Crysis Demo Benchmarks here

[munisgtm]

looking at the FPS graphs i'm totally agreed with AZN . This game is busting even the most high-end rigs

 

[AzN]

I've been messing with the settings.

These 3 settings hamper performance most for me at least. I have 8600gts.

Shadows
Shader
Water Quality

I put all those settings to low. Everything else to very high including textures and I'm still getting more fps when I set it to medium settings for all.

 

[n7]

Crysis rapes my system.

1600x1200 was a lagfest.

I tried 1280x800 was sorta doable, but partway in it froze up.

This isn't on my C2D (mobo is RMAed).
It's on my:
Opteron 165 @ 2.6 GHz
2 GB DDR371 2-2-2-7
8800 GTX

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: n7
Crysis rapes my system.

1600x1200 was a lagfest.

I tried 1280x800 was sorta doable, but partway in it froze up.

This isn't on my C2D (mobo is RMAed).
It's on my:
Opteron 165 @ 2.6 GHz
2 GB DDR371 2-2-2-7
8800 GTX

evidently your Opty is killing it for you. It should be a lot more respectable with your C2D as it is playable [barely] on my system at 16x10 ... it hangs in the mid 20s .. drops to upper teens in the worst cases.

Sound like a multi-GPU configuration is in the works for me ... maybe you too

What the hell were the devs thinking?

 

[nitromullet]

I couldn't get the DX10 path to actually load under Vista x64 without the game crashing (not the OS). DX9 at all "high" (max for DX9) is 'playable' @ 1920x1200 4x AA on my rig, and it looks pretty nice. I installed Vista x86 this afternoon, and got the DX10 path to load... All settings being equal, there is a noticeable difference in performance between DX10 and DX9. DX10 at 1920x1200 is not really playable at any quality settings I tried, it just feels really "mushy" and unresponsive. Even the cut scenes are choppy and the video is out of sync with the audio at "high" settings under DX10.

 

[praesto]

You know...I somehow have a hard time beliving Yerli. Higher physics didn't lower my average fps, but fiddling with GPU-related settings certainly did. Now I know my 7900gtx isn't anything to brag about, but I have a certain feeling that is will take quite a big honking graphics card to utilize the full potential of four cores at 2,67ghz.....GPU bottleneck.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
It the best cards can't even play it with decent settings, what about all of us with last gen stuff?

according to Yerli, your QC is more important than your GPU

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=639

Multi-core will be beneficial in the experience, particularly in faster but also smoother framerates. 64-bit and higher memory will yield quicker loading times. We recommend quad core over higher clock.

Shack: What is the main limiter for Crysis in terms of GPU, CPU, or RAM? If users are near the low end of the requirements, which should they upgrade first?

Cevat Yerli: We would say first CPU, then GPU, then memory. But it must be in balance. If you are balanced, we are more CPU bound then GPU, but at the same time at higher CPU configurations we scale very well for GPUs.

This really doesn't line up with my experiences at all...

- As I said, I couldn't even get the game to load without crapping out on Vista x64. The game certainly doesn't feel like it's 'tuned' to x64 to me.
- Making even minute adjustments in the video settings (even under DX9) make the game feel different. I have always been under the impression that when this is the case it is usually a very good indicator that the gpu is the limiting factor.

edit... lol, praesto beat me to it...

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
I couldn't get the DX10 path to actually load under Vista x64 without the game crashing (not the OS). DX9 at all "high" (max for DX9) is 'playable' @ 1920x1200 4x AA on my rig, and it looks pretty nice. I installed Vista x86 this afternoon, and got the DX10 path to load... All settings being equal, there is a noticeable difference in performance between DX10 and DX9. DX10 at 1920x1200 is not really playable at any quality settings I tried, it just feels really "mushy" and unresponsive. Even the cut scenes are choppy and the video is out of sync with the audio at "high" settings under DX10.

Works great under vista x86. Frame rates stayed the same whether it was dx9 or dx10.

 

[DaveBC]

Vista 64, SLIed 7800 GTX 512 mb.

1360x768 No AA High Setting 15-17 FPS

1360x768 No AA Medium Setting 25-30 FPS.

I'll be looking at 8800 GT's sooner than I thought.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: nitromullet
I couldn't get the DX10 path to actually load under Vista x64 without the game crashing (not the OS). DX9 at all "high" (max for DX9) is 'playable' @ 1920x1200 4x AA on my rig, and it looks pretty nice. I installed Vista x86 this afternoon, and got the DX10 path to load... All settings being equal, there is a noticeable difference in performance between DX10 and DX9. DX10 at 1920x1200 is not really playable at any quality settings I tried, it just feels really "mushy" and unresponsive. Even the cut scenes are choppy and the video is out of sync with the audio at "high" settings under DX10.

Works great under vista x86. Frame rates stayed the same whether it was dx9 or dx10.

That's because you've 'tweaked' it to look more like FarCry than Crysis...

Originally posted by: Azn
I've been messing with the settings.

These 3 settings hamper performance most for me at least. I have 8600gts.

Shadows
Shader
Water Quality

I put all those settings to low. Everything else to very high including textures and I'm still getting more fps when I set it to medium settings for all.

 

[JAG87]

wow, and there is no 2560x1600. how pimp is that. not like id use that anyways, 1920x1200 with 4x AA is barely playable on my system, but I have a feeling SLI isn't really being used since my fps is pretty much that of a single GTX.

anything EA touches turns to shit, what else is new.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: JAG87
wow, and there is no 2560x1600. how pimp is that. not like id use that anyways, 1920x1200 with 4x AA is barely playable on my system, but I have a feeling SLI isn't really being used since my fps is pretty much that of a single GTX.

anything EA touches turns to shit, what else is new.

Wow, that's not really good news even for next gen cards... I assume that you're running DX10 set to very high at 1920x1200 with 4xAA...? I can run a single GTX at 1920x1080 with 4xAA, but only under DX9 set to high. Switching to DX10, I can run high settings, but with no AA decently.

edit... whoops, just noticed that you're running XP, so obviously not DX10... Your results kind of surprise me then... Do you notice a difference between running SLI and not?

 

[SniperDaws]

i hope the 8800GT and my quadcore at 3.2 can run this game at Very High at 1680x1050, im getting a wonderful 11fps at 1024x768 at highest the demo lets you.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
It the best cards can't even play it with decent settings, what about all of us with last gen stuff?

according to Yerli, your QC is more important than your GPU

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=639

Multi-core will be beneficial in the experience, particularly in faster but also smoother framerates. 64-bit and higher memory will yield quicker loading times. We recommend quad core over higher clock.

Shack: What is the main limiter for Crysis in terms of GPU, CPU, or RAM? If users are near the low end of the requirements, which should they upgrade first?

Cevat Yerli: We would say first CPU, then GPU, then memory. But it must be in balance. If you are balanced, we are more CPU bound then GPU, but at the same time at higher CPU configurations we scale very well for GPUs.

This really doesn't line up with my experiences at all...

- As I said, I couldn't even get the game to load without crapping out on Vista x64. The game certainly doesn't feel like it's 'tuned' to x64 to me.
- Making even minute adjustments in the video settings (even under DX9) make the game feel different. I have always been under the impression that when this is the case it is usually a very good indicator that the gpu is the limiting factor.

edit... lol, praesto beat me to it...

don't shoot the messenger ... shoot yerli

i think that Crysis is NOT ready for PrimeTime ... that they will use "us" to test it and polish it for all the rigs outside their test systems. it reminds me *exactly* of FarCry ... they are going to patch the damn game over the next year to make it really spectacular and no doubt it will be fully optimizied by the time it is bargain bin. :|


You guys can play it ... there are SO many other spectacular games out and coming out right now that i feel i am not missing a single thing by waiting to play it ... i think i will pick it up when i buy Penryn and either a 2nd 2900xt for X-fire or a much stronger single GPU for the full DX10 experience.

 

[imported_thefonz]

Just to put some low end system numbers in.

on low everything and 1074x768 i get about 40 frames per second, dipping to 25 in heavy firefights

athlon 64 3200 NO OC
x800gto at 600/600
1g of ddr at 400


Im going to be upgrading when phenom and the next gen GPU's come out

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: apoppin
don't shoot the messenger ... shoot yerli

i think that Crysis is NOT ready for PrimeTime ... that they will use "us" to test it and polish it for all the rigs outside their test systems. it reminds me *exactly* of FarCry ... they are going to patch the damn game over the next year to make it really spectacular and no doubt it will be fully optimizied by the time it is bargain bin. :|


You guys can play it ... there are SO many other spectacular games out and coming out right now that i feel i am not missing a single thing by waiting to play it ... i think i will pick it up when i buy Penryn and either a 2nd 2900xt for X-fire or a much stronger single GPU for the full DX10 experience.

I'm kinda leaning in that direction myself, and I agree that this game seems like it is going to be a lot like Far Cry with regards to improvements over time. I'm probably going to look towards playing other games that do play well on my GTX instead of getting a sub-par Crysis experience. I should have done that with Far Cry as well, and waited until I got my 6800GT instead of playing the whole game all the way through with an FX 5900.

 

[n7]

Okay i did some more testing so to speak.

This time i tried running the DX9 version, since DX10 runs like crap.

DX9 @ 1600x1200 High settings 4x AA was around 15-25 fps, sorta playable.

2560x1600 is available for me in DX9 (though not in DX10)...not that it was anywhere close to playable.

I tried medium settings no AA @ 1600x1200 & it's much better, i think 25 fps was the lowest, usually 35ish.

I suck with tactical shooters though...i keep getting owned, since i'm not good with creeping around & picking off enemies.

 

[SniperDaws]

This game isnt the revolutionary game everyone was expecting, dont get me wrong it looks good, but its just FarCry with a facelift, the AI is as usless as ever, it also feels like the game has been chopped to pieces, i cant explain it its like theres something missing, im also very disapointed that the 8800GTX with a quad core isnt ripping this game apart, like Apoppin says this game isnt ready for primetime and itll be the 3rd generation DX10.xx cards that will be playing this game maxed out at high rez, so i wont be buying this til im sure i can run it maxed out.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: apoppin
don't shoot the messenger ... shoot yerli

i think that Crysis is NOT ready for PrimeTime ... that they will use "us" to test it and polish it for all the rigs outside their test systems. it reminds me *exactly* of FarCry ... they are going to patch the damn game over the next year to make it really spectacular and no doubt it will be fully optimizied by the time it is bargain bin. :|


You guys can play it ... there are SO many other spectacular games out and coming out right now that i feel i am not missing a single thing by waiting to play it ... i think i will pick it up when i buy Penryn and either a 2nd 2900xt for X-fire or a much stronger single GPU for the full DX10 experience.

I'm kinda leaning in that direction myself, and I agree that this game seems like it is going to be a lot like Far Cry with regards to improvements over time. I'm probably going to look towards playing other games that do play well on my GTX instead of getting a sub-par Crysis experience. I should have done that with Far Cry as well, and waited until I got my 6800GT instead of playing the whole game all the way through with an FX 5900.

well, i did with FC what i am doing with Crysis ... waiting

i played the FC demo on my 8500 and it ran like ... well ... buggy and laggy like Crysis does now
-after 6 months or so, FC had HDR patched in and i got reports that it was starting to run OK [for everyone] ... i upgraded to 9800xt and it was a very decent experience ... i know i got FC on sale. i have revisited it briefly with every GPU i owned since then ... x850xt ... 7900GS-OC ... x1950p and 2900xt

IF Crysis came out last year, i would have jumped on it ... no-matter-what as there was nothing like the incredible choice we have now in PC games to pick from.
--i believe in a year, DX10 Crysis is *going* to look incredible and also run good on the top-range GPUs ... why should i spoil it now?
-i know some of you play games over-and-over ... for those gamers, it would be a good deal now and later ... i have a very hard time replaying ANY game. i *wished* i never played Gothic3 so i could play it now.

 

[swtethan]

some guy on ocn was saying how crysis demo wasnt multi threaded, this true? could anyone check their task manager?

 

[Matt2]

As I expected. Not gonna touch this game till the next GPU upgrade.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: JAG87
wow, and there is no 2560x1600. how pimp is that. not like id use that anyways, 1920x1200 with 4x AA is barely playable on my system, but I have a feeling SLI isn't really being used since my fps is pretty much that of a single GTX.

anything EA touches turns to shit, what else is new.

Wow, that's not really good news even for next gen cards... I assume that you're running DX10 set to very high at 1920x1200 with 4xAA...? I can run a single GTX at 1920x1080 with 4xAA, but only under DX9 set to high. Switching to DX10, I can run high settings, but with no AA decently.

edit... whoops, just noticed that you're running XP, so obviously not DX10... Your results kind of surprise me then... Do you notice a difference between running SLI and not?

actually, Im running directx 9 on very high settings, yes very high settings and it looks exactly the same as directx10 on very high settings.

this is how you do it
http://blogs.nofrag.com/Scrapy/#article32013

just goes to show that directx10 is bullshit for now. games are built in directx 9 from the ground up, and then they just lock certain features to directx 10 so that microsoft has some incentive to sell vista. There are no directx 10 ONLY games, and there wont be any for the next year too, because people arent just going to ditch directx 9 all of a sudden. So until you see the first directx 10 ONLY game, there is absolutely no reason to use vista.

back on topic, I am fairly sure SLI is running because the visual indicators show up, but the driver is definitely not optimized for SLI. I get a fantastic 20 fps on very high in directx 9 at 1920x1200 with 4x AA. sad... will stick to COD4

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: JAG87
actually, Im running directx 9 on very high settings, yes very high settings and it looks exactly the same as directx10 on very high settings.

this is how you do it
http://blogs.nofrag.com/Scrapy/#article32013

just goes to show that directx10 is bullshit for now. games are built in directx 9 from the ground up, and then they just lock certain features to directx 10 so that microsoft has some incentive to sell vista. There are no directx 10 ONLY games, and there wont be any for the next year too, because people arent just going to ditch directx 9 all of a sudden. So until you see the first directx 10 ONLY game, there is absolutely no reason to use vista.

back on topic, I am fairly sure SLI is running because the visual indicators show up, but the driver is definitely not optimized for SLI. I get a fantastic 20 fps on very high in directx 9 at 1920x1200 with 4x AA. sad... will stick to COD4

Yeah, I played a bit more, and it looks like 4xAA @ 1920x1080 isn't really playable even with a GTX. The game is fun though, I really think I will wait until it gets a bit more optimized and the next generation of cards comes out. apoppin has it right, there is really no need to play Crysis now when there are plenty of games that will run great on 8-series and 2xxx hardware.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: munisgtm
Hey any guess how much FPS i would get 1280X1024or 1024X768 at very high ??? will it be even playable on this res on my rig ?

My rig :

E4300 @ 2.8
8800GTS 320mb at (610/1050)
2GB DDR2 667 Corsair

between 10 and 25

 

[Regs]

Could be interesting when AMD comes out with their Phenom. Hopefully.