Crysis Demo Benchmarks here

[pcslookout]

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

No one can play with everything at very high smoothly or for the game play to be enjoyable. I don't even think people with SLI Geforce 8800 Ultra's can. Now maybe if you have Four Geforce 8800 Ultra but can't remember if thats possible or not yet. I remember reading about something about quad SLI.

I tried it and it looks amazing! I think there is a difference from high like the guys face you can actually see his wriskies that are growing again and tell that he will need to shave his face again soon when everything is on very high in Crysis. You even see his skintone on his face become more realistic.

 

[newschool]

This is really weird. Intel AND nvidia say they worked together with crytek during all the developpment. And then you guys with 8800s and core 2s have crappy FPS.

I was getting ready to sell my X1950XT for a 8800GT mainly for crysis. I am gonna wait a little now.

 

[Matte979]

I played it on 1920*1080 on my 1900XTX and a C2D at 3.5Ghz. Sure I cant do very high or DX10 and I have to have no AA and medium shadows and medium post processing.

The game plays really good. At these setting the games features and graphics just smokes COD4 and UT3.

Examples:
*All the Physics (COD4 was a disappointment in this area)
*Textures are very detailed and crisp
*Viewing distance
*Night / Day effects
*Free gameplay, rocks wont stop you and you can approach target in multiple ways.
*No scripted AI, diffrent every time, sure they are not einstein but COD4 AI are mostly scripted and then we have the unlimited AI reinforcements which is just a cheap way out for programming descent enemy AI.

Crysis demo was a kickass demo. Maybe you wont be able to play it on Very High right now but this engine is suppose to live for a while. In half a year, UT3 engine will start looking old and CryTek engine will just leave it in the dust when its paired with newer cards and processors and great mods from the community.

And it still the best looking game around for my old 1900XTX.

Just because I can not play it on the highest setting does not mean I think its a bad game, there is bound to be more optimizations and at least there is a game that justfy SLI or Crossfire.

Crysis also give me a reason to upgrade, all the console ports run so good on my 1900XTX that its not really worth upgrading(There all programmed for last gen). For me Crysis means the diffrence between mainstream console gaming and performance PC gaming.

 

[SynthDude2001]

To my great surprise, the demo (almost) runs playably on my 9700 Pro. Of course, this is at 800x600 (lowest resolution available) and every single setting at Low. I'd estimate framerates to be 15-30 for the most part. It pretty much looks like FarCry at those settings, but that's about the best I could expect anyway.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Matte979
I played it on 1920*1080 on my 1900XTX and a C2D at 3.5Ghz. Sure I cant do very high or DX10 and I have to have no AA and medium shadows and medium post processing.

The game plays really good. At these setting the games features and graphics just smokes COD4 and UT3.

Examples:
*All the Physics (COD4 was a disappointment in this area)
*Textures are very detailed and crisp
*Viewing distance
*Night / Day effects
*Free gameplay, rocks wont stop you and you can approach target in multiple ways.
*No scripted AI, diffrent every time, sure they are not einstein but COD4 AI are mostly scripted and then we have the unlimited AI reinforcements which is just a cheap way out for programming descent enemy AI.

Crysis demo was a kickass demo. Maybe you wont be able to play it on Very High right now but this engine is suppose to live for a while. In half a year, UT3 engine will start looking old and CryTek engine will just leave it in the dust when its paired with newer cards and processors and great mods from the community.

And it still the best looking game around for my old 1900XTX.

Just because I can not play it on the highest setting does not mean I think its a bad game, there is bound to be more optimizations and at least there is a game that justfy SLI or Crossfire.

Crysis also give me a reason to upgrade, all the console ports run so good on my 1900XTX that its not really worth upgrading(There all programmed for last gen). For me Crysis means the diffrence between mainstream console gaming and performance PC gaming.

I remember reading that SLI won't be supported in Crysis. I really hope this isn't true because having SLI Geforce 8800 GT would be so affordable just not sure if the performence would be worth it. I am sure it no where near double performence in fps but maybe double minimum fps or close which could be worth it alone. I noticed that staying at 15 fps or above in Crysis is very playalble. Though once you hit below 15 fps it is very choppy.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Matte979
I played it on 1920*1080 on my 1900XTX and a C2D at 3.5Ghz. Sure I cant do very high or DX10 and I have to have no AA and medium shadows and medium post processing.

The game plays really good. At these setting the games features and graphics just smokes COD4 and UT3.

Examples:
*All the Physics (COD4 was a disappointment in this area)
*Textures are very detailed and crisp
*Viewing distance
*Night / Day effects
*Free gameplay, rocks wont stop you and you can approach target in multiple ways.
*No scripted AI, diffrent every time, sure they are not einstein but COD4 AI are mostly scripted and then we have the unlimited AI reinforcements which is just a cheap way out for programming descent enemy AI.

Crysis demo was a kickass demo. Maybe you wont be able to play it on Very High right now but this engine is suppose to live for a while. In half a year, UT3 engine will start looking old and CryTek engine will just leave it in the dust when its paired with newer cards and processors and great mods from the community.

And it still the best looking game around for my old 1900XTX.

Just because I can not play it on the highest setting does not mean I think its a bad game, there is bound to be more optimizations and at least there is a game that justfy SLI or Crossfire.

Crysis also give me a reason to upgrade, all the console ports run so good on my 1900XTX that its not really worth upgrading(There all programmed for last gen). For me Crysis means the diffrence between mainstream console gaming and performance PC gaming.

I agree, I think it's going to be a great game, that's why I'm going to try to wait for hardware to catch up and play it through in its full glory

 

[CrystalBay]

Hi, have you guys tried using the built in GPU and CPU benchmarks ? Crogram files/EA/Crytek/Crysis SP Demo/Bin 32

It would be more useful to everyone to use these benches for comparisons...

 

[JustaGeek]

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.

C2D @2.925, 3GB RAM, eVGA 7950GT KO SC, 169.01 Driver, 1680x1050, XP 32-bit, DX9.

Shadows - Low
Shader - Low
Water Quality and everything else - High.
No AA.

Very playable, very enjoyable, although feels like Far Cry Part 2 with the above settings.

Great demo, IMO, played for over 1 hour, haven't finished yet. The level of detail is fantastic, even the speedometers and tachometers work in vehicles!

Will I buy it now...? I don't know. If I can't get it to play on highest settings with the top of the line Video Cards today, I will probably wait for the next generation of GPU's.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: 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.

Have you actually seen farcry and crysis side by side? Your logic is way off. Maybe you are being sarcastic. Why would it matter if I run the demo medium settings or very high settings?

Even on the lowest settings Crysis looks a generation ahead.

Why would it matter if I set some settings on low? My card can't handle anything other than medium settings anyway. You said you were having problems with your vista. Well I don't have any problems running on vista x86 nor speed difference whether I run dx9 or dx10 with the SAME SETTINGS.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: 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.

Did you try letting your monitor scale up from like 1280x1024 in DX10 and try turning shadows and post processing to medium (helps a ton).

Does it really look that bad to run 1280x1024 and scale it?

 

[cmdrdredd]

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

Uses about 50-60% of my C2D but it uses both cores to a certain amount. SO it is multithreaded just not using both at 100%. Uses both maybe to 50% but it splits the work.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: 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

You're still not getting the same effects. Just setting very high in DX9 does not magically make DX10 ONLY effects work in DX9...

Not to mention that DX10 runs perfectly fine (same as DX9 for me) if you turn shadows and post processing to medium and everything else on very high. I run at 1280x1024 anyway, but seruiously. I'd say that 90% of the ppl who complain about the game running slow in DX10 just throw everything on very high with 4x aa and go cry on forums.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: 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

You're still not getting the same effects. Just setting very high in DX9 does not magically make DX10 ONLY effects work in DX9...

Not to mention that DX10 runs perfectly fine (same as DX9 for me) if you turn shadows and post processing to medium and everything else on very high. I run at 1280x1024 anyway, but seruiously. I'd say that 90% of the ppl who complain about the game running slow in DX10 just throw everything on very high with 4x aa and go cry on forums.

Actually the game looks almost exactly like directx 10. There are no "native directx 10" features in crysis. It's nothing more than added stuff which could be easily replicated in directx 9 and with less performance hit too. But MS says no.

The major differences are the color gamut (I love this, the game looks cartoonish without it), the soft shadows, the sunrays, and the better shader effects which make the textures look more real, all of which can be used in directx 9 through the tweaking of the configs.

The effects that cannot be present in the tweaked directx9 version are the day and night cycle, the volumetric clouds, the weather effects, the better smoke and water through the use of soft particles, and the clear doubling of the vegetation around you. These are strictly enabled by the engine when a directx 10 path is found, but by no means are they not doable in directx9!! they are purposefully disabled.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: 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

You're still not getting the same effects. Just setting very high in DX9 does not magically make DX10 ONLY effects work in DX9...

Not to mention that DX10 runs perfectly fine (same as DX9 for me) if you turn shadows and post processing to medium and everything else on very high. I run at 1280x1024 anyway, but seruiously. I'd say that 90% of the ppl who complain about the game running slow in DX10 just throw everything on very high with 4x aa and go cry on forums.

Actually the game looks almost exactly like directx 10. There are no "native directx 10" features in crysis. It's nothing more than added stuff which could be easily replicated in directx 9 and with less performance hit too. But MS says no.

The major differences are the color gamut (I love this, the game looks cartoonish without it), the soft shadows, the sunrays, and the better shader effects which make the textures look more real, all of which can be used in directx 9 through the tweaking of the configs.

The effects that cannot be present in the tweaked directx9 version are the day and night cycle, the volumetric clouds, the weather effects, the better smoke and water through the use of soft particles, and the clear doubling of the vegetation around you. These are strictly enabled by the engine when a directx 10 path is found, but by no means are they not doable in directx9!! they are purposefully disabled.

Regardless...I notice the difference. I can suffer medium shadows (oh no lol) and no motion blur (post processing on medium or even high). FPS is still good in DX10.

Fine for people on XP I suppose, but I notice the DX10 difference.

 

[nitromullet]

Have you actually seen farcry and crysis side by side? Your logic is way off. Maybe you are being sarcastic. Why would it matter if I run the demo medium settings or very high settings?

Even on the lowest settings Crysis looks a generation ahead.

Why would it matter if I set some settings on low? My card can't handle anything other than medium settings anyway. You said you were having problems with your vista. Well I don't have any problems running on vista x86 nor speed difference whether I run dx9 or dx10 with the SAME SETTINGS.

My point is that you tuned it down so much that you aren't see the performance difference between DX9 and DX10 because you aren't stressing the gpu that much anymore. If I run the game at lower settings I don't see a performance hit between DX9 and DX10 either. The game flies, even at 1920x1200 with AA and DX10 with the shader, shadows, and water quality on low, but it also looks very different.

Here is a shot showing the difference between the settings that you and I are running under DX9...

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3268/dx9vn8.jpg

It isn't surprising me that our results and experiences might be a bit different.

That being said, I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I'm glad to hear that you can tune the game down to where it will run acceptably on an 8600GTS because from the looks if it Crysis at high settings is going to require high end gear even next generation, and I'm sure not everyone is going to want to wait that long.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Have you actually seen farcry and crysis side by side? Your logic is way off. Maybe you are being sarcastic. Why would it matter if I run the demo medium settings or very high settings?

Even on the lowest settings Crysis looks a generation ahead.

Why would it matter if I set some settings on low? My card can't handle anything other than medium settings anyway. You said you were having problems with your vista. Well I don't have any problems running on vista x86 nor speed difference whether I run dx9 or dx10 with the SAME SETTINGS.

My point is that you tuned it down so much that you aren't see the performance difference between DX9 and DX10 because you aren't stressing the gpu that much anymore. If I run the game at lower settings I don't see a performance hit between DX9 and DX10 either. The game flies, even at 1920x1200 with AA and DX10 with the shader, shadows, and water quality on low, but it also looks very different.

Here is a shot showing the difference between the settings that you and I are running under DX9...

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3268/dx9vn8.jpg

It isn't surprising me that our results and experiences might be a bit different.

That being said, I don't want you to take this the wrong way. I'm glad to hear that you can tune the game down to where it will run acceptably on an 8600GTS because from the looks if it Crysis at high settings is going to require high end gear even next generation, and I'm sure not everyone is going to want to wait that long.

The problem for me is that this game will come...ppl will make it playable and then when people can max it out on very high with DX10 nobody will care. That's why it was a bad idea for Crytek to begin with.

 

[nitromullet]

The problem for me is that this game will come...ppl will make it playable and then when people can max it out on very high with DX10 nobody will care. That's why it was a bad idea for Crytek to begin with.

I guess it will ultimately come down to if it's a good game or not. If next year I get a new video card that can handle it with DX10, very high, and 8xAA/16xAF at 1920x1200 then I'll definitely still care. If on the other hand all you guys play it on medium settings and no one actually enjoys the game, then I probably won't bother. Based on playing through the demo though, I think I'll like this game.

 

[AzN]

http://www.pcper.com/article.p...=470&type=expert&pid=2

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Azn
http://www.pcper.com/article.p...=470&type=expert&pid=2

Looks like the perfect resolution for Crysis is around 1024x768 if you want all details maximum to be able to get playable frame rates even with a GTX.

I guess its time for everyone to break out their old CRT monitors or just deal with running 1024x768 resolution on their lcd monitor.

 

[Dkcode]

Originally posted by: Astrallite

Originally posted by: Dkcode
Specs:
Duo E6850 3.0Ghz
2GB RAM
8800GTX

Runs well at 800x600.

I have a 24" LCD, not a very enjoyable experience running at this resolution. Even at this res the game does not look that great, apart from the intro sequence. But its all set at bloody night.

Anyway i won't buy this, not untill my next GPU upgrade.

You are playing at 800x600 with an 8800GTX? =P

Goodness no.

It was the only way to achieve smooth gameplay with everything on max. I'll wait until it can be run at full resolution thanks.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
To my great surprise, the demo (almost) runs playably on my 9700 Pro. Of course, this is at 800x600 (lowest resolution available) and every single setting at Low. I'd estimate framerates to be 15-30 for the most part. It pretty much looks like FarCry at those settings, but that's about the best I could expect anyway.

Will report back with my ~6800U, and trusty 2.1Ghz tbred

 

[SniperDaws]

Its no wonder they kept delaying it.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Dkcode

Originally posted by: Astrallite

Originally posted by: Dkcode
Specs:
Duo E6850 3.0Ghz
2GB RAM
8800GTX

Runs well at 800x600.

I have a 24" LCD, not a very enjoyable experience running at this resolution. Even at this res the game does not look that great, apart from the intro sequence. But its all set at bloody night.

Anyway i won't buy this, not untill my next GPU upgrade.

You are playing at 800x600 with an 8800GTX? =P

Goodness no.

It was the only way to achieve smooth gameplay with everything on max. I'll wait until it can be run at full resolution thanks.

I had the same problem with my Geforce 8800 GTS 320 when having everything on maximum, I had to run it at 800x600 just to get playable framerates during gun fights and heavy intense scenes. Even just walking around or looking a certain way at time 800x600 was the only way. I find it interesting that on your 8800 GTX you had the same problem because your video card is so much more powerful than mine. Of course not 400 times faster but I good amount.

 

[SniperDaws]

at lower resolutions its going to be more about your cpu than your graphics this is why your GTS is performing similar to the GTX.

ill run it at max settings for the demo at 800x600 and see what fps i get using fraps.


800x600 High settings = 15-20 fps

800x600 Medium = 20-30 fps

1440x900 medium = 15-18 fps

1680x1050 high = 0-1 fps

1680x1050 medium = 10-12 fps

thats using my spiffing 1800XL AIW

 

[Griswold]

Originally posted by: 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

The game? You're playing a demo - only one "level" of it. As far as he AI goes, it feels much better than that of Farcry, easily as good as the one in Fear. If you wanted to see a dumb AI, try the COD4 demo. :roll: