Crysis full version -- any speed improvements?

[Deleted member 4644]

So, let's talk about the impact of the full version of Crysis -- have you noticed any significant speed improvements with multi-gpu and multi-cpu being supported?

 

[Syntax Error]

Beat the game, it didn't run too bad on an 8800GT if you ask me.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Syntax Error
Beat the game, it didn't run too bad on an 8800GT if you ask me.

Yea.. not quite the scientific response I was looking for, but thanks for the reply.

heh

 

[Syntax Error]

Yeah, I didn't gauge performance throughout the game, it was just too awesome to be nitpicking FPS wise. It runs fine, it's not 60FPS or anything but it certainly is far from a slide show.

I did leave RivaTuner on during the time, and at 715 core/975 mem I was around 83C under load during Crysis.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I'm on my 6800 GS and it's somewhat playable at low-medium settings. I want an 8800 GT so bad now; just can't afford the price gouging!

 

[taltamir]

if it is PLAYABLE on a single GT at ANY resolution/setting then it means there is significant improvement... ;p

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Syntax Error
Yeah, I didn't gauge performance throughout the game, it was just too awesome to be nitpicking FPS wise. It runs fine, it's not 60FPS or anything but it certainly is far from a slide show.

I did leave RivaTuner on during the time, and at 715 core/975 mem I was around 83C under load during Crysis.

What settings/resolution were you playing under?

 

[Sylvanas]

Beat it and it was only maybe a few fps better than the demo on the same settings at 1920x1200 (DX10, 64bit medium/high 24fps), there isn't any miraculous performance gains, what you see is what you get. Although there is some room for improvement with multi GPU configurations.

 

[JBT]

It was a bit faster than the demo for me.
1680x1050 with everything high no AA. I was ussually between 22-35 FPS and was very playable. This was with a eVGA SC at stock soooo 650 core 1900 mem.

 

[Marshall1]

For me, it runs MUCH MUCH better. I'm running an OC'd 8800GTS in Vista 64 in DX10 mode at 1920x1200 with 169.09 drivers. The demo was mostly a slide show with all medium settings. Now its actually somewhat playable with all settings to high. Quite frankly, I'm amazed at how much better it runs. It is, however, a memory hog. I'm using all of the 2gb I have installed with some minor hitching every 5-6 seconds.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Marshall1
For me, it runs MUCH MUCH better. I'm running an OC'd 8800GTS in Vista 64 in DX10 mode at 1920x1200 with 169.09 drivers. The demo was mostly a slide show with all medium settings. Now its actually somewhat playable with all settings to high. Quite frankly, I'm amazed at how much better it runs. It is, however, a memory hog. I'm using all of the 2gb I have installed with some minor hitching every 5-6 seconds.

Is it Vista 64 that you have to thank for that? I thought 4GB was the magic number for Vista of any flavor.

 

[Syntax Error]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Syntax Error
Yeah, I didn't gauge performance throughout the game, it was just too awesome to be nitpicking FPS wise. It runs fine, it's not 60FPS or anything but it certainly is far from a slide show.

I did leave RivaTuner on during the time, and at 715 core/975 mem I was around 83C under load during Crysis.

What settings/resolution were you playing under?

1680 x 1050, all settings high except for shadows and post processing effects, I believe. No AA.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Marshall1
For me, it runs MUCH MUCH better. I'm running an OC'd 8800GTS in Vista 64 in DX10 mode at 1920x1200 with 169.09 drivers. The demo was mostly a slide show with all medium settings. Now its actually somewhat playable with all settings to high. Quite frankly, I'm amazed at how much better it runs. It is, however, a memory hog. I'm using all of the 2gb I have installed with some minor hitching every 5-6 seconds.

Is it Vista 64 that you have to thank for that? I thought 4GB was the magic number for Vista of any flavor.

it is.. XP you should have 2GB... vista you should have 4GB... don't bother with 32bit vista, all the drawbacks of vista with none of the 64 benefits.

And thank god that it is a memory hog... NWN2 just REFUSES to use any ram... On max it is using 600MB... leaving me with 2.5GB free... but it takes MINUTES to load each zone as it decompressess the textures. (on a raid1 a array with a dedicated raptor os drive...) every time i move somewhere it dumps all the info from the ram and reloads everything again... I play it on the lowest settings not because of FPS, my fps is great... but because lower textures = less decompression time = much MUCH faster loading.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Marshall1
For me, it runs MUCH MUCH better. I'm running an OC'd 8800GTS in Vista 64 in DX10 mode at 1920x1200 with 169.09 drivers. The demo was mostly a slide show with all medium settings. Now its actually somewhat playable with all settings to high. Quite frankly, I'm amazed at how much better it runs. It is, however, a memory hog. I'm using all of the 2gb I have installed with some minor hitching every 5-6 seconds.

Is it Vista 64 that you have to thank for that? I thought 4GB was the magic number for Vista of any flavor.

it is.. XP you should have 2GB... vista you should have 4GB... don't bother with 32bit vista, all the drawbacks of 64 with none of the benefits.

And thank god that it is a memory hog... NWN2 just REFUSES to use any ram... On max it is using 600MB... leaving me with 2.5GB free... but it takes MINUTES to load each zone as it decompressess the textures. (on a raid1 a array with a dedicated raptor os drive...) every time i move somewhere it dumps all the info from the ram and reloads everything again... I play it on the lowest settings not because of FPS, my fps is great... but because lower textures = less decompression time = much MUCH faster loading.

if it's anything like Bioware's other engines , I bet you can up the cache size in an ini file somewhere to alleviate that.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Marshall1
For me, it runs MUCH MUCH better. I'm running an OC'd 8800GTS in Vista 64 in DX10 mode at 1920x1200 with 169.09 drivers. The demo was mostly a slide show with all medium settings. Now its actually somewhat playable with all settings to high. Quite frankly, I'm amazed at how much better it runs. It is, however, a memory hog. I'm using all of the 2gb I have installed with some minor hitching every 5-6 seconds.

Is it Vista 64 that you have to thank for that? I thought 4GB was the magic number for Vista of any flavor.

it is.. XP you should have 2GB... vista you should have 4GB... don't bother with 32bit vista, all the drawbacks of 64 with none of the benefits.

And thank god that it is a memory hog... NWN2 just REFUSES to use any ram... On max it is using 600MB... leaving me with 2.5GB free... but it takes MINUTES to load each zone as it decompressess the textures. (on a raid1 a array with a dedicated raptor os drive...) every time i move somewhere it dumps all the info from the ram and reloads everything again... I play it on the lowest settings not because of FPS, my fps is great... but because lower textures = less decompression time = much MUCH faster loading.

if it's anything like Bioware's other engines , I bet you can up the cache size in an ini file somewhere to alleviate that.

Thanks for the suggestion.. I will try it...
I am seriously afraid it wouldn't work though...

You see on absolute lowest settings (regardless of resolution) I can get a 10 second load between zones on the same "module"... but their campaign method is such that each house, each city, each cave, is a module of its own... when you make a save it saves all the modules you ever visited (~50MB @ 20 files per save... COMPRESSED!). Loading a game quickly goes over all the modules and then decompresses the current one. (and all accompanying textures and the like).
The trick was found by the modding communities who make custom campaigns with one HUGE HUGE file (100+MB) that might take a couple of minutes to load the first time (or when loading a saved game), but then allows you to transfer zones in seconds... That is if your settings are on lowest.. it takes me more then a minute on high settings vs 7 seconds on lowest to load a tiny zone in an already opened module...

Their new campaign that came with the expansion, mask of the betrayer. Uses a few larger modules (and a much smaller overall campaign), so it alleviates the bigger problems of the first official campaign (but introduces atrocious load times).

The crashing doesn't help.. or the fact that after a crash all the icons are wrong or missing... restarting or reinstalling drivers is irrelevant.. there is one simple fix I discovered... Start a new campaign, and then from within it load the previous save... you see it doesn't clean up temp data properly if it is the same as the current module.. it just assumes the data is correct, even though it isn't or is corrupt.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Marshall1
For me, it runs MUCH MUCH better. I'm running an OC'd 8800GTS in Vista 64 in DX10 mode at 1920x1200 with 169.09 drivers. The demo was mostly a slide show with all medium settings. Now its actually somewhat playable with all settings to high. Quite frankly, I'm amazed at how much better it runs. It is, however, a memory hog. I'm using all of the 2gb I have installed with some minor hitching every 5-6 seconds.

Is it Vista 64 that you have to thank for that? I thought 4GB was the magic number for Vista of any flavor.

it is.. XP you should have 2GB... vista you should have 4GB... don't bother with 32bit vista, all the drawbacks of 64 with none of the benefits.

And thank god that it is a memory hog... NWN2 just REFUSES to use any ram... On max it is using 600MB... leaving me with 2.5GB free... but it takes MINUTES to load each zone as it decompressess the textures. (on a raid1 a array with a dedicated raptor os drive...) every time i move somewhere it dumps all the info from the ram and reloads everything again... I play it on the lowest settings not because of FPS, my fps is great... but because lower textures = less decompression time = much MUCH faster loading.

nice...I've only played it for 20 min or so...waiting for new card to arrive to get a nice gaming experience out of it...I've heard before that it is a very poorly written game.

 

[taltamir]

I meant to say
"it is.. XP you should have 2GB... vista you should have 4GB... don't bother with 32bit vista, all the drawbacks of vista with none of the 64 benefits"

Anyways as I said... nwn2 is NOT a game bound by GPU... you need a blazing single core processor... basically the fastest core2due you can buy. 2GB of ram is more then enough.. and fast harddrives will be great.
And run it from raid1 or raid0 array.
At absolute lowest settings on the highest resolution you can.

That way the game wouldn't be too horrible looking. But will still load reasonably fast.

 

[math20]

For everyone running on dx10, stop doing that! Use the .cfg mod in dx9 mode, much better performance and almost the exact same details.

 

[nitromullet]

Not one bit of improvement over the demo from what I can tell. I run DX9, 1920x1080, everything on High, 4xAA. It generally hovers between 18-24 fps. Not silky smooth, but not a slide show either. The main thing (so far) that really makes the fps dip below that areas that have the frozen ground with the steam coming off of it. The steam looks great, but it definitely slows the fps down to a crawl.

I had tried the 169.09 drivers, but scaling is broken (1920x1080 stretches to 1920x1200), so I swtiched back to the 169.04 drivers which give me the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen. I pick up about 2-3 fps by running 1920x1080 over 1920x1200, which really helps with the low dips.

edit: these numbers aren't from the flyby benchmark, but from enablng r_displayinfo = 1 from the console and playing the game.