing or two about shader optimization.

At this point, you'd have to be an absolute fool to believe anything Cevat says about how well his products perform (or anything else for that matter).

Exactly. He's lost all credibility by now for anyone that's actually paid attention to the drivel that's been consistently pouring out of his mouth.

 

[Conker]

As long as it gets good frame rates i'm good. 4GB of ram is pretty cheap now in days. I'm part of that win xp64 group

 

[Rebel44]

I have Vista 64bit and 8GB RAM so even if Crysis want 4GB RAM for itself it wont be problem for me

 

[Chris_B]

Find it kinda suspect that theres no demo for this game despite all cryteks claims of this and that being fixed. Most of the vids have "pre-release demo" in the top right hand corner. You'd think they would have a version floating around with performance identical to that of the retail product.

 

[Hamidxa]

Exactly. He's lost all credibility by now for anyone that's actually paid attention to the drivel that's been consistently pouring out of his mouth.

No he hasn't, what a preposterous and sensational thing to say.

If he promised you the stars and only delivered the moon then that's one thing, but the problem lies with either:

a) people with ridiculous expectations (i.e. those who expect to be able to max it out with their limited hardware) or
b) people who have no idea what the hell they are doing (much like group A above, but even when presented with alternative solutions to remedy their problems they remain incognizant)

All it takes is a custom config such as the one that I took the time and effort of putting together to make this game not only trounce everything under the sun when it comes to graphics, but also run very respectably.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1265845

 

[cannondale06]

No he hasn't, what a preposterous and sensational thing to say.

If he promised you the stars and only delivered the moon then that's one thing, but the problem lies with either:

a) people with ridiculous expectations (i.e. those who expect to be able to max it out with their limited hardware) or
b) people who have no idea what the hell they are doing (much like group A above, but even when presented with alternative solutions to remedy their problems they remain incognizant)

All it takes is a custom config such as the one that I took the time and effort of putting together to make this game not only trounce everything under the sun when it comes to graphics, but also run very respectably.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1265845

he DID lie and exaggerate plenty of times before the games release. you seem to put more time into optimizing the game then Crytek did.

 

[altcon]

And I'm positive that the readership of HardOCP is not an accurate representation of PC gamers, in general.

Or people in general for that matter......

 

[Hamidxa]

he DID lie and exaggerate plenty of times before the games release. you seem to put more time into optimizing the game then Crytek did.

Not really.

In several of the demos they displayed he stated that it ran well on 8800 GTX's and quad core processors (which were used in many of their demo stations), but well is a subjective term. In many reviews for that matter, including [H]'s very own benchmarks of Crysis, the conclusion was that 30 FPS in Crysis feels surprisingly smooth compared to most other games.

30 FPS is not something difficult to achieve in Crysis on most modern mid-range systems even when cranking the details to High levels.

As for the time I personally spent optimizing/tweaking Crysis to look and perform better, that was time well spent.
As to why Crytek themselves choose not to implement a similar convincingly faux very-high config...Im not sure.

 

[cannondale06]

Not really.

In several of the demos they displayed he stated that it ran well on 8800 GTX's and quad core processors (which were used in many of their demo stations), but well is a subjective term. In many reviews for that matter, including [H]'s very own benchmarks of Crysis, the conclusion that 30 FPS in Crysis feels surprisingly smooth compared to most other games.

30 FPS is not something difficult to achieve in Crysis on most modern mid-range systems even when cranking the details to High levels.

As for the time I personally spent optimizing/tweaking Crysis to look and perform better, that was time well spent.
As to why Crytek themselves choose not to implement a similar convincingly faux very-high config...Im not sure.

the lies I am referring to are about the game being optimized to run well on on a wide range of hardware and all the nonsense that he spewed about using quad cores. this video is one example of the BS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KciCSNP3YKM&feature=related

its people like you that make me appreciate pc gaming though. Im glad you have the knowledge and understanding to go in and give gamers a better experience by tweaking things. obviously Crytek was too busy to do the same.

 

[Scali2]

As to why Crytek themselves choose not to implement a similar convincingly faux very-high config...Im not sure.

I've been wondering about some of these tweaks aswell.
I noticed that some people change certain physics settings to improve performance on slower CPUs.
But I'm not sure what these settings do actually. It might be faster, but it's probably also less stable. In which case it's pretty obvious why these settings were not used in the final game.

As for the rest... Crytek probably chose 4 different system specs to base their low-med-high-very high settings on.
Since we don't know what they were aiming for exactly, it's hard to tell if their default settings make sense or not.
I mean, tweaking High to Very High geometry/texture detail may work fine on a card with 512 mb memory or more, but if they were aiming to make 'high' playable on 256 mb, that puts the settings in a different light.

 

[Chris_B]

I wonder if the graphics updates are still planned for future release or is this another thing that got kicked in the head along the way. Yerli numerous times stated that for future hardware they would release updates that would make the game look even better. Then again patch support for crysis was stopped a while back because apparently its the only pc game in history to be pirated.

In other news, did you know that before crysis piracy never existed on pc?

 

[Chris_B]

the lies I am referring to are about the game being optimized to run well on on a wide range of hardware and all the nonsense that he spewed about using quad cores. this video is one example of the BS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KciCSNP3YKM&feature=related

The quad support is really a joke, if i fire up gears on pc or ut3 all 4 core on my sytem almost get maxed out. For crysis its like core 1 is around 80% core 2 maybe 30% or so with 3 and 4 doing basically nothing.

 

[Hamidxa]

The quad support is really a joke, if i fire up gears on pc or ut3 all 4 core on my sytem almost get maxed out. For crysis its like core 1 is around 80% core 2 maybe 30% or so with 3 and 4 doing basically nothing.

Admittedly, I won't pretend to be intimately familiar with the workload/process distribution of the CryEngine2 in terms of how it utilizes multi-core processors, but what do you feel should have been offloaded even more so onto the CPU rather than the GPU?

Physics and AI (and to a lesser degree if Im not mistaken, Sound) are already handled through the CPU, and this isn't some elaborate RTS like Supreme Commander where thousands of squad members are controlled by the engine's AI algorithms, thus demanding a quad core CPU to prevent saturation of dual cores.

So, what do you believe is Cryteks failing in terms of quad core CPU utilization -- what should they have offloaded more onto the CPU that you feel is hindering the GPU?

 

[bigdogchris]

Only quad i'd be interested in is the dual core hyper threaded i7

 

[kadozer]

Hamidxa does Crytek have anything planned to improve their Multiplayer protection? Thanks

 

[Hamidxa]

Hamidxa does Crytek have anything planned to improve their Multiplayer protection? Thanks

I have no idea, I don't work for them (contrary to what some may believe) , but I also haven't really heard anything about it either (haven't really been keeping up with their multiplayer) as I just mostly fiddle around with their engine.