Crysis 1 still demanding on new generation cards?

ReFracture said:
Absolutely, I had to run most settings at medium, several at low, at 1280x800 to keep a decent frame rate on my old 8800GT. SLI did not make a gigantic difference.

My GTX 670 I got runs the game pretty nicely at 1080p all settings cranked at 4x aa though.
Click to expand...

What do you consider to be a decent frame rate? My SLI'd 8800GT cards ran the game beautifully.
 
ShePearl said:
This thread is about Crysis (2007).
Click to expand...

Yea I realize the thread is about Crysis. What i'm trying to say is people often act shocked that they can't max out Crysis in 2012 on their modern rigs. Im my opinion it's even more shocking that postal 2, a game from 2003 can't even be maxed out on an i7 bought this year. That is all. :)
 
ZodaEX said:
Yea I realize the thread is about Crysis. What i'm trying to say is people often act shocked that they can't max out Crysis in 2012 on their modern rigs. Im my opinion it's even more shocking that postal 2, a game from 2003 can't even be maxed out on an i7 bought this year. That is all. :)
Click to expand...

The biggest myth about Crysis is that is very bad coded, this game is actually decently coded, even if its not, lets say that is not, it has the graphics which look amazing, not like some other crap games which look like crap and run like crap, Crysis was created 3 years earlier then it should.
 
psyside said:
Crysis is very CPU hungy, it scaled extremely well with oc, even it does not use 4 cores.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

That's why I said.. (earlier in this thread).
ShePearl said:
It is my understanding that Crysis does not scale beyond dual cores (from multi-threading perpective). However, it always starves for more CPU horsepower (like frequency, IPC)
It is easier to see with multi-GPU systems. When the CPU becomes the bottleneck the GPU usage drops. Stare at a flat polygon or mesh in the corner of the map and watch the GPUs peg at 99% 200 fps, then turn around and view the entire map & entities, and witness GPU usage drop to 50/60% and framerate drop to 55 FPS because the CPU is bottlenecked.

I've tested Crysis recently. (Although I did not benchmark it).
3770K @ stock vs 3770K @ 4.5
GTX 680 SLI (same driver), the same settings.
Very early in the game where you have to destroy the first antenna jamming device, when you stand still at the top of the hill facing the ocean side and seeing other NPCs moving down the hill (NPCs driving a boat in the ocean etc),
3770K @ stock gives about 59~60 fps. (due to turbo boost it clocked at 3.7 GHz)
3770K @ 4.5 gives about 70~71 fps.

This is standing still at the same spot with the same settings. A hefty 10 fps difference from the CPU alone.
Click to expand...
 
By the way, this is what you call a GPU bound game.

CPU1.png


from : http://www.techspot.com/review/537-max-payne-3-performance/
 
On my rig Crysis runs at an average of 60FPS with all the highest settings including AA at 16x at 1920x1080. This game is a hog, not to mention it used over 1.5GB of VRAM, even for a 2007 game.
 
ShePearl said:
By the way, this is what you call a GPU bound game.

CPU1.png


from : http://www.techspot.com/review/537-max-payne-3-performance/
Click to expand...

I didn't notice it on the first scheme through. It seems they tested CPU performance during a cut scene. (It's actually pathetic that you can be that incompetent and still write for a tech site.) Test it again when Max Payne is shooting up half the level and then we can see some meaningful numbers.
 
John Vuong said:
On my rig Crysis runs at an average of 60FPS with all the highest settings including AA at 16x at 1920x1080. This game is a hog, not to mention it used over 1.5GB of VRAM, even for a 2007 game.
Click to expand...

Most people did not play at 1080p in 2007. 1280x1024 was actually still a common resolution, and CRTs were still common place.

Obviously now, crysis was way ahead of its time (or games NOW are way BEHIND thanks to consoles IMO) and its still awesome looking on modern hardware at high res.
 
John Vuong said:
On my rig Crysis runs at an average of 60FPS with all the highest settings including AA at 16x at 1920x1080. This game is a hog, not to mention it used over 1.5GB of VRAM, even for a 2007 game.
Click to expand...

Maxing out vram can be a good thing for stability and such. You can run crysis on very high with 1gb without stutter. I think BF3 can use something like 2gb of vram at 1080p. That doesn't mean it wont run on a gtx 580.

It's just making the most of the hardware it can use. (That's not to say it doesn't have optimisation issues elsewhere.)
 
JayJapanB said:
Maxing out vram can be a good thing for stability and such. You can run crysis on very high with 1gb without stutter. I think BF3 can use something like 2gb of vram at 1080p. That doesn't mean it wont run on a gtx 580.

It's just making the most of the hardware it can use. (That's not to say it doesn't have optimisation issues elsewhere.)
Click to expand...
what? some games dynamically use vram but most dont so if you are maxing out your vram its not a good thing.
 
cannondale06 said:
what? some games dynamically use vram but most dont so if you are maxing out your vram its not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think you misinterpreted what I meant by "maxing out".
I mean a game dynamically adjusting its usage to the hardware available to improve performance and stability.
Most don't but Crysis seems to. It's pretty obvious if you overload your vram.
Crysis definitely doesn't need over 1.5gb @1080p if it uses it however, it means that the game has dynamically changed to make use of it.

The only two games flooding my 460 sli 1gb were Metro 2033 with 4xaa and Bf3 with either high textures or aa.

Edit: Newer 1gb cards probably wouldn't have problems with that (1gb gtx 560sli?)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top