Think your ready for Crysis 3? Think again

Wait.... How are you guys getting this game? Is it available to download somewhere??
 
tricky0502 said:
is that true? i just got an email about it without signing up. i do have win8.
Click to expand...

no i was just messing with the windows 8 troll ;)

its for everybody. i got a key by getting in through the nvidia facebook thing
 
The game would probably run better if they benched it on ACTUAL RAM.

Seriously, I've never seen a stick of Geil ram work. Every single one that I have sold has come back faulty in less than a year.
 
murkris118 said:
This statistic is absolute crap because of the way servers all over the world respond and considering that the game is still in the Alpha stage. It makes no sense to justify whether a card can handle the game or not at the moment. I have a 680 and I can confirm that I get a stable 60 fps with Shaders, Post Processing on High and all others on Very High at 1080p in some servers and horrendous dips in others. I am pretty impressed by the quality of the Gameplay and Graphics tbh considering it`s an Alpha, so in short performance numbers drastically differ depending on which server you are in and at what time you play the game. I am pretty sure anything above a 660ti should easily handle the game on max settings at 1080p upon final release.
Click to expand...


You get the dips because of heavy fighting. That's what i've seen anyway. Probably server side like you said.

And umm 660 ti at max settings? Negative.

I have an HD 7970 and I only feel comfortable on High. 50-60 fps. most of the time. That's not going to change, unless you're one of those people who can tolerate 30-40 fps. on Very High, which I do not.
 
dremic said:
no i was just messing with the windows 8 troll ;)

its for everybody. i got a key by getting in through the nvidia facebook thing
Click to expand...

Oh, I've got windows 8, I just use Windows 7 :)

How about we agree to keep the OS debate to the one thread, shall we?
 
Would it be worth it if I can get one at a good price to double up the card I have in my sig? :)
 
kevinhc21 said:
Would it be worth it if I can get one at a good price to double up the card I have in my sig? :)
Click to expand...

Dude... perhaps fundage is limited. But you need to get a cheap Intel rig first. The difference in your framerates would be night and day, even with the card you have.
 
I'd like to give the alpha a go on my 4 video card rig. Anyone want to share an account for 30 minutes or a key :)
 
Unfortunately even when I forced AFR2, it would only use two of my video cards, and at roughly 50%. Will need to wait for better SLI numbers...
 
It wasn't. It loaded two of them about %50 and averaged about 20fps. Motion blur was a bit annoying so will turn that down next time. This is at very high quality settings at 2560x1600.
 
clayton006 said:
It wasn't. It loaded two of them about %50 and averaged about 20fps. Motion blur was a bit annoying so will turn that down next time. This is at very high quality settings at 2560x1600.
Click to expand...

Once the game is out of Alpha and nVidia has a proper SLI profile for the game, I'm sure the performance will get a whole lot better and utilization will be at or near 100%
 
You get the dips because of heavy fighting. That's what i've seen anyway. Probably server side like you said.

And umm 660 ti at max settings? Negative.

I have an HD 7970 and I only feel comfortable on High. 50-60 fps. most of the time. That's not going to change, unless you're one of those people who can tolerate 30-40 fps. on Very High, which I do not.
Click to expand...

I was just speculating about the 660ti thing. I think that the dips happen positively because of the servers and also because its still in the Alpha stage. tbh, I dont believe that Crytek would make the game so demanding that even a 680 or a 7970 cant handle the game at max and you gotta have SLI or Crossfire setups to play it at a comfortable 60 fps. I am pretty sure the game will have Extreme and Ultra settings upon release as well just like Crysis 2 so how on earth would we manage those if even Very High is not possible with two of the fastest chips available at the moment?, I am pretty scared.:confused:
 
When I ran the alpha I was only getting 15FPS on a single GTX 670, all settings maxed at 1440p, not to mention SLI didn't work either.
 
John Vuong said:
When I ran the alpha I was only getting 15FPS on a single GTX 670, all settings maxed at 1440p, not to mention SLI didn't work either.
Click to expand...

If you force AFR2 from the Nvidia Panel you can get somewhat better frames. I'm not complaining about SLI at the moment, going to wait for the game to show up to pass some judgement. Considering I've never beat any of the crysis games, I may wait on this one.
 
assuming the final build runs exactly like the alpha (unlikely, but for the sake of arguement), I'll get about 50fps at VHQ/1920x1080 with my rig, i can take that :D
 
spacing guild said:
First off, I've been playing the Alpha. With my rig, Very High Q kicks your ass. I can only run on High with for what I would consider to be playable. Mostly 50-60 fps with dips in heavy, heavy fighting.

And it looks great.

Now... as to your comment. What makes you think all of a sudden they are going to re-write the fucking code of the game so all of sudden it runs better than the Alpha?

How many bugs are they looking for with one map for the Alpha?

This is how it's going to run on your computer when Crysis 3 comes out. Period.
Click to expand...

I was in the Crysis 1 MP Alpha, and the final version ran noticably better than the alpha. These posts always pop up when an alpha comes out, shouting that the final version will run nearly the same as the alpha build.
 
Turning water quality to high, rather than very high saw a 20-30fps bump(from 12fps) with a gtx 670.

My settings now are
G Effects: Very High
Object: High
Particles: Very High
Post P: Very High
Shading: High
Shadows: High
Water: High
That usually pulls around 60fps

Edit: @1080p
 
tricky0502 said:
1920x1080, shading and post processing on high, everything else on very high

2012-11-07 08:52:43 - Crysis 3 MP Alpha
Frames: 28915 - Time: 460140ms - Avg: 62.840 - Min: 29 - Max: 88

c3.jpg
Click to expand...

i dont think it is that demanding.

when crysis 1 came out, i had a 8800gts g80. i had to play on med setting to pull those frames.
 
Kind of curious, is this a multiplayer demo or are you guys getting to play through some of the single player campaign? Also what are your guys thoughts on the game so far?
 
Reality said:
I was in the Crysis 1 MP Alpha, and the final version ran noticably better than the alpha. These posts always pop up when an alpha comes out, shouting that the final version will run nearly the same as the alpha build.
Click to expand...

What did you go from 10 fps to 15 fps or something?:rolleyes:
 
Any reason why the 7970 GE is outperforming the stock 7970 by a good 15%?

I was always under the impression that the GHz Edition is the same card with a slight boost to push it above the 670. 15% is quite a lot.
 
spacing guild said:
Noobs have been calling Crysis a poorly optimized game for years. It's just a game that kicks PCs asses. That's it. No bloat. No poor optimization.

People make excuses when their $2500 rigs can't run a game as well as they want it to. And I'm sick of seeing it on forums. Don't be a noob and make excuses. Either turn your settings down, like I had to for the Alpha, or buy Quad SLI.

Just don't tell me that magically a game gains 50% optimization from the game maker going from Alpha to release. It just doesn't happen.

From what I've seen from Crysis 3, there will be tweaks, there will be DRIVER optimizations, better SLI and Crossfire profiles... but the game as it is now, is what it will be.

And when Crysis 3 comes out, I want you to come to this thread and digitally kiss my ass when everything I've just said turns out to be exactly as I predicted it would be.

And you say "Invitation only Alpha" like i'm priviledged or something. Like my feedback is so important to Crytek that they need me to help test their game. Or did I get a key just because I have Origin and it's a reward?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nah, the original Crysis was still not well optimized.

There are people who run the original Crysis levels as a mod on the Crysis Wars engine. Apparently it runs a lot better with no loss of IQ. So the first Crysis engine is partially to blame for poor performance.
 
RamonGTP said:
Going from 10 to 15fps is a 50% increase in performance, which is absolutely huge. That means someone getting 30 fps would get 45, and 60 goes up to 90.
Click to expand...
Well, in an ideal world, anyway. A 50% frame rate increase at 10 fps is unlikely to yield a similar percentage increase at 60 fps.
 
You can have the greatest engine in the world.

But if the design is shit, if the artwork is shit, it won't matter.

Like all those videos of the UT4 engine. It looks great, sure, but no developer will put in that level of detail and care into the actual game.

You don't need the latest engine to make a game look best. You need manpower and artistic ability to get the art into the game first. I didn't see much of either in C2.
 
christpunchers said:
Nah, the original Crysis was still not well optimized.

There are people who run the original Crysis levels as a mod on the Crysis Wars engine. Apparently it runs a lot better with no loss of IQ. So the first Crysis engine is partially to blame for poor performance.
Click to expand...
I don't blame poor optimization so much as I 'blame' advancement of technology (and advancement of time). We're all still learning how best to exploit APIs like D3D10/11 for different usage scenarios. Crytek's been undergoing the same process of discovery as everyone else in the industry, and their platform's had time to suck up the sum of that knowledge over the years. It should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that they're running the same stuff faster today than they were five years ago.
 
wonderfield said:
I don't blame poor optimization so much as I 'blame' advancement of technology (and advancement of time). We're all still learning how best to exploit APIs like D3D10/11 for different usage scenarios. Crytek's been undergoing the same process of discovery as everyone else in the industry, and their platform's had time to suck up the sum of that knowledge over the years. It should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone that they're running the same stuff faster today than they were five years ago.
Click to expand...

If the original C1 engine was not well optimized, then how do you explain the fps increases when one plays the same levels on the Crysis War engine (an updated version of C1's engine)?

Yes, of course as tech advances, older games will be easier to tackle. But I still believe Crytek didn't really maximize all the potential out of C1. They did some work to make it smooth but gave up as soon as C2 became their target. They didn't care about PC when their eyes were set on consoles when C2 development rolled around.
 
christpunchers said:
If the original C1 engine was not well optimized, then how do you explain the fps increases when one plays the same levels on the Crysis War engine (an updated version of C1's engine)?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you meant to ask if the original engine was well-optimized, then how does one explain the performance increase in the Crysis Wars version of the engine?

Simply. The latter is better-optimized for the constraints, typical usage scenarios and typical hardware of the time. That's not to say Crysis was necessarily poorly-optimized, though. Note that I never claimed that the original was well-optimized either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top