Crysis performance

I really don't want to get into the whole Quadro vs. Geforce thing, but suffice to say, I think I'm in the clear there, unless Crysis has some kind of Vendetta against Quadro cards.

As per the drivers, the Forceware drivers are generic for the different chipsets, so I'm not really trying to use Geforce drivers. My card is still recognized and treated as a Quadro, including the Control Panel settings and options for all the professional programs. However, I will try the newest ones.

I think the main bottleneck here may be my CPU. Crysis is a very physics oriented game, so maybe I can just drop the Physics down to Low or something. I'll mess around with it sometime this weekend.

 

Well, I'm glad I got my copy of Crysis, I did a full system scan, defrag and all, set all the possible settings for High Performance into the nvida control panel ( no AA, no AF, no triple buffering and so on) and the game run smoooooth on medium , 1024, in all maps.
Right now I'm the Cave,alien ship or whatever and it doesn't go below 20, averaging a 30-35 fps.
I'm satisfied with that

 

I am starting to get very annoyed with this game . . . it runs like total crap unless you have a top-of-the-line system. The optimization is so poor. I'm playing on an 8600M-GT and a T7500 and it is laggy and choppy, with constant stuttering. I like the gameplay but it's hard to enjoy with all the skipping and constant worrying about performance.
Even with other demanding games, when the settings are set to max and it's laggy at least it does not skip around all the time at random intervals. Far Cry was at least playable when it came out all those years ago, and it scaled better than this.

 

The T2600 shouldn't bottleneck you system, not with physics on medium. Try using the 169 driver. I'm getting about 20fps with shadows on low. Shaders, postprocessing, physics, sound,objects and textures on medium and the other options on low, using 1024x640 and my go 7600 is at 530/402 core/mem. Yours quadro should do a lot better than this. the game looks a bit worse without shadows, but since the scenario is so destructible, they might be using only dynamic shadows, and dynamic shadows are heavy on graphics cards.

 

My GPU is clocked at 375/507, which is kinda low on the core. But I can't overclock without flashing the vBIOS, which I really don't feel like doing.

To be honest, I just don't see what's so great about this game. I mean, yeah, it's got some interesting elements, but nothing I would really call compelling. And the performance is absolute crap. It either looks crappy and runs crappy, or it looks great and runs horribly crappy. With all the performance issues, I just can't enjoy the game.

 

uhhhhmm..... I never noticed this problem, it could be the fact that the game on min settings takes nearly 250mb of video memory..

Talk about stuttering? Bioshock's entire physics system is extremely stuttery at ANY framerate, even 100fps it still looks like it stutters.

COD4, if you running anything less than a solid 50+FPS everything is stuttery, especially AI animations and weapon animations..

 

I noticed that too with Bioshock, very strange. Like the engine can only render so may frames instead of the whole thing.

 

I noticed that with Bioshock... it's very annoying. Makes you think your framerate is constantly dropping. :/

I never noticed the COD4 problem you mentioned, though. I run it at 1680x1050 with everything on high, and my framerate occasionally dips into the 30's, but I don't notice any stuttering.

 

at the moment i'm busy with tweaking the crysis shaders and shadows settings. I cant see any difference ingame, but i do get about 4fps avg more than usual:

(I'm not using the fist loop now in this message when i point all the fps)
NOT tweaked my fps with medium settings and 1280x768 res are:
min: +- 7.8fps
avg: +- 23.8fps
max: +- 39.1fps

Shadows and Shaders tweaked my fps with medium settings and 1280x768 res are:
min: +- 14.7fps
avg: +- 28.2fps
max: +- 40.0fps

When tweaked the difference between min and max is less big than untweaked. So the fps could be more at a constant rate whilste avg fps is higher!

 

LOL

My 7900gs is dogged at 1280x720 with settings auto set to medium. I'm running in widow mode to keep things sharp on my WUXGA. What would it take to run native, all settings on high at 50+ with no slow downs? Most of the post seem to reflect trying to run Far Cry with past M6 or M10 GPUs.

As long as I can eek out 20fps I may go for the game. I do like the game play.

Screen shot is at above settings showing GPU bench marks. Hope they get the SLI patches out for you lucky ones soon!

 

is anyone playing crysis with a geforce go 7600 256mb ddr 2 ?

If so what are your settings

thx

 

...Two 8800 Ultras in SLI, most likely.

Even then you probably won't stay above 50 FPS most of the time.

 

any one tried it on 8400 gs ?

 

Someone ran it on low with their XPS M1330. The 8400GS should be able to squeeze good frames at low details and resolution.

 

I hardly believe that. There are scenes in the game, like some parts of th Cave (gamers know which one that is, no spoiler here) where I needed to go down ot low all, and 1024, to get 20 fps!
That on a C2D 2.2 Ghz, 2 gb Ram and 512/256bit 7950GTX !
I say the game has some serious optimisation issues. A patch is definitely needed, since those a-holes said the game would be optimised for the 7800GTX. BS !

 

playing at 1280X1024 with max. settings will only be fulfilling..i played on 7900GT

1024X768 with high settings but low shaders & 2X anti aliasing...got 20-30 FPS range

 

Is this an issue for anybody else?

Whenever I transition to a new level in single player (i.e., there's a different picture for the loading screen), my framerate goes to crap in the new level, and I have to restart the game to get it right again.

I usually get around 25 FPS, but as soon as I enter a new level, it goes down to around 13 FPS. But once I restart the game and load the save, the exact same area is back up to the regular 25 FPS. What's going on?

I know FEAR had an option to force restart the renderer between maps ("Refreshes video memory between levels; May make load-times slightly longer, but could lead to improved performance"). Is there an option like that in Crysis? (I couldn't find it in the big 'ol list of console commands)

That's weird. I have tweaked medium/high settings, and I was able to play through that section without dropping below 20 (or if I did, it wasn't very long or very noticeable) - I got the same performance there as I did everywhere else in the game... Try just turning down Volumetric effects - that seems to be the most performance-killing option in that area.

Running in windowed mode can hurt your performance. If you want to keep the "proper resolution" (not stretched) in non-windowed mode, go into the Nvidia Control panel, go to "Change flat-panel scaling", and click "Do Not Scale".

This will make whatever non-native resolution you're running in the center of the screen, surrounded by black bars.

 

Thanks! Yea, window mode has been doggy, I totally missed the "no scale" feature in the Control Panel. This will be good for the road, as when at the house, I plug an old 17" Sony CRT to get sharp lo rez screens bigger than a postage stamp

Mike

 

Since my laptop is still on the shop, i tried running crysis on my desktop with a 7600gs. i got it to play on medium with 40+ fps by enabling sketch mode in the editor. everything but the water looks good.

 

What REZ? I might(?) see that at 640x480 )

 

Its whatever the window in the Editor is on a 1680x1050 screen. But I got my laptop back, in all its dx10 glory. has anyone with a c90 come up with an autoexec.cfg that make it look good but still play at 30+ fps yet?

This desktop is an overclocked amd x2 4800 on stock cooling in a mini-atx case. the fsb is above 230 most of the time, even with my crappy 512mb 533mhz ram module. With my Patriot ram in their I have no idea how high it can go.

 

My 7600 256mb runs Crysis very smooth (25fps+) with everything on Medium except Shaders and at a resolution of 1168x640 (or whatever that widescreen res is just below 1280x800)...... If I turn shaders to Medium, the fps drops to around 10!!!!. SO its either have a good resolution with nice settings or drop the resolution to 1024x640 with Shaders on Medium.. It looks SSOOO much nicer with shaders set to medium! pity..

 

I have a very similar problem with my framerates, but I didn't notice it until the second level when lots of things were being loaded at once, and the problem is much more intermittent. If you type r_displayinfo 1 in the console, you can see the game's lifesigns. For me, the slowdowns occur whenever the memory usage exceeds 1000, which is odd considering that I have 2 gigs of memory.

I'm kind of underwhelmed by my performance with Crysis in general. I'm on a Sager 5760, so the specs are as follows:

Intel Core Duo T2500 2.0GHz Processor (Yonah / 2 MB L2 Cache / 677 FSB)
2048 MB DDR2 (667 MHz) Memory (1024 MB x 2) (Max RAM 4GB
nVIDIA GeForce Go 7900 GTX 512MB GDDR3

...yet for some reason, my framerates suck. I run at my native res, which is 1600 x 1024. It's kind of high, but anti-aliasing is out of the question, and anything below that is too jaggy to do the game justice, IMO. I have all settings excepts for physics and textures set to medium, yet my framerates are almost always stuck in the 10-20 range, usually 10-15 in dense foilage. I had to upgrade to that last forceware release (the one meant specifically for Crysis) to even get that much performance. What's going on here? Something doesn't seem right.

 

I can't run Crysis at near 30 fps on all medium 10x7. I was rather surprised that I had to set everything to low to get good FPS, even though my video card is only midrange.

 

Set your res to 1400x900( or lower) and set your nVid control panel to "do not scale".

I was given this tip last week to avoid the fuzzy non native scaling. No free lunch as you will have black bar matt but things stay as sharp as native.

If we can turn off the waving grass and trees, IMHO we will gain a ton of frame increase like in Oblivion; I just haven't figured it out yet.

 

Well I don't know if it is just my setup or my drivers, but in Crysis on all medium settings and a resolution of 1024x768 my setup is getting horrible framerates, less than 20 on average. is this the norm for the 8600M GT, or is that lower that it should be? I am using the 169.04 drivers, and I haven't overclocked at all. from what I have read others with the same card are experiencing better FPS.

 

Are you on power saving?

I guess you should get better at the resolution, is it the demo or final?

 

I have the final version. I also checked to make sure that the battery mode was on max performance.

 

1280x1024 - Very High Tweak - No AA

And I get around 18-35fps. For me, that's playable.

BTW, this is on XP x64 and using Nvidia's 93.71 driver.

 

A few things to try:

- If you are on Vista, run it in DX9 mode. This helps a great deal. Right click on the game launcher, customise and move the play DX9 up to the top (you'll see what I mean when you're on the screen). This will mean that when you double click, it will run it in DX9 rather than having to remember to right click everytime you play.

- Also, if you are in Vista, right click on the launcher, customise, highlight Play DX9, click edit. Go to the compatibility and check the box with the option about desktop composition (can't remember the exact wording).

- In the nVidia control panel, perform the tweaks suggested in the 8600GT stuttering fixes thread with the negative LOD bias etc.

- Once you've launched the game, minimise it (alt-esc), open up task manager and go to processes. Right click on crysis.exe and set the priority to high.

Hope this helps a little...

I manage playable framerates on the demo with 1280x800 with everything medium plus most of the right hand settings (game, water etc) on high. Playable mind, not entirely smooth but then you can keep everything to medium if you want.

 

So, in conclusion,in a 8600m, what are the max settings that you can play on crysis with decent framerates??

 

well, i posted in the asus forum that on vista, using dx9, 8600gt ddr2, drivers 169.09, and 1280*800 res, i can run the game at medium-high with frame rates above 20, very very playable

shaders and antialiasing seem to be my biggest hit, so i dont turn AA on, and i keep shaders on med.

 

crysis runs on my laptop on all low settings gonna try med tonight

 

^^ That's awesome, can't wait for my vostro 1500, (it's supossed to be delivered 29th Nov...)
Anyway, thanks.

 

hmmm..... I think there is something else going on with my PC. I tried those tweaks quite awhile ago and tried what you suggested. maybe there is something wrong with my PC. I can get 28-30 FPS average on a 10x7 if I try it with everything med and shadows on low. dunno... I'll do some more poking around. by the way I am using XP rather than Vista.

 

T7300
2 GB RAM
8600M GS
5400 RPM HDD

What settings should I try and at what resolution in order to get the most bang for my buck?

Should I even bother with Crysis? lol, I ran both the multiplayer beta and singleplayer demo at low settings and a crappy resolution...

 

I dont know how you can play with only 20 fps, but for me 20 fps isn't playable at all. You should try to run games at steady 60fps and then talk again about this 20 fps. 20fps just isnt playable at all, not in crysis, not in any game. 25fps can be playable a bit if it's steady, but you with a notebook screen you need at least 40fps in most games

With a crt monitor 30fps can be enough, but i can feel the difference between a crt and a notebook tft (or lcd??) monitor.

 

Poin taken. At least 30 fps to get the game going . I`ve played it on all med/some high and 1024, on my C2D 2.2 ghz, 2 gb ram,7950GTX, by setting all possible settings in nvidia control panel for PERFORMANCE ! it helped,I`ve played it al averaging 35 fps

 

Well, its mighty playable to me, all medium gets me atleast 25, and from there and down, the game looks like trash.

My usual settings are med everything but high post processing and high textures, i might through in a high water effect. That gets me around 20 fps, which is amazingly good looking. Its just the demo, so im thinking it'll prolly get better in the official game.

*i would normally drop the res, but the trade off is humongous in this game, one drop in res and its blurry, really blurry. Dropping the shaders makes it look trash, hard to distinguish distance and objects (think a jungle all full of on shade of green). Dropping post processing is okay, but not worth it. Its weird how PP eventually works its meaning into smoothing out the fps drop that it invokes, but thats what it does, and looks good when doing it...... im going to try this game with an overclock on my gpu now post results ltr

 

The game will have some scenes that will cut your demo fps into half, so be prepared for unforeseen consequences

 

im having big problems running this even on medium and dx9. i have a 8600gt overclocked 560/440.

What is the highest settings i can set and achieve 30FPS?

 

Somehow when gparted decides to crash when moving my games partition, and the subsequent reinstallation, im getting 30 fps with textures on high along whith physics, and everything else on medium at 1280x800

 

Talk about weird luck...that`s better than even my 7950GTX. I suspect you CPU has a lot to do with it though, I only have a C2D T7500...that leads me to believe that Crysis` second bottleneck is the CPU,if not the first...

 

I run it at 1680x1050 with settings between medium and high (shaders and 2 others low) in DX9 mode and generally get around 25ish frames. I could probably get better if I cut a few more things back, but I'm not too picky since it's just AI I'm fighting and not other players.

 

On my desktop I get pretty good performance, using the Forceware 169.09

8800GTX @ 650/1050 and shaders clocked at 1512MHz @ 1680x1050, getting 25-35FPS with DX9 "very high" tweaked settings.

It actually managed to run on my Vaio but I had to lower all settings to low.

 

I get really mixed performance. In Vista, using Medium at 1280x720 I get an average of 27FPS. Using the exact same settings in XP I get an average of 35FPS. This is using the 169.09 drivers for both systems.

The game ran really smooth until I got to the Idaho level, then it seemed like every map after that resulted in worse and worse frame rates. The cave was almost unplayable for me, and I had to set everything down to low.

It almost seemed like SLI wasn't doing anything at all. Crysis isn't that THAT graphically demanding on Medium to choke two 7950 GTX cards in SLI.

NOTE: This is on my m9750. I haven't tried it on my desktop which has an 8800 GTX.

 

i find it really funny that the sandbox uses over 1200mbs of ram on some occasions

 

i read somewhere earlier that some1 had a x1400. i have a mobility x1400 which supposedly doesnt meet the minimum requirements. i ran the demo on 1280x720 res everything low except 1 thing med adn 1 thing high. i got around 17-26 fps. except for the scene where hes crouching down about to find the dead guy hanging thats like 10-12 fps.

im using the the modded drivers from DH and overclocked to 570:570

 

Here is a very good comparison of SLI vs non SLI on Crysis. It is most definately not optimized for SLI. Hopefully they will release a patch that will help.