Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video Cards' started by tangoseal, Apr 9, 2019.
Is that like cystitis?
Shit this game will give any CPU cystitis
I just fired up version 1.2 and at the start it runs like a dogs dinner until turning off full screen and then it runs great.
Hardware: 1080ti, 6700K@4.6GHz, 3733MHz ram. 1080p display.
Full screen was running at 24fps, 10% GPU @ 3/4 speed, with 4 CPU cores around 15% avg (none are higher than 22% at any time).
In windowed mode it hits 60fps easily (vsync on), GPU near 30% use @ 3/4 speed, one CPU core now hitting 30% ish.
My hardware isnt anywhere near taxed.
I havent watched the video yet, I cant atm.
Am I missing something pertinent?
Nah... video just shows that even 10 years later Crysis still destroys even 8700k and 2700x etc...game still looks better than many aaa titles of today.
They're doing it wrong lol.
Mine is set to ultra and my 6700K is barely used.
If I remember correctly maybe it runs bad because early after the games release they told everyone they would not patch it anymore? I could be wrong.
IF you watch the video, he explains why Crysis can still punish a system. At 4K resolution, with console tweaks to make the game look better, and due to how the game loads a single core, it can bring a modern machine to its knees even today. While the game was somewhat multi-threaded, it wasn't efficiently done. It still primarily loaded a single CPU core. As the guy points out in the video, the game was developed at a time when Hyperthreading existed, but that Intel had promised CPU speeds in excess of 5GHz with its Netburst architecture. That never happened. While IPC has improved, clock speeds really haven't gone up that much since those days. The Pentium 4 topped out at just under 4GHz and never went further than that.
The guy really seems to know his shit about game engines and presents the information well. He shows how some choices were made by the developers to cut back on visuals to improve performance and pretty much states that the game wasn't as unoptimized as people seem to think it was. The game engine was simply ahead of its time. It was inefficient in some ways, which would be rectified in later versions of CryEngine. Trade offs were made in the sequels to ensure that those didn't punish hardware nearly as much as the original did.
Thanks, I'll look forward to watching it later.
I'd say they have been- just about the only AAA engine that ran well on Dozers, IIRC
It's because your monitor was running at 24 Hz in fullscreen. The game gives you no option to change refresh rate or V-Sync in its menus, so the game defaults to the first refresh rate listed when DirectX enumerates the display. A simple fix is to pick "Highest available" for Preferred refresh rate in the NVIDIA control panel. There are also command line options/console commands you can use, if I'm not mistaken.
I think that's probably because the game was the model of GPU efficiency. Crysis 3 for example was the poster child for SLI and 3-Way SLI as it was one of the few games that would scale on 2 or more GPUs with nearly 100% efficiency. If memory serves, it balanced pretty good across multiple cores as well, but the GPU was far more important than the CPU. Lost Planet is much the same. It scales well across CPU cores (up to eight threads) but when you set it to actual resolutions people will play, the CPU seems largely meaningless.
Indeed that worked, thanks.
At release, I recall a few of us holding back the angry hoards who were crying foul, saying Crysis was badly optimized. It wasn't badly optimized: the game looked better and ran more intensive operations than most games released 4 years later, for pete's sake!
I've been sitting in my corner seething for 12 years over it. Vindicated!
Yeah, using all the online tweaks and configuration options, I was ab to get the game running at almost 60fps at high 1080p on a GTX 750 Ti plus i3 3225. It was a demanding game CPU-wise when it was released but the extra 30-40% performance my CPU beings to the table does helps.
I really hope Crytek makes another Crysis... even though 2 and 3 were meh... Crytek always were the ones to push gaming hardware to the limits. It would be really cool if they came back with something like Crysis or some other franchise maybe that will stress our GPUs. I would say the one game that brings my rig to it's knees right now is Metro Exodus and Battlefield 5.
Crytek, even if it could will never do that again. Crysis 2 and 3 proved that. They scaled them back compared to the first one to make them have a broader appeal and to work on consoles. The first game didn't sell well enough because many people avoided it simply because they didn't think their machines could handle it.
Great video! Worth the 22 minute watch.
I remember tweaking the settings on my 8800 GTS 512MB to get Crysis to run.
Had to download a mod that actually made the graphics better in DX9, but run so much faster. Can't remember the name now.
But that was what is great about PC gaming. And once it was running at 60fps on my 720p HDTV, it was glorious.
That would be
"Cuban-Ultima-Doom-Assassin47-Taowolf-Sword's Custom Crysis Configs [CCC] [Triple "C" Pack] VERSION 2.21 + Goodies"
I don't game and I still enjoyed that video.
Have you even watched the video? It was badly optimized, it loads up everything on a single CPU core, the multicore patch was poor, because afterwards a single CPU core still did most of the work. If it utilised a CPU properly modern GPUs would have no trouble running it, a single CPU core just can't feed a GPU fast enough.
(True admission time)
As someone who had 5 older brothers, all huge, I retroactively loved the idea of the cyrsis suit. More than once I imagined putting it on, then going on a carpet-bombing backhand run through history.
I'd have a pony tail through a Giants hat, because I've learned that's how I signal Strong Independence. Yes, that, not the backhanding through walls.
Only after they modded the game to 'bring it to its knees' though.
You will notice before they did that, gameplay was smooth.
And indeed is the same experience I get at UHD with a 1080ti on a 6700K.
I agree multicore isnt what it could be but the vanilla game runs great at UHD res.
Great video and was super informative - the others are right, that guy knows his stuff!
Crysis has always scaled well with clockspeed on a single core, I think they were expecting 8 GHz CPUs in a few years to run that game or something, lol.
still one of the best water and foliage implementations in any game...CryEngine is hands down the best looking game engine and I'm surprised more developers don't use it...
The most important for devs are the tools/eco-system...could be that Crysis is lacking heavily in that department.
it's some of that but also crytek as a company shooting themselves in the foot with the requirements + costs and royalties to use their engine.. the base engine has a lot of limitations and to be allowed to modify and fix those limitations costs $$$ that goes right into cryteks pocket not to mention if you wanted help from crytek as well that cost you even more money. developers didn't want to deal with that when there are so many other free or low royalty fee engines available. if you followed the MWLL mod for crysis, it's a perfect example of why no one wanted to work with crytek.
I've yet to try it. Never got around to buying it when Kyle posted that sale link a few weeks ago.
Yeah i've known about that but I don't play MP games.
Has a single player mode now too. I actually play it more than MP. Easy in, easy out, short games.
Intel was promising 10 GHz on the Pentium 4 when Crysis was on development, so maybe they were . Then Core came out shortly before Crysis was released and changed everything.
That goes under what I call "Eco-system"
Have you watched the video? This point was addressed. Back when Crysis was in development, multi-core CPUs weren't a thing and Intel was promising 10GHz Pentium 4's.
10GHz was Intel's projection. It was widely known at the time. The architecture was actually designed specifically to scale in clock speeds.
Dual core CPUs were around since 2005 and Quad core CPUs were released in 2006. It was really bad development, planning, optimization, whatever you want to call it, to have a game built to be so single CPU bound, especially when multicore CPUs were a reality and not a 10HZ fantasy. Even Patches didn't sort it out. It still uses 1 core to do most of the work.
Widely known? It was widely known to be a BS long before Crysis was released. The 10Ghz was Intel's projection back when they first released the Pentium 4 in 2000, they claimed they would reach 10Ghz speeds by 2005. Most people stopped thinking it would reach those speeds when the Pentium 4 was only hitting 3.4Ghz by the end of 2004.
Intel abandoned the Netburst architecture and released the Intel Core 2 Duo in 2006 and then, later in the same year, Quad Core CPUs. AMD had released their Dual core CPU the year before. Surely with companies going multicore that that was the path to take. They had more than enough time to make changes in the 15 months before they released Crysis in November 2007.
Long story short, Crysis looks amazing and was one of the best looking games for years, but, the reason it was still hard to run a few years later was not because of the graphic power needed but because the game is so CPU bound.
So thats why the game seemd so stuttery on my 4K screen. I had it full screen and it woudl say it was like 80 fps but the game was nowhere as smooth. I'll try the windowed screen once I get home. I'm a i7 930 and 1080 Ti
I your ever seen the pre - order box that came with the poster as bought new by me like every thing you see ,
I found Crysis 2 meh, and never even bothered with 3. I think it's one of the few FPS I've ever replayed the story over again. I think I did it 2-3 times? I remember running my i7 930@4ghz and HD 5850 with this and getting some pretty solid frames at 1440p with some of the settings turned down. Looked fantastic. The outdoor/semi open world (though linear) experience was one of the best I remember having to date. I still think about going back to replay it, but then remembered some issues running on newer windows versions/certain patches just don't work, so gave up. May go back to it at some point for fun!
If you liked OG Crysis, give Crysis Warhead a shot. It takes place on the other side of the island and you play as Psycho.