Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Does Crysis 2 better perfomer than Original Crysis with same spec?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
July 5, 2011 3:28:20 AM

Hello there,It is just my G.K. type question..
I have heard Original Crysis was a lot better Graphics and deeper requirements than the Crysis 2 (both PC version)..But is it in real-time? or has the comparison been made to mind the release years?(one is old and the other new)

Clearly I want to know with same System and with both game in same graphics settings(as a example both high and same dx version) Does Crysis 2 give more fps rate than the original Crysis?
July 5, 2011 5:52:14 AM

Hey anybody please reply,I'm eagerly waiting for your answer..
m
0
l
July 5, 2011 5:59:22 AM

before dx11 patch: crysis 2 was more CPU-intensive but less gpu intensive

after dx11 patch: crysis 2 is flat out more demanding
m
0
l
Related resources
July 5, 2011 6:33:53 AM

Yep, Crysis 2 without the DX11 patch is less demanding than Crysis.

Crysis 2 was released as a DX9 game.
m
0
l
July 5, 2011 9:34:32 AM

jaguarskx said:
Yep, Crysis 2 without the DX11 patch is less demanding than Crysis.

Crysis 2 was released as a DX9 game.


So as a example If you use both of them with same direct-x(as a example dx9) and in same system then what will give more fps rate?
m
0
l
July 5, 2011 9:36:32 AM

Overclocked Toaster said:
before dx11 patch: crysis 2 was more CPU-intensive but less gpu intensive

after dx11 patch: crysis 2 is flat out more demanding


"Clearly I want to know with same System and with both game in same graphics settings(as a example both high and same dx version) Does Crysis 2 give more fps rate than the original Crysis?"-Please answer it..
m
0
l

Best solution

July 5, 2011 12:01:13 PM

if you dont add the hirez textures then crysis 2 is less demanding and will give better fps. add the 1.9 patch and you get even more fps due to better optimization...
add in the tessellation engine and HD textures and crysis 2 becomes the system killer its forerunner was.
Share
July 5, 2011 11:26:50 PM

abar92 said:
"Clearly I want to know with same System and with both game in same graphics settings(as a example both high and same dx version) Does Crysis 2 give more fps rate than the original Crysis?"-Please answer it..


i answered your question. it is dependent on cpu and gpu. if your system is relatively weaker on gpu, you will get higher frames in crysis 2 , if it is weaker in cpu, you will get higher frames in crysis. it all depends on your system
m
0
l
July 6, 2011 4:21:36 PM

crytek really messed up with their crysis 2 release dint they ? I mean, if they just did the dx11 part at first, it would've been the whole talks in the internet. So, can anyone give me a link to see the diff in thecgraphics between crysis 2 dx9 and dx11. I don't mean to highjack but i just wanted to know. BTW abar, have you got your new gfx card ?
m
0
l
July 6, 2011 4:50:35 PM

Not anymore. The new DX11 and high res texture patches made it more demanding than the 1st one.

m
0
l
July 6, 2011 5:31:39 PM

I like it that they released it as DX10 game then released a DX11 patch. This way people with lower end systems can play the game and enthusiasts can push their hardware to the limit.
m
0
l
July 7, 2011 1:16:27 AM

I could run crysis 2 on my mothers laptop (new but had a meh gfx card). Crysis 2 will run a lot better than the first, this is because its an xbox game.

That being said, the game is complete crap, and if you buy it your damning the PC community to garbage ports for eternity.

That is all.
m
0
l
July 7, 2011 1:57:02 AM

GNCD said:
I like it that they released it as DX10 game then released a DX11 patch. This way people with lower end systems can play the game and enthusiasts can push their hardware to the limit.

are you talking about crysis 2 ? It wasn't released as a dx10 game. It was a dx9 game. I dint say that it should be a dx11 only. I was just saying that they should've released patch at least after a week.
m
0
l
July 7, 2011 9:25:25 AM

Gman450 said:
crytek really messed up with their crysis 2 release dint they ? I mean, if they just did the dx11 part at first, it would've been the whole talks in the internet. So, can anyone give me a link to see the diff in thecgraphics between crysis 2 dx9 and dx11. I don't mean to highjack but i just wanted to know. BTW abar, have you got your new gfx card ?


No,I have not got the gfx yet....may you have not know I just upgraded my mind from a HD 5670 to a HD 5750 as the second is going to be 5k within 2-3 months....Though I may also upgrade my cpu n mobo with new i3 2100 and compatible mobo as alternative of gfx...such way I can get integrated Intel HD Graphics 2000 for playing 2003-2007 era many quality games(obviously not the Original Crysis) and after one year I can get a much better gfx as of price fall and I'll increase my budget too...

Whats your opinion in my current question? Does crysis 2 give better fps than the Original Crysis with neutral system and settings?
m
0
l
July 7, 2011 10:48:29 AM

werner123 said:
Yes, is does but my performance dropped a bit when i upgraded from winxp pro sp3 to win7 64-bit, dont know why, all my other dx9 games plays better in win7


That's because Win XP still runs DX9, whilst Win 7 has DX11 support. Game wil automatically DL and use the DX11 patch, meaning the game will draw more resources. If you want it to run better, disable tesselation that DX11 enables - it EATS resources, craps them out and takes a long and smelly beer-piss on them.
m
0
l
July 7, 2011 11:51:31 AM

well my guess is crysis 2 will be a tad more demanding since the high texture mods are released. so yeah, i guess we have another system killer.
m
0
l
July 8, 2011 5:17:35 AM

As a "system killer" Crysis 2 doesn't even compare to Witcher 2, even though Crysis 2 looks much, much better. Witcher is badly optimized, where Crysis 2 is optimized so well you wouldn't believe it.

Still, requires a nice fat GPU for all that tesselation...
m
0
l
July 8, 2011 4:24:18 PM

Without the DX11 and high resolution packs the game runs much smoother than Crysis 1. With those packs it puts my HD 5870 to shame on 1680x1050. I do however believe future ATI graphics driver updates will make the game run a whole lot better: on my system at certain scenes in Crysis Warhead fps went up from 20 to 35 because of driver updates alone, I hope the same can be done for Crysis 2.
m
0
l
July 9, 2011 6:28:25 AM

Gman450 said:
crytek really messed up with their crysis 2 release dint they ? I mean, if they just did the dx11 part at first, it would've been the whole talks in the internet. So, can anyone give me a link to see the diff in thecgraphics between crysis 2 dx9 and dx11. I don't mean to highjack but i just wanted to know. BTW abar, have you got your new gfx card ?


use google

nocturnal7x said:
I could run crysis 2 on my mothers laptop (new but had a meh gfx card). Crysis 2 will run a lot better than the first, this is because its an xbox game.

That being said, the game is complete crap, and if you buy it your damning the PC community to garbage ports for eternity.

That is all.


thats cool, would you like a praising? the best laptop gpu the 580m can not even play crysis 2 above 35 fps avg. thats around the 5850-5870 range.
m
0
l
July 10, 2011 5:23:14 AM

googling doesn't seem to work for me. It always displays something else.
m
0
l
July 10, 2011 7:05:20 AM

^thanks :) 
m
0
l
July 19, 2011 1:44:16 PM

Crysis and its sequal must be the most over rated title ever,...what is in Crysis was in Far Cry, the only difference is in Far Cry you had bouncing mutated Congo monkeys and Roided up A-Rod like brutes,...In Crysis you have fishy Aliens that freeze everything......all hidden wall papered with splendid graphics and details.
m
0
l
July 19, 2011 2:24:22 PM

FarCry ,during its time, had one of the best graphics I've seen in. But Doom 3 had better.
m
0
l
July 19, 2011 2:55:38 PM

Doom 3 was a better game period and subsequently Quake 4. Crysis and Farcry apart from the physics and graphics is by and large a mediocre game with zero continuity, maybe it is my personal bias towards RPG's and Adventure games, but a game like Dead Space2 appeals more than Crysis 2.

Much is made about Crysis being a system destroyer, my 5 year old C2D 6420 and XFX 8800 GTX handle that game on Gamer without much fuss, on enthusiast has some slow downs but nothing like compared to my Intel P4 - C2D change.
m
0
l
July 19, 2011 3:05:45 PM

I actually find Crysis 2 less demanding than the first. In terms of settings, absolute maximum for both (ie: DX10 for original, DX11 + HD textures for #2). The framerate indoors for me shoots up to over 100 which I've never seen in original, and outdoors it's almost always pretty stable around 40-60, while the original was more like 50 with lots of droops to the 30s.

Hardware wise, though, it will require a beefy CPU and lots of RAM. I find with it running and all things enabled my RAM usage is a little over 6GB and my CPU usage (i5 750 @ 4ghz) is quite high as well, like 50-80% probably.

I find Metro 2033 and Cryostasis are more demanding, and Witcher 2 is surprisingly close.
m
0
l
July 19, 2011 3:16:05 PM

Cryostasis ? Now, where was I when that was released ? Witcher 2 , was a bit of a bad optimization.
m
0
l
July 19, 2011 4:32:34 PM

Wow, that game looks great. I'm a fan of survival horror. But why did the game get a bit of mixed reviews ?
m
0
l
July 19, 2011 5:19:12 PM

Well, I don't know. It's definitely different. I wouldn't exactly call it survival horror. There's a TON of atmosphere in the game, and it's creepy, but rarely is it what I would consider "horror". Anyway I guess it got mixed reviews most likely because the ending is a massive What. The. ***? It's seriously bizarre.

I really enjoyed it though, it has some really cool stuff going on.
m
0
l
July 19, 2011 6:12:10 PM

wolfram23 said:
I actually find Crysis 2 less demanding than the first. In terms of settings, absolute maximum for both (ie: DX10 for original, DX11 + HD textures for #2). The framerate indoors for me shoots up to over 100 which I've never seen in original, and outdoors it's almost always pretty stable around 40-60, while the original was more like 50 with lots of droops to the 30s.

Hardware wise, though, it will require a beefy CPU and lots of RAM. I find with it running and all things enabled my RAM usage is a little over 6GB and my CPU usage (i5 750 @ 4ghz) is quite high as well, like 50-80% probably.

I find Metro 2033 and Cryostasis are more demanding, and Witcher 2 is surprisingly close.


Looking at benchmarks those frame rates in Crysis 2 aren't believable for a single 5850.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-2-directx-11...




m
0
l
July 19, 2011 7:37:05 PM

maybe crysis just uses its resources a lot better than the original? does that make it less demanding? no.
m
0
l
July 19, 2011 7:44:29 PM

benski said:
Looking at benchmarks those frame rates in Crysis 2 aren't believable for a single 5850.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crysis-2-directx-11...


It's ok, I have 2 5850s with 25% core and 20% mem overclocks. I generally get better than a stock 5970 results. I should definitely give the benchmark a try for some proper C2 results, but I spent my gaming time last night recording gameplay with FRAPS.

I recorded at 50fps (some drops in big outdoor areas) but I encoded the video at 25 for whatever reason... Next time I'll definitely do it higher. But anyway it's in 1080p and at max settings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_M68W6xHs0
m
0
l
July 19, 2011 7:55:07 PM

Ah gotcha I had failed to see the CF part of your sig somehow and thought that was on a single card. My mistake.

m
0
l
August 1, 2011 3:19:14 AM

Best answer selected by abar92.
m
0
l
August 1, 2011 2:42:15 PM

thanx
m
0
l
!