Crysis performance

This is a review unit and I'd like to include the test results in the review. I just said I couldn't install it right for some reason, I'm reinstalling it as we speak.

I have the 8700M-GT 512MB.

 

I'm pretty impressed. Averaging 25-30 fps on 8600m GT O/C'd to 590/490, 1280x800, most on medium, some high.

I noticed in the airplance scene at the beginning the reason its so slow is because of the volumetrics of the clouds, not the airplane. They rendered volumetric 3D clouds for some reason.

 

im install it to... i just restart my pc with latest 169.01 drivers under x64 vista...

I will put my humble opinion later...

 

ok, 8600GS 800res med settings>15fps *sad* vista 32bit 169.01

 

I have an HP dv9500t with the 8600m GS. No overclocking. I am getting 15-20 fps on 1280x800 on all low. Using 169.01. On all medium, it drops to about 10 fps.

 

One thing I noticed... under vista it runs in DX10 mode... you dont have a choice if you have a dx10 card, at 1024X768 I get playable performance 25fps ish. At low setting the game runs great.

I'd like to point out that even on med settings the game looks great. For everyone thats complaining about only being able to play on med... I cant think of another game that looks better on all high.

 

1024x768 all settings medium core clock 600/800 memory

 

In Vista you get no runnable shortcuts or anything. You have to run it from the games explorer.

 

c:\Program Files\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis SP Demo\Bin32 to be exact

 

Image quality and framerate with Go 7950 GTX:

1280x800, 0xAA, all settings Medium (except Physics and Post-Processing on High) and it's still beautiful:







- Yay for physics!

- Yay for explosions!

 

Hey anyone have DX9 screen shots (8600M GT DDR2 Version results )

 

Yeah big check my thread, I think around page 13 I posted some and a few others from other people.

 

Well, I'm pissed off.

I'm running on an XPS 720 desktop.

My specs are:

dual 8800 GTX in SLI
2 GB ram
Q6600

All are at stock. All settings are on high. I get about 20-25 FPS in the heavy jungle. Most heavy fire action occurs at ~20 FPS.

 

atleast you can put it on high. I'm running at 1024x768 with low everything and it still is choppy

 

Ummmm you know this is a demo right??? You would probably have to wait till they patch some more of the retail version of the game and nvidia comes out with better drivers.

 

So Sad....

I'll buy XPS1730-SLi when nvidia release 8800GTX

 

I wonder if the RAM is hurting your fps. My bro's desktop has one 8800GTX(4GB RAM) and I was able to play 20fps average frams on 1680x1050 with high settings and 4xAA

 

oh well........thank god for my 360

 

Has any1 tried it on dual 8700m?

 

1024 x 768
All Medium, shadows on low

Using benchmark tool in bin32 directory of game instalation.

GPU Benchmark

Min - 21.70 fps
Max - 35.68 fps
Avg - 29.25 fps

Will try again with a few optimizations see if they help

Oh, all this running Win XP SP2 and 167.26 drivers, system in sig without any overclocking

 

Hey I heard that this demo is only using 1 core if you have dual core can anyone confirm this to see if it is true or false?

 

To run in DX9 mode in Vista

bring up console by pressing ~

type in "r_driver=DX9" without quotes and hit enter

 

Says
unknown command

 

Hey

I'm curious to know how well other owners of the M1710 and/or the 7950GTX are doing with Crysis.

I've played about with the in-game settings and by a process of elimination, having starting with all options set to low, I am now getting playable frame rates ranging 24-35. At times it'll dip to 20fps and on other occasions, it briefly rises to 45!

And the settings? At a 1280x800 resolution, everything is on High except Shadows and Shader Level which are both set to Low.

For reasons unknown to me, increasing the Shadows and/or Shader Level heavily impacts the framerate for the worst; approx a 6-8fps drop for each by my crude reckoning.

Any ideas why this is so? Particularly why my notebook is struggling to even output at medium?

I'm using the 169.01 Crysis driver (tweakforce) on Vista Home Premium with 2GB ram and a 2.16ghz C2D.

Cheers

 

yeah I get the same thing... has anyone confirmed whether or not it runs better in dx9 mode vs dx10?

 

yeah its nasty drop.... but its so pretty with shaders just at med I can live w/o shadows I dont really see the need for everything to have a shadow.

 

Thanks guys - I should have read that on the forums here before I found out the hard way that was what I had to do.

I have to agree, this game runs like total crap. I have it on an 8700M-GT 512MB and a C2D T7500. It barely runs at 1280x800 in medium in DX 10 mode.

I'm sure I am going to enjoy this game a lot more when I get my 8800GTX back, but for now I am sorely disappointed that EA didn't do more with the optimization of this game.

 

nobody tried it on dual 8700m's?

 

IMO the shaders and the shadow effects have the biggest impact on the realizm of the game. if u remove either/or shader/shadows to low then u will not get any shadows (which i find is annoying since in COD4 you can turn off shadows and get a huge performance boost w.o losing ALL the shadows)..

when u turn shader or shadow to low, u don't get any shadows at all which completely sucks since when they take a huge hit on your performance when you put them on medium.

i play at all medium and get about 25 fps average and if i put low on shadows it'll go up to about 30-35, if i take both down to low i'l get 35-40 avg.

i wish they'd give SOME shadows when shadows/shader is on low, instead they shoulda called it NONE .. not "low"

btw im running 8700m gt

 

its not about EA... maker of this game is crytek... EA just cooperates with distribution

 

Im in the middle of demo (pause it and alt tab) im running 1280x800 all medium ~phisicis high

HOW do i see the console ? i want to know whats FPS im playing ....

Why rivaTuner server dont put the Temp and FPS in top left corner like other games ?

 

Keep in mind this engine is WAY ahead of its time, even when you run everything at low there is more going on in this game then anything else currently out. I agree that its silly to make such a demanding game but I beleive that its probably about as optimised as it will get.

 

The point is that more should have been done to optimize this game. Many of us are running it on top-of-the-line notebook hardware and it's barely playable, if at all.

 

well its so clear in your post that you emphasize game optimization which is not very well made in your opinion and for many others too... but EA has nothing to do with it... If someone blames EA for not being optimized, blame Crytek not EA... but also keep in mind CryTek engine is known for its state of-the-art features... maybe just technology or say GPU, CPU companies, OS etc. (you name it) not ready for it yet...

Crysis is raising the bar for sure..

 

Still Crysis doesn´t look awesome. Playing it on my 8800GTX at high, some options on very high. Feels exactly like Far Cry which is not a bad point.

I have found post processing to take a lot of GPU power, also the game seems to like higher CPU speeds. So you guys with desktop core2duo overclock the hell out of it.

The game runs better in DX9 mode than in DX10 mode. DX10 is not mature yet, hopefully the full game will run a little better.

 

all medium except for the post processing which was high for all those motion blur and DOF effects

 

You know what's killing performance? The shaders. I set all of my settings to high and my shaders to low and this game flies given that it look decent. 30+fps 1280x800. The moment I put the shaders to medium my fps drop to 10 and below. If I put them on high dont even think about it.

Another thing that is annoying is that You cannot enable AA unless your shaders are set to high. If you set them to low and add 2x AA the shaders automatically shoot to high.

Another thing is that there is almost no difference (on my core 2 duo) when i set Physics from low to high and the other way around. i dont understand why crytek wont allow DX9 versions NOT to allow physics when it seems like it can handle it just fine in single player. Let DX9 players play against other DX9 players but add physics aswell plz

 

all settings as low as they go = 12fps , might as well be playing on a wristwatch

 

Well, the 8400m is a lowend card...

Does anyone know how a 8600m gs does with crysis?

 

In theory it should work a little better. That's why people need to think very well before buying a laptop. No real gaming can be done on a lower than 8600M GT card. The best for Crysis would be a 8700M SLI (at the moment).

 

yeah yeah i know )= .... just wanted a good laugh and see what it would do .you think i could get away with running gears at low settings? 2ghz t7300
2gram 8400m gs?

 

People complaining about "optimizing" the game have to calm the hell down. There are limits to optimizing an engine. Let's look at the realities here.

1) Crysis on Medium looks better than every other game out there
2) Crysis is very playable (25 fps+) on High at a High resolution (1680x1050) using a single GTX.

Quite frankly, it's more than optimized enough. I'm very impressed by the fact that Crytek was able to make the game playable on such high settings. You know what the irritating part is? If Ultra-High looked the same as Medium does but was simply named Ultra-High, people would be praising Crytek for how "optimized" the engine was, despite the fact that it wouldn't look as good. People just want to crank everything up to max and expect it to run, without using common freaking sense. Remember, Crytek STATED that they wanted Crysis to be future-proof for the next 2-3 years. Anyone expecting to run it on ultrahigh, 1080P, with 60+ FPS is just goddamn stupid.

And back to the "optimize it more now!" comments, do you guys have the faintest idea as to how a game is optimized? You make it sound like they could just go to work for 2 days and suddenly whip out 20 FPS boosts out of an engine. You think a Playstation 2 is going to play Crysis if the team "optimized" for a couple of years? Jesus christ. If your rig can't handle it, set the settings lower and shut up. That's the very reason why they allow you to choose settings in the first place.

 

oh my bad...this was nto suposed to b here

 

^^ i agree.....your playing the highest end game to date on a laptop and you expect stellar frame rates at high settings? The only way at this point it would be able to run everything highest on high resolutions would be SLI GTX's or Ultra's at 60 FPS maybe. if those screens look as good as i think..the above ones at medium...then you have nothing to complain about.

 

I think he meant for DX10. xD Oh, man. Next time, forget about jumping on the new GPU bandwagons. I'm gonna wait for high-end next time around. At least I have a very overclocked 8600M GT.

 

Concepticle is right. Even on medium I was completely awed at how wonderful this game looked. The end.

 

it true that running crysis in vista under dx9 mode runs a lot better?

 

Finished the sp demo. Nice if there was an mp demo. The game really looks great. Cant wait for the real game.

 

A friend of mine has an EVGA 8800GTS 320MB Superclocked and here's what they said:

Looking forward to actually being able to play this on my GTX.

 

with an...
FX-60 proc
7950 GT KO overclocked
3 gigs RAM

i was playing maxed 1024 by 768, it dipped alittle too low a few times, but for the most part i would guess it was about 25FPS, this is nothing like UT3 in terms of optomization. Still good looking nonetheless.