Why im I not able to play crysis on high with my system?

you may be experiencing a similar bottleneeck, probably the one I am, if you solve your problem, let me know.

Post all your specs. If it's worth under $2000 then there ya go. Bump it to $3000 and you can almost run it all on high.

Not even a tri-SLI (3 vid cards at $600 each) and the fastest processor can run Crysis on all high settings.

Edit: I see your specs, it ain't enough.

And TT water cooling? Ack......

Nobody can run Crysis on extreme settings yet, not until either NVIDIA or ATI release a monster card that we're all hoping for.

I can only get 30FPS on medium settings and at least 20FPS on high without all that anti aliasing on my 640MB GTS at 1680x1050 which is kinda sad really.

With my system, I get like 25-30 fps on high (at most times) at 1680x1050. What resolution are you trying to play at? Crysis is very playable at 30 fps unlike most shooters. It's not as nice as 60+ obviously, but it will do.

I can run it at high everything (XP SP2 32-bit on the retail Crysis patch with 174.20 ForceWare) with 8xAA Q and 8xAF at about 20-30FPS @ 1280x1024.  
I'll have a play with some of the settings and see whats the maximum I can get out of it!  

He said High, not Very High. My system is perfectly playable on a mixture of high and very high with my two 8800GT's with Vista. I would suggest manually adjusting each setting rather than just going globally from Medium to High. Some settings kill your performance more than others, change some settings and run a benchmark and see how it does. Things like Motion Blur take a huge amount of GPU power.
http://files.filefront.com/CrysisBenchmarkTool105zip/;9090692;/fileinfo.html

"OMG I cant run Crysis on high!"

Seriously. Why does everyone have themselves all worked up because one game, which was written for hardware that will be out a year from now, doesn't run at 60 fps on hi settings. Not that long ago, this game would would have been panned just for the simple fact it wont run worth a crap on anything but the best hardware and lots of it. Im not saying its a bad game, I own it, I like it and the reviews of it speak for themselves. But seriously, is 98% of the public going to build a $3k gaming PC just to play one game? Unlikely.... Its a poor measuring stick for hardware. I personally think if the code was better written, it wouldn't be such a resource pig that it is.

OP has a G92GTS SLI system. He should be able to play very high long as it's not over 1280x1024 and no AA.

I'm only on a 8800gs and I can play high just fine. 38fps average @ 1440x900. 65fps in medium.

What a mind splinter Crysis has turned into. People freak out because their settings say medium but take in no consideration that the game looks brilliant at those settings. Crysis is now more of a benchmark than it is a game.

I am curious to see how Far Cry 2 is handled regarding what settings are available.

lower the settings that are cpu limited such as physics, particles i belive is mostly done on the cpu, and maybe post processing, im not exactly sure, but your cpu is a bottleneck for the gpus even at that res, look at tri and quad sli bench's, the cpu is bottleneck at 1920x1200 very high on a 3ghz quad. lower cpu depending settings and raise gpu dependent

I can play mostly very high with shaders+a few other settings at high on a single gtx @ 660/1520/1070 @ 1680x1050, id rather run those settings then all high and a few med @ 1920x1080 or 1920x1200.

At what resolution are you trying to run and what AA settings?

I have an e6750 @ 3.6, and 2x 8800 GTXs, and play on high at 1680x 1050, with 8x AA on, and fraps stays near 40, down to 34-36 on the ice/dome series.

Still get the widescreen look, but cannot stay on high at my 28" native 1920x1200 res.

Cut your res down to 1680x1050 and rock on!

Join the club op.

If he can get 40fps in medium and unplayable on high setting then he is gpu bottlenecked not cpu bottleneck.

There is something wrong with his system.

TO OP: You should uninstall your drivers and install the latest 174.74 drivers. This drivers improved my crysis performance by 10%.

He could also try to run in DX9 mode ... if he doesn't see any difference who cares.

This config works very well on my stock 2900pro, in windows xp,

1400x900, first 3 levels 30fps+ average:

(havent got any further in the game yet, cos im about 1000 miles away from my pc)

Texture quality - high
Objects quality - high
Shadows quality - MEDIUM
Physics quality - high
Shaders quality - high

Volumetric effects quality - MEDIUM
Game effects quality - MEDIUM
Postprocessing quality - MEDIUM
Particles quality - MEDIUM
Water quality - high
Sound quality - high

The rest of my system is fairly mid-range. e6300 oc'd to 2.6ghz, 2gb ddr2-800. When I game I use 'msconfig' from the run dialog and chop out what isn't needed for gaming, bringing me down to about 19 processes for when I restart and the changes are applied. On a 1gb system like I had for years thats an essential thing to do, and it can even have a tangible effect on a 2gb system.

A 640mb gts should manage these settings at 1600x1200 for most of the game, if not the whole thing. With the latest patches and drivers it should just about do it. A mild oc would be a good idea too. The 174 forceware makes some signifigant gains in Crysis, and when nvidia finally decides to incorporate the G80 chips into a newer driver, you could see some real improvement in game fps.

With my new 1024 GTS I get between 20-30 FPS on very high at 1280x1024. Just played it all the way through and the lowest it got was 12. Though I do have it overclocked quite a bit.

It seems to me that crysis is more of a benchmarking tool than a game.. which makes sense cause it kinda sucks as an actual game..

the op's info suggests he's running 1900x1200, which pretty much nobody can run on high, so that's one reason. the other issue is probably his cpu, which is no slouch, but no match for a core2. it's most likely gonna bottleneck the two gts's at some point.

whos we? I got it months ago. Its a quality game. Neither was i personally offended or in physical pain because i had to put some things on medium. oh the humanity

mrsbytch is a couple that uses the same username. We being the couple mrsbytch

I've been running everything on high and a few things on very high, but my average FPS is around 20-25. If I run everything on high @ 1440x900 I get around 25-30, unless there is heavy action on the screen then it drops.

Q6600 2.4,EVGA 680i SLI mobo, 4gigs OCZ Reaper, 8800GTS 640mb 540/1700 single card

I like it when games have levels of Normal - Hard - Very Hard instead of Easy - Medium - Hard. Thats because I want to play on the difficulty which gives me the best experience, which is Normal.

Games like Crysis should start doing the same thing but with the graphics levels instead. Instead of low - medium - high - very high it should be Weak - Best Overall - Beyond expectations - Maximum expectations. That way people that are playing on "medium" know they are playing the game on the expected graphics playable.

Discussing difficulty levels with crysis is a mute point. Even on easy the enemies are just bullet rags. As far as gameplay goes it felt like a crappy german version of Halo. It even had a Johnson. Which reminds me... its pretty sad Halo 3's water had comparable shaders and much more advanced interactivity than this supposed technical showcase of a game.... though even bioshock's water in dx10 mode can't compare to Halo and that game was all about it... I guess someone at bungie really likes their water. There were only two parts of crysis where the water was really exceptional and that was during the AAA mission and during the aircraft carrier attack.

Ooo, look out, you will have the torches and pitchforks after you for that comment. Crysis is THE ONLY game, don't you know that?




If you throw a flare into the water and go look at it, it bubbles...that there is some gosh darn smart water if you ask me.




Those trixy hobbitses.

The example in my quote was referring to graphics levels, not difficulty. It sounded unclear so I edited my post.

Haha.. I can't get over the fact that not only does it appear in this thread, but I've said it myself at least 10 times in other threads:

Get over Crysis! It's a power-hungry game written to destroy your system! Not only that, but the ending was horrible! There were parts of it that I enjoyed, but for the most part, there wasn't really anything crazy or amazing about the game.

I can play on all high @ 1680x1050 no AA (on high you don't really need it anyway)...

If the OP's proc is just a 6000+ and not an x2 6000+, there's his problem right there...

Oh great, now there is a Crysis conspiracy theory. I like how you say get over it but then tout the level at which you can play it. Play it on low if it isn't that important to you.

Touche senor, indeed. I'm just saying that if you can't play crysis at max everything, don't let it destroy your life, and don't build a system based on how it will play crysis.

I think that is being harsh. Yes Crysis tries to do stuff ahead of it's time ... so what? I think it the argument is similar to saying that "outer-space" is there to cripple our economy by making us invest in exploring it.

If not being able to play Crysis at maximum settings creates any kind of discomfort (moral or other), I think that EGO (neutral concept, not the pejorative one) is responsible, not the game.

If I want more realistic jungle, I think getting a trip to central america would cost less than a rig for maximum settings at Crysis anyway  .

Amen to that  

That should be a warning printed on the Crysis box.

Or even a trip to Hawaii... or Florida... well said. I do agree that ego plays a large part in how frustrated one is that their system may not measure up to the benchmark that they want it to...

Crysis is a technological triumph/milestone/revolution in graphics......... with unfortunately bad AI and a muddled up Alien Spaceship level.......... i wasn't exactly a scoffer when the game released..infact i'd been waiting for it for a year......and then i played it.....

regardless of the crappiest ending of all time, regardless of the clumsy AI, regardless of the tootifruity spacraft, regardless of the lack of a solid story, i loved the game simply cos i was besotted by the visuals.......and also by the weapon modification menu.....not to mention the VAST destructive environment.

Sorry about my absence...i have an amd x2 6000+ not an amd 6000+. Also I am trying to play on my 24" monitor at 1920x1200 resolution. It seems that I am only able to play on medium with no AA. WTF! Also on 3dmarks06 I only score about a 12500. Does this seem right? It seems SLI is a bust; ill never try it again.

I think it may be hardware related.

19x12 all high is asking too much, espeically later in the game. Take a look at [H] and you will see their opinion of max playable settings with SLI G92 GTS 512MB is 19x12 and a mix of medium and high, and they averaged 28 fps. Also note it's paired with a QX9650.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ3NSwzLCxoZW5...

I'm also curious if you are running out of VRAM, although with no fsaa I wouldn't think so. In comparison, I played Crysis at 1680x1050 2xaa/16xaf all high details in Win XP 32-bit. With 4XAA I would have fine performance most of the time and then in spots it would get super choppy. I'm guessing it's possible that in crysis SLI G92 has the power to be playable at settings that eat up 512MB vram, although one card would not have the power to be playable at those settings. That was my theory anyway.

Also, While Crysis at 19x12 high is very GPU limited with one card, I think with two cards you are also being limited by that CPU. With high details comes high physics effects the CPU must handle. I saw performance improvements with 8800GT SLI OC'in the Q6600 to 3.0GHz vs 2.4GHz. But that said, I wouldn't think things would be totally unplayable. I'd try reducing the resolution if you want all high settings. Or set some details to medium like [H] used if you want native 19x12.

Dude, unlike your PC this one is actually running at x16.

Agreed. Any one remember Oblivion?

8X PCI-e isn't hurting things though. Even 8X/8X SLi 8800GTX keeps up with 16x/16X SLI. Have a look: http://www.techspot.com/review/45-nvidia-nforce-650i-sl...

edit: BTW, I do wish this review tested at even higher res and specified 4xAA. Would be more complete and can't rule out the possibility the 680i would have pulled ahead at those settings.

which one...urs?