Why can't I run Crysis at max settings?

[tyl998]

Currently, when I play through the pre-release demo at "Very High" settings with 4x AA, I get an average FP of around 30. In order to get a playable FPS, I must set the all settings to "High" instead of the max of "Very High" (I keep 4x AA) in order to get an average of 50 fps. With my 1920x1080 resolution, i7 930 @ 4 ghz and Gigabyte 1GB 715 mhz SLI setup, what exactly is the bottleneck here?

According to Tom's Hardware benchmarks, I should be getting average frame rates of closer to 50 even with Very High details on and 4x AA. Maybe the pre-release demo I downloaded isn't as efficient?

Will trying to OC my CPU further help? Or should I look into OCing my graphix cards? If I want to try the latter, should I worry about my 750 watt PSU not being able to handle the load?

 

[SolMiester]

edit - reading failure....deleted

 

[ArchAngel777]

Currently, when I play through the pre-release demo at "Very High" settings with 4x AA, I get an average FP of around 30. In order to get a playable FPS, I must set the all settings to "High" instead of the max of "Very High" (I keep 4x AA) in order to get an average of 50 fps. With my 1920x1080 resolution, i7 930 @ 4 ghz and Gigabyte 1GB 715 mhz SLI setup, what exactly is the bottleneck here?

According to Tom's Hardware benchmarks, I should be getting average frame rates of closer to 50 even with Very High details on and 4x AA. Maybe the pre-release demo I downloaded isn't as efficient?

Will trying to OC my CPU further help? Or should I look into OCing my graphix cards? If I want to try the latter, should I worry about my 750 watt PSU not being able to handle the load?

If you are using a pre-release demo then I would wager that is your problem. Secondly, ice versus tropical made a huge difference. The ice levels are much more difficult to render than the tropical levels. I remember my frame rate tanking 50% hit when I got the ice levels... But now I am wondering if I am confusing Warhead with the first Crysis... I can't seem to remember.

 

[tyl998]

edit - reading failure....deleted

I have the 1 GB models. I'm using them. Where did you get the idea I used the less memory models?

ArchAngel777: I'm getting between 25 and 40 fps just running quickly through the jungle and the beach. Also, any ideas on how I can tell how much room I have on my PSU? If I'm already pushing my PSU to its limits I won't overclock my GPUs. I don't wanna have my system fail to POST

 

[SolMiester]

I have the 1 GB models. I'm using them. Where did you get the idea I used the less memory models?

ArchAngel777: I'm getting between 25 and 40 fps just running quickly through the jungle and the beach. Also, any ideas on how I can tell how much room I have on my PSU? If I'm already pushing my PSU to its limits I won't overclock my GPUs. I don't wanna have my system fail to POST

Saw the 7 in the GPU OC and saw 768Mb...!....LOL, not yet awake!

 

[happy medium]

Overclock you gpu's using stock voltage first. You should hit 800 core easy , then give the game a try. You psu should be fine.

 

[tyl998]

They're actually factory-OC'ed. Gigabyte ships them at 715 mhz. I need to figure out how to OC them beyond that. What software to download?

 

[taltamir]

read the full article, they usually say things like "we are running at max quality, except shaders lowered to high, and using so and so benchmark"
you are using a different benchmark probably, or different setting, and using the prerelease demo probably doesn't help.

 

[tyl998]

I'm not using a benchmark. I'm just playing through after using the r_displayinfo 1 console command to see the FPS.

Anyone with any suggestions on how to OC a GPU? I don't see any big guides to do it like how there is for CPUs.

 

[blastingcap]

Crysis benchmarks are notorious for overestimating actual, in-game fps. Not sure if that's what Tom's used. Also, average fps varies from level to level as others have noted, above.

Also, he wants his performance to be up to par with Tom's results, which means comparing apples to apples. He shouldn't have to overclock just to reach Tom's results. If he's overclocking, he should be BEATING Tom's results.

If you do overclock, try using MSI Afterburner (http://event.msi.com/vga/afterburner/), it's the best solution out there right now and works for dual-GPUs.

 

[taltamir]

I'm not using a benchmark. I'm just playing through after using the r_displayinfo 1 console command to see the FPS.

ah, actual play-through is completely different than benchmarking... benchmarks tend to vastly over estimate the capability of the hardware.

 

[tyl998]

Crysis benchmarks are notorious for overestimating actual, in-game fps. Not sure if that's what Tom's used. Also, average fps varies from level to level as others have noted, above.

Also, he wants his performance to be up to par with Tom's results, which means comparing apples to apples. He shouldn't have to overclock just to reach Tom's results. If he's overclocking, he should be BEATING Tom's results.

If you do overclock, try using MSI Afterburner (http://event.msi.com/vga/afterburner/), it's the best solution out there right now and works for dual-GPUs.

Terrific. Is there a guide on how to safely OC using Afterburner and incrementally step things up? I don't want to destroy my cards. They are expensive.

 

[toyota]

the demo is quite old so thats the problem. the actual patched game runs much better and even my old gtx260 is playable on very high for the most part.

 

[darckhart]

there's no real guide. just play it safe and do small steps incrementally. monitor your gpu and vrm temps while you try. easy peasy!

 

[notty22]

A good place to start is right where you get msi afterburner
http://event.msi.com/vga/afterburner/download.htm

 

[bryanW1995]

Terrific. Is there a guide on how to safely OC using Afterburner and incrementally step things up? I don't want to destroy my cards. They are expensive.

gtx 460 is such a great overclocker that you don't really need to be conservative. only issue for you is to oc each card one at a time then stability test. almost every gtx 460 will hit 800 core without a problem, I'd start there on each card then start inching them up 10 mhz at a time. don't worry about hurting the card, it will shut down before you hurt it on core oc's. on memory stick to a 15-20% oc.

expect to end up around 820-830 as your lower card using stock voltages, maybe end up dialing down to 810 ish range for safety's sake. however, don't be surprised if you end up at 850-875 either, there's a reasonable chance that at least one of them will do that on stock. If you want to add voltages, afterburner allows you to do that as well. you should get around 50-75 mhz more from going to 1.087.

 

[tyl998]

How will I know if my card isn't stable? Afterburner's stability test will stop the test and inform me? With my CPU OC it was so much more annoying as my PC basically BSOD in order to let me know I need to push the voltage up.

Pushing memory speeds upwards also allows for better performance I presume? Or is it an additional bottleneck I must widen in order for the regular OC to work?

 

[notty22]

I check the box , synch clocks between similar gpu's. Under settings.
You can almost surely go up right up to 810/980 without touching voltage.
Then start heaven demo/benchmark, I find this is fairly stressful and will uncover any stability problems, and it runs constant.

 

[tyl998]

I check the box , synch clocks between similar gpu's. Under settings.
You can almost surely go up right up to 810/980 without touching voltage.
Then start heaven demo/benchmark, I find this is fairly stressful and will uncover any stability problems, and it runs constant.

What does the second number stand for? Memory clock?

I'll go google Heaven Demo. If it runs int he background then that'd be terrific

 

[notty22]

What does the second number stand for? Memory clock?

I'll go google Heaven Demo. If it runs int he background then that'd be terrific

Yes the second number is memory. I have Cyclones, mine came at 725/900 with just 1 card I could o/c to 925/1050
with 2, I believe the memory chips are effected by heat pockets.
So I have a very stable 890/980 overclock.
Heaven is a dx11 benchmark, tessellation demonstration that you run full screen (sli) it won't run in the background. It puts a heavy load on dx11 gpu's. In part because of its use of tessellation.
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/Benchmarking/

 

[tyl998]

Is Gigabyte's website and Newegg's somehow mistaken? They claim that the card I have has a speed of 715 MHz/3600 MHz. how can their memory clock be that high compared to Cyclones?

As for Unigine, does it work with AMD cards? Heavy tessellation might spell trouble...

 

[happy medium]

Is Gigabyte's website and Newegg's somehow mistaken? They claim that the card I have has a speed of 715 MHz/3600 MHz. how can their memory clock be that high compared to Cyclones?

As for Unigine, does it work with AMD cards? Heavy tessellation might spell trouble...

3600 is you memory speed times 4. So 900 is the real number.
I'd go with 815/950, your card should do that easy on stock voltage.

Then run the benchmark and compare.

 

[tyl998]

Ahh so it's the same as the reference mem clock speed. I'll download the benchmark and run it b4 and after overclocking to see the difference.

At least it's free, unlike 3DMark11

 

[tyl998]

Tried Afterburner. It's so easy to use!!
Hardware

Binary:Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release May 21 2010
Operating system:Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model:Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 930 @ 2.80GHz
CPU flags:4200MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model:NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 8.17.12.6099 1024Mb
Settings

Render:direct3d11
Mode:1920x1080 2xAA fullscreen
Shaders:high
Textures:high
Filter:trilinear
Anisotropy:4x
Occlusion:enabled
Refraction:enabled
Volumetric:enabled
Replication:disabled Tessellation:normal

Anti-aliasing at 2x. Before OCing, got avg 45.5 FPS, with a score 1156. After OCing to 815/950 and shaders at 1630, got avg 51.2 FPS, with a score of 1290.

I will try higher speeds later.