So, how long till we will be able to play Crysis at 60 FPS w/ max settings?

Hmm, well right now with my PC specs, at high settings, DX9, and 1680x1050, I barely scratch 30 FPS average, I think.

So let's see. I'm assuming my CPU doesn't play a very major role and I'm assuming that with a e6600 or something overclocked to 3.2ghz would gain me no more than 5 FPS to the average.

My 8800GT came out, what, one year ago?

So, assuming the only real factor in determining FPS in Crysis (and almost any game out today) is just the GPU.

So if a one year old GPU can do 30-35 FPS, it'll probably take 2-3 years for the upper-mainstream cards to be able to do 60 FPS at very high on Crysis (not including Warhead or any further optimizations).

So 15 FPS in a year with GPU progression right now.
I'm pretty sure that GTX 280 which is the most high end card (well, 4870x2 sounds to be best ATM, but I don't know scores for that), does about 45 FPS all high
 
A long long time, mainly because the game is poorly coded and unoptimized. Might aswell get over Crysis and move on to bigger and better things.
 
I always get a kick out of looking at benchmarks and looking at crysis results specifically. It seems like the results never change.

frame rates:
min 16
max 50-65
average 32
 
You can already play @ 1920x1200 with max settings at 60fps, the Tri SLI GTX 280's delivers this kind of setup with about 80fps average iirc, and it's still playable @ 2560x1600, although I cant remember if this is with AA or not, possibly the 1920x1200 has 2 or 4xaa.

Hell even my 2 4870's pull their weight in 1920x1200 although i have to drop 1-2 of the settings to high.

It will probably be next generation before we see any GPU's that are going to manage this on their own, although warhead may run better with the same graphics fidelity, who knows at this stage.
 
I understand when people complain about the crap D3 wow style art. I don't understand why people complain about crysis. Every year people bitch and moan about how hardware is so fart ahead, developers are lazy, blah blah blah. Finally a developer throws down the guantlet, pushes the software and tech ahead and they get hammered. crysis is not poorly coded, its run as well on current tech as far cry did it's time before the 8800gtx got released. the game just pushes hardware that far, and I for one applaud crytek for not trying to be another blizzard or valve.
 
Danny Bui said:
At what resolution? Pretty sure that you can play Crysis at 60FPS with max settings on 1280x1024 with the HD4870X2. :)[/QUOTE

You aren't really gaming at that resolution. But at 2560 by 1600 it can be dont mid next year, but at what price, a 4k system !!!!!
Click to expand...
 
ikarinokami said:
I understand when people complain about the crap D3 wow style art. I don't understand why people complain about crysis. Every year people bitch and moan about how hardware is so fart ahead, developers are lazy, blah blah blah. Finally a developer throws down the guantlet, pushes the software and tech ahead and they get hammered. crysis is not poorly coded, its run as well on current tech as far cry did it's time before the 8800gtx got released. the game just pushes hardware that far, and I for one applaud crytek for not trying to be another blizzard or valve.
Click to expand...

even craptek said it was poorly coded.
fail.
 
hoffstetter said:
custom config? like the config file with all the settings? where/how do I get that?
Click to expand...

Theres a thread I think a page back that I'm too lazy to link to right now. The title is whoa crysis at very high something something.

Anyways, I use that config and now have very high setting. I game at 1920x1200 and my scores are:

Max-62
Min-22
Average-42
 
I think we'll see Warhead running at that performance before we see the original Crysis, probably with the same hardware we have today. They've said that it will run significantly better than Crysis will, and eventually the optimizations will trickle down to Crysis a while afterwards.

mobusta1 said:
got proof?
Click to expand...

Them saying Warhead will run much better on current hardware is somewhat of an indication of that.
 
Hamidxa said:
In fact, use mine, and you can hit 90-95% of the max settings at 60 FPS TODAY depending on the resolution and of course your rig.
Click to expand...
x2

I have been using his config for ever since early this year.
I can't wait til my 280 gtx gets here and when I purchase Warhead.
I will probably net 60+fps with your custom config @1680x1050.
 
inotocracy said:
Them saying Warhead will run much better on current hardware is somewhat of an indication of that.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

First of all if the improvements where to the engine in general then they would work for Crysis and they've already said they're not patching that anymore, why? If the improvents are generic then they'd automaticlly work for Crysis as well as Warhead.

Look at it from the developers point of view, they want to sell copies, the primary complaint about the game is the performance, so the way to make Warhead attractive to those people they market that its going to run a whole lot better. The easiest way to achieve that is to simply make the game look worse and be less demanding.

I think we should wait and see exactly how Warhead looks and runs before we use this as an argument, I have no doubts Warhead will run better because selling more copies this time around directly relies on its performnace, every bit of feedback they have about the game tells them that.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the "improvements" have negative impacts on image quality, lower res shadows, less textures in use, all the common tricks that are used to make games like this run well on consoles.
 
7680x1600 (matrox)
+ 3d glasses
+ 24xAA
custom profile to go beyond very high

= never.
 
Frostex said:
Incorrect.

First of all if the improvements where to the engine in general then they would work for Crysis and they've already said they're not patching that anymore, why? If the improvents are generic then they'd automaticlly work for Crysis as well as Warhead.

Look at it from the developers point of view, they want to sell copies, the primary complaint about the game is the performance, so the way to make Warhead attractive to those people they market that its going to run a whole lot better. The easiest way to achieve that is to simply make the game look worse and be less demanding.

I think we should wait and see exactly how Warhead looks and runs before we use this as an argument, I have no doubts Warhead will run better because selling more copies this time around directly relies on its performnace, every bit of feedback they have about the game tells them that.

I'd be willing to bet that most of the "improvements" have negative impacts on image quality, lower res shadows, less textures in use, all the common tricks that are used to make games like this run well on consoles.
Click to expand...

There are already indictations of this from several sites, like ve3d, who noted less fidelity in the graphics. Which is too bad, and ultimately i cannot blame them, they tried to do what people screamed about push the hardware, and when they did all they got was critcism and B.S excuses to pirate thier game, they put alot of time, effort and money in.
 
Monkey God said:
even craptek said it was poorly coded.
fail.
Click to expand...

They said no such thing, optimizing an engine does not imply that it was poorly coded, it just means that there is room for improvement. For that matter, there is room for improvement for every single last thing out there in the entire universe, so is everything just in a shoddy state to you -- cynical much?

zombeh said:
why dont you link people to it?



I'm a fan of helders
Click to expand...

Sure thing, here you go.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1265845

Ron FTL said:
x2

I have been using his config for ever since early this year.
I can't wait til my 280 gtx gets here and when I purchase Warhead.
I will probably net 60+fps with your custom config @1680x1050.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Im betting we can use this same config (likely with even more var tweaks) for Warhead, so we wont be losing much of anything in the way of looks or performance -- we'll likely have gains if anything. :)
 
I think two more generations of video cards, which will be maybe 1.5 to two years. That would be to run Crysis with no special config files, on all ultra settings, at a resolution of 19x12 or above.

**and full AA and filtering, etc
 
i really wish i could find a config that looks like the original crysis offering.

comparisonshotxt0.jpg
 
Hamidxa said:
They said no such thing, optimizing an engine does not imply that it was poorly coded, it just means that there is room for improvement. For that matter, there is room for improvement for every single last thing out there in the entire universe, so is everything just in a shoddy state to you -- cynical much?
Click to expand...

Yes they did. Even the [H] agreed. Its crap. Lots of games aren't crap and im not alone in my opinion. You dont agree, fine.
 
Monkey God said:
Yes they did. Even the [H] agreed. Its crap. Lots of games aren't crap and im not alone in my opinion. You dont agree, fine.
Click to expand...

No one has proven this statement, ever.

It seems to be perpetuated and propogated from forum to forum, but has remained unsubstantiated to date.

Please quote and reference where Crytek stated that Crysis was "poorly coded".

Every single engine on the face of the planet can stand optimizations, akin to how video cards can always use drivers for a boost in performance, that however is not to be conflated with poor coding -- it just means there is room for optimizations, as with anything and everything under the sun, nothing is perfect.


Furthermore, Crysis is far far from crap.
May I direct you to a 91% average rating, firmly placing it amongst a elite list of 90+% average rated games on Metacritic as well as GameRankings.

i.e. Crysis was the 6th highest rated game in all of 2007 on the PC platform, out of over 200 releases.

6th highest out of 200+ games, putting it in the 97 percentile = crap?
That's news to me.... :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:
 
Frostex said:
You can already play @ 1920x1200 with max settings at 60fps, the Tri SLI GTX 280's delivers this kind of setup with about 80fps average iirc, and it's still playable @ 2560x1600, although I cant remember if this is with AA or not, possibly the 1920x1200 has 2 or 4xaa.
Click to expand...
wow did you just completely make up shit as you went along or what? try 30fps with the GTX 280 tri sli setup at 1920x1200 on very high settings and NO AA. :confused:

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15293/8
 
First of all the game was broken when it shipped--anti-aliasing was totally borked and they patched that in 1.2. Then in 1.2 they left major bugs including one where you fall through the ship and can't even finish the game.

So it is not far fetched to assume they're are performance bugs in 1.2 as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top