Is Crysis 2 the most graphically demanding game right now?

I am looking for a game to test out my graphic card. I know about Metro 2033 but I do not like scary games.

My question to you guys is Crysis 2 the next graphic intensive games after Metro 2033? If not, what other games are there?


thanks

 

Crysis 2 is way behind metro 2033 though, but ye its nr.2 most demanding game. nr.3 is dirt i believe.

 

Metro 2033 is the most by a decent way right now. It has a lot of DX11 effects that just munch on your GPU.

Then Crysis. Crysis looks better anyway.

 

I heard Witcher 2 was pretty demanding too.

BF3 beta will be around the corner here too.

 

metro isn't very scary imo


but yeah, crysis 2 is the no.2 most demanding game next 2 metro


but let's see what will happen when Metro: Last Light comes out

actually it's a graphics driver bug. not system requirement

 

Is Crysis 2 worth $40?

 

You could pick up the first one for really cheap if you want to see what it's like. The first one on Ultra is also as demanding as the 2nd one without the DX11 addons. Personally I like them.

 

I don't like the first one, very interested in the second one and must buy retail copy now because it is no longer available on Steam.

Metro 2033 I can get on Steam when it on sale.

 

I have intentionally left Crysis 2 on my Steam wishlist simply because you can't get it through Steam anymore.

Just for that reason I'm not buying it or BF3.

 

Steam is great but right now I have no choice, my internet is so dam slow that it would take 7 days non-stop for one game to finish downloading on Steam.

Does anyone know if DX11 Crysis 2 is better looking than Crysis 1?

 

In some respects yes, particularly things like particle animations and lighting. In some ways no ie textures plus Crysis had a lot of cool stuff with water, snow etc. Overall it really comes down to whether you like looking at trees or buildings. They both look awesome in my opinion.

Here's some pics and you can just decide yourself...
Crysis Warhead
http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/3694/crysis2011031117342904.jpg
(Warhead looks a bit better than vanilla but you get the idea)

Modded Crysis
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/28461493

Crysis 2
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9341/crysis22011030902563466.jpg

Crysis 2 DX11
http://www.mytechvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/xx1.jpg

If you didn't like Crysis 1 you probably won't like 2 either though.

 

Weren't you the dude complaining about aiming down sights? You definitely won't like Crysis 2.

 

For some reason I am getting WAY HIGHER FPS on Metro2033. I have DX11 on and it runs very smoothly. Fraps shows 40-120FPS. Crysis 2 with ULTRA DX11 runs 20s-50ish..but a lot of 20s. I think Crysis 2 is more demanding with the horrible implementation of DX11 tessellation. My reference system:
Alienware M18x 2720 CF6970s.

 

I played them all, ..The Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Crysis 2 all on 1080p, DX11, HR Textures.. OC'ed ofcourse. The best 3 for benchmarks.




View at 100% Browser zoom, pics gets stretched after uploading them here. With FPS..
http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3894/crysis22011090508132770.jpg
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/7428/crysis22011090508515976.jpg
http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/3630/metro203320110823013534.jpg
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/5076/metro203320110823000051.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4032/witcher2201108150819587.jpg
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1159/witcher2201108150802002.jpg

 

I dont' know, maybe it's a drivers thing or an AMD/Nvida thing (which it is to some point). I know Nvidia cards are playing Crysis 2 much better. However, for me, I just tried Crysis ULTRA DX11 with CF 6970s and got around 30ish FPS but it droped to the 20s constantly. It was unplayable for me. In Metro33, I haven't seen 20s and mostly 50-100. I don't get how metro is so power hungry? I have everything to max in the config except I am playing without DOF and using AAA.

 

Most demanding game for me is Witcher 2. I can't run the game at 1080p with sufficient framerate even with low settings.

I can play Crysis 2, and Metro 2033 with high settings.

 

Yes the extreme settings, from what I understand do not use DX11 at all. I think it does use the "texture pack" but I don't really even see a difference in that. Now I can run on extreme settings fluently 40-70fps on my system which is pretty near the extreme top end. I have a hard time believing anyone running Crysis on Ultra except those with 580M at 1900 by 1080. It does work MUCH better than the ATI cards (I have 6970CF). However, the reason it is so taxing isn't because of the "visuals" on Ultra (again hardly a difference), its the use of tessellation. But they used it on Road Blocks by adding handles and unfortunately, they tessellated a whole level with water but there is no water to be seen (it's tessellated underground). So I think that is what, in my opinion, makes Crysis 2 the most taxing game at the moment. Metro2033 has a benchmark but it isn't really indicative fully of the in-game performance. I get 50+ usually through the game thus far. DX11 works well and is probably, the best, or one of the best and most efficient uses of DX11 thus far in gaming. So you need a good system to play and it is an honest benchmark of what your system can handle because it is not using resources that are completely unseen and rushed like the dx11 feature in Crysis 2; therefore also making Metro2033 look better IMO. The character model and interior details of the game are astonishing. I hope this helps.

 

I guess though, as a caveat, running the Metro2033 benchmark is probably the most taxing way to bench your system; even over crysis 2. However, I think you will probably get a better playing experience on Metro2033 as I haven't had FPS drops to "9" which my system apparently does during the bench test.

 

So your saying that the 580m run Crysis 2 better than 6970 CF?

 

I don't trust notebookcheck.net as they didn't use proper settings with a lot of game benching but they did recently go a pretty even 580SLI Vs 6990CF (irrelevant for this). However, the 580M is -18% to a CF 6970. So I would doubt that they are running at ULTRA with over 30 FPS UNLESS with SLI.

Now with SLI, the scaling is incredible with the 6990 and 580M. But the 580M definitely dominates. For some reason 6970 doesn't get that kind of scaling. It's like 50% less than the 580M and 6990 when in fact its really only like a 10% difference between the cards.

So basically you need a 580M SLI or 6990CF to max ULTRA with Crysis 2. Even the still very powerful 6970CF can't max ULTRA with constant over 30 FPS. If people say they do, I would need to see a full video because I am running good drivers on a fresh install and have to play Extreme settings for a constant 50+ framerate.

 

Probably Crysis with 999x999 10GB textures.

 

Sounds odd to me as i play both Witcher and Metro at high in 1080P with my laptop,I7 740 and GTX460m

 

Specs???

Mr. Mysterious

 

Looks like he edited it in the post. Again, I tend to agree that metro is less demanding IN GAME and the bench is MORE DEMANDING...by far. However I have a hard time believing a 460M is maxing Witcher 2 and Metro full settings at 1080p.....I barely do that with a 2720 and CF 6970 OC 800/1000.

 

Lol dave. Only mutant 460m's can max out TWII

Mr. Mysterious

 

This is my setting with TW2; Not maxed ubersampling, ssao.. OC'ed to 828/1728





TW2 pics with FPS. View @ 100% Browser zoom please.
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/6910/witcher2201108150829444.jpg
http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3159/witcher2201108230237511.jpg
http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/2701/witcher2201108150834580.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/5959/witcher2201108150740035.jpg
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7805/witcher2201108311953073.jpg
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/718/witcher2201108150814501.jpg



Here's Metro 2033 at High setting with NO DOF, NO Tessellation, DX11 1080p. OC'ed to 828/1728
100% Browser zoom please. Pics gets stretched and lose detail after uploading them here.
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/751/metro203320110906235202.jpg


Here with Normal setting, DX11, No DOF, No Tesselation, 1080p..
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9127/metro203320110906235222.jpg
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/7697/metro203320110823013958.jpg
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/8564/metro203320110823013718.jpg


I recently just got Crysis 2. These are at everything Very High, DX11, HR Textures, 1080p. OC'ed to 810/1685
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/9936/crysis22011090617305628.jpg
http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/7379/crysis22011090617295729.jpg
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/2288/crysis22011090616273326.jpg

 

If you refer to me, i said HIGH, and not max. Metro in DX9 or DX11 withouth tesselation and some more settings.

I have only tryed Witcher2 a short time, and it was ok with high withouth AA.

Ofcourse you cant max out this games with GTX460m

 

Very Nice pics. You have your system running really nice! On Crysis 2 when you said it is "very high" Is that "Ultra?" I know only Ultra with tessellation enabled will be showing the extra features of the patch.

 

Very High is a.k.a. Medium settings when Crysis 2 first came out. DX11 and other features can be enabled with the patch, but only some features will be seen in ultra etc. High res texture patch is independent of this.

That's the best settings to use to keep a high enough framerate, and I used those same with HD5870m.

 

update to 11.8. That gives a good boost to Crysis 2. Crysis has been horrible to AMD cards.

 

Thanks. There are 4 graphics settings in my Limited Edition Crysis 2 which I purchased from EbGames. High, Very High, Extreme, Ultra. It installed the latest patch even before I could start. Then I installed DX11 patch, then HR Textures.

Here's the Menu;






This is Pure Ultra, 1080p, everything set to Ultra.. 100% Browser zoom please.
http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/2195/crysis22011090800001254.jpg



At Very High, everything Very High, 1080p..
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/3184/crysis22011090800003565.jpg
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/5245/crysis22011090616130540.jpg
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/4950/crysis22011090616491761.jpg

 

I don't see the difference between your Pure Ultra and Very High settings.
It could be me though.
What IS the difference in graphics exactly?

Meh... I think people and companies are grasping for straws.
Why introduce 'extreme' and 'Ultra' options for graphics if Very High is basically the pinnacle after which you get diminishing returns?

 

I believe the benefit of Crysis 2 is that it looks better on low settings than Crysis and so is a boon for those with lower-end machines. Crysis on all low looks like its predecessor, Far Cry from 2004. I also noticed hardly any difference between all the settings in 2. In 1, the differences are really dramatic. Its not just you Deks.

Overall, I feel that Crysis is the better looking game. Crysis 2 has too much blur, post-processing effects, etc. I feel like Crysis is a naturally beautiful looking person, whereas 2 is an ugly person with tons of make-up put on.

I'm curious to see Crysis with CryEngine 3 and how it would fare graphically and in performance.

 

There is no (very, very, very little) difference between Ultra and High actually. If I set my graphics to High, I'll get an additional 8-12 FPS.

I've been telling myself to "Stop Inflating my Ego" about the settings.

One thing is, my stock CMO 1726 that's glossy is one hell of a screen/monitor. The colors are unreal, so vivid and true and it's been tested by a german company to have a 1000:1 contrast ratio.

The 1080 resolution also negates the need to further enhance the graphics setting.

Here's High Setting (Everything High, 1080p).
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/3874/crysis22011090802592631.jpg

 

Scratch that... past the 'High' setting you get diminishing returns.
So I see no point in having the graphic settings go any higher than that (because, you just end up losing FPS most likely for what would appear to be no visual difference whatsoever).

 

I am running on 11.8 I just have those scores in my sig with 11.6

And I don't know what you mean about being horrible to AMD cards. Even the first one ran full High settings with great fps, and Crysis 2 ran great on "very high". I could use Hardcore if I dropped the res, but it wouldnt look as sharp

 

It's a known fact that crysis runs significantly better on an equal spec nvidia cards than it does with ATI, at least it did when it came out, the architecture might be more crysis friendly on AI cards now. I don't know about crysis 2 though.

 

Ultra on the 6970s suck when it's a very powerful card. Crytek and EA were probably well paid by Nvidia. Their processors are running much better.

 

I agree I can't see hardly any difference between extreme and ultra. To another poster, I agree that Crysis and Crysis Warhead are better overall looking games. The ONLY point I think Crysis 2 outshines is the simple over post processing and the building textures. crysis compounds are VERY basic and have hardly any textures. However EVERYTHING is destructable with awesome physics. I will gladly trade that for what Crysis 2 has (and I beat all 3). I play Warhead the most..and often the first few levels over and over...in different ways. Can't really do that with Crysis 2