Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis 2 on a PDC E6700 & Radeon HD 5670

Last response: in Video Games
Share
May 9, 2012 6:49:38 PM

Bear with me, I just bought Crysis 2 a few days ago. I guess I was expecting better performance and quality, given my system, but now I'm a little disappointed. I downloaded the 1.9 patch, the DX11 patch (because I have a DX11 card) and the Hi Res Texture pack (because I have a 1GB card).
My system is a Pentium Dual-Core E6700 @ 3.2GHz, 8GB ddr3, and a Gigabyte Radeon HD 5670 1GB DDR3 @ 775core/800mem. I would play Crysis (and Warhead) at 1280x1024 in DX10 and it performed great on Very High settings (no AA).

Now when I get to playing Crysis 2 I have to OC my cpu to 3.6GHz and my GPU to 900core/950mem to get a barely playable 20.4FPS in DX9 with minimum "High" settings and Standard Textures. Oddly Hi Res Tex pulls in 20.3FPS in DX9. However the game quality feels sub-par compared to Crysis. When I benchmark Crysis 2 in DX11 with standard textures and an OC'd system I get 17.6 FPS (hi res crashes the system). Factory clocks will pull 20.0 DX9/Hi, 19.9 DX9/std, 15.8 DX11/Hi, 15.7 DX11/std. (Yes, that is correct.... I checked and re-checked.... High Res Textures have higher FPS than Standard textures at Factory clock settings) All those tests are in High graphics mode @ 1280x1024.

For kicks Ultra, DX11 @ 1280x1024 pulls in an astounding 15.2 FPS. Weird huh?

So I guess my question is what can I do with my current system, or for less than $100 that will get me up to 30FPS@1280x1024 and not have it look like crap? How much of this is CPU related, and how much is GPU? I can't really find any Crysis 2 benchmarks for an HD 5670 to begin with.

Thanks.

May 20, 2012 4:45:49 AM

I also have a HD 5670 and Crysis 2. Yes, I was able to play Crysis 1 with high/medium/ultra settings at 1080p with no AA at a steady 34 FPS in DX11(or 10, I cant remember which one, might of even still been DX9). And yes, I've noticed this too. I have to downscale Crysis 2 to a measly 800x1200 at the lowest settings in DX9, and can only get the frames at an average of about 31FPS. It's not because of anything else because I have a i5-2400 and 8GB of ram. I know. It really sucks. But luckily, I'm getting to build my own rig with a GTX 670 and such. Hopefully you can perhaps buy a GTX 550Ti or HD 5770 or HD 7770 with your price range. Those should work fine for most games at that resolution for a bit(or two).
(HD 5770 is about 2x as fast as the HD 5670, but also uses 2x the power)
m
0
l
May 22, 2012 8:09:33 PM

I think I'm going to save my pennies and upgrade to a HD 6870. That seems to be a decent card for current and new games.
m
0
l
Related resources
May 22, 2012 10:45:06 PM

3dmark.com/3dm11/3401268
m
0
l
May 22, 2012 11:50:01 PM

On scond thougt, that CPU, your Pentium Duo, is about 8 years old, am I correct? If that's the case, than you should try to get a new CPU, or the new graphics card won't help much...

Edit: Never mind. Your processor is alright for gaming(not the best because it isn't quad-core) and it was made in 2010. Pentium reminds me of Intel processors from the early 2000s, that's all.
m
0
l
May 22, 2012 11:58:43 PM

http://ark.intel.com/products/42809/Intel-Pentium-Proce...(2M-Cache-3_20-GHz-1066-FSB) 2yo'ish. I have it oc'd to 3.5GHz and the thing runs pretty darned good. I think in this case I'm more limited by the GPU than the CPU. The purpose of the OP was to either suggest an upgrade for <$100 or perhaps some game tweak to improve FPS without suffering quality much more than I already am. (like some unnecessary aesthetic that hogs GPU but I'd hardly notice if it was disabled and how to do it.)
m
0
l
May 23, 2012 12:01:18 AM

mpyusko said:
http://ark.intel.com/products/42809/Intel-Pentium-Proce...(2M-Cache-3_20-GHz-1066-FSB) 2yo'ish. I have it oc'd to 3.5GHz and the thing runs pretty darned good. I think in this case I'm more limited by the GPU than the CPU. The purpose of the OP was to either suggest an upgrade for <$100 or perhaps some game tweak to improve FPS without suffering quality much more than I already am. (like some unnecessary aesthetic that hogs GPU but I'd hardly notice if it was disabled and how to do it.)


Sorry. I am typing with one hand on my phone. It takes longer to type and didn't finish in time to write my edit before you posted your comment. :pt1cable: 
m
0
l
May 23, 2012 12:06:24 AM

Also, a heads up. Next year, game companies like DICE and EA are going to start to not support their new games with 32-bit operating systems. So make sure you have a 64-bit OS. Cheers
m
0
l
June 19, 2012 6:12:39 PM

Well I tossed aside the HD 5670 aand splurged for a Sapphire 6950 OC 2GB. Now I'm happily pulling 41 fps in Crysis (Ultra, 4xAA, Edge Blur, Hi-Res, DX11) . I guess the answer is It was mostly GPU limited. I really don't have any plans to OC the GPU because there was only .9fps difference between High,noAAm,noEdgeAA,Hi-Res,DX11. That tells me the rest is CPU/Mobo.

In the end there really wasn't anything else I could do. I had to OC the 5670 to 920/950 just to get a decent fps, but then when the game got intense, the Graphics would crash. Upgrading to a 6950 really is the best route. The 5670 served me well for Crysis, Warhead, Portal, GTA-SA, and a slew of others, not to forget streaming 1080p :D . It did a good job. It was time.
m
0
l
!