But Can It Run Crysis?

Graphics wise theres no problem with it. People were complaining about the lack of physics that the original pc version had over the console version and also the fact that the nothing was done about the single thread dependency of the game.

Demanding with appropriately improved graphics is fine, demanding just because its not optimised well is the problem here. See Assasin's Creed Valhalla.

 

I don't know but software based ray tracing has got to be demanding and use alot of power as for optimised...running all low I get 100fps average with my 5 year old mid range card...as for cpu bottleneck I don't know what people are expecting just because you have a 5 GHz Intel 8core cpu doesn't mean you should get better frame rates unless the game is very un demanding..when a game has less demanding graphics the frame rates may be above 120fps and it then becomes cpu bottlenecked and then and only then will a 8 core 5ghz cpu help..pushing it possibly triple digits higher...but Crysis remastered is incredibly GPU intensive....the only argument is it doesn't use all cpu cores fully because it doesn't need more cpu power..and when the GPUs are triple the power I'm sure you will see triple the performance..

 

It looks like there is still a CPU performance bottleneck after a certain point based on what I see, but the remaster has significantly increased peformance on the CPU side. I say good on Crytek for their optimization work, but there's still room for improvement.

I think the "Can It Run Crysis?" settings are pretty silly. It's basically a showcase for how unoptimized the game can be. LODs are extremely important for significantly reducing the load on the GPU. Nobody would even notice the difference if done well, and performance would be significantly better.

 

I don't know..

When a i9 nets 30fps at 4k and a i5 nets 30 cpu simply isn't the bottleneck...
As for being un optimised...all low in the new game looks better than very high in the original and nets better performance...it wasn't that Crysis was unoptimized it was ahead of its time by like 13 years GPU wise...look at farcry 5 and compare it to Crysis...Crysis curb stomps even the latest farcry

 

Alex at Digital Foundry clearly showed in his video, how the game is CPU bottlenecked at 1080p due to not properly utilizing CPU multithreading.

He tested with a 10900K and RTX 3080, there was no GPU-limited scenario in play. When this level of system struggled at 1080p/High without RT enabled, it was easy to show how it was the CPUs fault.

 

They are not always right. I saw that video. When a I5 nets 30 and then a i9 nets thirty it simply isn't a cpu bottleneck...as for utilization which was what they were actually talking about they are right it simply doesn't use more than 4cores.

As for 1080p I can run my cpu at 2ghz or 4ghz and see no difference in frame rates..if your GPU bottlenecked you will see higher framerates with the extra power...and that is exactly what we see and was shown in the video a 3080 getting 40 and a 2080ti getting 25

 

I don't know why you keep arguing this. It's been proven by many different people and publications. The game only utilises 4 cores and even then 1 core is way more heavily utilised than the rest.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2020-crysis-remastered-pc-tech-review

https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-perfor...eaded-cpu-issues-just-like-the-original-game/

Even crytek admit it's cpu bottlenecked.

https://www.crysis.com/blog/

 

If the game heavily loads only one thread, ofc there won’t be a difference between an i5 and i9 (at the same clockspeed). That’s still a CPU bottleneck.

 

oic whoops again lol...yeah I noticed one of my threads was at 90 percent and the rest were at 10-20 so yeah sigh...im just such a die hard crysis fan it blinded me...also I have a 1060 so im gpu bottlenecked wheras a 3090-3080 would be cpu bottlenecked at 4k.

I thought we were talking about 1080p not 4k...but its all good your right..both of you..also DF is just great so informative and helpful I rewatched the video and see what you guys are saying...personally im gpu bottlenecked and everyone else cpu..\


appologies im embarrassed

 

They are talking about 1080p

 

so you still get bottlenecked even at 1080p with a 3090? if so wow


I found this and it looks like the first level is exempt which explains my results and conclusion
https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-perfor...eaded-cpu-issues-just-like-the-original-game/

 

this guy doesn't seem to be bottlenecked but whatever each to their own.

also game was patched after df review...and this was before i posted its gpu bottlenecked


edit little update im using all 12 threads now....performance remains the same

 

That first video is the only one at 1080p the gpu hovers at 46% utilisation and the cpu constantly has 1 core pegged at 100%. That is the definition of CPU bound.

 

lol

no just no its not pegged at 100 on 1 and zero on the others....you obviously did not watch the video and the game has been patched....in my 35 years on earth lol just lol im done here....watch the friggen video


also dude thats not the definition of a cpu bottleneck. A bottleneck is when a weaker part limits the stronger parts performance.


and how do you know?

when your getting 40 fps on ultra then very high then medium ect all getting 40fps is usually a good indicator of a cpu bottleneck, when you use a more powerful card and the same cpu and get better performance. its not a cpu bottleneck...

I watched the entrie video again and cpu is at 30-40 percent on all 16 threads and never does it hit 100 cpu....and just because your only getting 50 percent gpu utilization doesnt mean your getting 50 percent performance from the card....just not how it works as I have played many many games that almost never use 100 percent of the gpu.

 

I get why you are thinking the way you do and in any normal scenario where the game is properly multi-threaded you would be right.

The game only really utilises 4 threads. You can see this by the way only 4 threads really ever reach above 30% cpu utilisation. Yes other cores have 5-10% utilisation but here's the thing. The rest of the OS and api calls don't stop happening when you are gaming they still have to run somewhere it's on these cores. Don't believe me open task manager on your desktop and look at the graph even when idle all cores will be doing a small amount of something.

Here's a screenshot taken from 32s in the video where one thread is at 100% and that same thread remains 70%-100% for the whole duration of the video.


During this time the GPU usage never touches above 50%. The game is cpu bound. Not because it's maxing out all the cores, it's cpu bound because the game is still heavily single threaded with some aspects running on extra threads but the vast majority just overwhelms one core acting as a hard limit to performance.

I'm not saying this to be a dick or make you look bad so please don't take it like that. This is more an educational thing showing you how you can see what is limiting your game performance and where the bottleneck is.

Yeah that's because you are cpu bound at that resolution. Bumping up the resolution would increase the usage or a faster processor would up the framerate resulting in high gpu usage.

 

If a gpu isn't at 90%+ usage and the cpu is hitting 100% on any number of cores, you have a cpu bottleneck.

Its that simple.

So is this game cpu bound? Yes, it 100% is

 

say no to crack kids..lol

not sure why I posted this but now its deleted.

 

(129) Crysis Remastered : RTX 2080 Ti + i9 10900K l 4K l - YouTube
(129) Crysis Remastered 4K | RTX 3090 | i9 10900K 5.2GHz | Can it run Crysis Settings - YouTube

this is before the patch...one core is close too maxed but framerates go up...impossible with your definition and the one i believe to be true supplied.


im done arguing this, I always appreciate others opinions and I hope at the end of the day none of this even matters and is semantics..

game on dude...who really cares is an honest answer, if you dont like that crysis runs at 50fps maxed 4k with a 3090 don't buy it...I bought it and stand by it because I just have a 1060 and can basically max most settings and get 30 fps average at 1080p and I love crysis....like I warned previously i'm a die hard crysis fan lol....Sorry dude. But im interested in factual truths

 

Dude why are you attacking hfm for liking a comment and calling everyone kids and acting as if you are intellectually superior to everyone?

I can't be bothered arguing with you anymore i'm blocking you and i'm out.

 

i dont know if i was smoking or drinking lol painful reading this post..

 

crysis got a big patch 2.0

graphics like lighting were drastically improved as was ray tracing ill check right now if their is better cpu utilization ie more than 4 cores...also this is cry engine above crysis 3 and the cpu bottlenecking should not exist as this games engine is not the same as the original or warhead...kk ill go check brb

great news it utilizes 12 threads now at least some of the time and looks twice as good lighting wise here is assault....

 

these were taken at random times and I did not try to capture high cpu usage but its looking like its at least improved a bit.....but there is bad news performance tanks in heavy cpu usage areas it tanks similar to CS go with smoke....pity but at least crytek and saber interactive listened to our complaints and fixed some things and improved lighting for a game that was decades ahead of its time lighting wise in 2007..

if you own it I highly recommend you check it out again and post your thoughts on cryteks massive update....too me its meh but noticeable...its not slight its actually quite a bit more pronounced like when light goes through abranch the area looks green just like in real life..ray tracing was the most noticeable improvement..and im not sure if they improved textures.

 

its kinda funny I had a bit to drink or smoke when I typed my response to the game being cpu bottlenecked and feel embarrassed but ironically after patch 2.0 it is most certainly not cpu bottlenecked it uses 30 perent cpu and 99 percent gpu with a 1060 and 8750h....kinda funny ironic..talking out my butt but in the end yeah performance has not changed and its just smoother without the hiccups

 

this is all low shaders high raytracing can it run crysis and im getting 60fps looking this good
and yes those are the best settings


and crysis 4 is bound to look this good

 

Dang, that looks pretty darned good. Photo-realism, especially the second one with the water and mountain.

I haven't played Crysis Remastered (or anything else) for a while, so haven't applied the update yet. Might have to do that to check it out for myself.

Too many games; too little time. I generally use my discretionary free blocks of time for overclocked benching rather than gaming.

 

That's a game in itself even if you aren't using that performance for anything else requiring the effort.

 

Indeed it is. My favorite game, in fact.

 

Yes, it does look even better with the 2.0 patch.

Processing is complete up to 1080p60, but YouTube is still processing higher resolutions.



As an interesting side note, a standard 3090 has a TGP of 350W and this game is constantly pushing right around 400W with no overclock. It would likely be a disappointing experience running a GPU with a 350W or lower power limit. Of course that would be true under any circumstances, but this is a real world example of why it would suck. It always sucks having PC parts that are castrated by cancer firmware.

 

That core utilization does seem much improved. Did they add DLSS to the game or is that framerate just native?

 

Update 2.0 and knowing DLSS is coming soon, are the reasons I bought Crysis Remastered during last winter sales.

Crysis Remastered runs smooth on my system. Better than Crysis 1. I like that they tweaked the movement to be faster and more responsive. Also I like that you can choose to control the Nanosuit like original Crysis 1 or Crysis 2/3.

Graphic wise I hope they will tone down a bit the green colour. To my eyes, the “warmer” Nintendo Switch version looks better than PC

 

Native. No DLSS yet.

https://www.crytek.com/news/crysis-remastered-patches-for-pc-and-nintendo-switch

 

anyone know when the next patch will be released curious if they will improve it further.

also i find this game well optimsed now im getting 40fps maxed with performance raytracing

 

It's good to see the performance issues have been fixed. It'll be awesome if Crytek can improve performance further with aggressive LODs.

I'm waiting for the game to come to Steam to play it. In hindsight, that turned out to be a good approach since it seems all issues with the game will be resolved by the time the Epic Store exclusivity ends. I wouldn't pay full price for a game anyway since I can get a better, cheaper product a year or two later with the way game releases have been handled recently.

 

Yeah, unless you're highly anticipating a specific game or it has a multiplayer component where you'll miss out on playing with your group that is hyped for a time window I don't see the draw for jumping on SP experiences right away. Just wait it out for a year or two and you can just get it for free on EGS or GamePass. I have to admit that would completely tank the game industry with the money it costs to make a truly AAA game these days.

 

Not to mention the potential for "Ultimate Editions" that would include any/all DLC like when Control was available for $20 not long after its Steam release.

 

That has always been my approach. With rare exceptions, I don't buy games until the price drops to $25 or less. And, I won't even pay $25 for it unless it is a compelling title in a franchise that I am already fond of. I have had too many disappointments to roll the dice on something new and expensive that has cool trailers on YouTube, but deliver a lackluster experience. Probably 75% of what I own has been played for less than an hour before I lost interest in it. I am so glad I didn't pay the full price at release for those games.

I'd probably have a slightly different view but for the fact that I have no interest in online multi-player gaming. I won't buy any title that lacks an offline single-player campaign. I think that your observation is accurate. If all gamers followed my example it would be very destructive to the industry. Fortunately for the industry, the frenzied mob that rushes to be one of the first to buy, at full price, so they can play with friends is closer to the norm.

Yup, there's that as well. For me, waiting is always smart. As a solo gamer, it is nearly impossible to justify paying release prices for 99.9% of what I end up purchasing. Control is a great example of that.

 

lol...erm me too sarcasm im like the opposite buy full price and sometimes at a discount for meh games.

well lately...but in the past id wait...go figure my iq goes down...memory shot and i start buying games full price go figure lol....says something

 

There's another reason why I'm more of a fan of the Game Pass model because I can play something at my leisure and if I don't like it, no harm, no foul. Control is a perfect example of that. The Xbox One version is available via Game Pass and after about the third mission or so, I stopped playing because I got bored. Had I got it on Steam, I would have missed the refund window, but with the subscription model I can simply go back to playing the back catalog of 360 titles I missed out on since I gave up on the platform after going through 4 RMAs for the Red Ring of Death. With EA bringing its titles to the service, Game Pass is an even more compelling value.

 

yeah gamepass is pretty impressive....i heard halo infinite will be on it day 1....alot of great games but you have have to deal with the buggy windows store platform

 

The subscription model is good (and your example shows that), until it goes the way of video streaming, dividing content between countless distributors...

 

Knowledge and self control are power. Unfortunately too many people lack it, which causes them other problems as well.

To add onto this, it also gives the provider complete control over your access to games, which I don't like. Service outages are inevitable no matter how robust a network is. I like being able to play my games offline because I'll be able to play them forever, whenever I want and wherever I want. I don't have a problem with these subscription based game streaming services as long as they don't force themselves to be the norm. They're definitely good for people who only play a game once and move on to another one.

I like going back and playing my games over and over again though, so this doesn't fly with me. Additionally, I spend about the same amount of money on games a year as I would pay for one of these subscription services over the span of a year, so they're not worth it for me, and I would never use them even if they were the cheaper option. I hope we still have choices in the future and that streaming services don't acquire a deathgrip on the game market.

Having options is awesome. It allows people with different needs to get what they want. What we don't want to happen is one option being forced on everyone.

 

XCloud is the streaming portion of Game Pass. Otherwise you download the games you want and play offline - no different than Steam.

 

In case of streaming yes. But for just "renting" you still download to your PC.
Also don't forget that there are already games which require you to be always online to play them, even single player ones. And digital distribution platforms like Steam et al don't guarantee if they go tits up you will get to keep the games (except for GOG, which let's you download the installer, maybe there are other similar as well).

 

Valve has actually planned for Steam's death should it ever occur. Gabe Newell has said himself that Steam users will be able to continue playing their games long after Steam's demise, but he didn't elaborate how. I guess that isn't really a guarantee either, but it suggests it it highly likely Steam games will in fact be playable forever (barring ones that require an internet connection to play).

As for always online games, I don't buy those since they're digital cancer (not talking about multiplayer games, just ones with a singleplayer campaign which contain always online DRM crap). I only get games that can be played offline.

I hope I don't sound like a person with a tinfoil hat here.

 

Me too. It's a super rare game that I play MP anymore. It's practically nothing. I pretty much play games to recharge from having to deal with people all day. Not to yet again deal with more people.

 

GOG is a good platform for this line of thinking. They already allow you to flat out download and archive installers for all the games they sell, at least all the ones I've seen they do. Not sure if they've walked that back for any specific publisher requests or not.

 

Amen to that. You sound like me talking now, LOL. I've said the same thing I don't know how many times... I've lost track.

 

does anyone know if this game uses ray traced shadows

 

If I’m not mistaken Crysis Remastered is only limited to ray-traced reflection.

For realistic dynamic lighting they are using SVOGI (some form of raytracing too?).

By the way, during playing with the graphic settings, I found out that when I put raytracing quality from Off to Performance, I got up to 10FPS boost! In normal RTX ON practice, this should be opposite! lol!

My graphic settings (60FPS+ at 1080p): Objects, Shadows and Vegetation are Medium quality. Others set to Very High quality. Raytracing quality is Performance.

 

im doing all low shaders high raytracing performance averaging 65fps with a 1060 as you all know