If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Crysis -- unoptimized?
Well, now that I have a GTX 280, I tried the Crysis demo, and I'm
getting between 30 and 55 FPS on average (sometimes less, sometimes more) with most of the eye candy turned on at 1400 x 1050. That's perfectly playable, of course, but almost everyone these days is looking to get more out of that title with their current rig. It looks terrific, but what's up with this game? Are we to believe that it was poorly coded, or is it simply such a stunning piece of software visually that it's bound to scare the hell out of even the most modern GPU? After all, it's not like we have access to the actual source code, so we can't know for sure how unoptimized it is. It's funny, because in my opinion, a game like COD4:MW (I recently installed the demo) looks pretty much just as good, but unlike Crysis I usually get at least 80 FPS in it, sometimes much higher (and that's maxed out on my 22" monitor). -- Erich K. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Crysis -- unoptimized?
"msdos622wasfun" wrote in message ... Well, now that I have a GTX 280, I tried the Crysis demo, and I'm getting between 30 and 55 FPS on average (sometimes less, sometimes more) with most of the eye candy turned on at 1400 x 1050. That's perfectly playable, of course, but almost everyone these days is looking to get more out of that title with their current rig. It looks terrific, but what's up with this game? Are we to believe that it was poorly coded, or is it simply such a stunning piece of software visually that it's bound to scare the hell out of even the most modern GPU? After all, it's not like we have access to the actual source code, so we can't know for sure how unoptimized it is. It's funny, because in my opinion, a game like COD4:MW (I recently installed the demo) looks pretty much just as good, but unlike Crysis I usually get at least 80 FPS in it, sometimes much higher (and that's maxed out on my 22" monitor). Ok...you have a GTX 280 and it gets 40fps or so in the Crysis Demo at high settings. What system is this running on? How much memory, the model and type of CPU and the video drivers and OS being used would help. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Crysis -- unoptimized?
Augustus wrote:
"msdos622wasfun" wrote in message ... Well, now that I have a GTX 280, I tried the Crysis demo, and I'm getting between 30 and 55 FPS on average (sometimes less, sometimes more) with most of the eye candy turned on at 1400 x 1050. That's perfectly playable, of course, but almost everyone these days is looking to get more out of that title with their current rig. It looks terrific, but what's up with this game? Are we to believe that it was poorly coded, or is it simply such a stunning piece of software visually that it's bound to scare the hell out of even the most modern GPU? After all, it's not like we have access to the actual source code, so we can't know for sure how unoptimized it is. It's funny, because in my opinion, a game like COD4:MW (I recently installed the demo) looks pretty much just as good, but unlike Crysis I usually get at least 80 FPS in it, sometimes much higher (and that's maxed out on my 22" monitor). Ok...you have a GTX 280 and it gets 40fps or so in the Crysis Demo at high settings. What system is this running on? How much memory, the model and type of CPU and the video drivers and OS being used would help. No problem, I can provide that: * Intel Core 2 Quad (Q9300) @ 3.30 GHz * EVGA nForce 780i mainboard * 2 GB DDR2 800 RAM * Sound Blaster Audigy 4 * Vista Ultimate 32-bit * Display driver version: 178.24 Obviously, I'm pretty sure I'm using DX10. And oh, the GPU of my GTX 280 is overclocked as well @ 665 MHz. I started discussing this on Guru3D.com, and I was kind of criticized for suggesting that CoD4 looked pretty much just as good as Crysis. I don't know, maybe it was an impulsive judgment. IMHO, they're both impressive. And don't get me wrong -- Crysis looks amazing. We probably can't escape the fact that part of the reason it is such a challenge for many systems to run is because it's so incredibly detailed. I found this amusing ... I decided to totally max out the Crysis demo: 1680 x 1050 (my monitor's maximum native resolution), full AA, Very High Everything. The result? 10 - 20 FPS depending on what was going on. Hehehe ... I actually found it to be fairly tolerable, but it goes without saying that I wouldn't describe it as super smooth. Still, it looked absolutely breathtaking. Now, take Unreal Tournament 3, for example. That's currently my favorite game, and I think it looks great. A card like the GTX 280 handles it with ease ... heck, my 9800 GTX (my previous card) was pretty much the same. -- Erich K. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Crysis -- unoptimized?
Crysis was one of those "future" games which require the next (or two)
generation(s) GPU to play smoothly :P This indicated your 280 is running normally http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...85,2139-4.html This show you, if you play Crysis in 1680x1050 with 4xAA & 8xAF and still want 70fsp, you need two GTX295 in SLI mode and a Core i7 CPU too ( or wait for the next generation GPU :P ) http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...95,2123-4.html "msdos622wasfun" wrote in message ... Well, now that I have a GTX 280, I tried the Crysis demo, and I'm getting between 30 and 55 FPS on average (sometimes less, sometimes more) with most of the eye candy turned on at 1400 x 1050. That's perfectly playable, of course, but almost everyone these days is looking to get more out of that title with their current rig. It looks terrific, but what's up with this game? Are we to believe that it was poorly coded, or is it simply such a stunning piece of software visually that it's bound to scare the hell out of even the most modern GPU? After all, it's not like we have access to the actual source code, so we can't know for sure how unoptimized it is. It's funny, because in my opinion, a game like COD4:MW (I recently installed the demo) looks pretty much just as good, but unlike Crysis I usually get at least 80 FPS in it, sometimes much higher (and that's maxed out on my 22" monitor). -- Erich K. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Crysis -- unoptimized?
MickT wrote:
Crysis was one of those "future" games which require the next (or two) generation(s) GPU to play smoothly :P This indicated your 280 is running normally http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...85,2139-4.html This show you, if you play Crysis in 1680x1050 with 4xAA & 8xAF and still want 70fsp, you need two GTX295 in SLI mode and a Core i7 CPU too ( or wait for the next generation GPU :P ) http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...95,2123-4.html Yes, I guess you are right. I've come to accept the fact that Crysis is an ambitious game that was designed to last a long time. And to be honest, I'm not really disappointed with the frame rates I'm getting -- it's pretty much what I expected with the video card that I bought. Okay, well ... maybe I thought it would be just a tiny bit better/faster. But I certainly can live with it. The GTX 280 is a pretty good performer by itself. I just installed the copy of Far Cry 2 that it came with, cranked it up all the way, and I was still getting 25 - 45 FPS. -- Erich K. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Crysis -- unoptimized?
I have Crysis and the frame rate is low on mine too.
Here are my system specs. Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 2.5ghz Nvidia 9800GX2 8 gig of PC3 10666 1333mhz RAM Gigabyte GA-X48T-DQ6 mobo I would have thought that this would have run it very smooth indeed. "msdos622wasfun" wrote in message ... Well, now that I have a GTX 280, I tried the Crysis demo, and I'm getting between 30 and 55 FPS on average (sometimes less, sometimes more) with most of the eye candy turned on at 1400 x 1050. That's perfectly playable, of course, but almost everyone these days is looking to get more out of that title with their current rig. It looks terrific, but what's up with this game? Are we to believe that it was poorly coded, or is it simply such a stunning piece of software visually that it's bound to scare the hell out of even the most modern GPU? After all, it's not like we have access to the actual source code, so we can't know for sure how unoptimized it is. It's funny, because in my opinion, a game like COD4:MW (I recently installed the demo) looks pretty much just as good, but unlike Crysis I usually get at least 80 FPS in it, sometimes much higher (and that's maxed out on my 22" monitor). -- Erich K. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Crysis -- unoptimized?
msdos622wasfun wrote:
[snip] I found this amusing ... I decided to totally max out the Crysis demo: 1680 x 1050 (my monitor's maximum native resolution), full AA, Very High Everything. The result? 10 - 20 FPS depending on what was going on. Hehehe ... I actually found it to be fairly tolerable, but it goes without saying that I wouldn't describe it as super smooth. Still, it looked absolutely breathtaking. [snip] Update... Okay, I kept all the visual qualities at Very High but reduced the anti-aliasing one notch at a time. Each reduction resulted in a few more frames per second. With AA totally turned off, the graphics were still very impressive, and I would say it then officially qualified as playable -- pretty smooth the vast majority of the time with minimal lag. Even with AA set at 2x it was very close to this, so it's nice to know you can turn AA on and still enjoy the game with slightly improved visual quality. I guess it's all a matter of finding that sweet spot where you can get the best possible graphics at an optimal frame rate. Most enthusiasts seem to agree that's between 30 and 50, maybe even 60 FPS (but of course, the more the better). I also know that it's a subject of some debate as to whether anti-aliasing adds anything to a game like Crysis. Some people seem to feel that it's not worth enabling due to the performance penalty. Personally I think I noticed a very slight difference when I looked closely enough, but it definitely wasn't as significant as I thought it would be. -- Erich K. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Crysis -- unoptimized?
timelord wrote:
I have Crysis and the frame rate is low on mine too. Here are my system specs. Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 2.5ghz Nvidia 9800GX2 8 gig of PC3 10666 1333mhz RAM Gigabyte GA-X48T-DQ6 mobo I would have thought that this would have run it very smooth indeed. I hear ya, mate. The 9800 GX2 is no wimpy piece of video hardware. At what settings and resolution do you usually play the game? -- Erich K. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
! Crysis ! 1.5 out of 5 ;) | Skybuck Flying[_2_] | Nvidia Videocards | 4 | September 24th 08 01:16 AM |
ram question about crysis | zachman | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | May 10th 08 02:48 AM |
Why does my 7900 GTO run Crysis so well? | johns | Nvidia Videocards | 8 | November 25th 07 10:15 PM |
Two Stars for Crysis. | Skybuck Flying | Nvidia Videocards | 6 | November 18th 07 11:50 PM |
CRYSIS vs MGS4 | AirRaid[_2_] | Nvidia Videocards | 7 | April 6th 07 03:48 PM |