Crysis 2 Demo out!

yeh thought so. Ah well. Finish work at midnight tonight so will try again then

 

I did not call you a liar. I stated the facts for my experience. I do play recent and newer games comfortably with this "3 year old card". I am quite aware of the speed of obsolescence with regard to technology. I have been building and using enthusiast level PC's for many years now. I have ALOT to learn. But I know what I know. Yes, your 460 is a more desirable choice than my 260, that is so obvious I wonder why it was even stated? Bragging rights? ok, you win that one. I'll be back! with my 500 series as I checked the prices, wow, a 500 series for around $250, soon, very soon.

 

Same here, frustrating

 

So???? What's your status?

 

Little OT:

DirectX 11: Battlefield's Frostbite Engine already ported - DirectX 11, Frostbite - PC Games Hardware

I think this link explain quite well what DICE is doing. So probably the GTX 260 will be good to play BF3 considering that can handle quite well BFBC2 (that is more CPU dependant than GPU.

 

What is considered the highest GFX settings in the demo? Apparently you can only choose from four presets and no custom options.

Also, there seems to be some input lag.

 

Getting this:
Hardcore
1080p
Low fps: 50
Max fps: 78
Average: 58
Pier map.

Most of the times it hovers around 57-60ish with no vsync.
This on my desktop: i5-2500 @3,9ghz,gtx570 @850/1700/2100, 8gb kingston 1333mhz.

 

ATI Users- you may want to use something like ATI Tray tools or Radeon Pro to load the Crysis Game or set the global settings. Adjust the Flip Queue to 0. (Almost same as Render Frames Ahead). This "seems" to have helped me out with input lag. Also you can adjust the AA/AF to 2x instead of what the game auto sets them as.

 

+1

Older performance gpu's will be able to play newly released games with relative ease.
Why?
Because for the most part, those gpu's already came with a high bus bandwidth (256bit).
New performance gpu's tend to use GDDR5 RAM in order to do the same thing and have kept the bus down to 128bit (at least the first generation of such gpu's did - we are seeing bus being increased to 256bit and GDDR5 RAM on newest high performance gpu's).
So aside from obvious re-branding (mostly on Nvidia's part and now with ATI) along with increase in speed and reduction of manuf. process, older performance based gpu's still have plenty of juice left in them to run new games.

The reason technology becomes 'obsolete' in a year is primarily because of capitalism oriented market.
Nothing more and nothing less.
New and highly advanced techs have been developed long ago, but they just started putting them out there because of something called 'consumer demand'.
Besides, there is no profit for manufacturers to release something that will last consumers for a decade because that would be a one-off purchase (adding to this the in-built reduction of quality so that parts can fail relatively soon forcing you to buy an entirely new computer, or at the very least upgrade).
The point is not about making people happy, it's about satisfying people's immediate need, then discard it, and off to the new thing.

Also... a computer that came out 3 years ago is not necessarily 'obsolete'.
That entirely depends on the person using the said computer.
What types of programs or games they are running, etc.
For some individuals, a 3 year old computer would still be fine for the next 3 years (depending on their individual needs).

 

sorry/ Midnight UK time im off to work now.
as i go to log in now, my email address is already in use??? But i cant sign in. tried creating an account using my other email but same thing - email address already in use.
Strange that i can't log in using my crysis wars account!?
Wierd eh.
Will try again when i get in from work.

 

So I played for a while and I'm not really impressed. For one, I can't set custom graphics settings in-game. There are three presets, gamer, advanced and hardcore. I've been running mine on hardcore and its been smooth thus far.

The graphics do not seem as great as the original Crysis. They look very hazy and sort of dumbed down. Input lag is annoying and a lot of the menus, options, and "perks" are very "consolized".

 

Remember Everyone --- Demo is confirmed Dx9 only!

 

Doesn't matter. Crysis looked GREAT in dx9 and this looks like crap in dx9.

 

Wow, I kinda like the graphics... All 3 presets = 20 FPS, ALWAYS ( 1080p ).

A tip for you : to successfully create an acc, have only letters in your email, passwoed and name. Letters ONLY, no numbers.

 

No luck. Still can't play. This sucks.

 

I downloaded it,managed to log on with my game spy account.Set the graphics to hardcore and joined game.It looks like a console game,feels like a console game,It does not have that crysis 1 feel,i can see some nice graphic effects now and again.
I know this is the demo and direct x9.......but it is very console,i own an xbox360 so i dont dislike consoles,but it has ruined a classic pc fps thus far.I wont buy it for muliplayer,so hopefully it will win me over in the campain mode.

But i suppose this is the trend to come ,flame away but this is my opinion.
bty i played this on my desktop not on laptop in sig [email protected] 4gb ram GTX460 768mb smooth and lag free.

 

I hope there are more than three graphics settings in the full version of the game. With my 5730, I need to be able to lower individual settings to maintain a playable framerate.

At the very least, I hope they give us UNENCRYPTED (screw you, Bulletstorm) config files to work with.

I am picking up a 6950 (and unlocking the extra shaders) for my desktop, though, so I'll at least have something to run this on high with.

Also, I have not been able to find a version of ATI Tray Tools that works with 5xxx series cards without BSODing or otherwise causing problems. Any suggestions?

 

The beta has more graphics options than the demo. Too many bugs on beta though.

 

The graphics in Crysis 2 would look great on console. But for PC users who played Crysis 1 and Warhead, it feels to cloudy. Almost like its hiding the lack of detail in the textures. Looks like very heavy post processing.

 

Just played it, kinda like it!

At 1080p :

Gamer - 23-27 FPS
Advanced - 20-25
Hardcore - 15-24

What I hate :

MOTION BLUR!!! It's unbearable! If I get this game, first thing to do - Post Processing = LOW!

 

The graphics are no where near as good as crysis wars i can tell you that much.

It lags on my g73 on The 2nd Pre-Set. It does the same thing as KillZone 2 and 3, and that is make the game look grainy and use motion blur, as well as color grading to high the bad texture work.

 

I got ~10 FPS with 1366 x 768 resolution and Gamer setting, haha. Man, I really wish those Sandy Bridge notebooks are out now.

 

the graphics look better on advanced than on hardcore imo - hardcore adds a ton of post processing and blur effects that make it really difficult to see anything...

anyway, i'm pulling 35 fps on hardcore at 1080p, and much better fps at advanced, didn't check though...

I think I'll pass, enjoy the demo, and jump on BF3.

 

no kidding. I get 30-40 fps at 1600x1024 and 20-30 at 1080p on gamer.. I can't stand the motion blur at all!

 

I get 8 to 14 fps on 1080p/Gamer, 25-35fps on 720p but it makes me nauseous to play more than 2 minutes. Is the fov on this set to 55 or something?

 

Yes, this is a good way to describe the graphics. Kinda hazy and kinda shady, not crystal clear and sharp as in Crysis.

 

After playing the demo i went back to crysis one multiplayer and the diference is so obvious,between console and pc even with the 4 year gap in tech crysis one destroys crysis 2 in every department.The controls are crisp,visuals are sharp,and nano suit how it should be.Its hard to explain.Although i hope the campain mode will make it worth it,plus i miss the on the fly weapon customization in the first game,is it in the second?

 

I'm really disappointed with the demo, if there's one thing it has done is to make me less certain about buying Crysis 2...

 

I will say this.. Flame or no Flame.. Consoles may be viewed by some to have really advanced our game environment, but in my opinion they have ruined the FPS offerings as we know it. It's should be called Crysis (Blur Fest). Enough Post Process already! The graphics are so blurred and smoothed that it's hard to get a crisp image on screen. Hit detection is horrible.

BF2 Didn't require console to be a great game. Operation Flashpoint didn't require console. I HOPE that BF3 is the redemption we need.

So far, Crysis 2 Demo is thumbs down!

X

 

Well, I never saw Crysis 1 and Warhead a MP FPS and no one really plays them as of today. I don't think Crysis 2 will succeed in MP anyways. I know CryTek is trying hard to make it so, but so far, it is not that great. I am sure the sales will mostly for the SP and possibly benchmarking.

 

Is there any way to disable AA and lower post processing in the game? Through some commands maybe? Or just to disable AA from Control Centre maybe? And how :S because ati dont have it

btw terrible performance on 5730... 1280x720 gamer max 40 min 25...

 

Min: 35 Max: 57 Avg: 42.65 on Hardcore @ 1080 i7 920 @ 4.0GHz + 5870 1GB.

 

No way... I get those FPS's in gamer @ 1366x768... In hardcore I get stable 30s.

EDIT : Just checked again, I got, in Gamer @ 1366x768, 60 FPS max and 28 minimum.
In 1080p, in Gamer, I stay 20-30. In Hardcore, I stay 15-30.

 

Is it true that crysis 2 will not ship with dx11 and will be patched in later???
Google Translate

 

Anyone run this on an M17x?

 

Anyone willing to let me use their login info so i can play? I would be most appreciative.

 

a

ATI 5730?

 

Huh, no way.... :/

What catalyst driver do you use? And have you setting something up in CCC2?

I'm using 11.1a

Btw Crysis 1 works so so much better than this one, and im kinda wondering why's that....

And yes, i have i3, but i dont think it depends so much of the CPU, crysis 1 didnt... i got really nice FPS in it... Really strange

 

I am cancelling my pre order sadly. Going to move on to DA 2. No thanks EA

 

Will go home tonight and install Crysis 2 and report back.

 

This game is a crippler I only get around 28 fps on hardcore @ 2560 x 1600 on my desktop in sig minus 1 5970 one went on me and is being RMA at the moment

 

@Wahad and ATI users -- Use an ATI settings tool like RADEON PRO to load each of the crysis executables and set them up to have 0 for flip queue (which is like render frames ahead). Adjust the AA and AF to be x2 instead of whatever the game chooses. Set everything else in the profile loader to performance. Disable vsync.

BW, StevenX

 

Tnx will try out.

Now I just need to successfully log in in game and test this, and i havent been able to login like whole day here... more than 12hrs..

EDIT: There's not an option to disable AA in Radeon Pro, I'm just curious, which AA is the least consuming for graphic card, adaptive, multisample or supersample, as far as i cant activate morphological for some reason...

 

Well i played for about an hour before It got boring.

My take:

Gameplay: The gameplay is OK, but thats about it. The movements seem fluid but with a console like "slowness". I'm not impressed. Their is no way the MP will last more than a month or so. The problem -- invisibility -- everyone goes invisible constantly and it is downright stupid.

Graphics: All maxed out steady 60FPS. Apparently Crytek followed suit with what the developers for Mafia 2, they made all textures and processing blurred, and downscaled after a certain draw distance -- it's very evident by the blurry textures and "cloudy" overall feel to the game. Disappointed.

The game, as far as graphics comes nowhere near crysis/warhead, or even games like Bad Company 2 look far better. Sad.

Well needless to say I will save the cash for BF3.

 

The game is totally smooth @ hardcore and 1920x1200 (HP 8740w with i7-840QM + FirePro M7820). Though at times I'm hitting 83C on the CPU and 86C on the GPU with room @25C.

 

Lesson learned by game devs:

never put out demo since it decrease sales.

/s

 

The leak was better I take it? lol... The irony.

 

@All - played for another hour tonight. The weirdest thing is that I actually get higher frames now on Advanced than I do Gamer. (Gamer/Adv/Hardcore)
I launched with Radeon Pro. I get 50-70 fps on Advanced with my Radeon Pro launcher. Clocks at 750/1000. GPU pegs at 100 percent the entire match. CPU utilizes 3 to 4 cores out of 8. The other 3 to 4 hyperthreads show very low utilization.. less than 20 percent.

Wonder how this is coded to use hyperthreading or not.

(Edit) Played another match limiting the use of only 2 cores. The game puts them at 100 percent. The frames went down by 20fps easily. Game settings were set at Advanced. Average was 30-40 (end Edit)

Will try some more benchmark tests soon.

StevenX

 

I don't feel like I should have to use a third-party program to change settings that should be adjustable in game or via config files.

 

What you changed in Radeon Pro, can you put some screens maybe?