Choppy Crysis demo

[m1ddy]

Hey guys,

I gave the Crysis demo a whirl last night on my new rig. Wasn't happy with the results much. All setting set to medium with AA and AF off. It was extremely choppy and not very playable at all. Low settings were playable but not that much better.

System Spec is....

Q6600
P35 Asus mobo (P5k-E)
7800GT
4GB Corsair DDR2 800mhz XMS
Vista Home Prem 64bit.

Is this normal? I understand that its the vid card holding it back but I would of expected better than that. Im waiting on a 8000 series but I don't know when Nvidia's next gen cards are due for release. Anyone know any timeframes for this?

TY

 

[Poopsmasher]

Hey m1ddy

I played the demo the other day too, its really graphic intensive.
Your 7800gt is your BIG bottleneck, save up for one of those 8800gt's that just came out, with one of those you should be able to play on medium very comfortably depending on the rez you wanna use...

COD4 looks sooo gooood and is so much fun!

 

[m1ddy]

Forgot to mention, This was at 1600x1050 on my 22" 226bw. Should have probably tried in something like 1024x768 first.

 

[Poopsmasher]

He he he, your poor pc.
Yeah, thats some serious rez for Crysis and a 7800gt.
I played it on 1280x1024 on medium, looks good and its playable.

 

[Scotteq]

You need a better GPU.

 

[systemlord]

The 8800GT 512MB card will spring new life into your Crysis experience.

 

[geotech]

He still should be getting better. I have a 7600GT and I play at med/low at 1440x900 at almost 30fps. A 7800 should be able to give a little more juice than that, is this under xp or vista?

 

[m1ddy]

Is the GT based on the G92 chip? If so, is it worth getting one of them over the more expensive 8800GTX?

 

[vertigo_2000]

I fiddled some more and was able to play at with 40 FPS... all settings to medium and at a lower resolution.

I reduced it from 1680 x 1050 because I noticed a serious lag in my mouse to screen. Move the mouse and a 1/4 second later, the screen would move... I can't play like that.

Great game though... went through it stealth like... only needed a few clips to kill all the baddies. Still looked very impressive too.

 

[systemlord]

Is the GT based on the G92 chip? If so, is it worth getting one of them over the more expensive 8800GTX?

The 8800GT 512MB card is G92 = .65nano meters. The 8800 GTX is only slightly faster than the 8800GT, so no the GT is the better choice.

 

[jitpublisher]

I can play pretty smoothly at 1024x768 with my 1950pro/4600X2 everything set to medium and 2X, any higher res or settings it gets pretty choppy.

 

[m1ddy]

will the screen be cropped if I dont have a widescreen res in use? Thats really annoying looking on a widescreen monitor.

 

[m1ddy]

Oh, did the auto detect settings work for anyone in crysis? It suggested low for me, which suprised me. My vista score is 5.5.

 

[choirbass]

owning a 7800gt myself, the demo was pretty fluid with all settings on low @ 800x600... after that, i increased everything to medium and/or high, aside from shaders, shadows, and aa, which all stayed on either low or off. (aa was off)

but, for your gpu, and most gpus i would guess... shadows and shader models give the most significant hit to performance, above all else... and if your fps is still smooth after increasing everything else, you can increase the resolution above minimal too

as soon as you up shaders or shadows to medium even, the fps drops by about half. and forget about high, thatll pretty much cripple your card if you try to enable anything else too, and even by itself it might be too much. at least if you want smooth framerates anyhow.

so contrary to most people, i cant really say the demo itself is 'too' demanding... its just literally a couple optional settings that are, that are a make or break for all current cards.

 

[Heyyou27]

I have an 8800GTX @ 635MHz core 1550MHz shader and 1950MHz memory and Crysis is just barely playable at 1680x1050 on High settings.

 

[itotallybelieveyou]

yup just your pc

 

[skittle]

yup the 7800 has trouble with the demo

shadows set to low, and shaders to medium results in playable settings for me. 1680x1050.

 

[systemlord]

I have an 8800GTX @ 635MHz core 1550MHz shader and 1950MHz memory and Crysis is just barely playable at 1680x1050 on High settings.

Crysis doesn't run well on system above 1280x1024, 1280x1024 and under seem great for Crysis.

 

[choirbass]

i just thought i would test something out... but, im testing @ 2560x1024 native (2*19"), with texture, object, shadow, & shaders set to low, and aa set to off, everything else on high... and maintaining ~20fps+ still, which isnt fluid by any means, but its still not really choppy either. testing @ 1280X1024 native nets between ~40-70fps with the same settings, depending on where im looking.

so really, just reducing/disabling a few unreasonably demanding options, and the game is still very playable on even high resolutions, with less than current hardware. (s939 X2 3800+ @ stock, 2.5GB pc3200 @ stock, 74GB adfd raptor, etc)

 

[vip3569]

i have an amd fx-55 with an overclocked 7900gs. Runs ok at everything on medium at 1440 x 900. Only thing on high is the water because I like looking at it lol

 

[randomizer]

The 8800GT 512MB card is G92 = .65nano meters. The 8800 GTX is only slightly faster than the 8800GT, so no the GT is the better choice.

.65nm wow, nvidia really went out of their way this time! :lol:

@OP: An E6600 with 4gb RAM, vista 64 and an x1950 pro can get >50fps on low at 1680x1050, so you should be able to get at least 30-35.

 

[systemlord]

.65nm wow, nvidia really went out of their way this time! :lol:

@OP: An E6600 with 4gb RAM, vista 64 and an x1950 pro can get >50fps on low at 1680x1050, so you should be able to get at least 30-35.

Nvidia should have done the G92 65nm with the 8800GTX, damn!

 

[cnumartyr]

Nvidia should have done the G92 65nm with the 8800GTX, damn!

No reason to. They'd only lose money...

VGA market is sad. ATI can't compete performance wise for the crown. The 8800 GT outperforms in the HD3870 in initial testing and the 8800 GTS refresh is just around the corner to even further expand the gap. That leaves the GTX/Ultra brackets left on the refresh but there isn't a reason to release them til something can compete with the Ultra (HD3870X2) sometime Q1 08 (If they stay on the road map). The X2 is supposed to be able to take the Ultra performance wise and have a cost around the high 300s to low 400s. Even if they have the 8800 GTX/Ultra ready on the 65 nm it would only canabalize their current high end offerings that some people are STILL paying for because you have to pay top dollar to get the best performance.

I'd expect at that point nVidia will finally release a refresh of the GTX/Ultra. The question there is if they will bring DX10.1 support to them like ATI did. Price/Performance and DX10.1 support will be the selling points for ATI.

8800 GT 256 MB vs HD3850 256 MB
8800 GT/GTS 512 MB vs HD3870 512 MB
8800 ??? vs HD3870X2 1024 MB

It'll be interesting to see, I was really hoping ATI could push the performance a bit to get nVidia off their butts and moving. Unfortunately, as is normal.. ATI fell short.

Personally I'm happy with ATIs. The reason? I love Intel chips. I don't want to see AMD/ATI go out of business so I figure I want to support them somehow (who wants to have TWO options.. Intel/nVidia). And their video cards can play games and offer great cost/performance ratios in my eyes.

I'm looking forward to the HD3870X2 CF solution on an X48 (or if by then nVidia gets off their butts I might switch back on a 780i SLI chipset) when I buy a Penryn in Feb/March.

 

[systemlord]

So we have ATI to blame for not forcing Nvidia hands for plans for a 8800GTX/Ultra refresh. If ATI were to go away thats not good for us at all, Nvidia could come out with their next card when the pleased. We need ATI to force Nvidia's hand.

 

[cnumartyr]

So we have ATI to blame for not forcing Nvidia hands for plans for a 8800GTX/Ultra refresh. If ATI were to go away thats not good for us at all, Nvidia could come out with their next card when the pleased. We need ATI to force Nvidia's hand.

That's why I was really hoping that the 3870 would push towards the GTX/Ultra in terms of performance. We'll get to see a price war.. but it will be in the midrange. I was hoping for a high end price war to push the costs down into the $300 range.

We may yet see that.. but only if the 3870X2 lives up to the hype.