How long before playing Crysis Warhead at 60fps constant at 1920x1200

P

PS3

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
1,386
Edit: I remember my title reading How Long before playing Crysis Warhead at 60fps constant 1920x1200 4xAA. But yah, must be at 4xAA, maximum settings! Mod probably shortened it for the long title.

Will the next gen video cards be able to do this, or perhaps the next next gen. This game has been out for quite some time and it's sad to see you can't play it without dropping below 60fps yet, even with all these monster dual gpu cards out. :(
 
Last edited:
Probably not any time soon. The engine is so horribly programmed that it'd be a feat itself to get such high framerates.
 
It's not about the programming, the problem is all the 'stuff' in the game; there's far more flora than in any other game released, so when all that stuff needs lighting/shadowing and all the other special effects, it simply becomes very demanding. The huge view distance doesn't help any either.

So simply put, if it were to be less demanding at the highest graphical setting, they'd have to cut down on the detail in the game world. You see the same thing in StalkerCS really, and that game's actually more demanding.

At any rate, it's possible the next generation dual-GPU solutions could handle C:W at 19*12 and keep it above 60fps, though not with alot of AA.
 
I myself really dont have an opinion on cryengine because of lack of info, but I hear alot of people making the statement that its horribly programmed. Is there any info to back this up? I mean Crysis is beyond any other game engine to date visually but is it a fact that those visuals could be achieved with alot less power?
 
Crash250f said:
I myself really dont have an opinion on cryengine because of lack of info, but I hear alot of people making the statement that its horribly programmed. Is there any info to back this up? I mean Crysis is beyond any other game engine to date visually but is it a fact that those visuals could be achieved with alot less power?
Click to expand...

Crysis uses roughly 4x the power that it should in my opinion. I think there's plenty of games that look just as good as Crysis, but are nowhere near as demanding.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
Even if it requires sheer muscle to accomplish due to the engine's inefficiency, I'm going to put my money on SLI doing this early next gen (GT300, R800) and late next gen for single card.
 
RADEoN said:
Crysis uses roughly 4x the power that it should in my opinion. I think there's plenty of games that look just as good as Crysis, but are nowhere near as demanding.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Click to expand...

Name one
 
i thought that the first crysis game was slow and the new had solved the problem. i guess people say too much sometimes. and you guys say even the god powerful next generation of the 300 series (nvidia) wont be able to handle the game? wow!!
 
I thought everyone had put the whole debate of Crysis behind us....

But yeah, I'm still waiting for Crytek to "update" the original Crysis with all the magic they put into Warhead to make it run better ;)
 
Citizen86 said:
I thought everyone had put the whole debate of Crysis behind us....

But yeah, I'm still waiting for Crytek to "update" the original Crysis with all the magic they put into Warhead to make it run better ;)
Click to expand...

im still waiting for crysis 2, the real sequel, to be released :p
 
No one will really know how well it was coded unless someone has connections to these programmers personally ;)
 
JaguarSKX said:
I'll give it 2 - 3 years for a single card capable of this feat.
Click to expand...

Lol, let's say that's true. Crysis was released November 2007. So roughtly a year and a half ago. If what you are saying is true then it will take 4 1/2 years to get this game running smoothly at max settings @ 1080p. :confused:

They should do this with all games! Design games to play smoothly 4 years after it's released :rolleyes:. I bet vid card and sli board sales were up after this game was released, :rolleyes:. This game will probably go down as the best benchmark game in history though. :eek::confused:
 
PS3 said:
Lol, let's say that's true. Crysis was released November 2007. So roughtly a year and a half ago. If what you are saying is true then it will take 4 1/2 years to get this game running smoothly at max settings @ 1080p. :confused:
Click to expand...
Since fall '07, there's really only been one release of new GPU's from each side, the rest have been tired rehashes.
 
Conker said:
No one will really know how well it was coded unless someone has connections to these programmers personally ;)
Click to expand...

Exactly. Also, the original story of unoptimized code was before Warhead came out. Warhead was supposed to be more optimized than the first Crysis.

Either way, I think it's retarded to use poor coding as an excuse. I've only ever seen 1 story/interview on it, and the people in forums who often make the claim are often unqualified to make such an assessment.
 
Well, no one is forcing you to play it as the very highest settings. Still looks better than any other game out there if you take the settings down a few notches. Didn't they even go out and say that the very highest settings were made for 'future hardware'?

Personally I don't really mind; it's sort of a way to future-proof the game( which would have made more sense if the gameplay was actually good and replayability was high ). Several games lets you adjust the graphical settings to the point where your hardware can't run it, it's just that most of them keep it in an ini file somewhere instead of in the main menu.

In fact, Morrowind is a good example of this; you can get mods for it that greatly enhances the visual quality, view range and everything, and though it was released in 2001( I think? ) it can still bring my own computer to its knees when I max out everything allowed by the mods. But it's alot better than having to play the game with settings designed for a year-2001 computer.
 
Crash250f said:
I myself really dont have an opinion on cryengine because of lack of info, but I hear alot of people making the statement that its horribly programmed. Is there any info to back this up? I mean Crysis is beyond any other game engine to date visually but is it a fact that those visuals could be achieved with alot less power?
Click to expand...

Doom 3 had "good graphics" but did it by making long narrow hall ways so it didn't have to render much of anything. Crysis on the other hand said screw it, if people want to IN THE FUTURE turn up the graphics we'll let them. They made wide open spaces and put the foilage in the game. So it's doing all the math on the trees that are 100ft in the distance and not effecting your game play at all. The result? It looks damn good. But it's also insanely demanding. Turn the right settings down and it looks almost as good and it's not as demanding.
 
2X GT300 will hit 45 constant fps on that resolution (in game not demo)
lets say with 4XAA
 
I will never be playing Crysis at 60fps at 1920x1200 because after my first play through and maybe 2 hours online I never touched it again and dont think I ever will touch it again :p

I dont get why people make threads like this. Its not like its some amazing FPS game that people are still playing, only the 5 people in the world who still play it would care :p Its not like when a powerful enough PC finally comes out everyone will suddenly jump online and start playing again.
 
Tudz said:
I will never be playing Crysis at 60fps at 1920x1200 because after my first play through and maybe 2 hours online I never touched it again and dont think I ever will touch it again :p

I dont get why people make threads like this. Its not like its some amazing FPS game that people are still playing, only the 5 people in the world who still play it would care :p Its not like when a powerful enough PC finally comes out everyone will suddenly jump online and start playing again.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Benchmark monkeys play it all the time.
 
Tudz said:
Its not like when a powerful enough PC finally comes out everyone will suddenly jump online and start playing again.
Click to expand...

No they won't jump online but I can guarantee a lot of people will play Crysis single-player when powerful enough hardware is available on the cheap. A lot of folks refuse to play games at less than max settings out of fear they won't get to enjoy the full experience.

And the whole "Crysis is poorly programmed" argument is weak and unsubstantiated. Notice how people get quiet when challenged to come up with a better looking or more technically impressive game with better performance? If someone doesn't like how Crysis looks that's fine cause it's subjective but to suggest that other games are doing the same work and producing the same results at faster framerates is just idiocy.
 
RADEoN said:
Crysis uses roughly 4x the power that it should in my opinion. I think there's plenty of games that look just as good as Crysis, but are nowhere near as demanding.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement. Far Cry 2 looked pretty damn sharp and I could push nearly everything at max @ 1080p with dual 8800GT's. It may have not been quite as graphically intense as crysis but it was definitely close.
 
from personal experience, dual 4870x2's come close allowing all high/gamer settings at 25x16. dual gtx295's are closer still, allowing settings like shaders, texture, object, and shadow to run at very high/enthusiast 25x16. maxing crysis maybe just around the corner, but it will still require multi gpu.
 
I am personally waiting for a better engine to come along that takes less hardware than the crysis engine so people can see first hand just how bad the engine is. There are engines that come close that can run perfectly on current hardware.
 
Crysis has amazing technology and has set the bar high. I constantly hear other game developers moaning as to why they can't have the same technology in their own game engine. It is leagues ahead of your average call of duty FPS and maybe that is the only reason people are against it. I remember when Doom 3 came out and everyone was complaining about how it is too much for their computers, however someone has to keep pushing the envelope and crysis is doing just that.
 
edifyingkarma said:
I agree with this statement. Far Cry 2 looked pretty damn sharp and I could push nearly everything at max @ 1080p with dual 8800GT's. It may have not been quite as graphically intense as crysis but it was definitely close.
Click to expand...
It's not even close. Far Cry 2's engine doesn't have anywhere near the sheer amount of "stuff" that goes on in your typical Crysis frame. You have to remember that the game was a console port - any time that happens, the engine is usually crippled when it comes to its capabilities on the PC. The fact is that a graphics card can only compute so much as defined by its fillrate, shader power, memory bandwidth, etc. etc. The more an application demands, the more the frame rate will drop. I personally wonder if people who make these claims have actually played Crysis with everything on Very High to actually experience the difference.
lloose said:
I am personally waiting for a better engine to come along that takes less hardware than the crysis engine so people can see first hand just how bad the engine is. There are engines that come close that can run perfectly on current hardware.
Click to expand...
And I'd like a flying car that runs on water. As stated above, the application requests so much to be rendered, and the graphics card can only handle the load so well which translates (more or less) into FPS. The only way to get around that and raise FPS is to cut what is being rendered. Now some of this optimization can be done behind the scenes so that the rendered image is almost identical to the original, but requires less rendering power to produce. The other way is to simply cut down on how much is being rendered - enter consoles and console quality. Now, if you want all games to be reduced the console quality, that's your opinion. I personally find games modeled around a heavily detailed main character, with bland, low-res textured environments lacking any detail, nevermind heavily reduced view distance, to be shoddy. To each his own.
 
GTX 295 SLI'd comes close, but that's with no AA/AF though. Asus Mars SLI'd seems to be the only chance right now.
 
Mr. K6 said:
I personally wonder if people who make these claims have actually played Crysis with everything on Very High to actually experience the difference.
Click to expand...

/thread

Yeah I'd say in about 4 years we might see some midrange cards max out crysis.
 
lloose said:
I am personally waiting for a better engine to come along that takes less hardware than the crysis engine so people can see first hand just how bad the engine is.
Click to expand...

You mean developers will continue to learn from experience and write more efficient code in the future? Wow, that's amazing!!

There are engines that come close that can run perfectly on current hardware.
Click to expand...

No there aren't. Where are these magical engines?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top