Crysis Beta

[TC91]

http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=3396&Itemid=1
http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=3382&Itemid=1

reportedly on a 3.4GHz quad core, oc'ed 2900xt

what do you guys think about this? i know its not really optimized but it doesnt sound too great
especially for the DX10 part.

 

[alcoholbob]

It means 8800GTX/Ultra owners now have nothing to brag about (unless being able to run an fps at a nearly unplayable rate but better than a slide show is something to brag about), and we can all collectively just sit on our butts and watch the console owners laugh at us until there's some $750 video card we can drop cash on Q1 2008. At that point, console owners will still laugh at us, since even the PS3 owners got a better deal than us.

 

[cmdrdredd]

That is in multiplayer though. That is not in the campaign. Multiplayer introduces it's own slowdown issues. I think people worry too much. However, with 30fps on the settings used it is not that horrible.

There is no DX10 available in the beta at all. You can't judge it yet period. I dislike the beta but I'm not a fan of the gameplay in multiplayer.

 

[Aznguy1872]

Dang, looks like this game is extremely demanding. Lets just hope they fix this issue by the time its release which is not too long away from now.

 

[Polish3d]

It's been running fine, though a tad slow on my machine specs in sig with the following settings:


1680x1050
2xAA
16x ForcedAF
Multisampling AA forced

All settings on high

I'm guessing around 35-50fps

 

[450R]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That is in multiplayer though. That is not in the campaign. Multiplayer introduces it's own slowdown issues.

Something tells me SP won't be any better with all the scripting and AI running.

 

[Avalon]

It's a beta. Not even sure if the beta we have is the latest in the dev room. Anyway, don't agree with the opinion of the first link saying this game runs much slower in Vista thus far. I've got a friend with a similar system to mine, with our only differences being he's using a 7950GT 512MB and Windows XP, and I'm using an X1950Pro 256MB and Vista64. We're both running at 1024x768 medium settings at about 25-35 fps.

I imagine that by the time this game is released, we'll be running a bit more comfortably at those settings, which is perfectly acceptable on <$150 cards that are, in November, likely to be 1-2 generations behind. Needless to say, the multiplayer gameplay sucks IMO.

 

[bfdd]

Considering there is no DX10 in the beta this is fud itself. There is also no AA. I play the game without ANY chopiness on my e6600 oc'd to 3.2ghz and my 8800 GTX oc'd I haven't seen a single hiccup minus the games inherint video rendering problems which MANY people seem to be having, seeing yellow textures with words. I play the game high settings across the board in 1680x1050 runs smooth, but I don't think the graphics live up to the hype/legend created for this game.

 

[CaptainJackSwallows]

this game stutters a lot for me on 1680x1050 with rig in sig....i think an oc would fix this

 

[MetaDFF]

I think it's important to note that the system they benchmarked in on was using a Radeon 2900 XT, which:
a) Came late into the market so there is less time and experience optimizing for that card until well into the development into Crysis.
b) Crysis is part of Nvidia's "Way it's meant to be played" program. Thus, should in theory, be better optimized for Nvidia based cards due to the engineering / technical support they get.

Besides it's a Beta game so the performance could be anywhere right now...

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Originally posted by: bfdd
Considering there is no DX10 in the beta this is fud itself. There is also no AA.

Huh? There is an AA option..

play the game high settings across the board in 1680x1050 runs smooth, but I don't think the graphics live up to the hype/legend created for this game.

I wouldn't be surprised.. seeing as you can't play it in DX10 yet..

 

[40sTheme]

People just need to understand that this is a beta. Betas rarely run as expected, but that is their point. To fix bugs, optimize, and balance. And, plus, there is no Dx10 in the beta. Everyone knows that.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
That is in multiplayer though. That is not in the campaign. Multiplayer introduces it's own slowdown issues. I think people worry too much. However, with 30fps on the settings used it is not that horrible.

There is no DX10 available in the beta at all. You can't judge it yet period. I dislike the beta but I'm not a fan of the gameplay in multiplayer.

Would you accept playing FarCry at 30fps? 30fps is borderline playable, but this is well known for FPS games. While 30fps is better than say "20", and not "horrible", it is Faaaaar from any kind of good.

But, this is a beta. Lets hope the retail game rocks.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: MetaDFF
I think it's important to note that the system they benchmarked in on was using a Radeon 2900 XT, which:
a) Came late into the market so there is less time and experience optimizing for that card until well into the development into Crysis.
b) Crysis is part of Nvidia's "Way it's meant to be played" program. Thus, should in theory, be better optimized for Nvidia based cards due to the engineering / technical support they get.

Besides it's a Beta game so the performance could be anywhere right now...

Nonsense. There have been TWIMTBP games that have performed better on ATI hardware.
So, that doesn't matter all that much.

 

[NanoStuff]

This game is gonna be a far cry from Far Cry 2.

http://farcry.us.ubi.com/screenshots.php

 

[BFG10K]

It means 8800GTX/Ultra owners now have nothing to brag about (unless being able to run an fps at a nearly unplayable rate but better than a slide show is something to brag about),

GTX/Ultra owners have a better chance of being able to play the game than other single card owners do.

and we can all collectively just sit on our butts and watch the console owners laugh at us until there's some $750 video card we can drop cash on Q1 2008. At that point, console owners will still laugh at us, since even the PS3 owners got a better deal than us.

Why would console owners laugh at us? Crytek stated they won't be bringing Crysis to their systems because they're underpowered. They also can't upgrade, unlike PC users.

If anyone should be laughing it's PC users.

 

[HannibalX]

I'll wait for the final release. It will either play well or it won't - either way it's not the end of the world.

From the demo footage I have seen it looks like it will be a monster so I am not surprised to see reports of 20-40 fps. But as with any new game like this, current hardware will struggle.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: 40sTheme
People just need to understand that this is a beta. Betas rarely run as expected, but that is their point. To fix bugs, optimize, and balance. And, plus, there is no Dx10 in the beta. Everyone knows that.

Yup. Too many alarmists out there screaming about performance. It's a beta and performance will most likely be terrible - thats why it's a beta.

 

[bfdd]

Even though AA is an option in the beta it will not turn on if you select it. If you try to force it through nvidia control panel as soon as the game loads(after you join a server) it will crash I've tried it. DX10 is not in the beta and from what I can tell the game isn't optimized for ANY hardware settings yet. To the guy who gets stutters on his system with the q6600 and 8800 GTX, it might be something else interfering because I get absolutely no stutters and very steady frames while playing and you have the better CPU. Also to Keys, IMO 30fps is plenty. Anyone bitching about needing 60fps+ is an idiot, a solid 30fps is perfectly fine. I was getting bout 50-60 in current settings steady with the occasional droop down to the high 30's when some nuclear tank blew up my base.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: bfddAlso to Keys, IMO 30fps is plenty. Anyone bitching about needing 60fps+ is an idiot, a solid 30fps is perfectly fine. I was getting bout 50-60 in current settings steady with the occasional droop down to the high 30's when some nuclear tank blew up my base.

Kinda......

Problem is 30 FPS you see in reviews/benches typically means average FPS. Unless you're getting constant 30 FPS that typically means you're going to have drops in frame rates to match those highs to give you an average of 30. Those drops in frame rates in the teens are in fact noticeable. So I would agree that an average FPS in the 50s-60s is a better gauge of "playability" since that should put your minimum FPS in the 20-30 range.

Also as a side note, LOTRO is getting a DX10 update that's live on the test server now. Will go live to the retail servers in about a month. Pretty demanding game as it is, although the DX10 impact on performance didn't seem too bad at 1920 on my GTS. The changes aren't that dramatic either though, with changes to dynamic lighting (lighting/shadows were already pretty nice in DX9), particle effects and soft water edges as the big DX10 features.

 

[Xellos2099]

I am running it on xp with my e6300 oc to 2.66ghz 4 gig of ram and a 7800gt and the game only allow me to play the game semi smoothly is set the game to 800x600 and 7800gt. It run ok, but I was hoping I can run the game on medium...

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Astrallite
It means 8800GTX/Ultra owners now have nothing to brag about (unless being able to run an fps at a nearly unplayable rate but better than a slide show is something to brag about), and we can all collectively just sit on our butts and watch the console owners laugh at us until there's some $750 video card we can drop cash on Q1 2008. At that point, console owners will still laugh at us, since even the PS3 owners got a better deal than us.

LOL. as much as i miss my 8800 i'm glad sold exchanged it for a wii for precisely that reason.
but then again you PC owners get to apply AA and AF to your heart content.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

It means 8800GTX/Ultra owners now have nothing to brag about (unless being able to run an fps at a nearly unplayable rate but better than a slide show is something to brag about),

GTX/Ultra owners have a better chance of being able to play the game than other single card owners do.

and we can all collectively just sit on our butts and watch the console owners laugh at us until there's some $750 video card we can drop cash on Q1 2008. At that point, console owners will still laugh at us, since even the PS3 owners got a better deal than us.

Why would console owners laugh at us? Crytek stated they won't be bringing Crysis to their systems because they're underpowered. They also can't upgrade, unlike PC users.

If anyone should be laughing it's PC users.

they laugh because we never have to upgrade. thats the point. thats not the -ve, its the +ve.
besides its not like PC gamer will get to pay Ninja gaiden, zelda, metroid, Halo 3 etc etc.

 

[alcoholbob]

Or Resident Evil 5. Damn! Guess I will need to get a PS3/Xbox360 after all.

By the time RE5 is ported to the PC (likely 3-4 years later) it will be visually unimpressive, and the controls tend to be clunky with 3rd party PC ports.

 

[BladeVenom]

Console games already look like shit compared to the latest and soon to be released PC games. Halo 3 only runs at 1152x640 without any AA. How many console games only do 30fps?

Wii may be a cute toy, but to even compare a console that does 640x480 to a PC that can do 1900x1200 you'd have to be legally blind.

Edit: Horizontal and Vertical switched. I hope everyone's happy now.