Crysis Review

at 1280x1024, on a AMD 4800+ with 8800GTX and 2Gig RAM ... running the GPU benchmark i get an average of 27FPS on very high settings, everything maxed ... whats interesting this that the game is very playable, wont even say its running at these frames... very well made engine must admit
 
With games like MOHA and COD4 being so well optimized it's a pity Crysis isn't. Old habits die hard it seems. Still perhaps a patch in the future will sort it out.
 
killadoob said:
4 x 38070 x2's could not run this game full :)

in 2 years we will run this game full
Click to expand...

lol! in 2 years this will look like Quake 3 :D

Too bad my pc can run it... at the lowest on 800x600 :mad: but! I found a freind... its called Team Fortress 2! :D
 
alanf85 said:
With games like MOHA and COD4 being so well optimized it's a pity Crysis isn't. Old habits die hard it seems. Still perhaps a patch in the future will sort it out.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me?

To achieve what CryEngine 2 is/has achieved, you need to know your sh*t. Crysis has a lot more detail than COD4. A complete dynamic, vast open environment with foliage as far as the eye can see. Not to even mention, completely dynamic winds which affect all the foliage and volumetric clouds. CryEngine 2 is a monster compared to COD4 engine, have you even looked at the Sandbox?

By old habits I'm assuming you're talking about Farcry? Many of today's Engines are still struggling to achieve what CryEngine has. It had HDR way before most gamers even knew what it meant.

Besides, you cannot compare 'optimisation' of CryEngine 2 with a propriety engine.
 
LaRoosTa said:
Are you kidding me?

To achieve what CryEngine 2 is/has achieved, you need to know your sh*t. Crysis has a lot more detail than COD4. A complete dynamic, vast open environment with foliage as far as the eye can see. Not to even mention, completely dynamic winds which affect all the foliage and volumetric clouds. CryEngine 2 is a monster compared to COD4 engine, have you even looked at the Sandbox?

By old habits I'm assuming you're talking about Farcry? Many of today's Engines are still struggling to achieve what CryEngine has. It had HDR way before most gamers even knew what it meant.

Besides, you cannot compare 'optimisation' of CryEngine 2 with a propriety engine.
Click to expand...

+1 ... its a good engine, hardware must ctach up ... i can run it fine at very high
 
LaRoosTa said:
Are you kidding me?

To achieve what CryEngine 2 is/has achieved, you need to know your sh*t. Crysis has a lot more detail than COD4. A complete dynamic, vast open environment with foliage as far as the eye can see. Not to even mention, completely dynamic winds which affect all the foliage and volumetric clouds. CryEngine 2 is a monster compared to COD4 engine, have you even looked at the Sandbox?

By old habits I'm assuming you're talking about Farcry? Many of today's Engines are still struggling to achieve what CryEngine has. It had HDR way before most gamers even knew what it meant.

Besides, you cannot compare 'optimisation' of CryEngine 2 with a propriety engine.
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing it to COD4.

Merely pointing out how many felt it wasn't as well optimized as lead to believe. Now IIRC there was a lot of talk about Crysis being graphically amazing( which it pretty much is) but also being able to run in all it's glory on top end cards. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. It may well change in the future though. I'm not even saying it is badly optimized. Just not as good as people thought it would be.

@Admir

Is that 27FPS average or Minimum?
 
alanf85 said:
I wasn't comparing it to COD4.

Merely pointing out how many felt it wasn't as well optimized as lead to believe. Now IIRC there was a lot of talk about Crysis being graphically amazing( which it pretty much is) but also being able to run in all it's glory on top end cards. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. It may well change in the future though. I'm not even saying it is badly optimized. Just not as good as people thought it would be.

@Admir

Is that 27FPS average or Minimum?
Click to expand...

no .... LOL ... on very high 27fps ... if it was on min... id burn this 8800gtx of mines !!!!:D
 
I fired it up on my machine last night. Have an oldish 7900GT (256) as my much anticipated 8800GT hasn't arrived yet, but my determined promise to wait for the new card lasted until about 15 minutes after the the game arrived. Didn't play much, but it was running just fine on Medium settings in 1600 * 1080. Didn't check the framerate but it was accceptable, and it looked really, really good. Was pleasantly suprised as I excpected the lack of video memory to really cripple me. Can't wait to fire it up on a better level with the new card.

but Assassin's Creed arrives today so hopefully I can put it aside until I can experience it in far more glory.
 
I used to play and compete in UT and I could usually tell if my fps dropped below 60, but what's strange with Crysis is that even though its chugging along at 20-25 fps (on medium with HDR and motion blur turned on @ 1680x1050), it still feels very smooth. If I hadn't turned on the fps counter, I wouldn't have said that my fps was so low.

To honest, I think motion blur is the key here. Without getting too scientific, its the reason why TV's/Movies are smooth even though they only have 25fps.

To enable/disable motion blur, open the console and enter:
con_restricted 0
r_motionBlur x

x: 0 = off
1 = screen
2 = not sure
3 = screen and fast moving objects (DX10)
4 = screen and fast moving objects (DX9)

For more tweaks visit http://www.tweakguides.com/Crysis_9.html

Another huge fps improvement I found was disabling Parralax mapping (very high setting) and EdgeAA (high setting)

For parralax mapping (much improved bump-mapping technique)
r_usePOM = 0

For Edge AA (smooths out the edges of foliage)
r_useEdgeAA = 0
 
adamr said:
no .... LOL ... on very high 27fps ... if it was on min... id burn this 8800gtx of mines !!!!:D
Click to expand...

:D

No I ment average FPS or minimum FPS on very high. But now I see you hit 15 at the alien ship.
 
but like Laroosta pointed out ... at 27fps you wont say it is 27fps ... at 15 fps ok, there u do notice the slow down, but still playable

... but honestly at 25 plus it aint bad, very smooth gameplay ...
 
adamr said:
but like Laroosta pointed out ... at 27fps you wont say it is 27fps ... at 15 fps ok, there u do notice the slow down, but still playable

... but honestly at 25 plus it aint bad, very smooth gameplay ...
Click to expand...

Very true. I just try to keep my frames above 25 then I'm happy :)
 
XP still faster than Vista - Have not played the game yet - Hope the DirectX10 graphics makes up for the drop in frames on my Vista OS.

1600x1200, High Quality, GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB

Windows XP = 31fps
Windows Vista 32-bit = 27fps
Windows Vista 64-bit, 32-bit Crysis = 27fps
Windows vista 64-bit, 64-bit Crysis = 27fps
 
intensive said:
XP still faster than Vista - Have not played the game yet - Hope the DirectX10 graphics makes up for the drop in frames on my Vista OS.

1600x1200, High Quality, GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB

Windows XP = 31fps
Windows Vista 32-bit = 27fps
Windows Vista 64-bit, 32-bit Crysis = 27fps
Windows vista 64-bit, 64-bit Crysis = 27fps
Click to expand...

whats everything at very high frames wise?
 
Whats it like online? I haven't bought it yet...i
 
I'm playing it on High 1024x768 with :D2xAA:D on my 8800GTS @ 660/1500/1950 and it runs really well. Only dropped below 25FPS twice :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X