Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Your Crysis performance

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Performance
  • Resolution
  • Crysis
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 169 U Graphics card
November 15, 2007 10:37:01 AM

Hi all
Well today i just got Crysis and downloaded the 169.09 driver for XP64 and launched the game
with everything @ high + 16x settings. well i set the resolution to 1680x1050 and the game was playable but it was a bit slow so i set the resolution on 1280x1024 and it ran well but the MAX FPS i got was 30 i think :heink:  also the gameplay didnt impress me, i like COD4 alot more

More about : crysis performance

November 15, 2007 11:07:23 AM

I was able to make it playable looking beautiful (no AA tho) @ 1680x1050, and I'm over 20fps at all times. After reading the experts advice in www.incrysis.com I was able to modify the settings using DX9 (very high) but tweaking it to look like DX10. In DX10 I have to sacrifice too much quality to make it playable.

BTW Crysis @ 20+fps (for those who doesn't have the game) is much more playable than other games at twice the fps. I will get COD4 tho.
November 15, 2007 11:32:05 AM

My specs:
Q6600 G0 @3.6
8800GTX @ 630/2000
4GB DDR2 800 1:1
74GB Raptor
Vista 64

At 1280X1024 with everything maxxed and using the older .04 forceware betas I get about 25fps avg as reported by FRAPS. Dropping AA and shaders a notch results in an increase of 10 to 15fps. Pretty awesome game, I was a fan of the original Far Cry and this seems pretty darn similar so far.
Related resources
November 15, 2007 12:25:46 PM

One of the earlier missions, i'm lovin' it.

All medium settings unfortunately, 1280x1024, no AA.

Core 2 Quad Q6600
2 GB DDR2 667
500 Gig HDD
BFG 8800GTS 320MB
Vista 32bit (these screens in dx9 mode, seems to give more fps even on medium settings)

You can't see the minimap, but there's about 20 friendlies (including psycho) in the surrounding area getting shelled like madness and jets flying overhead and getting blown up from the AA fire.











Also there are alot of nice touches, like rainbows that form by waterfalls.
November 15, 2007 12:39:32 PM

Play with at least 4xAA. It makes the game look MUCH better, even if you do lose a few fps.

Specs in sig. I run at 1280x1024 on all Medium settings, 4x AA / AF w/ 25-35 fps average.
November 15, 2007 12:58:05 PM

haha i got my old x1300 pci version gpu to run crysis on low with 768mb of ram and a p4 at 2ghz in a dimension 2400.....
November 15, 2007 12:58:31 PM

it sucked so hard lol!!!
November 15, 2007 1:49:21 PM

I'm playing at 1400x1050 2xAF everything set to "high" (no way to set lower settings, it looks damn good), while getting about 10 to 20 fps. During firefights, it's even worse.

E2180 @ 3,0 GHz
2x1 GB DDR2 800 MHz 4-4-4 Patriot
MSI 7900 GTO @ GTX
P35-DS3R

..may the god gives me money for 8800 :) 
November 15, 2007 1:55:20 PM

Wasting all your performance on 16x AA is quite stupid.. use something like nhancer to enable 4x MSAA rather then the games in-game AA.

Also, enable the image blurring in nhancer, apparently normal AA doesn't affect the trees n stuff and using high or v.high settings it enables blurring or something.

Just use 4X MSAA with gamma and blurring.
November 15, 2007 2:01:14 PM

Playing at 1680x1050, no AA, DX10 all "Very High" except shadows, water, and post-processing. Vista x64, forceware 169.09. Getting 20-40FPS, avg. 32. FPS really dips however in the second stage "Retrieval" at the top of the valley. Also, noticed "very high" water severely affects FPS. Tried 1900x1200, but found FPS unplayable.

Was running in x64 mode, but found this entirely unplayable and prone to locking. Running it from the x32bin much better.

November 15, 2007 2:20:10 PM

harmattan said:
Playing at 1680x1050, no AA, DX10 all "Very High" except shadows, water, and post-processing. Vista x64, forceware 169.09. Getting 20-40FPS, avg. 32. FPS really dips however in the second stage "Retrieval" at the top of the valley. Also, noticed "very high" water severely affects FPS. Tried 1900x1200, but found FPS unplayable.

Was running in x64 mode, but found this entirely unplayable and prone to locking. Running it from the x32bin much better.


This game is turning out to be a GD joke. I mean, look at his sig. 30fps, WTF? I probably shouldnt waste my time trying to get this game running in 2007. Bring on next gen cards.
November 15, 2007 2:38:36 PM

Well, it seems that's a real crisis, trying to play crysis : )
November 15, 2007 2:41:38 PM

fishboi said:
This game is turning out to be a GD joke. I mean, look at his sig. 30fps, WTF? I probably shouldnt waste my time trying to get this game running in 2007. Bring on next gen cards.


Actually, it scales pretty well from what I've experienced. If I set everthing to High in DX9 mode, I can run 40-60 FPS at 1900x1200. At 1650x1050, no AA with some medium settings 60-75 FPS (and it still looks amazing I might add).

It's the DX10 (Very High) effects that kill. I haven't tried to emulate DX10 effects in DX9 yet, but hear that improves things. Also Vista doesn't help... I actually expected worse. I mean, look at the game... you can't expect something that looks this good to run at high iQ levels/res to smoothly on mid-range or older cards. Finally, after owning the same system for a year, there's a game that tests it. The devs did a great job imo (albeit they did lie their butts off that there would be Quad Core and x64 improvements.)

But yeah, can't wait to see how good Crysis looks and runs on next gen cards.
November 15, 2007 2:42:10 PM

WHY are you running it at very high? You even bothered to look at image comparisons compared to performance benches?

The joke on you I'm afraid mate. The reason it's performing badly is because you didn't do your homework.


Just to make it worse you are using DX10 on it...
November 15, 2007 2:55:13 PM

Crysis plays around 30FPS on my system, but I like COD4 better.
November 15, 2007 2:55:35 PM

My is smooth as I need it be with 1280x1074 with no AA and I am getting 45 average. I have a AsusEAX1900XTX and a GA-P35-DQ6 with 2Gbs of Crucial ballistix tracer DDR2 1066 @ 1180 and E4400 @ 3.2~ Ghz= 9x 355. Two Western digital drives Raid0.
November 15, 2007 2:59:58 PM

Hatman said:
WHY are you running it at very high? You even bothered to look at image comparisons compared to performance benches?

The joke on you I'm afraid mate. The reason it's performing badly is because you didn't do your homework.


Just to make it worse you are using DX10 on it...



As opposed to previously released DX10-touted games that had little-no improvements in iQ over DX9 (Bioshock, Lost Planet etc.), Crysis DX10 (very high) effects are significantly better than DX9 (high). To my eyes, the difference is night and day. All those screenshot comparisons and low-res videos you see online btwn Crisis "High" vs. "Very High" really doesn't demonstrate how good DX10 looks in motion on a quality monitor.

And I wouldn't say 32 avg. FPS is "performing badly", and it's definitely better imo than playing at 60 FPS with much lower quality iQ.
November 15, 2007 3:26:01 PM

harmattan said:
As opposed to previously released DX10-touted games that had little-no improvements in iQ over DX9 (Bioshock, Lost Planet etc.), Crysis DX10 (very high) effects are significantly better than DX9 (high). To my eyes, the difference is night and day. All those screenshot comparisons and low-res videos you see online btwn Crisis "High" vs. "Very High" really doesn't demonstrate how good DX10 looks in motion on a quality monitor.

And I wouldn't say 32 avg. FPS is "performing badly", and it's definitely better imo than playing at 60 FPS with much lower quality iQ.
Too bad these "DX10 effects" are easily enabled in Windows XP with a few simple config edits; I've run Crysis on Vista x64 and Windows XP on Very High and they look identical, aside from the XP version running considerably better.
November 15, 2007 3:30:32 PM

Heyyou27 said:
Too bad these "DX10 effects" are easily enabled in Windows XP with a few simple config edits; I've run Crysis on Vista x64 and Windows XP on Very High and they look identical, aside from the XP version running considerably better.


Have heard this, but haven't had time to fiddle yet. Have a link to the config edits? Thx :D 

Question: with the config edits in place, are you running the game from the x32 or x64 bin?
November 15, 2007 3:41:05 PM

X2 6000 3.0Ghz
Asus m2n-Sli deluxe
2 Gb Gskill ram
BFG 8800GT

All settings on high, don't have fraps, but everything runs smooth
November 15, 2007 5:06:03 PM

Erm.. the single player on low settings on XP has night and day too.. You only need DX10 for night and day in multi-player modes.

From what I've seen, DX9 high looks better then DX10 very high, thats all I'm saying.

Plus its like twice as fast.
November 15, 2007 9:40:01 PM

I'm getting an average 30 FPS with a E6750 (not OC'ed) and a 7900GT on Medium Settings with Textures and Physics turned High?

Maybe the E6750 and 7900GT were meant for eachother :3

Would turning down some High settings and maybe even to Low to try achieve some AA?, would it be worth it?

November 16, 2007 2:45:54 AM

I dont own crysis yet, as it hasn't reached my local walmart store yet, but I was wondering what you guys would think this runs at on my system. Should this system be good enough to get a decent performance (playable, enjoyable)?

Core2duo 6400 (slight overclock to 2.5ghz)
2 gigs ddr2 667
Windows XP
EVGA 7950gt KO
17" LCD (highest resolution 1280 x 1024)

I so desperately want to get an 8800gt, but the most I want to pay for one is 289 (Hopefully EVGA). Everytime I see one in stock, I check my bank account, get ready to order and... whoops, sold out.
November 16, 2007 3:56:14 AM

my setup

x2 4000 @ 2.9ghz
2 gig ddr 800
x1950 pro
win xp

all my settings are on high except shaders and shadows which are on med.... 45 max 28 avg 24 low...... 1024-768 res......im very happy with my x1950 pro... might try a vcore mod though..... :) 
a c 169 U Graphics card
November 16, 2007 4:53:08 AM

i hope new drivers make things better
November 16, 2007 5:38:29 AM

Wow i can play it on my old rigg. x800xt aiw. I cant see spending 1000 dollars to play it at 30fps but it kinda looks like far cry on my system.I will wait until it can be played at 60fps on new hardware.

setiings low..texture medium..1360x768..ati cats 5.10..agp

thank you to the developers for making it play on old harware.
i am playing the demo now but will buy the full version.

CPU BENCH

!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 47.58s, Average FPS: 31.53
Min FPS: 6.17 at frame 196, Max FPS: 36.63 at frame 109
Average Tri/Sec: 22236302, Tri/Frame: 705348
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.02
Press any key to continue . . .

GPU BENCH

!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 73.12s, Average FPS: 27.35
Min FPS: 16.96 at frame 1964, Max FPS: 43.74 at
Average Tri/Sec: 22161060, Tri/Frame: 810230
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.13
Press any key to continue . . .
November 16, 2007 5:43:05 AM

lol.... I have a laptop with an 8600m gt. If I go by the default settings of all medium and 1024x768 I get 20-25 FPS through most of the game.... however, in some of the later levels, especially the last one, I was experiencing single digit FPS. I'm now playing through the game at all low settings and 1280x800. at these settings the game looks like ****, but I'm playing this time for the gameplay, rather than the eye candy. I'm having much more fun despite the bad graphics
November 16, 2007 5:51:13 AM

I can't believe what I am hearing, I get 50-75fps = to my refresh rate on all medium with few on low @ 1280x1024. "Crysis may have been release ahead of its time" a time when hardware wasn't ready for this awesome software. I will say this, "you need at least an 8800GT/8800GTX to run this game with the high quality you guys seem to expect".

If you haven't seen this game running in "all very high setting" then you haven't seen what this game engine can really do. So to say that the graphics are not good then to those people who say that the graphics aren't good enough, there not good enough for your system. Don't blame Crysis for being ahead of its time, this is what PC gamers expect to see in the next generation of graphics. Well here is your PC gamers wetdream, graphics to die for.

Now all I hear is people down playing (Crysis) the next generation graphics, unbelievable!! If anything blame the hardware guys. To those with a 7900 series card, what did you expect?

November 16, 2007 6:19:51 AM

vaker5 said:
it sucked so hard lol!!!


Whats your hardware spec's, my brother lives in Corona off Ontario. Gota love living close to SC Village.
November 16, 2007 6:20:23 AM

Hatman said:
Erm.. the single player on low settings on XP has night and day too.. You only need DX10 for night and day in multi-player modes.

From what I've seen, DX9 high looks better then DX10 very high, thats all I'm saying.

Plus its like twice as fast.


Are you on some mind altering substance or perhaps in the need for glasses? The DX9 looks better then DX10 and runs twice as fast? Even if you turned on the DX10 features in XP the API's wouldn't know what to do with it without some hacking of DX. Max improvement is only around 10% in single card mode. While subtle the DX10 version look better and adds more realism.

The actual game seem to run better than the Demo.
Running at 1600x1200 4xAA very high on everything less shader model at medium. oh, using an 8800gtx with 169.75 beta drivers. Averages around 30 drops to 23 when then are busy for single player it's fine. The reflections look to have been fixed.

Downloading the SP1 beta for Vista 64 now see if that makes any difference.
November 16, 2007 6:26:51 AM

bydesign said:
Are you on some mind altering substance or perhaps in the need for glasses? The DX9 looks better then DX10 and runs twice as fast? Even if you turned on the DX10 features in XP the API's wouldn't know what to do with it without some hacking of DX. Max improvement is only around 10% in single card mode. While subtle the DX10 version look better and adds more realism.

The actual game seem to run better than the Demo.
Running at 1600x1200 4xAA very high on everything less shader model at medium. oh, using an 8800gtx with 169.75 beta drivers. Averages around 30 drops to 23 when then are busy for single player it's fine. The reflections look to have been fixed.

Downloading the SP1 beta for Vista 64 now see if that makes any difference.


So if I wanted to run just a few settings on very high in XP with some configuration mods, I could? I tried very high on every setting but was slightly choppy.
November 16, 2007 6:57:59 AM

I find it very playable on my system, a Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 3.2Ghz, 2Gb DDR2-800 and an 8800GTS 320Mb @ 600/1550/950. Drivers 169.09, 1280x1024, no AA, with all settings on high except shaders and shadows on medium. The most demanding of situations may dip into the low 20s, but are rare, and 30+ is easily average, 40~50 much of the time.

Shaders on medium has the biggest FPS boost, though the IQ decrease has not been obvious to me. Shadows on medium, however, look pretty blocky and ugly, but the handful of extra frames keeps the worst situations above the 20 mark.
a c 169 U Graphics card
November 16, 2007 7:24:47 AM

u are not using AA, use it and u will see how the FPS will drop
November 16, 2007 8:32:42 AM

No one with any system should even think about using AA unless you want to barf in a doggy bad from the motion sickness.
a c 169 U Graphics card
November 16, 2007 9:33:49 AM

well doesnt AA make the game look better?
November 16, 2007 9:47:19 AM

Brilliant game. I'm having troubles with sub 20 fps at the place where you have to drive a tank - all that smoke's pretty demanding. But everything else so far's been running really great (just rescued the rosenthal daughter for the second time). Am running everything on very high except shadows (medium), shaders (medium) and water (low) at 1680x1050. When I cranked the resolution down to 1280x800 I could even add 4xaa but in my opinion it looks better at higher res without aa than with it on on lower. The trees and other distant objects aren't properly treated, so it looks as bad as without it. And close up everything's great anyway, so no need for aa on those things. Water's a killer though. I tried setting everything on very high with 16x fsaa whilst in a boat in the tutorial map, and avg'ed 6-7fps or so. Horrible. And that was without moving. When turning down water to low I more than doubled my fps, but it was still not playable when I was moving.

specs:
e6600 @ 3,42ghz
8800gtx stock (ocing doesn't make a single fps difference)
3gb ddr2 @ 380mhz (cl5)
p35 chipset
vista 32
November 16, 2007 10:38:44 AM

neiroatopelcc said:
Brilliant game. I'm having troubles with sub 20 fps at the place where you have to drive a tank - all that smoke's pretty demanding. But everything else so far's been running really great (just rescued the rosenthal daughter for the second time). Am running everything on very high except shadows (medium), shaders (medium) and water (low) at 1680x1050. When I cranked the resolution down to 1280x800 I could even add 4xaa but in my opinion it looks better at higher res without aa than with it on on lower. The trees and other distant objects aren't properly treated, so it looks as bad as without it. And close up everything's great anyway, so no need for aa on those things. Water's a killer though. I tried setting everything on very high with 16x fsaa whilst in a boat in the tutorial map, and avg'ed 6-7fps or so. Horrible. And that was without moving. When turning down water to low I more than doubled my fps, but it was still not playable when I was moving.

specs:
e6600 @ 3,42ghz
8800gtx stock (ocing doesn't make a single fps difference)
3gb ddr2 @ 380mhz (cl5)
p35 chipset
vista 32


You want more performance using DX9 in Vista setting everything very high with 30-40 fps? If you don't know about it yet some people have found a way to force very high setting in XP. Heres the link. http://www.crysis-online.com/forum/index.php/topic,11837.0.html
November 16, 2007 11:09:07 AM

I want playable fps in very high. I don't want dx9 emulating dx10 I don't want xp. I still favor win98 over winxp and win xp over vista, but vista's where crysis is supposed to be run, and that's where I'll run it.

Edit: Besides, my boss has paid my vista business license, so I kinda owe him to use vista when I can. And I need vista to run enclave anyway (works in 2000 and vista only)
November 16, 2007 11:42:39 AM

My rig runs Crysis in 1280x1024 with everything at High at an average of 40 FPS and runs as smooth as silk for me. E6850@3.6GHz, 2GB DDR2-800 C4, 8800GTX OC 625/2000.
November 16, 2007 11:56:27 AM

systemlord said:
Now all I hear is people down playing (Crysis) the next generation graphics, unbelievable!! If anything blame the hardware guys. To those with a 7900 series card, what did you expect?

I own an 8800GTX @ 635MHz core 1550MHz shader and 1950MHz memory and Crysis is still basically unplayable. I don't care how great the engine is and how it's "next generation graphics", I won't buy the game if it won't run properly on even the best hardware on the market.
November 16, 2007 12:01:04 PM

neiroatopelcc said:
I want playable fps in very high. I don't want dx9 emulating dx10 I don't want xp. I still favor win98 over winxp and win xp over vista, but vista's where crysis is supposed to be run, and that's where I'll run it.

Edit: Besides, my boss has paid my vista business license, so I kinda owe him to use vista when I can. And I need vista to run enclave anyway (works in 2000 and vista only)


Well then your just throwing fps out the window, cause with XP running very high settings you can't tell the difference between DC9 & DX10. Need proof, http://www.crysis-online.com/forum/index.php/topic,11837.0.html
November 16, 2007 12:25:29 PM

Crysis runs smoother at 25fps then any game, I've played to this point. I'm not sure why or how, I still tweak it up to 30 by changing settings. I can barely see a visual difference between high and very high settings.

Still, no one is gonna see this in it's full splendor, until we get some new highend hardware. Screw SLIing 2 8800gtx, even that doesn't seem to be enough, and that's an electricity vavuum.
November 16, 2007 1:12:10 PM

Hey, I'm towards the beginning of the game where you're supposed to rescue the hostage. So I found here, the other guy (AI guy, names starts with an S) said he's take her to a safe "extraction point" while I blew up the tanks. So I blew them up, and now what am I supposed to do? There is nothing in my objectives list. But on my mini-map there is a pick-up truck that is highlighted in blue. What am I supposed to do from here?
November 16, 2007 1:52:57 PM

Rusmurf said:
Crysis runs smoother at 25fps then any game, I've played to this point. I'm not sure why or how, I still tweak it up to 30 by changing settings. I can barely see a visual difference between high and very high settings.

Still, no one is gonna see this in it's full splendor, until we get some new highend hardware. Screw SLIing 2 8800gtx, even that doesn't seem to be enough, and that's an electricity vavuum.



SLI doesnt work yet, nvidias new drivers with Cryteks patch set for next week some time will enable it. This is such a big game so expect in the end SLI to scale extremly well, may depend on how well crossfire scales though i hoping for some competition from the 2 sides!
November 16, 2007 2:01:31 PM

bydesign said:
Are you on some mind altering substance or perhaps in the need for glasses? The DX9 looks better then DX10 and runs twice as fast? Even if you turned on the DX10 features in XP the API's wouldn't know what to do with it without some hacking of DX. Max improvement is only around 10% in single card mode. While subtle the DX10 version look better and adds more realism.



I'll tell you what, go bench your system under very high DX10 and then on high on XP and see what results it shows.

Who said anything about hacking? If you want to run at crap FPS stay with DX10 and v.high and get a slight improvement in image that will only serve to distract you from gameplay, if it makes you happy.

Or even better, instead of whining and making insults about people who need glasses, check your task manager, and then you'll see why its performance is so poor.


edit:

In-fact since you spout so much rubbish, I went and found you proof that DX9 on high is 2x the performance of DX10 on very high. For a few light beams that you can only really see if you're still and a few extra shadows.. it really, isnt worth 50% of FPS when that 50% is so low.

Enjoy.
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6182140/p-2.html
November 16, 2007 2:56:53 PM

@ hatman wether it's worth it or not depends on if people want to play cs or unreal .... cs has crappy graphics and people who play that don't care what it looks like. People who play unreal want eye candy and doesn't settle for just anything.

It's just fine that you can accept inferior graphical quality, but some people want the best they can get, and even if that is in your eyes just a marginal improvement, still an improvement it is.

Who cares if you can run 60fps in xp and only 25 in vista ? If the graphics are better in the latter instance, and if it doesn't drop below the playable level (even 20fps is enough to not feel it lagging in this game, at least if eyecandy is enabled), it really doesn't matter.

My biggest problem is that I know how much better it could look if everything were on very high, and fsaa was on at least 8x but if you can suffice by playing it with less effects then that's just fine by me. Now don't start telling people how they're supposed to think about this, make up your mind, but don't make up anyone elses. Get the drift?

@systemlord
So the image quality in xp can be made to look almost as good as in vista, but what about effects while the game isn't standing still? The dx10 specific stuff can't work without dx10 .... so there are going to be things missing like the selective focus and other stuff that I can't remember right now (don't have the game here, parents place as my phoneline's dead)
November 16, 2007 3:36:33 PM

PLAY THE GAME PEOPLE, if you're looking for image quality, take a hike outside, up a mountain, or go fishing.

@gwolfman
nice hijack lol, ok, my boss has the same problem, and the guy's name is psycho, and the hostage, helena or something, anyway, he didnt know where to go because no objectives updated, so i'll guide you.

The north west entrance of the base, to the right there's a secondary path that goes up a hill, follow it until you hit a cliff that can be easily climbed in strenght mode, Prophet is up there, he'll tell you theres a bajillion kpas between you and there so hes going to a cave near a waterfall, just basically follow the water.

I don't know if this is going to work, I told my boss about it, my objectives did update and im on the final fight.

ps/edit Since when does a game have a 8800GTS 640MB recommended video card, did you guys look at the requirements?
November 16, 2007 4:03:44 PM

neiroatopelcc said:
@ hatman wether it's worth it or not depends on if people want to play cs or unreal .... cs has crappy graphics and people who play that don't care what it looks like. People who play unreal want eye candy and doesn't settle for just anything.

It's just fine that you can accept inferior graphical quality, but some people want the best they can get, and even if that is in your eyes just a marginal improvement, still an improvement it is.

Who cares if you can run 60fps in xp and only 25 in vista ? If the graphics are better in the latter instance, and if it doesn't drop below the playable level (even 20fps is enough to not feel it lagging in this game, at least if eyecandy is enabled), it really doesn't matter.



Your point has 1 flaw, even on XP High its still the best looking game available. SO I cant see how your CS to unreal comparison is even valid, aside from that, its 2 completly different games.
November 16, 2007 4:58:18 PM

stemnin said:
@gwolfman
nice hijack lol, ok, my boss has the same problem, and the guy's name is psycho, and the hostage, helena or something, anyway, he didnt know where to go because no objectives updated, so i'll guide you.

The north west entrance of the base, to the right there's a secondary path that goes up a hill, follow it until you hit a cliff that can be easily climbed in strenght mode, Prophet is up there, he'll tell you theres a bajillion kpas between you and there so hes going to a cave near a waterfall, just basically follow the water.

I don't know if this is going to work, I told my boss about it, my objectives did update and im on the final fight.


Thanks, I'll give it a shot
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!