Holy crap my Crysis framerate!!

On my sig rig I'm running Crysis @ 1680x1050 no AA using the master HIGH setting drop down list, which leaves on of the setting still on VERY HIGH I believe and its perfectly playable, and its without a doubt on the best looking games every. So far the game play is cool. Just pre-ordered on EA's download system, so its a done deal for me.

I noticed is this demo uses VERY LITTLE CPU, my Logitech G15 CPU meter never hit 25%, so it looks like this game is totally GPU bound, so a GPU upgrade is definitely on my list.

This game is definitely the new GPU benchmarking standard.
 
MrGuvernment said:
A game sucks cause it kills hardware?



and ya,1 year in computer years is OLD, news flash for ya :) dont forget nvidia and ati new lines are coming out soon around crysis :)
Click to expand...

Yes, but is it still OLD when there is hardly anything better out yet? 8800gts was the 2nd best card a year ago, and arguably 3rd best card now (or tied for third with 2900xt), so not much has really changed.
 
JackAshley said:
Yes, but is it still OLD when there is hardly anything better out yet? 8800gts was the 2nd best card a year ago, and arguably 3rd best card now (or tied for third with 2900xt), so not much has really changed.
Click to expand...

Games have, and we should be seeing new cards soon anyway. ;)
 
Brent_Justice said:
I like my textures of high quality, I'd definitely suggest lowering shadows first though, those are typically huge performance hits at the highest setting.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, putting shadows on Medium raises my FPS by 5 or so.

Here's a quick comparison that I did between Low, Medium, and High. (I personally can't tell too much of a difference between Medium and High, but Low looks awful.)

Low
Medium
High

Low shadows does put my fps in the mid-30's, but the graphical hit is just too much for me.
 
JinxCA said:
Thanks for the advice, putting shadows on Medium raises my FPS by 5 or so.

Here's a quick comparison that I did between Low, Medium, and High. (I personally can't tell too much of a difference between Medium and High, but Low looks awful.)

Low
Medium
High

Low shadows does put my fps in the mid-30's, but the graphical hit is just too much for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comparisons of shadows :)

Only difference between high and medium I see is the shadow of the trees on the rock, they are much more defined vs the semi blurry but still nice medium ones.
 
JinxCA said:
Thanks for the advice, putting shadows on Medium raises my FPS by 5 or so.

Here's a quick comparison that I did between Low, Medium, and High. (I personally can't tell too much of a difference between Medium and High, but Low looks awful.)

Low
Medium
High

Low shadows does put my fps in the mid-30's, but the graphical hit is just too much for me.
Click to expand...

Are you finding it playable in the mid-20 range? It seems low...
 
hey all i just got the demo and wanted to share my results :)
first off, the game is freakin amazing....just everything about it.

rig:
5200+ x2 (65W edition)
2gigs ddr800
passively cooled 8600gts
everything is at stock speeds and such.....
running at 1680x1050 res. on up to date windows xp pro

I can run at native res. with mixed medium and high video settings(no AA), and the game runs visually smooth...I'll report some frame rates if someone tells me how to display them....
 
TheGodfather47 said:
Are you finding it playable in the mid-20 range? It seems low...
Click to expand...

I find it absolutely playable. With High there is a motion blur effect when you look around, which hides the low framerate. Some people may find it very annoying, but it fools me into not noticing the low fps. :D

shuffle2 said:
I can run at native res. with mixed medium and high video settings(no AA), and the game runs visually smooth...I'll report some frame rates if someone tells me how to display them....
Click to expand...

Try Fraps. (www.fraps.com)
 
JinxCA said:
I find it absolutely playable. With High there is a motion blur effect when you look around, which hides the low framerate. Some people may find it very annoying, but it fools me into not noticing the low fps. :D



Try Fraps. (www.fraps.com)
Click to expand...

Thanks again. I'm now installing it.
 
jmackay said:
You have a single card and are trying to play the newest game with maxed settings at a huge resolution..

Don't see how its really surprising :p
Click to expand...

You F'n kidding right? One of the best video cards you can buy and I'm averaging 15 FPS at 1900/1200 Very High Settings and No AA. Give me a break...I bumped everything down to High and now getting around 20-25 FPS.

Aside fromt that this is a bad ass game...graphics are sick...
 
After playing the demo, I'm retracting my earlier posts in this thread.

System:

EVGA 8800GTX Superclocked
Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3.5 Ghz
2GB DDR2 1000 RAM @ CAS 3
Silencer 750 Quad PSU

Windows Vista Home Premium
Forceware 169.01 (October 26, 2007)

Summary: Unplayable at 1680 x 1050. At this resolution, settings must be lowered to the point where the game is almost indistinguishable from its predecessor, Farcry. Anti-aliasing is simply not possible.

With shadows and textures set to medium, and everything else set to high, no-antialising this game hovers around 15FPS and in my opinion is simply not playable at 1680 x 1050. With EVERYTHING set to medium, the results are better, but the game starts looking more like Farcry and less like the demonstration videos.

The upshot is that at 1680 x 1050 I was unable to find any combination of settings that were playable and looked anything like the demonstration videos.

Note that the beta runs much better than this demo.

In conclusion, this game will be in the bargain bin by the time the hardware is out that can run it acceptably. At playable framerates, the game is subjectively ugly.

Gameplay wise, it is obviously a rehash of Farcry. Even the voice on the radio is the same voice as in Farcry.
 
JD03Cobra said:
You F'n kidding right? One of the best video cards you can buy and I'm averaging 15 FPS at 1900/1200 Very High Settings and No AA. Give me a break...I bumped everything down to High and now getting around 20-25 FPS.

Aside fromt that this is a bad ass game...graphics are sick...
Click to expand...

Yes its one of the best you can buy, but its also been out for almost a full year now. Just like last gen cards couldn't run everything at high resolutions with maxed settings and AA a year ago, these cards can't handle the newest games flawlessly either.
 
JD03Cobra said:
You F'n kidding right? One of the best video cards you can buy and I'm averaging 15 FPS at 1900/1200 Very High Settings and No AA. Give me a break...I bumped everything down to High and now getting around 20-25 FPS.

Aside fromt that this is a bad ass game...graphics are sick...
Click to expand...

8800GTX is last years news, soon the 9800GTX will be out when Crysis hit's stores and make the 8800 feel like a 7900 does today
 
When is the public demo released? I preordered couple of weeks so i didn't get a demo exclusive:mad:
 
JD03Cobra said:
You F'n kidding right? One of the best video cards you can buy and I'm averaging 15 FPS at 1900/1200 Very High Settings and No AA. Give me a break...I bumped everything down to High and now getting around 20-25 FPS.

Aside fromt that this is a bad ass game...graphics are sick...
Click to expand...

That's because Very High in Crysis is just like Ultra mode in Doom 3, not made for todays hardware but included just to piss people off.



And I'm getting around 30 fps at all time with my heap of junk X2 3800+ & HD2600XT 256 computer, 1280x720 scaled nidely to my 1440x900 lcd & medium settings on everything, very playable and enjoyable, while most of the guys with 8800 cards on another forum I go to get speeds like me or much worse :confused:

Only a couple of 8800GTS owners report it runs smoothly and nice. Could they be having PSU issues that underpower the card or something?
 
MrLonghair said:
That's because Very High in Crysis is just like Ultra mode in Doom 3, not made for todays hardware but included just to piss people off.



And I'm getting around 30 fps at all time with my heap of junk X2 3800+ & HD2600XT 256 computer, 1280x720 scaled nidely to my 1440x900 lcd & medium settings on everything, very playable and enjoyable, while most of the guys with 8800 cards on another forum I go to get speeds like me or much worse :confused:

Only a couple of 8800GTS owners report it runs smoothly and nice. Could they be having PSU issues that underpower the card or something?
Click to expand...

My GTS is doing just fine. I'm playing at 1920x1080 0x AA with everything set to high except shadows and textures. Looks great. Another 10fps would be nice in intense combat though. I'm hoping to get that when SLI is enabled in the game.
 
LawGiver said:
everyone seems so surprised? i never believed they would increase performance from the beta esp since many visual elements like very high were left out. EVERYONE can forget about using anything higher than 16x10 right now. even Ultra SLI cannot handle 19x12. the maximum resolution that will give playable frame rates using 2 GTX cards is 1280x1024, with everything set to very high and no AA. let me put it this way, running 16x10, very high, 4xaa 16x af, is impossible with current hardware, well u will get around 15 fps. all the screen shots u have seen have used minimum of 8x MSAA also.
Click to expand...

I was playing 1680x1050 2x AA at about 30-40FPS on the beta with out dated drivers. Updated drivers and lowered resolution to 1440x900 and was getting around 60.
 
Actually what's bothing me is that the option of 2560x1600 doesn't display in the drop down...the highest is 1900x1200...I don't know why..WFT! Yes i have a 30"
 
lol you think thats bad....imagine what it's like for those of us who cant afford high end cards,
even on low i get horrible framerates with my 8600GT :( it's pretty much unplayable for me. it plays decent on low settings, but it's just looks horrible.

I try to play at 1440x900 my native resolution, but lowering this didnt help.

E4500 @ 3.2 ghz
2GB DDR2 800 G.Skill ram
MSI NX8600GT OC
 
Thats because no system configuration available to public could possibly handle that resolution in this game lol.
 
I would rather have a game that exceeds the capabilities of my GTX but can be made playable than a game that can be run "maxed out" but doesn't take advantage of every drop of processing power I have.

GTX owners up to this point have been spoiled by games like Bioshock and Team Fortress which were codeveloped for console and thus were not designed to push hardware. Crysis is the real deal. In a year or two when the hardware catches up we'll be grateful that Crytek actually made the effort to implement high-end features.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
jmackay said:
Maybe upgrade to new hardware to play new games?
Click to expand...

Only a complete moron buys a new card every time a new demanding game comes out. Did you read all the posts in this thread? Even dual 8800GTX can't do it justice. What am i supposed to upgrade to when there is no capable card to buy? You think I'm rolling in dough or something? Hey, if they can't code a game to look good and run well they they are the fools for severely limiting their customer base.
 
nissanztt90 said:
Lol i was just about to say...who the hell does this kid think hes kidding? Over 18 months old on that high of a resolution and he wants to play Crysis on high? And he blames game developers...lol.
Click to expand...

Watch who you are calling a kid, I am probably old enough to be your grandfather. I'm not even interested in Crysis much as it is not really my kind of game. FarCry was mildly entertaining and nothing more. I'm more interested in it from a technological standpoint and why some game developers think eye candy is more important than good perfrormance and good gameplay. I'm certainly not spending $650.00 just so I can play some kiddy FPS at 20fps. I do plan to upgrade the video card but am holding out for next gen because it has been said more than once now by game developers that 8800GTX is not enough for DX10 level graphics.
 
milkweg said:
Watch who you are calling a kid, I am probably old enough to be your grandfather. I'm not even interested in Crysis much as it is not really my kind of game. FarCry was mildly entertaining and nothing more. I'm more interested in it from a technological standpoint and why some game developers think eye candy is more important than good perfrormance and good gameplay. I'm certainly not spending $650.00 just so I can play some kiddy FPS at 20fps. I do plan to upgrade the video card but am holding out for next gen because it has been said more than once now by game developers that 8800GTX is not enough for DX10 level graphics.
Click to expand...

You take offense to being called a kid, but go on to call the game a "kiddie FPS"? ...makes sense.

Yeah the graphics are great, but so is the gameplay. It's quite fun from the amount of gameplay we got in the demo.
 
Thats ridiculous shipping out a game that is unable to be played decently with today's top hardware
 
SLI had to have been used on the tech demos and all that. Its the only way most likely to get a decent framerate.
 
It's running decent for me. 1600x1200 high everything. Low 20's at some points, cut scenes mostly, but mostly 30's-40's during action. I'm on XP using older drivers (not the new beta drivers) and not overclocking a thing at this point. I'm gonna grab those new beta drivers and lower the shadows like Brent suggested to gain a little FPS. Awesome game imo. Just gotta customize my keyboard settings so I dont fumble in high action fire fights and I'll be good to go.

Unlike many this enthusiast is happy. :)
 
Xoidie said:
Thats ridiculous shipping out a game that is unable to be played decently with today's top hardware
Click to expand...

If games didn't push the need for new hardware there would be no progress.

This is seriously the best looking game I've ever seen.
 
I would like to see a comparison of the same system running the game in Vista vs XP (dx9 for both). I recently switched back to XP from Vista and got a huge performance boost in TF2 (older system 7800 GS...). I am keeping an eye on benchmarks for this game since I am building a new rig very soon.
 
16x10, latest drivers, 30+fps, probably hitting 40's. High Settings. No AA

I've just grabbed the intel in the game, was a mad battle holding steady playable fps as there was a boat trying to pick me off from the water and a dozen enemies trying to swarm me.

I expect further driver releases + game optimization before release should bring up the FPS to the 60's or even put 19x12 within reach of a GTX.
 
Just to add to my previous post...

While I think it's good they're pushing the envelope here, I find it a little stupid that even a 1 month old laptop, maxed out, can't even reasonably play this game at MINIMUM settings. Sure, it's an unoptimized demo, but still, I think we should be seeing SOMEWHAT better performance on the low end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top