• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Installed Crysis again...

error8

error8

Diamond Member
I first played Crysis on an 8800 GT and I can say that it worked rather bad. I couldn't turn everything on very high, to keep an acceptable frame rate. After two months, I upgraded to 4870 512mb and even though there was a slight improvement, it still worked like crap. I've finished the game on that card and never bothered to play it again, until yesterday.
Installed it again, using the latest Catalyst, patch 1.2 and with the extra 512 mb my card has and wow, I was amazed by the performance. I cranked everything on very high, even used 2X AA and I have very playable frame rates all over the scenery. I just can't believe how much the performance grew in this game, with time. Anyone else noticed this thing?
 
This is exactly what I was saying toyota. In the past, the game worked like s***, but now it's very playable. I'm not saying that I have 80+fps, it's just that I have enough fps to play it at very high. Your link is from april, with some very old catalyst and I believe that the performance was way lower then it is now.
 
I use 1920x1200 with 2xTrAA on my GTX285. I have the important things on very high like shaders, textures and water detail, but I use medium objects and shadows, and I disable motion blur and post-processing as I can?t stand them.

The game still looks nice but runs much faster with my settings.
 
yea im glad i got a chance to play through at high/medium/no AA with my 9800GTX @ 1680x1050 before i got a 1920x1200 monitor. i hate gaming at non native res and now i have to play at medium and its only just playable. i cant wait until i get a 5870x2 though lol, will look sweet @ 1920x1200 with all the primary settings to maximum and 4xAA
 
Originally posted by: toyota
so very high DX10 and 2x AA on a 4870? even at 1680 I cant imagine the whole game being playable on those settings.

this shows a 48701gb getting just 23fps average and 12fps low at 1680 on DX10 very high but no AA. http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...0-vs-geforce-gtx-275/7
Click to expand...

Besides what has been pointed out already, this game is pretty damn playable at an average of 23fps. There's just something about it that makes lower FPS more manageable. I'm not the only one who noticed this...many commented on it when the game was released. Now 13fps as a minimum id pretty low, but that was likely only for a few moments.
 
yea haha true. i decided to play warhead in devmode so i could play through with the TAC cannon and the PAX gun from the start, using infinite ammo, and the devmode has a built in FPS count. i avg like 23-25 and i play just fine. idk, i think it has to do with me playing everquest2 at 12-15fps for 4 years cause MMORPGs suck cpu like a hooker sucks C*ck
 
Hmm, I don't know whatsup with my HD 4890's in Crossfire, but they can barely run Crysis: Warhead on enthusiast settings (highest) and dip into the 20's quite often. And that's at 1680*1050 without AA. Hmm, maybe I should try again though, coz after reinstalling Vista I forgot to OC my Q6700 again.

Ok, I also had 4xAA forced through CCC. But without it I will still drop into the higher 20's. Very playable though.
 
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Hmm, I don't know whatsup with my HD 4890's in Crossfire, but they can barely run Crysis: Warhead on enthusiast settings (highest) and dip into the 20's quite often. And that's at 1680*1050 without AA. Hmm, maybe I should try again though, coz after reinstalling Vista I forgot to OC my Q6700 again.

Ok, I also had 4xAA forced through CCC. But without it I will still drop into the higher 20's. Very playable though.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because of the lack of vram.
 
I am only getting an average of 23 fps @1680X1050, very high settings, 2X AA, but it is so fricking playable. 🙂 I think I'll finish the game once more, this time using a stealthy approach.
 
q6600 @ 2.4
GTX295 @ stock
Forceware 190.62
1680x1050 all settings High 2xAA
Min: 24 Avg: 39 Max: 61 for Crysis built in "Benchmark GPU".
 
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
q6600 @ 2.4
GTX295 @ stock
Forceware 190.62
1680x1050 all settings High 2xAA
Min: 24 Avg: 39 Max: 61 for Crysis built in "Benchmark GPU".
Click to expand...

That's just at "high" though. Isn't the performance hit pretty steep once you go to "very high"?
 
Originally posted by: vj8usa
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
q6600 @ 2.4
GTX295 @ stock
Forceware 190.62
1680x1050 all settings High 2xAA
Min: 24 Avg: 39 Max: 61 for Crysis built in "Benchmark GPU".
Click to expand...

That's just at "high" though. Isn't the performance hit pretty steep once you go to "very high"?
Click to expand...

Going to run Very High in a bit.

q6600 @ 2.4
GTX295 @ stock
Forceware 190.62
1680x1050 all settings High 2xAA
Min: 24 Avg: 39 Max: 61 for Crysis built in "Benchmark GPU"

q6600 @ 3GHz
GTX295 @ stock
Forceware 190.62
1680x1050 all settings High 2xAA
Min: 28 Avg: 48 Max: 73 for Crysis built in "Benchmark GPU"

Ran 64 bit just for the hell of it. Doesn't change framerate, just uses a lot more memory.
818MB at 32 bit, and 1001MB at 64 bit.
q6600 @ 3GHz
GTX295 @ stock
Forceware 190.62
1680x1050 all settings High 2xAA
Min: 28 Avg: 48 Max: 73 for Crysis built in "Benchmark GPU 64bit"

I'll run "Very High" now.

q6600 @ 3GHz
GTX295 @ stock
Forceware 190.62
1680x1050 all settings Very High 2xAA
Min: 24 Avg: 38 Max: 53 for Crysis built in "Benchmark GPU"

Ran again using BFG's setting above, but I feel this takes away from the game. You can tell there is a significant reduction in detail.

q6600 @ 3GHz
GTX295 @ stock
Forceware 190.62
1680x1050 all settings Very High 2xAA
Exceptions: Objects: Medium Shadows: Medium Post Processing: Medium
Motion Blur left on.

Min: 33 Avg: 53 Max: 80 for Crysis built in "Benchmark GPU"
 
For FPS games for me its 40 FPS average, 30 FPS minimum or nothing. Its just wayyyyyy too annoying to have the frames drop under 30 because you can easily see it and feel it (with the mouse).

Crysis is an especially bad case of this for me. The game itself is slightly above average but utterly bland without its graphics. The graphics anywhere below High/Very high are ugly compared to most other modern games. Unfortunately for me I don't have the funds to sink into playing this one average game at its full potential.

Granted there are a ton of games I can play at full settings or on a console that I'd rather play than Crysis at full settings.
 
Originally posted by: WraithETC
For FPS games for me its 40 FPS average, 30 FPS minimum or nothing. Its just wayyyyyy too annoying to have the frames drop under 30 because you can easily see it and feel it (with the mouse).
Click to expand...

Depends. In my opinion, if you play fps in multiplayer, anything bellow 40 fps and you can't play it right. But in some single player games, like the campaign in Crysis, I believe you can dip bellow 30 fps and still feel comfortable.
 
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
snip
Click to expand...

That's interesting, even with your quad, a 25% OC gives you a 23% increase in framerate. I wonder if there's still a performance penalty for running in DX10 mode? I remember when the game came out, DX10 ran quite a bit slower than DX9 for even at almost identical image quality.

Originally posted by: WraithETC
For FPS games for me its 40 FPS average, 30 FPS minimum or nothing. Its just wayyyyyy too annoying to have the frames drop under 30 because you can easily see it and feel it (with the mouse).

Crysis is an especially bad case of this for me.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, Crysis felt significantly smoother for me at low framerates than just about any other FPS I've played. I played through Warhead averaging 20-30FPS, and it almost always felt completely playable to me. For most FPSs though, I can't stand it when the framerate dips below 30 for long.
 
Originally posted by: vj8usa
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
snip
Click to expand...

That's interesting, even with your quad, a 25% OC gives you a 23% increase in framerate. I wonder if there's still a performance penalty for running in DX10 mode? I remember when the game came out, DX10 ran quite a bit slower than DX9 for even at almost identical image quality.

Originally posted by: WraithETC
For FPS games for me its 40 FPS average, 30 FPS minimum or nothing. Its just wayyyyyy too annoying to have the frames drop under 30 because you can easily see it and feel it (with the mouse).

Crysis is an especially bad case of this for me.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, Crysis felt significantly smoother for me at low framerates than just about any other FPS I've played. I played through Warhead averaging 20-30FPS, and it almost always felt completely playable to me. For most FPSs though, I can't stand it when the framerate dips below 30 for long.
Click to expand...

I don't think my Q6600 at stock was anywhere near enough to push the 295. I'm sure if I "could" o/c the Q6600 past 3GHz (limited by my Freezer 7 Pro) I'd get even higher framerates.
 
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Hmm, I don't know whatsup with my HD 4890's in Crossfire, but they can barely run Crysis: Warhead on enthusiast settings (highest) and dip into the 20's quite often. And that's at 1680*1050 without AA. Hmm, maybe I should try again though, coz after reinstalling Vista I forgot to OC my Q6700 again.

Ok, I also had 4xAA forced through CCC. But without it I will still drop into the higher 20's. Very playable though.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because of the lack of vram.
Click to expand...

Doubtfull, both cards have 1gb of vram. My performance is in line with keys his performance. My cpu is now oc-ed a bit further, to 3,4GHz, and two HD 4890's at 950MHz pretty much equal a GTX295.
 
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Hmm, I don't know whatsup with my HD 4890's in Crossfire, but they can barely run Crysis: Warhead on enthusiast settings (highest) and dip into the 20's quite often. And that's at 1680*1050 without AA. Hmm, maybe I should try again though, coz after reinstalling Vista I forgot to OC my Q6700 again.

Ok, I also had 4xAA forced through CCC. But without it I will still drop into the higher 20's. Very playable though.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's because of the lack of vram.
Click to expand...

Doubtfull, both cards have 1gb of vram. My performance is in line with keys his performance. My cpu is now oc-ed a bit further, to 3,4GHz, and two HD 4890's at 950MHz pretty much equal a GTX295.
Click to expand...

According to the testing, memory usage seldom goes past 830MB. Unless using 64 bit Crysis bench. But that had no effect on framerates, oddly enough. Up the AA and I'll wager it will go higher.
 
My definition of flawless must be different. lol Flawless to me is everything on very high at 1920 with AA and it never dips below 60 FPS. It will be next year before that happens.
 
Originally posted by: BFG10K
I use 1920x1200 with 2xTrAA on my GTX285. I have the important things on very high like shaders, textures and water detail, but I use medium objects and shadows, and I disable motion blur and post-processing as I can?t stand them.

The game still looks nice but runs much faster with my settings.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've never understood why dev's put motion blur into games anyway. Motion blur is something you see naturally if you move around fast enough. There's no reason to emulate it in the game. Since it already happens to the user naturally while playing a game.
 
Originally posted by: Shaq
My definition of flawless must be different. lol Flawless to me is everything on very high at 1920 with AA and it never dips below 60 FPS. It will be next year before that happens.
Click to expand...

that may be your definition of flawless but in Crysis 60fps is not necessary by any means.
 
Originally posted by: vj8usa
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
snip
Click to expand...

That's interesting, even with your quad, a 25% OC gives you a 23% increase in framerate. I wonder if there's still a performance penalty for running in DX10 mode? I remember when the game came out, DX10 ran quite a bit slower than DX9 for even at almost identical image quality.

Originally posted by: WraithETC
For FPS games for me its 40 FPS average, 30 FPS minimum or nothing. Its just wayyyyyy too annoying to have the frames drop under 30 because you can easily see it and feel it (with the mouse).

Crysis is an especially bad case of this for me.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, Crysis felt significantly smoother for me at low framerates than just about any other FPS I've played. I played through Warhead averaging 20-30FPS, and it almost always felt completely playable to me. For most FPSs though, I can't stand it when the framerate dips below 30 for long.
Click to expand...

yes the DX10 penalty is still there. you can run Crysis on high, med or low in DX9 and get several more fps than running in DX10. of course in Warhead you can run even very high in DX9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top