Could someone explain to me layman's why...

[Tab]

We still can't play games like Crysis @ 1920x1080 without going below 30fps?

Yea, it's a basic question but I just find it really annoying to spend nearly $200 on a piece of hardware. And, yes it works most of them but sometimes it can't keep up. What's hold us back exactly?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Crappy programming and you're just finding this out?

 

[soccerballtux]

Crappy programming and you're just finding this out?

lol crappy programming.

No games come close to Crysis like graphics without having similar performance hits.
It's a beautiful game. Runs poorly. Surprise?

 

[Tempered81]

We still can't play games like Crysis @ 1920x1080 without going below 30fps?

Patience my friend. Cayman will arrive soon enough, and you can enjoy 1080p on Enthusiast WITH 4xAA while meeting or exceeding your 30fps minimum...

Minimum FPS: 29.57

 

[BD231]

People still play Crysis?

 

[4ghz]

Just turn off motion blur in the config file and you'll gain like 10 fps.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

It really depends on how demanding your settings are...

You have been able to get >30 min for quite some time with no AA or AF.

 

[Grooveriding]

480 SLI or 5870 CF can run the game at 1920x1200 with 4xAA well enough.

The other question is why is a three year old game still the best looking game ever ?

 

[JAG87]

We still can't play games like Crysis @ 1920x1080 without going below 30fps?

Yea, it's a basic question but I just find it really annoying to spend nearly $200 on a piece of hardware. And, yes it works most of them but sometimes it can't keep up. What's hold us back exactly?

Maybe because $200 is not enough to purchase hardware for what you want to do?

And I don't think Crysis looks that great anymore. Sure for 2007 it was unheard of, but the methods used to achieve that kind of image quality back then are obsolete now, you can achieve the same level of graphics by using much better optimized DX11 code. Just look at the quality of work Codemasters is pulling out. A good game is one that provides the right compromise between image quality and performance. Crysis is not one of them, that's why to even have a multi player component (Crysis Wars), they had to tone down graphics to a point where it looks worse than most other games.

 

[shangshang]

People still play Crysis?

this

 

[RussianSensation]

People still play Crysis?

I still play Starcraft 1, a game which came out in 1998. :thumbsup: So why can't someone play a game that came out in only 2007? A good game is still fun to play with even if it's not brand spanking new. Plus considering PC games debut at $49.99 and in 12 months can be found for $10-15 (or less), it makes even more sense to wait a year or 2 before picking them up.

Just last week Direct2Drive had BF:BC2 for just $15 and Dirt 2 for $6. Both of those games are not even 1 years old. So it would make perfect sense that some gamers aren't willing to pay $50 on launch date to play the game. Also, they may not have had fast enough hardware to enjoy the game (7900/X1900 series sure weren't cutting it for Crysis 1 in 2007).

 

[Dekasa]

I still play Starcraft 1, a game which came out in 1998. :thumbsup: So why can't someone play a game that came on in only 2007? A good game is still fun to play with even if it's not brand spanking new.

Crysis was never a good game. Crysis looked nice, but it definitely wasn't a good game (although some people did enjoy it).

 

[Rifter]

I still play Starcraft 1, a game which came out in 1998. :thumbsup: So why can't someone play a game that came out in only 2007? A good game is still fun to play with even if it's not brand spanking new. Plus considering PC games debut at $49.99 and in 12 months can be found for $10-15 (or less), it makes even more sense to wait a year or 2 before picking them up.

Just last week Direct2Drive had BF:BC2 for just $15 and Dirt 2 for $6. Both of those games are not even 1 years old. So it would make perfect sense that some gamers aren't willing to pay $50 on launch date to play the game. Also, they may not have had fast enough hardware to enjoy the game (7900/X1900 series sure weren't cutting it for Crysis 1 in 2007).

This x2, i usually wait a year or two and pick up games for $5-10. Unless i really want it, i buy only 3 or 4 games a year at full price on launch day.

 

[RussianSensation]

Crysis was never a good game. Crysis looked nice, but it definitely wasn't a good game (although some people did enjoy it).

That's your opinion, and I respect it. However, 58 professional websites gave it an average score of 90%. Considering Crysis 2 is in development across multi-platforms, it also sold well. If gamers didn't want to play Crysis 2, I doubt the firm would have gone ahead with the sequel.

PC Gamer - 98
Gamespot - 9.5
IGN - 9.4
Gametrailers - 8.8

These are some of the most reputable ones.

 

[Seero]

We still can't play games like Crysis @ 1920x1080 without going below 30fps?

Yea, it's a basic question but I just find it really annoying to spend nearly $200 on a piece of hardware. And, yes it works most of them but sometimes it can't keep up. What's hold us back exactly?

Technically speaking, lag is not caused by low FPS but cause low FPS, and lag is the result of bottleneck that occured somewhere within the system.

Because there are lot of things going around within the PC. There has been new generations of CPU/GPU since the release of crysis, but google it around and you will see that the raw speed barely increased. Look at CPU, the raw speed (in terms of hertz) of pentium is close to I7. The difference between the 2 is the number of cores.

Before the release of I7, many gamers believed that C2D is better because it is cheaper and faster than C2Q because it is easier to overclock and applications(programs) aren't utilizing multi-core(Think about a task that were suppose to be done by a single person, i.e. data entry with a single computer, having more people doesn't help unless more computers are given, but even then data must be catagorized to avoid redundancy.)

In other words, C2D is as fast as any newer CPUs when running a single program that was created a long time ago. Besides that, the unit of measure "FPS" is misleading. When you see 30 FPS, it doesn't mean the computer is generating 30 Frame per second, but more like "the average signal recieved by CPU from the GPU in the past X cycles is 30."

That is, let say GPU is now ready to send a signal indicating a frame is ready to be drawn, but to send this information, first there must be a clear path between the GPU and CPU. In simpified terms, the signal must go through the PCIe from video card to North bridge, than from North bridge to CPU. Note that there are many things connected to the North bridge and if the signal can only be send when the busses are not in use.

Lots of programs claim to utilize multi-core system, but what it really means is it allows other core to somewhat off load from the main core.

There is a simple math, 1 single core cpu (A) running at 3Ghz vs a dual core cpu (B) running also at 3 Ghz. If a program does not utilize multi-core whatoever, then B doesn't have any advantage over A. If 10% of the program can be offloaded on another core, then B will be 10% faster than A.

The long and short of it is dual core is not twice as fast as a single core, and quad core is not twice as fast as a dual core when it comes to gaming. Lag in crysis occured when high computation is needed and can't be offloaded to other cores or North bridge is too busy at the time.

There are ways to reduce the traffic of the North bridge like SSD, faster RAM, external sound card and network card with onboard CPU, but these will only help minimum FPS and the controlling factors are usually video card and cpu.

 

[Scali]

And I don't think Crysis looks that great anymore. Sure for 2007 it was unheard of, but the methods used to achieve that kind of image quality back then are obsolete now, you can achieve the same level of graphics by using much better optimized DX11 code.

I couldn't disagree more.
DX11 doesn't really offer much that could make Crysis faster.

A good game is one that provides the right compromise between image quality and performance. Crysis is not one of them

Again, I couldn't disagree more.
Crysis is quite possibly the most beautifully scaling game that's on the market. Especially the scalable physics is something you rarely see. Usually it's just "eyecandy on/off".
There's some nice fine-grained control on image quality as well (and do note that DX9's quality settings are different from DX10's, so bumping down to DX9 allows you to use 'higher' quality settings, and get a different balance).

 

[Voo]

Look at CPU, the raw speed (in terms of hertz) of pentium is close to I7. The difference between the 2 is the number of cores..

Uuuuhhh

Yep and the 10ghz oced P4 is so much faster than the 4ghz i7 in singlethreaded apps!


Other than that: Crysis made the bad mistake to offer "Ultra" settings that no card of that time could reasonably run. I think the developers said they wanted the possibility to run the game to profit from newer cards as well. Imho not the worst decision since crysis looks great on lower settings as well and runs reasonably well even on a 4870 if you tune the settings down a bit. Imho it's much better to offer more than less settings (as long as it stays manageable.. and the default settings are reasonable)

 

[Zap]

This x2, i usually wait a year or two and pick up games for $5-10. Unless i really want it, i buy only 3 or 4 games a year at full price on launch day.

Oftentimes if you are patient and check around, games are on sale around launch. That's why I never pre-order. For instance I got Starcraft II for $45 from Dell. It is fairly common for games to be on sale the first week of launch, even if it is only a few bucks off.

 

[SHAQ]

Crysis is CPU/engine limited. I'd like to see some benchmarks with a 5+Ghz quad to see if the minimums go up at all. As soon as you set some of the options on high the fps takes a huge dip. To get over 60 fps average requires medium settings. I tested it on the beginning of the 3rd level overlooking the camp. I cranked AA up to the max in game and the fps stayed the same so it was a CPU/engine limitation. I believe it has something to with the draw distance but I'm not sure. It supports 2 threads at the most. Crysis is one of a handful of games that never have run great. Mafia 1 still runs in the 30's when driving with my new rig.

 

[james1701]

With the rig in my sig, Crysis plays great up until the Carrier battle. There is just so many effects in that fight, it will skip a few times with everything at 19x12 4XAA and 16XAF. The rest of the game plays good.

I did some testing when Warhead was released on my Q6600. 3.4ghz is the sweet spot on that game. If you can get at least that, it does pretty good, that was playing with a 8800GT.

 

[RussianSensation]

Crysis is CPU/engine limited.

That's probably very true indeed. The game doesn't scale well with multi-core CPUs and even the developer has admitted that it wasn't optimally coded. According to Crytek, the game is supposed to run twice as fast as Crysis 1 did with the same image quality.

As much as we PC gamers hate to admit it, but consoles DO dictate a lot of the game programming. Since Crysis 2 will run on PS3 and Xbox360, we should expect much more optimized multi-core scaling which should finally benefit Core i5/7/PH2 rigs over C2D/Q systems of 2007.

 

[JAG87]

I couldn't disagree more.
DX11 doesn't really offer much that could make Crysis faster.

I'm not a 3D programmer, but it's besides the point. Dirt 2 offers graphics and vegetation that look just as good as Crysis without running like a three legged dog.

Again, I couldn't disagree more.
Crysis is quite possibly the most beautifully scaling game that's on the market. Especially the scalable physics is something you rarely see. Usually it's just "eyecandy on/off".
There's some nice fine-grained control on image quality as well (and do note that DX9's quality settings are different from DX10's, so bumping down to DX9 allows you to use 'higher' quality settings, and get a different balance).

Fine tune with CVARs all you want. There is only about 5 of them that matter the most. These CVARs make the game look impressive but severely impact performance, so you either get average graphics with sub par performance (with respect to games with comparable graphics), or amazing graphics with unplayable frame rates.

Having said that, I have nothing to argue against the engine. Probably no other engine has the scalability and versatility of the CryEngine.

 

[Scali]

I'm not a 3D programmer, but it's besides the point. Dirt 2 offers graphics and vegetation that look just as good as Crysis without running like a three legged dog.

Those games aren't exactly comparable.
It's not like Dirt 2 is suddenly a lot slower and uglier when you run it in DX10 either. So I think you are attributing a bit too much to DX11.

Fine tune with CVARs all you want.

I never said anything about that. Just the standard settings in the game.

 

[JAG87]

Those games aren't exactly comparable.
It's not like Dirt 2 is suddenly a lot slower and uglier when you run it in DX10 either. So I think you are attributing a bit too much to DX11.



I never said anything about that. Just the standard settings in the game.

There is no DX10, only DX9 and 11, and you correct it's not ugly in DX9 either. And they are very comparable in my opinion. There are scenes during replays that look almost photo realistic, even more so than Crysis in my opinion since it runs at a silky 60 fps.

But whatever everyone has they're own taste. To each their own.

 

[Absolution75]

There is no DX10, only DX9 and 11, and you correct it's not ugly in DX9 either.

Is this a general statement, or one that only applies to dirt 2?