Crysis Demo Benchmarks here

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: 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:

you must be playing a diffrent game than me, ive just gone into the camp and stood in the middle, one of the koreans sends up a flare, then while im stood in full view 2 korean soldiers are aprroaching me crouched down looking right at me and doing nothing i fire at them and they freak out like they dont know where they are being shot at, And no before you ask i wasnt cloaked lol, it maybe only a demo mate but you really dont think its going to be any diffrent in the full game do you?

This will be an awsome game when its playable and patched, 12months or 2 years from now, anyone that plays the full game at medium settings is just foolish, this game needs to be played at max settings to get the most out of it, ill be waiting Crysis ill be waiting.

 

[jonmcc33]

I'm go glad that I'm waiting a generation. I got the X1900XT instead of the X1800XT and it paid off. The successor of the G80 will be much more rewarding.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: 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:

you must be playing a diffrent game than me, ive just gone into the camp and stood in the middle, one of the koreans sends up a flare, then while im stood in full view 2 korean soldiers are aprroaching me crouched down looking right at me and doing nothing i fire at them and they freak out like they dont know where they are being shot at, And no before you ask i wasnt cloaked lol, it maybe only a demo mate but you really dont think its going to be any diffrent in the full game do you?

This will be an awsome game when its playable and patched, 12months or 2 years from now, anyone that plays the full game at medium settings is just foolish, this game needs to be played at max settings to get the most out of it, ill be waiting Crysis ill be waiting.

i posted this in the other thread ... Crysis is only a TEN-hour game for the SP experience with DX10 not being visually much more than DX9 ... --However, evidently *multiplayer DX10* is revolutionary:

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

Shack: How significant are differences between the DX9 and DX10 versions of the game? Are there any actual gameplay distinctions?

Cevat Yerli: For single-player the difference is only in visual quality, there are no gameplay differences. Visually the imagery has more depth though 3D post processing, looks more cinematic through motion blur systems interacting and surfaces are more crisper in detail and 3D. The lighting and post processing goes through an extended next-generation HDR rendering system.

In multiplayer when you qualify for very-high settings, that is high-end DX10, you will experience tangible gameplay improvements that actually make tactical difference and lets you feel like you play single player in terms of cinematic experience.

Shack: Generally, successful multiplayer is fairly low-req in order to allow for the largest possible userbase. How do you feel about the prospects for your multiplayer mode in the face of the numerous heavy hitters releasing this fall?

Cevat Yerli: We see multiplayer in two extremes. One is the low, medium, high version that scales games low and high in regards to your PC spec, offering you a certain fixed gameplay. We try to be as good as we can there without losing the low-spec gamers.

But with very-high you will need high-end DX10 to qualify for an experience that is essentially the future of multiplayer games, but now. This means you will also get gameplay experience that pushes options, emergent gameplay through more advanced simulations and graphics that define and impact gameplay. Examples of this are breakable geometries, soft-vegetation that interacts with characters, battledust that is synchronized across users to change the atmospherics, day-night cycles that can change tactics completely as you play.

i guess you buy Crysis especially for the MP if you have a high-end DX10 rig

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: 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.

The game doesn't look half bad on medium settings. I can arguably say it's still the best looking game out today even on medium settings.

In the end it's all about immersion from story to game play. Not life like graphics although it can help a game out.

So we can't push current cards on very high detail but next generation of cards will.

 

[apoppin]

http://www.pcper.com/article.p...=470&type=expert&pid=1

did anybody post this review of Crysis Demo with GTX and GTS-640?

Analysis and Final Thoughts

As I said at the outset, this initial performance preview isn't as complete as we'd have liked but I was sure that users would want to see how some of these cards performed right away in this incredibly popular game demo. Our results with the 8800 GTX and 8800 GTS 640MB graphics boards from NVIDIA put us in both a state of euphoria and despair.

The euphoria comes from seeing the game in action ? it is absolutely gorgeous and the game play is superb. The story line from what I have seen so far is both compelling and interesting, much more so that the original Far Cry was at this point. The graphics are just out of this world ? the water is hyper-realistic and the overall quality of the foliage, the in-game characters, weapons, etc are just something you have to see, even if its at a slide show.

Which is where the despair comes in. You mean our 8800 GTX card couldn't run the game at 1600x1200 with any AA and still be a very enjoyable gaming experience? That's a great system though! All that being said, we knew this was going to be the case and have been preparing for it mentally. Your systems are not obsolete at all; CryEngine 2 does scale very well in fact. However, if you are used to just maxing out all the IQ bars turning up AA and running it at your LCD's full resolution, you are going to be disappointed. Hardcore gaming systems will be happy at something 1280x800 or maybe 1600x1200 with High quality levels and until we see upgrades from NVIDIA and AMD, that's going to be the extent of it.

8800 GTX and 8800 GTS Performance

Look at the performance from the 8800 GTX and the 8800 GTS 640MB cards compared to one another, we found some interesting inflections. For instance, at 1024x768 without AA, the 8800 GTS 640MB system out performed the GTX system. Yes, I know the testing process wasn't exactly the same, so we have to make some broader generalizations, but it would appear that the quad-core CPU that Jeremy used was in fact a factor in overall performance as the Crytek developers indicated.

Another interesting note that came from this weekend ? NVIDIA acknowledged that SLI scaling on Crysis was some crippled for the time being. A new driver is going to be released that will help with it, but they are saying that Crytek has a couple of fixes of their own that need to be made for proper multi-GPU performance so again, we might want to wait for the final retail version of the software to really get into the multi-GPU capabilities of the engine.

Final Thoughts

Our initial impressions of Crysis are two fold: we are more than impressed at the quality of the game from a visual and game play stand point but we are also (expectedly) disappointed at the performance levels we saw with current top hardware. The good news though is that just like Crytek did with Far Cry, we can expect to see the new engine updated and modified enough to scale for several years into the future allowing gamers to continue to see image quality changes and features that are new down the road. After all, we'd rather have a game that has the ability to look better as hardware improves (and still looks awesome with current hardware at Medium and High settings) rather than one that is purposefully crippled to make high end users feel better.

 

[thilanliyan]

With shadows and post processing set to medium, everything else on very high and at 1280x960 and 0AA, it became playable...consistently over 30fps.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: thilan29
With shadows and post processing set to medium, everything else on very high and at 1280x960 and 0AA, it became playable...consistently over 30fps.

ANd the game looks the same. I don't know what changes in the shadows and I don't really care for the motion blur (don't know what else changes).

 

[SickBeast]

I can run the demo very fast (30FPS+) on my 8800GTS 320MB/Opteron 165 @ 2.4GHZ. I run in DX9 mode with textures and shadows at 'medium' and everything else on 'high'. I'm stuck with a resolution of 1280x720, but it actually looks quite good on my 1080P 46" Sharp Aquos. At 1080P, I was getting maybe 10-15FPS, sometimes lower; it was almost a slideshow.

Anyhow, I'm very impressed with how the game looks and runs at these settings. I'm surprised at how good such a low resolution looks.

My major problems were with DX10. I could not even load up the demo; the menus are MESSED UP for me in DX10 mode. I have installed the beta nvidia drivers, and I've heard that they're the culprit. The problem is, I hear that without them the game runs much slower.

I really want to see this game in DX10. Despite what Jag is saying, I've seen screenshots in DX10 mode and they look significantly better to me. More foliage, better colours, much better lighting, and just more stuff on screen at once.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: thilan29
With shadows and post processing set to medium, everything else on very high and at 1280x960 and 0AA, it became playable...consistently over 30fps.

ANd the game looks the same. I don't know what changes in the shadows and I don't really care for the motion blur (don't know what else changes).

The motion blur is actually pretty cool when you're near-death and you get some crazy adrenaline rush. I find that post-processing doesn't affect my performance at all. Perhaps it's an ATI bug of some sort. With me, the shadows, shaders, and textures made the most difference *shrug*.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Shack: How significant are differences between the DX9 and DX10 versions of the game? Are there any actual gameplay distinctions?

Cevat Yerli: For single-player the difference is only in visual quality, there are no gameplay differences. Visually the imagery has more depth though 3D post processing, looks more cinematic through motion blur systems interacting and surfaces are more crisper in detail and 3D. The lighting and post processing goes through an extended next-generation HDR rendering system.

In multiplayer when you qualify for very-high settings, that is high-end DX10, you will experience tangible gameplay improvements that actually make tactical difference and lets you feel like you play single player in terms of cinematic experience.

Shack: Generally, successful multiplayer is fairly low-req in order to allow for the largest possible userbase. How do you feel about the prospects for your multiplayer mode in the face of the numerous heavy hitters releasing this fall?

Cevat Yerli: We see multiplayer in two extremes. One is the low, medium, high version that scales games low and high in regards to your PC spec, offering you a certain fixed gameplay. We try to be as good as we can there without losing the low-spec gamers.

But with very-high you will need high-end DX10 to qualify for an experience that is essentially the future of multiplayer games, but now. This means you will also get gameplay experience that pushes options, emergent gameplay through more advanced simulations and graphics that define and impact gameplay. Examples of this are breakable geometries, soft-vegetation that interacts with characters, battledust that is synchronized across users to change the atmospherics, day-night cycles that can change tactics completely as you play.

i guess you buy Crysis especially for the MP if you have a high-end DX10 rig

The only way they could do this is to have separate servers running the different game types. It would be interesting to see how that turns out. If the performance of the demo is anything to go by, the "cinematic experience" may be pretty low key if hardly anyone is able to run it.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: apoppin
http://www.pcper.com/article.p...=470&type=expert&pid=1

did anybody post this review of Crysis Demo with GTX and GTS-640?

Analysis and Final Thoughts

As I said at the outset, this initial performance preview isn't as complete as we'd have liked but I was sure that users would want to see how some of these cards performed right away in this incredibly popular game demo. Our results with the 8800 GTX and 8800 GTS 640MB graphics boards from NVIDIA put us in both a state of euphoria and despair.

The euphoria comes from seeing the game in action ? it is absolutely gorgeous and the game play is superb. The story line from what I have seen so far is both compelling and interesting, much more so that the original Far Cry was at this point. The graphics are just out of this world ? the water is hyper-realistic and the overall quality of the foliage, the in-game characters, weapons, etc are just something you have to see, even if its at a slide show.

Which is where the despair comes in. You mean our 8800 GTX card couldn't run the game at 1600x1200 with any AA and still be a very enjoyable gaming experience? That's a great system though! All that being said, we knew this was going to be the case and have been preparing for it mentally. Your systems are not obsolete at all; CryEngine 2 does scale very well in fact. However, if you are used to just maxing out all the IQ bars turning up AA and running it at your LCD's full resolution, you are going to be disappointed. Hardcore gaming systems will be happy at something 1280x800 or maybe 1600x1200 with High quality levels and until we see upgrades from NVIDIA and AMD, that's going to be the extent of it.

8800 GTX and 8800 GTS Performance

Look at the performance from the 8800 GTX and the 8800 GTS 640MB cards compared to one another, we found some interesting inflections. For instance, at 1024x768 without AA, the 8800 GTS 640MB system out performed the GTX system. Yes, I know the testing process wasn't exactly the same, so we have to make some broader generalizations, but it would appear that the quad-core CPU that Jeremy used was in fact a factor in overall performance as the Crytek developers indicated.

Another interesting note that came from this weekend ? NVIDIA acknowledged that SLI scaling on Crysis was some crippled for the time being. A new driver is going to be released that will help with it, but they are saying that Crytek has a couple of fixes of their own that need to be made for proper multi-GPU performance so again, we might want to wait for the final retail version of the software to really get into the multi-GPU capabilities of the engine.

Final Thoughts

Our initial impressions of Crysis are two fold: we are more than impressed at the quality of the game from a visual and game play stand point but we are also (expectedly) disappointed at the performance levels we saw with current top hardware. The good news though is that just like Crytek did with Far Cry, we can expect to see the new engine updated and modified enough to scale for several years into the future allowing gamers to continue to see image quality changes and features that are new down the road. After all, we'd rather have a game that has the ability to look better as hardware improves (and still looks awesome with current hardware at Medium and High settings) rather than one that is purposefully crippled to make high end users feel better.

Look at the prvious page.

 

[apoppin]

Look at the prvious[sic.] page.

i read the entire review ... what are you referring to? - don't use AA?


i won't

 

[NYHoustonman]

Is anyone else getting annoying display corruption on distant foliage with the 169.01's? I believe that's what brought it about, the driver update, but I haven't tried reverting yet...

EDIT - disabled AF in the NV CP, and all is well - some kind of bug I guess...

Other than that... WOW. I'm impressed, especially after how lackluster the multiplayer beta was to me. I just wish the performance was better...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: thilan29
With shadows and post processing set to medium, everything else on very high and at 1280x960 and 0AA, it became playable...consistently over 30fps.

ANd the game looks the same. I don't know what changes in the shadows and I don't really care for the motion blur (don't know what else changes).

The motion blur is actually pretty cool when you're near-death and you get some crazy adrenaline rush. I find that post-processing doesn't affect my performance at all. Perhaps it's an ATI bug of some sort. With me, the shadows, shaders, and textures made the most difference *shrug*.

are you in DX10? Try it in DX10 and then tell me it's no difference. Something is happening that I can't see. SPin fast during a fight and bam...10fps.

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: 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.

I knew my 17" CRT monitor down there in the basement collecting dust all these years would become useful one of these days

 

[SniperDaws]

The best thing to do would be to buy the game when your system can run it, and if thats what people will do then Crytek/EA are'nt gonna sell many copies are they.

 

[NYHoustonman]

I'm seeing people with systems similar to my own (E6400@3GHz, 2GB DDR2-800, 8800GTX) saying they're able to run the game at, for example, 1680x1050 with everything very high (with AA no less)... I can't even come close to that. Especially at the beginning of the demo, with the airplane, it chugs, and then in the jungle as well, with the flashlight turned on, etc. I've tried with everything at High and it's better, but still not what I would consider 'playable.' I'm using the new 169.01's, which apparently don't do much for performance either way, and not using AA or AF due to the driver bug. Is there something I should be looking into XD?

 

[livingsacrifice]

Anyone got a benchmark from a 2900xt? Just wondering because thats what's coming in tomorrow.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Sound like a multi-GPU configuration is in the works for me ... maybe you too

What the hell were the devs thinking?

Is it just me or does this sound exactly like the kind of comments that were uttered about 1.5 years ago when Oblivion launched? At the time, the 7900GTX and x1900XTX were duking it out for supremecy and ATI had the edge in Oblivion IIRC. Today's midrange cards will run Oblivion without breaking a sweat. History repeats once again.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
I'm seeing people with systems similar to my own (E6400@3GHz, 2GB DDR2-800, 8800GTX) saying they're able to run the game at, for example, 1680x1050 with everything very high (with AA no less)... I can't even come close to that. Especially at the beginning of the demo, with the airplane, it chugs, and then in the jungle as well, with the flashlight turned on, etc. I've tried with everything at High and it's better, but still not what I would consider 'playable.' I'm using the new 169.01's, which apparently don't do much for performance either way, and not using AA or AF due to the driver bug. Is there something I should be looking into XD?

I have c2d @ 3.0/8800gts and im at 16x12 w/no AA, everything on High, no slowdowns/stuttering. Course I am on XP, the MS OS of choice for performance gaming

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman
I'm seeing people with systems similar to my own (E6400@3GHz, 2GB DDR2-800, 8800GTX) saying they're able to run the game at, for example, 1680x1050 with everything very high (with AA no less)... I can't even come close to that. Especially at the beginning of the demo, with the airplane, it chugs, and then in the jungle as well, with the flashlight turned on, etc. I've tried with everything at High and it's better, but still not what I would consider 'playable.' I'm using the new 169.01's, which apparently don't do much for performance either way, and not using AA or AF due to the driver bug. Is there something I should be looking into XD?

I have c2d @ 3.0/8800gts and im at 16x12 w/no AA, everything on High, no slowdowns/stuttering. Course I am on XP, the MS OS of choice for performance gaming

DX9 in Vista is the same as XP is for me.

 

[woolfe9999]

I tried the demo and honestly it plays like crap on my rig (8800gts 320 and e6750) unless I turn the settings way down.

I have to think there will be some optimization from demo-->release version, even though it likely won't be fully optimized on release. I seem to recall a statement that came out a couple months ago that said it would run acceptably well on anything down to a GF6 series, which the demo version clearly cannot. Indeed, I doubt it even runs acceptably on any GF6 at the lowest settings and 800x600.

You'd think they would have learned from FarCry about the consequences of releasing a game that excludes 90%+ of the gamers out there based on hardware limitations, and would also have learned how to fix it, which they did late for FarCry but having learned how they can do it earlier for Crysis.

I've seen too much variance, up or down, from demo-->release in other games to completely trust these numbers as ultimately predictive.

- woolfe

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: woolfe9999
I tried the demo and honestly it plays like crap on my rig (8800gts 320 and e6750) unless I turn the settings way down.

I have to think there will be some optimization from demo-->release version, even though it likely won't be fully optimized on release. I seem to recall a statement that came out a couple months ago that said it would run acceptably well on anything down to a GF6 series, which the demo version clearly cannot. Indeed, I doubt it even runs acceptably on any GF6 at the lowest settings and 800x600.

You'd think they would have learned from FarCry about the consequences of releasing a game that excludes 90%+ of the gamers out there based on hardware limitations, and would also have learned how to fix it, which they did late for FarCry but having learned how they can do it earlier for Crysis.

I've seen too much variance, up or down, from demo-->release in other games to completely trust these numbers as ultimately predictive.

- woolfe

You forget that the game IS playable if you turn down some stuff. OMG NO! TURN DOWN OPTIONS!?

 

[adairusmc]

The demo is perfectly playable on my system at 1680x1050 with most settings on high (texture and shader quality on very high). running a Q6600 at 3Ghz, 4Gb of memory, and an 8800GTX under vista x64.

Not one lock-up on the game either. I will definitely be buying this when it hits the stores.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: adairusmc
The demo is perfectly playable on my system at 1680x1050 with most settings on high (texture and shader quality on very high). running a Q6600 at 3Ghz, 4Gb of memory, and an 8800GTX under vista x64.

Not one lock-up on the game either. I will definitely be buying this when it hits the stores.

Are you using the 169.01's? I can't imagine my CPU being that much a bottleneck on GPU-intensive tasks that you'd be able to run the game at settings that much higher than my own :x.