Your Crysis performance - Page 2

Last message on previous page:

Thanks, I'll give it a shot

1280x1024 all settings on very high except shadows and shaders. Very playable. Between 20-40 fps. O, and 2x ssaa. I love the game, it kinda makes me feel bad for paying the same amount of money for other games and not getting the same amount of enjoyment from them.

To give you a low end benchmark not often seen on these forums, I submit the following. I have played the Crysis and Call of Duty 4 demos in DX9 on this system at 1280x1024 with 4x AA, and everything else set to low settings in Crysis. Same res and AA in COD4 with all effects turned on. Looked just fine to me. Ran smoothly also. 30FPS in Crysis, 38 in COD4. I built this system essentially out of spare parts for a friend, and used the demos to burn it in.

E4300 @ stock speed
ASUS Via P4M890 motherboard
EVGA 7600gt 256mb
2gb DDR2 533 ram
160gb ATA133 Maxtor HD
Windows XP SP1

I have also played both demos on high end Vista machines such as yours at the local Fry's. The "so called" DX10 modes were nothing to write home about, but they worked. I guess my 4 old eyes just don't see what all the fuss is about in Vista.

Assuming you use a computer solely to game

No not just for gaming, I do lots of photo, bussines and all sorts of stuff but I also game only when my work is done.

Try running SLI in XP, people seem to have forgotten Vista and SLI don't mix, like cola and poprocks

recap

X2 6000 3.0Ghz
Asus M2N-SLi deluxe Mobo
2 GB Gskill Ram
BFG 8800GT (factory settings)

1280x1024 res
ALL settings on high
No AA

I ran the GPU and CPU demo loop in the bin32 folder
GPU:

min - 18.63fps
max - 46.54fps
avg - 37.82fps

CPU:

min - 21.11fps
max - 46.09fps
avg - 34.54fps

i guess that's ok

Yes.. it can use SLI.. it does it fine.. crysis is the problem not vista..

guys i have asked here too :
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/foru [...] mshardware
but i didnt get a good answer

in crysis when i changed 16xQ to 0 the game ran smoother and also i didnt see alot of difference, so is the difference between 16x and 0 very much?
in most benchmarks i have seen they have set the AA to 4x, so it seems 4x is the best FPS/Performance for games
SO IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 4X AND 16X NOTICEALBE?

plz help
thx

Hardly no-one has Crysis to test it...

I have had it for three days now but haven't had the time to play it yet.

Demo ran same as released version, people hoping for this leap in performance with future patches are kidding themselves. Turn down your settings and be happy, until you buy a new GPU.

Have a look right here at Tom's Hardware "Demo versus Full Version" to see the difference between an 8800GTX stock and overclocked.

I to was playing tonight on my tv at 168x by 1050 and just as smooth as butter. I don't have a 600$ GPU either. I have a x1900xtx @ 702/837. I also have a E4400 @ 3.2 so,,.

If you guys think you got it bad try playing it on my system. After futzing with the game settings the best I can get is NO AA and all settings on Medium except water (which is set to high and looks pretty damn good). System specs in Signature.

No, it isnt lol..

It still looks awesome on medium though.

Maziar nice to know you agree that high with no AA looks just as good as with all the eye candy put to max, except you get 2x the performance. All these people trying to run very high and complaining they cant is quite funny tbh

When I get the game tomorow, monday, im going to be going through every single setting one by one and seeing how they affect performance relative to what effects they do and be picking which ones for medium, high, very high etc.. lil let you all know the results.

Ok..

i hadnt thought there would really be 'too' much visual difference between high and very high in xp... until i bothered to change the config files per instructions listed for the demo

as far as i can tell, this is how DX10 features look under vista, quite impressive, and even a drastic difference between high and very high in some areas, even though theyre only 1 setting different. mainly because very high seems to be primarily reserved for DX10 capable cards only, and many of the config settings reserved for very high, arent at all even listed for low, medium or high, so theyre not even reduced quality, theyre just absent from the lower quality choices... at least the ones that seem to matter a lot anyhow.

the fps though are probably the largest dissapointment... @ 1280x1024, very high, im averaging ~5fps on a 7800GT under xp x64. but, thats to be expected, i just wanted to see how different it really looked. not even gonna bother with AA though, because im sure ill average closer to 1fps.

Nobody mentioned hacked settings or anything I have no idea what you're on about, I SAID small changes make a huge performance hit yet do hardly nothing for it, that was ME, so thanks for BACKING UP my comment! Visual difference between DX9 high and DX10 very high are extremely small for proven 2x performance drop.

But, yeh, I have no idea what you're talking about to do with rendering or anything, I cant see why you even mentioned that it makes no sense.

Very high DOES = DX10 it can be "hacked" in XP yet it doesn't use all the features so since its not an official game option it doesn't count IMO, not to mention I said nothing about hacked drivers anyway.

If you don't believe me check the link I gave, has proof on it, all you've said so far is a loud of hot air and a few insults about disabilities.

And heres that link again, if you think DX10 v. high is SOOO much better, then fine.

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6182140/p-2.html

why did you reword what i had said... i realize you probably own vista, but still. you dont need to get defensive. and try to make it look like everyone else is wrong... that DX10 even has a ton more to offer than DX9 does, currently anyhow. and the thing is, it doesnt, at least not for single player in crysis... other than a larger performance hit due to it running under vista.

the difference between high and very high on vista, may be different than the difference between high and very high on xp. and i would believe that to be true too, after looking in the config files. crysis under DX9, by default, has quite a few settings removed. and a list about twice as long for all of settings 4, than settings 1, 2 or 3.

water under high does not move much really, physics under high wont let trees be broken off and shot down. the audio under high misses many of the additional ambiances. shadows, shaders, post processing under high wont allow foliage and shadows to move around, and objects and ground have less depth... many of the visuals that are touted for DX10, can easily be enabled under DX9, too. that is, with a bit of copying and pasting anyhow. but that doesnt mean everything is enabled either, just a lot of the visual differences are. and again, the differences are quite readily apparent (even with a low 800x600 resolution and no AA)... now, if you dont have xp installed, you wont be able to really find out how true any of this is anyhow, other than by people mentioning it in a forum.

if you do have xp though, then i guess there would be nothing stopping you from finding out.

and this may be completely different for multiplayer, because all ive tried is the single player demo, so i cant say much about that.

and to be honest, crysis really isnt my kind of game, fps games in general arent, so thats why i havent done much other than checked out how much different settings affect performance... but i also know what im seeing, too.

I definitely think that the devs of this game spread a bunch of fud before lunch. The game does not look better than anything else on the market at the settings most people will be able to play with. COD 4 looks great and runs great with everything turned up (the model detail looked much better than what I was able to get at playable levels for Crysis) and I bet UT 3 will be the same way.

I'm now running all on very high in vista using 1280x800 res and 2x fsaa awesome looks really.

That will help speed things up a bit I hope to be a bit more thorough though, advantage is I dont gota take pics of every shot and write about it, ill just flick through one at a time until I find the features that take most performance and decide if they are necessary or not based on image quality.[i][/i]

Water sounds like it'll be worth very high in the game even though it looks no better o very high then on medium in screen caps, so thatll be interesting to test.

One thing gamespot don't cover is some at v. high some at medium etc etc... so I think your plan is pretty good. Taking away some less important things for higher quality in others seems best.

What difficulty are you guys going for? I'm going for Hard my first time through.

I changed some setting in the config files becuase certain thing's like water and shaders look much better at the cost of fps at 4. Im getting about 25-40fps with my spec's listed below at 1280x1024.All setting's are on high-very high and i only get a short lag sometimes when im in a building when it explodes. Im running XP.