Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis on i7 GTX260 6GB RAM 64bit DX10 slow

Tags:
  • PC gaming
  • Crysis
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 23, 2009 5:09:03 PM

Hi all this is my first post,

I have bought quite a beast of a system but not getting very high FPS in Crysis and want to make my system is performing OK for the specs:

Crysis Benchmarks:

22FPS GPU test

20FPS CPU test

Settings: 1920x1080 (all settings v.high except shadows=high / dx10 / no AA )

Cant seem to find a setting for VSynch and there is visible screen tearing.

Toms hardware says the GTX 260 should be 36FPS with no AA which means i'm getting around 60% of what I should be. None of my hardware is currently overclocked.



------------------
System Information
------------------
OS: Vista 64
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.7GHz
Memory: 6134MB RAM
Page File: 1820MB used, 10653MB available
Windows Dir: E:\Windows

Asus Motherboard: Asus P6T
DirectX Version: DirectX 10
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 6.00.6001.18000 32bit Unicode

------------
DxDiag Notes
------------
Display Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 1: No problems found.
Sound Tab 2: No problems found.
Sound Tab 3: No problems found.
Input Tab: No problems found.

--------------------
DirectX Debug Levels
--------------------
Direct3D: 0/4 (retail)
DirectDraw: 0/4 (retail)
DirectInput: 0/5 (retail)
DirectMusic: 0/5 (retail)
DirectPlay: 0/9 (retail)
DirectSound: 0/5 (retail)
DirectShow: 0/6 (retail)

---------------
Display Devices
---------------
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
Manufacturer: NVIDIA
Chip type: GeForce GTX 260
DAC type: Integrated RAMDAC
Display Memory: 2927 MB
Dedicated Memory: 881 MB
Shared Memory: 2046 MB

More about : crysis gtx260 6gb ram 64bit dx10 slow

April 23, 2009 6:53:33 PM

Tom's systems tend to be maxxed out so that there's as little influence in what they're testing as possible (eg memory bottlenecks, hard drive bottlenecks and fragmentation, OS driver clutter, etc)... they're useful in seeing how different cards weigh up on a static system, but it's highly unlikely you'll reproduce the exact same results in a system that's had an OS that's been gathering bloat for a period of time.
April 23, 2009 7:11:39 PM

I just finished playing both Crysis and Warhead on a new rig I just put together with the following specs:

* Antec TruePower Quattro 1000 Watt ATX Modular Power Supply
* Intel Core i7 920 (2.66 GHz)
* V8 Universal CPU Cooler
* MSI X58 Platinum SLI
* EXGA GeForce GTX 295 Video Card
* Corsair XMS3 6GB DDR3-1600 (PC-12800) CL9 DIMM Memory
* (x2) 1 Terabyte Seagate Barracuda drives in a Raid 0 array

In Crysis I found that I got the best results (40fps average) by staying with a 1680 x 1050 resolution with everything on very high / enthusiast settings and 2x AA enabled. On your system you should easily get about 30-40 fps with it set to 1680 x 1050 with everything on high to very high and 2x AA enabled (assuming no system bottle necks. I tried a higher resolution, but then I had to sacrifice too many settings to keep my fps in the 40s. At 1680x1050 the game still looks AMAZING with everything maxed out with 2x AA. It would help to know what other components you have.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 23, 2009 8:27:50 PM

Lower resolution and OC the CPU, or be happy with what you got.
April 24, 2009 2:26:26 AM

Crysis sucks. you just shoot things.

why don't you go do something that's productive??

what a waste of a life, but i guess that doesnt matter to people who shoot people. HAHA
April 24, 2009 2:55:05 AM

Ohhh the jealousy of people who aren't productive enough to afford a computer that can run Crysis.... lol.
April 24, 2009 3:28:43 AM

Personally I dislike Crysis, it's shiny and has some nice mechanics in the suit's powers, but overall I found it to be bland and samey after the first couple of levels. The first level was great, very open, but they just tighter and less free until it felt like fighting in corridors... but hey, that's just me.
April 24, 2009 3:10:11 PM

Those FPS seem fine for what you got, and the set up you have.
April 24, 2009 4:45:18 PM

I don't think it's so much of a "sour grapes" feeling with Crysis as it is the fact that you can spend upwards of $1000 dollars on just the GPU's ALONE, and still not hit a silky smooth resolution.

The visuals are good, but they aren't THAT good. It sounds more like a bunch of pretty visuals which are terribly coded and do not take full advantage of Hardware properly.

I think that's why most people think Crysis eats $hit.
Anonymous
April 28, 2009 1:22:18 PM

I have bought a new computer ,

Intel® Core™ i7 Processor Extreme Edition 965 3.2 Ghz

Asus Rampage II GENE Motherboard

24GB (6x4)Corsair DDR3 1600 Mhz RAM (Overclocked to 2000Mhz)

2x 1 TB 10,000 rpm HDD (Raid 0)

2x SLI Asus ENGTX295/2DI/1792MD3

Benq M2400HD 1920x1080 LCD

,,, and I have installed Windows Vista Ultimate 64x SP1 , and I ran Crysis

at 1920x1080 resolution and with all settings v.high but AA set to NO,in DX10,

and tested my FPS, and to my surprise I got a dream FPS of 46. Some say that with the

update of Nvidia Driver in the coming months , will give me a score of 50 above.So 20-22 fps

can be odd. Try updating your drivers. But still with my 24GB ram and 965 i7 processor ,and 2x

SLI Asus ENGTX295/2DI/1792MD3 ,I got only a score around 50 ,so with GTX 260 ,20-22 is

good. -support@abgtek.com



Anonymous
April 28, 2009 1:28:00 PM

razor117 said:
Ohhh the jealousy of people who aren't productive enough to afford a computer that can run Crysis.... lol.


Razor , Its not actually jealousy of people actually.
I own a pc with the below config ,

Intel® Core™ i7 Processor Extreme Edition 965 3.2 Ghz

Asus Rampage II GENE Motherboard

24GB (6x4)Corsair DDR3 1600 Mhz RAM (Overclocked to 2000Mhz)

2x 1 TB 10,000 rpm HDD (Raid 0)

2x SLI Asus ENGTX295/2DI/1792MD3

Benq M2400HD 1920x1080 LCD ,

but still i hate Crysis ,because it takes up a whole lot of resources and still wont work well!
April 28, 2009 1:55:00 PM

Have people ever thought that 2 or so years ago the highest end rig could barely play Crysis? Two years later with gigantic gains in computer performance and our Core i7 rigs are still barely getting 40-45 fps in the same damn game?

Im happy that I can play Crysis but I stopped worrying that its not silky smooth. Ive learned my lesson in dual card rigs and I will not pop in another 4870 1 gig to hopefully gain another 10fps to play Crysis

Either the game is coded like dog sh!t or it came out 5 years too early
April 28, 2009 2:02:04 PM

At least Crysis itself is still the gold standard of all games to beat for an unusually long time.

But, what does it mean to be coded poorly?
April 28, 2009 8:14:35 PM

Look at the bright side: The next generation of cards will have Crysis in mind as they are being developed.

Remember how awsome the 8800GTX was compared to the previous generation? Thats what I expect with the 380 GTX when it comes out.
April 29, 2009 6:33:40 PM

What is it going to take to run Crysis with everything maxed ..My goodness look at the cards on the maeket now, They are huge!!! They are going to have to start building systems around the GPUs next . If a rig like this can't do it then what hope does the little guy have?

Intel® Core™ i7 Processor Extreme Edition 965 3.2 Ghz

Asus Rampage II GENE Motherboard

24GB (6x4)Corsair DDR3 1600 Mhz RAM (Overclocked to 2000Mhz)

2x 1 TB 10,000 rpm HDD (Raid 0)

2x SLI Asus ENGTX295/2DI/1792MD3
April 30, 2009 2:20:46 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to offend anyone. I suppose I got a little defensive after spending 1700 on a computer that can finally run Crisis and Supreme Commander on max settings and on very playable frame rates.

I won't pretend to know much about coding, but in my case, visually speaking, there has yet to be any other game that can even come close to displaying the visuals that Crysis can produce. Never mind the frame rates, it’s important to note that they did not build this game with cross platform compatibility or with a broad audience in mind. Their goal was simple, to make the most demanding and visually appealing game they could possibly produce; with the technology of the day. However, all those shiny effects, physics attributes and intense graphics come at a cost, a huge cost that in many ways are still surprising many of us today, even with ginormously powerful systems backing us up. In fact, that is actually one of the things I really like about the game, it challenges the status quo giving us something to shoot for. Granted, there are most assuredly better and more efficient ways of coding today, but back then, to achieve those visuals I am sure the developers had their hands full just getting it all to work together flawlessly; and several years later Crysis is still held as the gold standard in many benchmarks and reviews today. The original Far Cry was held in a similar way, and again it was a good while before anyone had a computer that could max out the settings and frame rates for that game. For me it is refreshing to see developers who still have the balls to produce cutting edge games that challenge the limits of technology instead of gunning for more profits by going multi platform and dumbing down the visuals to achieve that. To me they proved that PC gaming is still a force to contend with in the gaming market, buy holding the top spot for technical and visual presentation. End of rant…
Anonymous
May 2, 2009 11:50:35 PM

crusoe74 said:
Those FPS seem fine for what you got, and the set up you have.

^ + 1
May 3, 2009 5:23:35 PM

my E4300 and 8500gt run crysis in low and 800 600 and i get 15 to 20 LOL
May 6, 2009 2:19:19 AM

My comp ran crysis on 800 600 on everything low too lol but its much less than that.
p4 3.2 ghz
x300
1g ram
lol

What will the frame rates for crysis be at 1920 1200 every thing v high no AA with this rig
i7 920
6g ram
gtx 295
?
May 6, 2009 12:22:39 PM

20-25FPS, assuimg AA is 2x or off.
June 27, 2009 6:17:49 PM

Same here mate. I gave a lot of money just to be able to play Crysis at decent settings and I'm confused with horrible performance (a bit better then yours because I have ATI 4890). I have PII 955, 6GB RAM and Asus M4A79T. It is just the way Crysis works. I saw no or little performance difference between this and 8800GT with 4GB RAM and Intel E4600. But in other games, it puts my old PC in a world of hurt. Just live with it and play Crysis on Gamer. If you want 40+ fps then buy 2 GTX295's.
July 6, 2009 2:21:23 PM

DUDE! THAT'S MY EXACT BUILD! VIRTUAL HIGH FIVE!

(parts are shipping today lol)

but yeah that sounds like what i would expect for crysis if you're running it at such a high res. what size monitor do you have? if you have like 19" then you could bump down the res a couple notches, and there's not much of a visual difference, but you'll definitely get significantly higher framerates. Heck, you could even bump up the aa to like 4x or 6x (i think, but no one really needs 6x). good luck with optimizing mate.
July 6, 2009 2:39:14 PM

Before anything, I must warn you to either install the drivers from the disc or download 4800 drivers from AMD's site. 4890 drivers seem to cripple my performance. Well, below 1680x1050 all is quite comfortable, but above is just horrible. I am also very confused and this leads me to thinking that I have some kind of a bug in my system. When I set to 1440x900, it averages around 30 all Enthusiast. When I set to 1680x1050 it averages at 20. But, I noticed that certain areas decrease performance. For example, on beaches and in snow I get about 20 average. On other areas 30~35. But for the best part it is playable.
July 6, 2009 2:44:05 PM

And for the OP, why the hell are you believing articles? The thing is that sites like Anand and many others are payed to favor one side of the competition (most notably Intel). Proof: my PII 955 at stock settings compresses an archive of 315MB in 47 seconds. Without multithreading it does it in about 65. On Anand's site, an I7 compresses an archive of 300MB in about 80 seconds, which means that PII is faster in real world than I7. I have tried everything, downclocking the CPU, not using multithreading and my score was still twice better than on their site. Never trust benchmarks, my friend.
July 6, 2009 11:07:15 PM

Talk about a waste of money:

Intel® Core™ i7 Processor Extreme Edition 965 3.2 Ghz

Asus Rampage II GENE Motherboard

24GB (6x4)Corsair DDR3 1600 Mhz RAM (Overclocked to 2000Mhz)

2x 1 TB 10,000 rpm HDD (Raid 0)

2x SLI Asus ENGTX295/2DI/1792MD3


you spent more on graphics cards than I did on my entire i7 build, not to mention the 18gb of wasted RAM and the wasted $300 on the 965 edition. if you aren't pulling 60fps with this than something isn't right. My friends i7 build with just a single gtx295 card can pull 50-60fps and he is running half the RAM and the 920.

For the OP: I am running almost the same build and getting better results, I have a feeling it is the GTX 260 core 216. is yours the stock 260 or the core 216? this will make a good bit of difference and the benchmarks are different.

My system can run Crysis at full settings 1920x1200 no AA and I get about 33fps.

Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 920 2.66 Ghz

Stock CPU cooling

Asus P6t Deluxe v2

6GB 1600 Mhz RAM

1TB WD Caviar Black edition

EVGA GTX260 core 216 (slightly OC'd gains me an extra 10 fps on average)

NZXT Tempest case
July 7, 2009 5:48:55 AM

Hey there first time posting i have the exact same i7 build just with the MSI GTX295 and in Crysis (on any setting) and Team Fortress 2 even when iam watching movies sumtimes if there is alot of fast movement on the screen i get "screen tear" about half way across my screen.

I dont think its the monitor cause its a brand new asus pg221.

I have also updated to the current nvidia drivers. I am tearing my hair out trying to get info on why my system would be doing this. considering i bought it a week ago.

ne help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
July 7, 2009 9:47:06 AM

i7Rocks said:

My system can run Crysis at full settings 1920x1200 no AA and I get about 33fps.

Intel® Core™ i7 Processor 920 2.66 Ghz

Stock CPU cooling

Asus P6t Deluxe v2

6GB 1600 Mhz RAM

1TB WD Caviar Black edition

EVGA GTX260 core 216 (slightly OC'd gains me an extra 10 fps on average)

NZXT Tempest case



Explain your self how a system with

i7 4GHz and GTX 280 get 25fps (max setting, 1920x1200, noAA)

and your system with

i7 2.6GHz and GTX260OC get 33fps!!! (max setting, 1920x1200, noAA)

Obviously you are a BIG BIG liar.
July 10, 2009 5:06:38 AM

Or... he's playing on XP, with only "High" settings.
July 10, 2009 12:34:04 PM

God this forum sucks nowdays.
July 10, 2009 1:54:19 PM

Quote:
You know, I have never been on a forum where after a while people don't say this, odd isn't it.


Maybe you're the common factor :p 
July 15, 2009 4:27:07 PM

djcoolmasterx said:
God this forum sucks nowdays.


agreed, every third post now is about crysis or WoW and most of the posts are stuff like "WHaT ARe TEH BEST free GAMES??????????" what happened to the time I could ask why there was a bug in my game or ask for a recommendation w/o people yelling CRYSIS and tehn the other side yelling NO CRYSIS!
July 23, 2009 1:22:20 AM

I play crysis on this :

AMD phenom II 955 BE 3.2ghz (not OC'd)
ati 4890
4Gb ram
750w psu
etc etc etcc

Don't know what frame rate it is but it runs smooth online with 50 people in the server all shooting each other I'd say about 40-60fps it seems like...

I'll maybe check + post what FPS i get...............



Crysis = filled with haxors sucks the life out of online fps.
July 27, 2009 8:10:22 AM

i know this is an old thread but i can probably help the original poster.

i have a pretty high end gaming rig, not getting too far into details i have a 4870x2, a 3Ghz quad core processor and i'm currently running windows 7 64-bit.

i used to have the exact same problem that you are currently having in that the game would run at incredibly slow rates and i just couldn't figure out why. for some reason both crysis and crysis warhead ran between 10 and 15 frames per second which is completely unplayable in my opinion. so yeah, i was really pissed because this brand spanking new gaming rig ran crysis like crap. so anyways i had to turn the settings down, but what do you know? same problem as before, on all the lowest settings and the resolution turned down i now got about 20fps out of the game.

obviously this is simply unacceptable for my rig so i put the game down for a while. but then all of a sudden i think to myself, "maybe i should run it in directx 9 mode, see if that makes a difference."


so i made a shortcut to it and added a "-dx9" to the target and then BAM, all highest settings and i'm getting about 50fps throughout the entire game, 8X AA, full resolution and all. i changed the config files for the dx9 hack and now i play both games at a beautiful 40 to 50 fps on average.

i honestly have no clue why my computer doesn't like directx10 at all, i used to run vista on this thing and i had the same exact problem so it's not a 7 incompatibility or anything. i've been playing around with the games ever since but i still can't figure out the whole dx9 vs 10 thing that's happening.



so yeah, i'm not huge on this forum but if anyone sees this could you pm him or something? thanks.
December 4, 2009 1:23:41 PM

ive got 2 9600gt in sli with a core 2 duo and i get an average of 40fps with very high settings.

mobo: 680isli
cpu: core 2 due e4300 1.8 oced to 3.0
graphics: 2 9600gt in sli
memory: 3gb 800mhz
OS: windows 7 ultimate 64bit

as you can see, my system isnt that great, but i can still play crysis with decent fps
December 4, 2009 4:15:52 PM

often depends what drivers the card was benchmarked with
December 5, 2009 2:50:57 AM

Hey I have a Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 @3.33ghz,
Nvidia GTX 260 OC
750 psu
4gb RAM @800mhZ


with these specs I can run the game at 720p with Gamer Settings.no AA,
it still plays good and an average of 35FPS. For a system like mine, the performace is really good. I also keep 4 Fans runing cold air into my case for an extra boost in performance. It doesnt take a very expensive system to run games like crysis at good settings.
December 5, 2009 2:53:25 AM

mckinnley said:
i know this is an old thread but i can probably help the original poster.

i have a pretty high end gaming rig, not getting too far into details i have a 4870x2, a 3Ghz quad core processor and i'm currently running windows 7 64-bit.

i used to have the exact same problem that you are currently having in that the game would run at incredibly slow rates and i just couldn't figure out why. for some reason both crysis and crysis warhead ran between 10 and 15 frames per second which is completely unplayable in my opinion. so yeah, i was really pissed because this brand spanking new gaming rig ran crysis like crap. so anyways i had to turn the settings down, but what do you know? same problem as before, on all the lowest settings and the resolution turned down i now got about 20fps out of the game.

obviously this is simply unacceptable for my rig so i put the game down for a while. but then all of a sudden i think to myself, "maybe i should run it in directx 9 mode, see if that makes a difference."


so i made a shortcut to it and added a "-dx9" to the target and then BAM, all highest settings and i'm getting about 50fps throughout the entire game, 8X AA, full resolution and all. i changed the config files for the dx9 hack and now i play both games at a beautiful 40 to 50 fps on average.

i honestly have no clue why my computer doesn't like directx10 at all, i used to run vista on this thing and i had the same exact problem so it's not a 7 incompatibility or anything. i've been playing around with the games ever since but i still can't figure out the whole dx9 vs 10 thing that's happening.

Hey maybe its your GPU. Maybe it has faulty cores that cant process enough to reach DX10 performance. TRY a new one.

so yeah, i'm not huge on this forum but if anyone sees this could you pm him or something? thanks.

!