Holy crap my Crysis framerate!!

Yeah, i wanted to download a demo of it, but after reading here, dont think my poor 7900GS would work.

I cant even run bioshock on full..... Next year I will get a GTS.
 
To those who are upset about being unable to run Crysis on Ultra High:

Which part of the, "graphics in this game were coded to be future proof", did you not understand?

Medium setting in this game looks better than most, and people still complain?

Sometimes I hate reading these forums because no matter what people always find something to complain about, do yourself a favor and find something more important to do with your time.
 
cerilia said:
To those who are upset about being unable to run Crysis on Ultra High:

Which part of the, "graphics in this game were coded to be future proof", did you not understand?

Medium setting in this game looks better than most, and people still complain?

Sometimes I hate reading these forums because no matter what people always find something to complain about, do yourself a favor and find something more important to do with your time.
Click to expand...


surely you can find the irony in this.
 
cerilia said:
To those who are upset about being unable to run Crysis on Ultra High:

Which part of the, "graphics in this game were coded to be future proof", did you not understand?

Medium setting in this game looks better than most, and people still complain?

Sometimes I hate reading these forums because no matter what people always find something to complain about, do yourself a favor and find something more important to do with your time.
Click to expand...

Ultra high? I dont think I could play it on low.....

The same could be said to you about finding something else to read and do with your time instead of reading all the whining! :) Had to say it, im a smart ass.
 
Given how poorly crysis seems to run, I wonder if there is any truth to crytek's statements that nvidia was releasing new high end cards in mid November?
 
brfitzp1337 said:
lol you think thats bad....imagine what it's like for those of us who cant afford high end cards,
even on low i get horrible framerates with my 8600GT :( it's pretty much unplayable for me. it plays decent on low settings, but it's just looks horrible.

I try to play at 1440x900 my native resolution, but lowering this didnt help.

E4500 @ 3.2 ghz
2GB DDR2 800 G.Skill ram
MSI NX8600GT OC
Click to expand...

Hi there, may I know if you're running it in Windows Vista or XP (DX9) ?

Just curious, as I have a 8600GT too and a 19" LCD (1440x900)
I'll be glad if I can play this game at an ok speed with all quality setting to low.:D

The download is quite large for my stoneage broadband here, 5 hours more to go:(
 
Crysis SP Demo
PC specs:
AMD 6000+
Biostar Tforce 550 SE
2gb Gskill ddr2-800 HZ ram
EVGA 8800GTS 320mb(stock timings) Nvidia forceware driver 163.71
XP SP2(32-bit)

settings in crysis:
1680x1050x32 res
all settings medium
no AA

crysis gpu benchmark:
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 71.74s, Average FPS: 27.88
Min FPS: 20.57 at frame 1958, Max FPS: 47.05 at frame 885
Average Tri/Sec: 25473336, Tri/Frame: 913680
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.00

crysis cpu benchmark:
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 44.62s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 59.52s, Average FPS: 25.20
Min FPS: 3.77 at frame 196, Max FPS: 36.38 at frame 234
Average Tri/Sec: 20829646, Tri/Frame: 826545
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.87
 
On an Athlon X2 4200+ with 2GB RAM and a X1900XT, I managed to get it playable at 1024X768 with everything on high. 1280X960 was choppy on occassion, but between the motion blur and the fact that the low frame rates didn't seem to affect my controls like they do with some games, it never bugged me much. I do find resolution helps with this game, the foilage looks much smoother and has less "shimmering" effect at 1280 than at 1024.

With a high res the game looks fantastic... except for the damn "pop in" with new objects appearing (rocks and stuff, mainly). I imagine getting the game to look good without that would have been tough, though.

Come to think of it, pop-in seems to bug me in most games with large outdoor environments.
 
What bothers me isn't that the GTX struggles. I can accept that because I've been gaming for a long time and it isn't the first time a high-end card has fallen under the sword of a next gen game.

What bothers me is the way that the industry has misrepresented the functionality of Direct X10 and Vista's suitability as a gaming platform. I think if you look at the total mix of information from statements by Microsoft, Crytek and Nvidia about DX10 and Crysis in particular prior to the release of this demo, you would reasonably think that DX10 and the 8800 series marked the begining of some kind of significant improvement in PC gaming.

In interviews with Crytek developers where they discuss the demonstration videos, I have seem them tout DX10 and Nvidia's hardware. The demo videos show outrageously good looking scenes with almost zero "pop-in," at least 4x anti-aliasing, full shadows, and frame rates that must at least be 40fps minimum.

The bottom line is that I think all those involved with publishing and promoting this game have either made misleading statements or omissions (by touting 8800 hardware while showing videos of the game using settings far beyond the 8800's capabilities) to push the Vista operating system and DX10 hardware.

The reality has been slower performance in Vista than in XP almost across the board and only a marginal image quality improvement. In Crysis, the image quality improvement from DX10 is offset by poor performance of the 8800 series to such an extent that I am guessing some people with Vista and DX10 cards will want to dual boot XP and run in DX9 mode to gain much needed frames.

So while the developers all this time have been plugging Multicore CPUs (Intel?) ,Nvidia products and Vista/DX10, the whole time they must have known that to get an acceptable frame rate on existing hardware the game would have to be scaled down to the point where it looks more like Far Cry than the demo videos they were showing. Yet they have been bullshitting us for months about how well it "scales."

I think it is obvious that Crytek, Intel, Nvidia, and Microsoft have some sort of arrangement to use Crysis as a mutual marketing vehicle. Yet, the Crysis demo only shows that all of their products are insufficient to produce something substantially better than Far Cry.

In other words, yes Crysis will eventually look the demo videos, but only by a brute force improvement in GPU processing power. It obviously has very little to do with DX10 and Vista.

After all that, it is some ugly trees and foliage we saw in Oblivion a year ago. That is a raw deal for consumers, even by PC gamer standards.

Other than this game, is there any other reason to even consider a graphics card faster than the GTX, adding 2 more gigs of memory, going to 64 bit, getting vista, and buying a quad core processor? Name one other game.

In conclusion, Crysis is the son of Satan, its mother is a jackal, and it is trying to establish its counterfeit kingdom here on earth using the power of Microsoft, Intel, and Nvidia.

Ok I'm done.
 
i run at 1280x1024 all high and 2xaa16xaf, my gtx is at 661,1050,1652 core,mem,shader at about 30fps on average with vista
 
I wouldn't lose any sleep over the thought of not being able to run a single player game maxed out, if the multiplayer is a must have brilliant game i can see the point.

Single player games no matter how great they look soon become tiresome just look at bioshock i hardly play it and i can max it out near enough,why ?

because it's boring in this day and age of immersive highly entertaining deep gameplay online games.

When i look at what i have played the most this last year cs source, pro evolution 6
bf 2142 , company of heroes ,supreme commander they are all maxable on current hardware but that really doesn't make them good games it's because they are great online.
 
Playable for me at 1920 Medium noAA but not really silky smooth. Had to lower to 1360.
 
switched drivers to 169.01 beta and now objects ingame are transparent. Only seeing outlines and blobs :( Very dismal lead-in so far for something so hyped. I too wasnt expecting miracles on my hardware but i was hoping for a few "wow" factors to see what my hardware can do. I am still building my quad core system as we speak, but with no video to drive this thing...........meh. One can hope that perhaps this demo does not reflect the final build quality or is optimized to its full potential, because if this is what is shipping then prepare to :puke and :cry
 
the far off objects to me are outlined in a bright whitish yellow and when i get close it goes away, its very distracting from the realism, anyone else have this?
 
heres the transparency problem i am referring to for my problem currently.

my.php
[/URL][/IMG]
 
The PC gaming industry is killing itself. This is why consoles will win out in the end and PC gaming will drop into a very small niche. The systems I'm seeing represented here not being able to play this game to any acceptable degree is just horrible. Those of you saying "oh well hey they are going to release new cards!" etc should wake up to the damn fact that the people who can actually afford $400-$6xx cards is a REALLY small minority. They over-developed this game, and sales are going to reflect the fact that no one can run it well.
 
Ethug said:
The PC gaming industry is killing itself. This is why consoles will win out in the end and PC gaming will drop into a very small niche. The systems I'm seeing represented here not being able to play this game to any acceptable degree is just horrible. Those of you saying "oh well hey they are going to release new cards!" etc should wake up to the damn fact that the people who can actually afford $400-$6xx cards is a REALLY small minority. They over-developed this game, and sales are going to reflect the fact that no one can run it well.
Click to expand...

Well, I for one am NOT buying it.

Sorry, every other game demo has run like a dream. UT3, COD4, etc... Also, bioshock looks GREAT on my system and runs a little TOO well. Crysis is a great game, but a great game that runs like shit is just that... shit.
 
I've got a 7900GT in XP and I get around 15fps with everything as high as it will go on 1440X900. drop it down to 1024X768 with medium settings and I get 30-40fps. I'm amazed at how well this game looks on low frame rates, I thought Fraps was showing bad numbers.

This is also exactly why I didn't get an 8800 (other than my complete lack of $). The 8800s while impressive when they came out are somewhat of a useless generation. There over kill for most any DX9 game but they can't pull there weight in DX10, although I suspect that's Vistas fault. Of course if you truly had a need for them to run your HUGE screen then I suppose you got your $s worth but you can't expect year old hardware to run cutting edge games in ultra resolution/settings. I thought it was funny when the 8800s came out because everyone treated like it was some sort of infallible god. but if an 8800 is 4X better than an 7800 and you quadruple the resolution to 2560X1600 your right back to the FPS you had with the 7800 divide that by 2 if your running vista and your have crap.

Anyway I think the best part of the game is the game play...the graphics are nice but being able to blowup buildings and shoot tires off cars is way better.
 
The demo to me so far is fun but the need for such hardware sucks imo. I couldnt imagine trying to play this on the 6800gt i had before my gtx, that would sux0r! but i guess its all part of progress
 
NIVO said:
heres the transparency problem i am referring to for my problem currently.

my.php
[/URL][/IMG]
Click to expand...



turn off your forced anti-aliasing in the drivers. Use application controlled settings for antialiasing and vsync and it should work.


Crysis is just unoptimized i think. The game should be able to run on a 8800ultra. Theres no excuse for it. I bet they had a quad sli and quad core cpu doing all the show offs and videos they did. If unreal tournament 3 looks better than crysis when the full version comes then something is really messed up with the drivers or either the game itself. Its like they programmed the game to take the longest route in the videocard while if it they took the time they could have programmed it to take advantage of all the little speed increases/optimizations that are possible. Too much of it sounds like its based on raw power than just optimization. Its ok when its a demo but when you buy the game you expect it to atleast run decently on a standard system of today lol
 
NIVO said:
heres the transparency problem i am referring to for my problem currently.

my.php
[/URL][/IMG]
Click to expand...

IIRC if you disable force AA/AF in the control panel and change it to Application Controlled/Choice that'll fix it.

edit: beaten by conker, blast! ;_;
 
After hearing everyone over at Tomshardware forum talking and downloading,I had to get Crysis demo for my self.On a ATI H2900pro oc'd to 740/900 with res of 1900/1200 with 4AA I played it through.My fps was 20 on avg the lowest was 14 during the mini movie and it was smooth and fast pace.I did see the mountain flicker in the begining of the game but soon went away.There is a feature in the suit that makes you move faster,and it is great for a run-n-gun.No sutter,no choppy just smooth,even at an avg of 20.939 m-boar by MSI,AMD 4800x2,4 512 corsair ddr500,hard drive is Western Digital 320g
 
UT3 looks kind of cool, although I'm not a fan of it, it seems like every time a new Unreal Tournament comes out it's the same game with better graphics.

But personally I think that Crysis looks a LOT more detailed and stressful on GPU's than UT3, although I have to hand it to UT3 that it's very well optimized. Crysis does not seem to be....

But as in comparing the two, I think Crysis wins in the graphics department, hands down. At least from the screenshots I've seen of this demo and what I've played of the UT3 demo.
 
Citizen86 said:
UT3 looks kind of cool, although I'm not a fan of it, it seems like every time a new Unreal Tournament comes out it's the same game with better graphics.

But personally I think that Crysis looks a LOT more detailed and stressful on GPU's than UT3, although I have to hand it to UT3 that it's very well optimized. Crysis does not seem to be....

But as in comparing the two, I think Crysis wins in the graphics department, hands down. At least from the screenshots I've seen of this demo and what I've played of the UT3 demo.
Click to expand...

The UT3 demo didn't come with full textures, did it? I read somewhere they packaged it with lower-grade to make the file size smaller and easier to download.
 
JinxCA said:
The UT3 demo didn't come with full textures, did it? I read somewhere they packaged it with lower-grade to make the file size smaller and easier to download.
Click to expand...

That is true, but it's still very scalable: the demo ran at 60 FPS constant on my x1950 XTX with everything maxed at 1680x1050. THAT'S a scalable game, even if the final textures are higher.

To quote someone earlier in this thread, "if a game is good but runs like shit, it's still shit".

Sorry Crysis, you get passed up by me. Unless we see VASTLY better performance on lower-end hardware in the real game.
 
Correct. The "Beta UT3 Demo" didn't include high res textures to keep the package size down.
 
JinxCA said:
The UT3 demo didn't come with full textures, did it? I read somewhere they packaged it with lower-grade to make the file size smaller and easier to download.
Click to expand...

yup, it has medium textures only right now i heard in the beta demo. Full version will have very high settings most likely. Hopefully nvidia comes out with some drivers to fix this crysis lag problem. Its probably called crysis for a reason since everyone can't run it that great lol
 
LoL @ "Its probably called crysis for a reason"
I'm sure both ATi and Nvidia will release new driver versions just before the full game's released.
 
You guys whine too much. Turn down some settings. I throughly enjoyed the demo on my X1550. Ran great at lower details. 30 fps average at 1024x768 with all settings on Low except textures on Medium and sound on High. Got 40 fps at 800x600 but there is a significant drop in sharpness at that resolution.
 
Well I have another 2 hours before the demo is downloaded (damn slow internet), so I'm going to bed, hopefully sometime tomorrow afternoon I'll have time to sit down and try it out. I have hopes for my low res of 1280x1024, but if not, I can always lower the res or some settings. Hopefully medium will run ok w/ my 320mb of vram :eek:
 
DX10 is gonna rape us all. First time I have ever wanted to upgrade, had the money, and cant find ANYTHING significantly better then my card. :(
 
I'm running everything on medium except the shaders on high with 2xaa at 1680x1050 at a constant 20-40 FPS. It is perfectly playable and looks great, seriously the best looking game I have played so far. It is realistic looking unlike the UE3, not that its bad its just not very realistic. I also have a pretty decent bottleneck with my CPU. So far I'm happy with the way it performed though.
 
Seriously, it's not the end of the world. We all knew that Ultra/Very High settings just isn't a viable option (thus the reason why they say it's scaled forward). High settings are where it's at right now.

I can run everything on High with my setup (in sig) and get about 30-40fps (feels like 50-60):

1280x1024
8xCSAA @ Enhance the App. Setting (transparent AA drops me down from 25 to 30, no noticeable IQ bump so I'm leaving it off)
16xAF
Vista 32-bit, fully updated, all "NVIDIA Recommended" Vista updates and hotfixes (a lot of people don't have these installed)
169.01 Drivers.

My 8800GTS' OC did give me a decent performance boost, even at stock clocks it was around 20-30fps. Use EXPERTool 5.6 to OC using 169.01 drivers ;). I'll also try vsync and tripple-buffering to see how they perform.
 
evanisthecoastie said:
I bet my westy it will have better framerate upon release.
Click to expand...

Of course, you've got patches and driver updates. The latest ones alone brought along a huge performance increase, there's more performance left no doubt. I think too many people expect Very High settings to be playable, especially since Crytek said that Very high at high res. is for next gen. :eek:.
 
Not sure what it is with all of these complaints about frame rates.

I played through the whole demo at 1280x1024 no AA, settings default and didn't notice one hiccup, and the thing is it still looked great.

Not sure what my frame rate was as I didn't have FRAPS running, but it was definitely enough to keep me interested in the game and not how horrible my hardware was performing.
 
Here's what I've tested so far with Vista U64

163.75

GTX 630/2050
1920x1200 All settings high except medium Shaders and Shadows
22 FPS AVG CPU Test 19 FPS AVG GPU Test

1680x1050 All settings high except medium shaders and shadows
36FPS AVG CPU Test 32 FPS AVG GPU Test

169.01

1920x1200 All settings high except medium shaders and shadows
25 FPS AVG CPU Test 21 FPS AVG GPU Test

1680x1050 All settings high except medium shaders and shadows
39FPS AVG CPU Test 34 FPS AVG GPU Test

There is a problem for me with running 64 bit with 169.01, will just lock the screen, have to end the task. 32 Bit runs fine, but has a performance penalty that makes it run like the 163.75. In windowed comparisons, 64 bit shows a 3fps advantage over 32 bit mode. I hit a peak of 52 with the 16x10 settings compared to a peak of 49 in 32 bit mode. Windowed mode seems to run faster than full screen.

If everything is set to high, I get a max of 31fps and avg in the teens. Quality while playing seems no different with the shaders and shadows at medium, but I'm sure still shots would expose the difference.

Give me optimized full game and optimized drivers or give me a new high end card. Crysis is playable, but far from eye candy maxed out. I get something like 8fps avg and 10fps peak for 19x12 with very high settings... but damn that looks sweet...
 
Holy crap indeed myfriend, 15-30 fps on medium noAA on a single 8800GTS 640@600/900 with 2g ddr800 and a x2 [email protected] driver 169.01 and a funny bug


No thanks, ill stick to Team Fortress 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top