Whats Wrong With Crysis!!!!!

OKAY soo im using a 9800mGTS playing crysis at resoultion 1280x780 with all high settings and i get an average of 17 FPS!! im using DOX 180.44 drivers which is suppose to boost my FPS but **** my framerate sucks! can any1 give me sum answers as to why im having such low fps

17" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050) "Glossy" LCD
Orange Trim
nVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTS w/512MB GDDR3
Intel® Core™2 Duo T8100 2.1GHz Processor w/3MB L2 On-die cache - 800MHz FSB

 

first of all, could you please tell us what model your CPU is? then is it the first Crysis, or warhead?

 

Re: Whats Wrong With Crysis!!!!!
Its repetitive and A.I. are about as bright as a 1W bulb haha

Try the 178 drivers some people have issues with the 180's. If that doesnt solve your problem perhaps a little more info about your computer might help

 

Update your codecs too while you're at it, I've read it might influence it. Ditto about the 178 drivers too.

 

And Crysis just generally runs like **** on almost ANYTHING.
How does it scale on lower settings?

 

Crysis, like we at NBR and many many reviewers have said before, is a poorly coded game and not an optimized either. It does not fully utilize multicores (dual core or quad cores) and did not support multi-videocards until patches later on, it is so poorly programmed that even now it does not even utilize a system's full potential.

Crytek pushed out the game too early since the beta testers (like myself) suggested that the game needed to get optimized... but EA forced them to not have anymore delays.

So .... after that debacle, Crytek overhauled the programming and made Crysis Warhead much much more optimized and still gave improved visuals.

So go play Crysis Warhead if you want to see what Crysis should have been if Crytek had more time to work on the original release.

_________

Another thing to look at are other games, like Unreal Tournament 3, which was released near the same time as the first Crysis.

Epic did an amazing job optimizing that game to be fully multi-threaded (supports up to 64 threads ... thats 64 cores in a CPU if you got it), the game fully utilizes all aspects of almost any gaming system. That is why it looks and plays so smooth even at the highest of resolutions and settings. I beta tested this game as well, and Epic knew that they wanted the coding to be more important than just eye-candy so that more people will be able to play the game at comfortable settings.

 

I hope there will be a patch to bring Crysis up to Warhead's more optimized status.
I hear that there are graphics mods to make Crysis look better with the same hardware, so there aren't mods for it to fully use dual-core for instance?

 

for me warhead is even worse optimized than the original crysis. Awful DX10 memory leaks make some parts unplayable. But what can u expect from EA!?? hope they all burn down so TakeTwo can breathe more and make some good games finally.

 

I am gaming in DX9 for XP and Vista, so I actually see the difference from Crysis to Crysis Warhead.

DX10 has yet to prove itself viable.

 

Crysis is just badly optimize and overly heavy for any graphics card.

if you want 30fps, put all high, but medium object details and shadows and even maybe shaders.

If you want super performance, just drop everything to medium and you will get a superb experience.

you will need to use tweaks to find the optimal performance.

 

Please go to the new thread i made about 2 configs. Try those two out on warhead. Which makes the game more optimized then it already is.

 

I agree on the first part that Warhead is less optimized on the lower end machines.

How ever your rant on EA is baseless. They didn't make the game,only published it for general availability. If anyone is to blame ,it is Crytek, the developer.

 

Yeah, they are pretty smart but EA gives them time schedules that they have to follow so they are creatively raped

 

Yeah, Crysis is a resource pig. But **** its a good looking game.

I wish someone would license the engine and run with it. Love how the physics work, just incredible. All other games don't feel the same now. (Except for Battlefield: Bad Company, incredible experience that one.)

 

Not really true.. The first crysis was a much better performer and looked better than warhead imo. In Warhead, textures took forever to load, some of them just looked downright bad compared to the first game, such as the new APC. the game also ran MUCH worse for me, and crossfire doesn't work in warhead for me either. The game DOES utilize multi core, and very well at that however. Playing some of the Physics maps people have made while keeping a CPU graph on a second screen or something similar, will show you this to be true, it uses all 4 cores on my quad, disabling cores makes it slower, simple as that.. You can't really compare Crysis with UT3 though. Crysis does on average per frame about 3-4x as many polygons, uses real time SSAO, steep parallax mapping, sun shafts, better physics, and so on..

 

alrite these are my specs
17" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050) "Glossy" LCD
Orange Trim
nVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTS w/512MB GDDR3
Intel® Core™2 Duo T8100 2.1GHz Processor w/3MB L2 On-die cache - 800MHz FSB

i think i should at least be able to pull out 30 fps at 1280xXXXX resoultion with high settings -___-

 

You should be able to put out over 30FPS in all very high settings in 1280x800 with that setup. Did you get any different drivers yet?

 

Oh that's the problem, the orange trim causes a major frame drop in some games.

 

im using DOX 180.44 Driver, but at 1280x800 resoultion i get like 15-25 fps!! can you recomend what drivers i should be using plz.... lol at your comment Hep i just copied and pasted the specs for their website and forgot to take out uneeded info.

 

Noodles: 180.70, Just finished the game over again at native CCC lvl4, its a great driver, and very stable for me at the moment.

Try it out and report back.

 

thnx alot rot im gonna DL it rite now
is the increase in performance marginal or is it noticeable?

edit: native resolution?! that would be 1600xXXXX (wsxga+), not trying to be rude but at that resolution my frame rate would probably b like 5-15 no matter what driver i use

 

pretty **** noticeable, as i have stated b4, i played CCC mod LVL4 at 1440 900 with these drivers and it ran B-E-A-U-TIFULYY!!!!!!!

So yeah it very noticeable. Especially when playing warhead: now i can use the ULRA CONFIG and it stay smooth.

P.S: i dont use the fps counters in games. I play it and judge it on how playable it is. When i use anykind of fps counter in a game the game seems to run worse and cut up at times...

And my system seems to pull up higher numbers than most othe 8800mGTS's, so maybe its just my freak card,

But you should find the game more playable and more vibrant this time around.

 

btw i was wondering is their a DOX 180.70?

 

nope. not that know of.

 

I only running stock drivers on my Sager NP8660 1400x900 all High with 2xAA at about 20-35 fps no joke. But it is slightly overclocked though.

 

See suade has a supre 8800m gts as well, were both getting better results than most.

SuADE8880 use CCC 2.21 lvl 4. It makes the game look awesome and i think it runs the same.

 

thats very strange, after using the "have-disk" method to install the 180.70 drivers i experienced no change in speed or framerates between the 180.70 and 180.43 =(. i still get a constant 15-25 framerate.

 

What laptop do you have.

On my 6860fx i noticed alot of diffrences. i just finished play through warhead using the ultra config. And of course lowering the res at the ice levels.

So what gpu are you using?

 

17" WSXGA+ (1680 x 1050)
nVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTS w/512MB GDDR3
Intel Core2 Duo T8100 2.1GHz Processor w/3MB L2 On-die cache - 800MHz FSB

 

have you run 3d mark 06?

are you running the Crysis demo?

if it's the retail version, is it v1.2?

 

I feel warhead is good in everything than crysis

 

Try warhead

 

Yes try Crysis Warhead. It runs at a constant 35-40 fps at CCClvl5 and looks amazing.

Just add some particle tweaks to get those warhead exclusive explosion flares.

The game does look tons better than crysis in every way and runs TWICE AS GOOD.

Once i get my X7800 i should be able to max the game out.

 

I thought Crysis ran so bad because of the amazing graphics, and now I've read that it's because of bad coding. Who woulda thunk it?

 

Your problem is ur not running a SLi lol

My 8800gtx runs at 21fps on Very high.
I wish i had SLi =(

 

Ahhh...so its the coding and not my laptop. Good to know. But what if it is Crysis warhead that I am having problems with? 10-25 FPs.
Downloading patch now.

 

Actually this game made me go through alot of systems, money, and time, after i realized its a poorly devloped game. Its a good game but not EPIC imo. Still i keep it and play with the graphical modpacks, that makes sense considering it looks amazing and runs the way the devs should have made it.

 

stay on the topic, guys.
you sure video card is 9800m gts?
fps shall be about 30 if crysis is played at low res 1280x768. i remembere with gateway p7811fx, i got 15 fps on average play on all high and native res 1920x1200.

 

I have a question;

I know in Crysis Warhead my laptop can run CCC Lvl 5 fine, but how about CCC Lvl 5 in the original Crysis?