Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Low frame rates in far cry 2

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 25, 2009 9:39:47 PM

i fell as though i should be able to play this at full settings, since i can play crysis warhead at max settings with decent fps, and im pretty sure they both use the cryengine.
specs
phenom II 940 BE
4gb ddr2 1066
windows 7 RC1
radeon 4850 512
samsung 24", 1920x1200
asus m4a78 pro mobo
2 x 500gb hdd's in raid 0

i can only get around 10fps at max settings, i was forced to turn everything completely as low as it can go, 1600x1050, no aa, and then i get 30-40

thank you in advance

More about : low frame rates cry

June 25, 2009 10:06:42 PM

Crysis is a bit more demanding than Warhead. however that does seem a bit off, you should be getting better results.
June 25, 2009 10:09:35 PM

i meant that crysis warhead and far cry 2 both use the CRYengine 2.5, crysis uses 2. I've never played crysis ever since i upgraded my cpu from a single core 2.2GHz athlon 3500+ to my phenom II 940... which is a lot better lol
Related resources
June 25, 2009 11:00:35 PM

Aren't there updates for FarCry2?
June 25, 2009 11:23:09 PM

i have the latest patch, as of downloaded it yesterday... i think if i had more graphic memory, 512 just isnt enough to hold all those textures in far cry 2... but theres gotta be something wrong i have to play it everything on low and i can max crysis warhead!! i prolly cant crysis 1 tho...
June 25, 2009 11:54:36 PM

Farcry 2 uses the Dunia engine, not cryengine 2.5
June 26, 2009 12:33:23 AM

mat7861 said:
Farcry 2 uses the Dunia engine, not cryengine 2.5

about to say that


after farcry (crytek) they went on to make crysis and got some help from Nvidia which made it biased

farcry2 uses duna two different engines


is you chipset up to date, I had that problem I know im crossfire and I know I have a intel X48 mobo still could casue a problem lol
a b U Graphics card
June 26, 2009 1:08:45 AM

Amg said:
about to say that


after farcry (crytek) they went on to make crysis and got some help from Nvidia which made it biased

farcry2 uses duna two different engines


is you chipset up to date, I had that problem I know im crossfire and I know I have a intel X48 mobo still could casue a problem lol


What are you talking about?

The GTX260 and the 4870 gets the exact same frame rates in Crysis. The 9800GTX/GTX+ and the 4850 gets the same frame rates in Crysis.

June 26, 2009 1:32:40 AM

What do you consider "decent" framerates? At 1920x1200 with a 4890 toxic I only get 24fps average in crysis warhead with no aa.
a b U Graphics card
June 26, 2009 1:45:10 AM

@OP,
Crysis 1 & 2 and Farcry 1 were all made by Crytek.
Farcry 2 was made by a different company due to EA being a d*ck...which is why FC2 wasn't nearly as good as FC1.
June 26, 2009 3:30:43 AM

pb7280 said:
i fell as though i should be able to play this at full settings, since i can play crysis warhead at max settings with decent fps, and im pretty sure they both use the cryengine.
specs
phenom II 940 BE
4gb ddr2 1066
windows 7 RC1
radeon 4850 512
samsung 24", 1920x1200
asus m4a78 pro mobo
2 x 500gb hdd's in raid 0

i can only get around 10fps at max settings, i was forced to turn everything completely as low as it can go, 1600x1050, no aa, and then i get 30-40

thank you in advance


It sounds like you are running out of VRAM. 512 MB @ 1920x1200 with high quality settings is quite a strain already, adding AA on top of that only exacerbates the problem. It still seems like something is fishy though, with only getting 30-40 at low settings....hmm. I've never played FC2, is it normal for 'low' to be that demanding?

Anyway, try running at 1680x1050 with high settings, but no AA, and see what your framerates do.
June 26, 2009 4:33:02 AM

How many times we gotta tell you? Farcry 2 uses Dunia engine with Havok physics...

But yeah if you can play crysis warhead at max you should be able to play farcry, the cryengine is more demanding than the Dunia.
June 26, 2009 5:07:50 PM

yeah your right it doesnt run cryengine, i just assumed it did since far cry 1 ran the first cryengine... i have a 780g chipset, and the drivers for it ocme with ccc, and i have version 9.6... decent fps i mean ~30, just a rough estimate cuz i have never tested crysis warhead with an actual fps monitor... yeah im running out of vram, but windows automatically pulls out of my sys ram (4gb ddr2 1066mhz)... ive gotten tired of my 4850 im just gonna upgrade to the rv800 with directx 11 next month, even though dxdiag shows my version as 11 already in windows 7 for some odd reason...
June 26, 2009 6:50:41 PM

You know now that i think about it, Crysis didnt run as good as Farcry 2, but i think Crysis Warhead actually ran better than farcry 2, and of course looks better.
June 26, 2009 7:03:19 PM

not hard ...

FarCry = Cryengine (crytek) + Ubisoft
Crysis = CryEngine 2 (Crytek) + EA
FarCry 2 = Dunia Engine (Ubisoft Montreal) + Ubisoft Montreal :p  ya baby ...
June 27, 2009 5:03:55 PM

crysis warhead looks and runs better than crysis, crytek did a really good job optimizing the cryengine. im gonna install crysis 1, its probably a better comparison to far cry 2. cant wait for cryengine 3 on crysis 2!
June 27, 2009 5:13:08 PM

I must be missing something, but crysis warhead looks and runs exactly the same as crysis for me. I use the same custom cfg for both games, not leaving any option set to the generic setting of high or gamer or whatever, and the two games are practically identical in terms of performance and image quality. It's like Crytek's optimization was nothing more than tweaking the console variables for each setting (mainstream, gamer, etc.)

Like I said, maybe I'm missing something...anybody know what that is, or am I just losing my mind?
June 27, 2009 11:07:10 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
What are you talking about?

The GTX260 and the 4870 gets the exact same frame rates in Crysis. The 9800GTX/GTX+ and the 4850 gets the same frame rates in Crysis.



I never meantioned anything about Frame rates i was just stating that tehy used two different games engines as in the game not the graphics cards, crysis does actruly run better on Nvida cards
June 28, 2009 5:03:48 AM

efeat said:
I must be missing something, but crysis warhead looks and runs exactly the same as crysis for me. I use the same custom cfg for both games, not leaving any option set to the generic setting of high or gamer or whatever, and the two games are practically identical in terms of performance and image quality. It's like Crytek's optimization was nothing more than tweaking the console variables for each setting (mainstream, gamer, etc.)

Like I said, maybe I'm missing something...anybody know what that is, or am I just losing my mind?

its probably because tour system doesnt take full advantage of the tweaks, or it didnt need to be tweaked in the first place... like i said ill get crysis 1 and see how well it runs in comparison on max settings...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis_Warhead#Development
there you go thats where i saw that
June 30, 2009 8:52:23 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Ahhh wikipedia, that well known bastion of facts, truth and integrity. :lol: 

well if you ever noticed everything on wikipedia has to citied, otherwise a notice comes up saying its not. if you click the little number after every fact it opens up a website where the info was obtained from, in this case http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/53217, http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54158, or http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/909/909584p1.html.

i just did the benchmarks for crysis and got 28 avg. fps for cpu and the same on the gpu test, at high settings dx10 x64
ill run the crysis warhead benchmarks at enthusiast (very high), see how it compares

but bottom line why isnt far cry working?
!