Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is crysis really a realistic benchmark?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 6, 2010 1:00:50 PM

I see Crysis used as the popular comparison for graphic card benchmarking. Which I can understand because the game takes a lot of computer to run it. But even if you build the mother of all machines, then the game is still hard to play. You could be sporting triple SLI 480's, it wont matter. You'll still get popped by the dude with the 200 ping sporting the shift click exploit. Is this even a realistic benchmark? For what, how fast we can run a poor performing shooter? Battlefield 2 plays so much better it's retarded. Ping isn't much of a factor, aiming is way more forgiving and I can run it fine on a single GTX 260. (even though I have 2, thanks to crysis) This game just performs better with less requirements from the pc and the graphics look great. I expect future games will be better designed like this and that crysis was really just improper type of engine to be used in a shooter game. Especially when something like BC2 just performs so much better imo and looks great. Can we not benchmark graphic card to bad standards? Can we drop Crysis from the charts?

kek

Poofypants :pt1cable: 
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2010 1:08:53 PM

I'll assume this is a genuine question and not a troll post...

i woudl agree that BC@ is a better game than crysis.. however the engine is not as demanding as crysis... now its mostly because BC@ is well programmed and crysis is abotu the most inefficient piece of code ever made and released on a consumer level.

people use crysis as mostly a benchmark, a way of sayign look this hardware is so good that in spite of this bad code we have managed to power through it with x fps

again it has nothign to so with how fun it is to play a game, just how hard it is to run, expect crysis to be benched for a while longer still not that people use it for much more than a benchmark software
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 6, 2010 1:55:36 PM

As a bench mark its useful for testing the limits of a system and will show any weakness up pretty quickly. Is it a realistic one to use, well yes i would say it is for the reasons above. You should never rely on a single game or application as a bench anyway and should always use a spread of CPU/GPU intensive games and applications, like all the good sites do.
The same would apply to things like 3DMark which can be used as a comparison or a control/base line for different systems but is next to useless on its own for telling how good a single PC is.

Mactronix :) 
Related resources
October 6, 2010 7:58:54 PM

Good comments, thanks.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2010 8:04:15 PM

BC may run better as a game but if Crysis is able to tax the system limits then it actually have more value as it shows limits exist in hardware.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2010 8:11:02 PM

1. Crysis is a fine game. I've played it and the expansion, and the gameplay was quite good.

2. It is excellent as a benchmark because it is very intensive on your GPU.

3. Yes, it is not optimized, but it's not too bad. GTA4 and Metro2033 has FAR worse coding.

4. It is still the best looking game out there after 3 years. Standard maxed out settings on Very High looks absolutely amazing, and if you download ultra-high graphics mods, you'll be astonished.


By the way, the people who usually hate on Crysis are people who can't even run it on their systems, or run it on low settings and wonder why it still lags on their single core computer.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2010 8:59:14 PM

The crysis benchmark is realistic at predicting how crysis will run on your machine. If it had a well optimised engine they wouldn't have replaced it for the sequel. It is pretty but it's probably more usefull as a benchmark than as a game.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2010 9:19:01 PM

Quote:

And people who say it has great gameplay should stop calling themself gamers.For some real FPS gameplay, play cod and BF series games.

Hm... I guess you haven't played Crysis multi player? If you have a good set of people on the game, multi-player is pretty fun. The same goes for COD4 and BFBC2. If you have cr@ppy people in the game it $ucks. And no, I don't care so much about single player. I really don't get why a lot of people care about singe player. I have finished Single Player completely only on the following games:
Call of Duty Finest Hour
Halo CE
COD4

That's it. Pretty much for every other game, I haven't finished it. I care only about multi player.

Quote:
how badly it is optimised.

I guess you haven't played ARMA2 or GTAIV. Now THOSE games are badly optimized. Crysis is not the most optimized game, but it is far from the worst.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2010 10:38:17 PM

Quote:
I played it at max setting 2xaa with 5850 and q9550.Some levels run great while some run like a crap which shows how badly it is optimised.

Different levels have completely scenery, so obviously it would run differently. That has little to do with optimization. This is true for any game.

Quote:
My internet speed sucks most of the time so i generally play single player.

Quote:

And people who say it has great gameplay should stop calling themself gamers..


People who only play single player should stop calling themselves gamers.
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 6, 2010 10:52:38 PM

Quote:
Crysis is a BS game developed by some donkeys working for crytex.They only managed to make it beautiful but forgot to optimise it.

Crysis benchmark is the worst benchmark ever made.


Crysis was not exactly designed to be "optimised". It was designed to add every bit of advanced technology availible on the video cards of the time and designed to scale into the predicted future.

People talk about how badly it's coded, but that's because they look at it as if it was designed to have been played at it's max settings at release. The idea with Crytek games, is to show off everything that is possible with a game engine, and included details levels that aren't meant to be seen for a few years on the systems of the time.

Crysis was designed to be played at medium settings at best. It also included a lot of new tech not previously included into games, games that are "optimised" do not include.

Give Crysis a break. It's a great benchmark, because it does stress the system. Far Cry was the same way. Eventually, we could play Far Cry maxed out, but it took a few years as well.
a b U Graphics card
October 6, 2010 11:08:41 PM

Driving games are my favorite. Right now there are just not enough driving games being made for the PC. No Nascar , originals or ports. No Forza.
Dirt 2 is pretty good, which is born from Grid -codemasters.
Grid came out in 2007 ,same year as Crysis, the graphics are so less pretty.
Its a testament to Crysis that it holds up against anything being made looks wise.
October 6, 2010 11:29:29 PM

I use to love driving games to, I was hoping forza would be released on pc. Or something with really great graphics.
October 7, 2010 1:17:48 AM

Does Crysis have a benchmark tool?
a c 172 U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 1:20:18 AM

Quote:
Crysis is a BS game developed by some donkeys working for crytex.They only managed to make it beautiful but forgot to optimise it.

Crysis benchmark is the worst benchmark ever made.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAw6Cd9XIlw

You said jackasses so there you go. :lol:  :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 1:35:25 AM

Quote:
People who only play single player should stop calling themselves gamers.

Dude... I was going to post that exact same thing, but I thought that would be kind of a d1ck thing to do.LOL. Well played btw.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 2:00:00 AM

Crysis is not only a realistic benchmark, its one of the best. Most games get 100 FPS with a 5970, but no, even the 5970 sweats with Crysis. Especially at max settings. Since it cant easily be maxed out, it shows pure GPU performance. At a point, a video card, like the 5970, gets too powerful, and since it and say the 480 max something out, its CPU limited, and thats a bad game for benchmark usage. When you use a game thats so hard to max out like crysis, it shows pure gpu power. Bad coding or not, they all have to put up with it, and therefore gives a very realistic showing of how powerful your GPU is, not what brand, what CPU, and so on. When its maxed out and gets a minimum above 60 FPS, then it would be time to use a new bench, but until then, its one of the best.
October 7, 2010 2:26:23 AM

Sorta off topic( /pray mods don't hunt me down irl for this) but is crysis worth buy/playing if you can run it close to max? I have an amd 5600+, 4gb of ddr2, and 5770.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 2:51:41 AM

^ Try the demo. See if you can run it fine at mid-high settings and like the controls,etc then grab it off Steam. Do realize your CPU is on the old side of tech.

Grab demo here: http://games.ea.com/crysis/home.jsp
October 7, 2010 4:12:54 AM

Is that the real lifsys mod? I really wanna get the game to play around with the mods, but 29.99 download is a bit steep for something that's been out for 2+ years
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 5:26:27 AM

ScoobyJooby-Jew said:
Is that the real lifsys mod? I really wanna get the game to play around with the mods, but 29.99 download is a bit steep for something that's been out for 2+ years


10.00$ Shipped if you live in the States. Normally 20.00$ everywhere else.

http://www.genuineoutlet.com/CRYSIS-FOR-PC-p/b000ps2xdo...

Amazon has it for around 16.00$ shipped..

;) 
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 5:41:41 AM

Quote:
Ok explain me this why some levels with better graphics runs better than some levels at night with zero lighting and average action.

And as for the multiplayer just becoz you guys get high speed internet doesnot mean that everyone on Earth also gets the same level of internet speed. In our country high speed internet is very expensive.
I would say only 40 percent gamers play mutiplayer and remaing still play single player campaign.Thats the reason why game companies still spends huge amount of money for implementing advanced A.I in games.No dought crysis has excellent graphics but its gameplay is equally bad.


I think the game is awesome, when you download the mods and patches it runs smooth and looks beautiful. If you crank up the AA you will get some major lag but that is no reason to complain as a higher end system will run the game just fine at any settings. So if your system is lagging, you need to lower the visuals and OC both the CPU and GPU till its playable with some decent frames.
October 7, 2010 6:01:03 AM

notty22 said:
I use this front end, Crysis benchmarking tool
http://downloads.guru3d.com/Crysis-Benchmark-Tool-1.05-...



nice, thanks for that. I wonder if it will work with Crysis Warhead since that's the game I have. I'll give it a try. I wish they would make a tool with real gameplay for bc2 because that's difficult to achieve the same results every time.
October 7, 2010 6:08:35 AM

Quote:
Ok explain me this why some levels with better graphics runs better than some levels at night with zero lighting and average action.

And as for the multiplayer just becoz you guys get high speed internet doesnot mean that everyone on Earth also gets the same level of internet speed. In our country high speed internet is very expensive.
I would say only 40 percent gamers play mutiplayer and remaing still play single player campaign.Thats the reason why game companies still spends huge amount of money for implementing advanced A.I in games.No dought crysis has excellent graphics but its gameplay is equally bad.

Yeah, I agree with subpar gameplay. You play a super soldier with a sweet combat suit. Your allies get vaporized if they die because the tech cant fall into enemy hands. Yet the Koreans have some sort of shield tech because you can unload alot of bullets into them and they glow red
October 7, 2010 6:18:13 AM

I played through it and was not impressed with the repetitiveness of it. Just look at a game like Half Life 2- there's no comparison, Crysis is the same situation over and over again with moments here and there that shine. With HL2 you are constantly doing something different, and for Crysis when you do something different, it becomes even more tedious! The levels with aliens were terrible and especially the floating level, that had me ready to give up but with over ten hours in I wasn't about to. Furthermore, there's really only two kinds of enemies in the whole game- Korean soldiers and the not very different Korean captains.- okay one level with Koreans in the suit but that hardly counts.

Anyway, that's a half ass comparison, and I know HL2 is one of the best games of all time, but I'd replay it anytime and wouldn't play Crysis again.

AND THOSE KOREANS CAN EAT LIKE 5 BULLETS STRAIGHT TO THE FACE WTF!

Just my 2 cents. However, for 10 bucks you can't really go wrong.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 6:26:08 AM

nativeson8803 said:
nice, thanks for that. I wonder if it will work with Crysis Warhead since that's the game I have. I'll give it a try. I wish they would make a tool with real gameplay for bc2 because that's difficult to achieve the same results every time.


http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=71988
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 6:56:04 AM

Quote:
Not everyone can overclock a gpu to 1000mhz.Trying playing at stock and you will also notice lag.Anyway i play warhead which is much better than crysis.And also less taxing.


You should be able to at least get 850/1200 at stock voltage, and with your CPU at 3.4ghz you should get a decent boost.

A 5850 gets around 31/32FPS at stock clocks (1080p), when you overclock the GPU you can get up to a 5/10FPS boost quite easily.. Of course if you want more frames you will need to add a second 5850, the game is fairly taxing just like you pointed out.

a c 216 U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 6:57:01 AM

nativeson8803 said:
I played through it and was not impressed with the repetitiveness of it. Just look at a game like Half Life 2- there's no comparison, Crysis is the same situation over and over again with moments here and there that shine. With HL2 you are constantly doing something different, and for Crysis when you do something different, it becomes even more tedious! The levels with aliens were terrible and especially the floating level, that had me ready to give up but with over ten hours in I wasn't about to. Furthermore, there's really only two kinds of enemies in the whole game- Korean soldiers and the not very different Korean captains.- okay one level with Koreans in the suit but that hardly counts.

Anyway, that's a half ass comparison, and I know HL2 is one of the best games of all time, but I'd replay it anytime and wouldn't play Crysis again.

AND THOSE KOREANS CAN EAT LIKE 5 BULLETS STRAIGHT TO THE FACE WTF!

Just my 2 cents. However, for 10 bucks you can't really go wrong.


I didn't like Half Life 2 that much. The whole game felt like I was running through a 20 foot wide maze. You always had to face everything head on and had no freedom of movement. Crysis has much more freedom and let you attack things from many different angles. The AI felt a lot better too. HF2's advantage was the characters and story, not the actual game play.

However, I found Farcry to be have been better than either. Not that I felt there was anything wrong with the enemy in Crysis, but I felt the super suit made Crysis a little too easy. Farcry was a lot more challenging combat. You had to attack while using terrain to your advantage, and had no suit to fix your mistakes.
October 7, 2010 7:17:31 AM

bystander said:
I didn't like Half Life 2 that much. The whole game felt like I was running through a 20 foot wide maze. You always had to face everything head on and had no freedom of movement. Crysis has much more freedom and let you attack things from many different angles. The AI felt a lot better too. HF2's advantage was the characters and story, not the actual game play.

However, I found Farcry to be have been better than either. Not that I felt there was anything wrong with the enemy in Crysis, but I felt the super suit made Crysis a little too easy. Farcry was a lot more challenging combat. You had to attack while using terrain to your advantage, and had no suit to fix your mistakes.



Your point about Far Cry is well taken- I had forgotten how great that game was, it was fun as hell and you had to think- good story too. What's funny about that game is there was this one part I just couldn't get passed and since there was no goddamned quicksave system I just eventually gave up. It was an area where you had to go through an enemy camp and like as soon as you alerted the soldiers it was like they wouldn't stop hunting you. At first I picked off some guys shooting through tents silently but always blew my cover. Hard ass game!

Remember, though, Half Life 2 was made three and a half years before Crysis and in that respect it was revolutionary. But yeah, Gordon Freeman is probably my favorite hero of all games. I don't think I gave a *** one way or the other about the characters in Crysis.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 10:45:58 AM

omg, another "CRYSIS UNOPTIMIZED" thread from folks who can't really define "how to optimize a game".

try the "Optimal Settings Button", it's there, use it if you're actually interested in playing the game, but if it's the e-peen thats getting hurt (benchmark-raping), now we can't do anything about that.

the thing is, there are game engines that're demanding, there are those that aren't, and just because it is "demanding", it doesn't mean its "unoptimized".

way back 2007, crysis @ medium beats any other game "visual-quality-wise".


a c 130 U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 3:28:58 PM

wh3resmycar said:
omg, another "CRYSIS UNOPTIMIZED" thread from folks who can't really define "how to optimize a game".

try the "Optimal Settings Button", it's there, use it if you're actually interested in playing the game, but if it's the e-peen thats getting hurt (benchmark-raping), now we can't do anything about that.

the thing is, there are game engines that're demanding, there are those that aren't, and just because it is "demanding", it doesn't mean its "unoptimized".

way back 2007, crysis @ medium beats any other game "visual-quality-wise".


Crysis is unoptimised, Crytec have admitted so in an interview which i posted not too long ago. There is a huge difference between un optimised and how well a game scale's between different systems and settings.
In this regard i actually think they did a great job with Crysis. I was able to play the game through on some very low level hardware when the game first came out. The pretty wasn't what it could be but wasn't that bad at all really.
I played the game through again on higher spec hardware and it was a very different looking game.

Now Assasins creed there was a pile of totally unoptimised rubish which ever way you look at it. Great game if you had a system that could run it but no chance of running it at all if your rig wasnt quite high spec. The hardware i used for Crysis the first time around locked up and died trying to run it :lol: 

Mactronix :) 
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 4:02:08 PM

Bluescreendeath said:

3. Yes, it is not optimized, but it's not too bad. GTA4 and Metro2033 has FAR worse coding.


Errr, bollox! I can barely get Crysis to run 30fps in VHQ @ 1080p (noAA) with a 3.83Ghz Q9550 and a GTX295.
I played Metro in Very High with AAA on and got 50-60 fps the whole way through!
Give you GTAIV though - that is about as bad!
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 4:38:28 PM

Thus proving that most games can be"optimised" to run well on any system by the individual who owns it, as long as they are prepared to turn off/down a few options here and there :kaola: 

Mactronix :) 
October 7, 2010 4:51:34 PM

Quote:
I played it at max setting 2xaa with 5850 and q9550.Some levels run great while some run like a crap which shows how badly it is optimised.

And people who say it has great gameplay should stop calling themself gamers.For some real FPS gameplay, play cod and BF series games.


Hey dipankar.........whatever just because you dont like the gameplay of crysis doesn't mean that you can speak *** about it.It's atmosphere is completely than that of cod or battlefield and its gameplay is pretty darn good.So stop being so negative.:non: 

a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 5:11:34 PM

So overall, using crysis or any other game as a benchmark is only good for determining how that particular game will run on the system. If you want to run a different game your going to have different results.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 5:20:30 PM

Again I have to go and explain people the same thing.
I admit that Crysis was not properly optimized.Its NOT UN-Optimized, unlike GTA 4.But it can run on a variety of different configurations.Just check youtube and you'll find it running on integrated graphics, macs and even linux!.But I'm yet to come across a more beautiful game than Crysis warhead.

And Dip, the reason why the performance of Crysis is different in different levels, especially the snow level is because in them there are lots and lots of particles and polygons to render.FYI Crysis uses more than 85000 shaders, one million lines of code and upto 1GB of texture data on the highest settings.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 5:28:45 PM

Quote:
^I know that mate.But i get good performance in those level as compared to level taking place at night.

At night, there is nothing to render except the foliage and terrain.There are no special lighting like god rays and stuff like that.Also, shadows are not that difficult to render at night because of the dark ground.Its not that easy to render shadows on ground that is illuminated by sunlight.
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 5:32:55 PM

mactronix said:
Crysis is unoptimised, Crytec have admitted so in an interview which i posted not too long ago. There is a huge difference between un optimised and how well a game scale's between different systems and settings.
In this regard i actually think they did a great job with Crysis. I was able to play the game through on some very low level hardware when the game first came out. The pretty wasn't what it could be but wasn't that bad at all really.
I played the game through again on higher spec hardware and it was a very different looking game.

Now Assasins creed there was a pile of totally unoptimised rubish which ever way you look at it. Great game if you had a system that could run it but no chance of running it at all if your rig wasnt quite high spec. The hardware i used for Crysis the first time around locked up and died trying to run it :lol: 

Mactronix :) 


Crysis was unoptimised for two main reasons:
1) It was designed to include all the new tech features of the new video cards of the time.
2) It was not expected that anyone could play it fully maxed out when it was released. You can't design the game around hardware not yet released.

The term optimise often means to compromise. Most games compromise some visuals for better performance. Crytek doesn't do this. They include all visuals, and let's you compromise the image quality yourself through the options menu.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 5:39:22 PM

Quote:
@tamz You are not getting my point.I get good performance in demanding levels and slightly worse performance in levels taking place at night.Overall the performance is great.

That seems strange, the reverse is more likely to happen.I played Warhead and Crytek seems to have fixed this issue in it.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 5:41:05 PM

Guys: A benchmark is nothing more then a piece of software operating at some settings that different PC setups can compare against.

So yes, Crysis is a valid benchmark.
So is 3dMark.
So is DOOM, and CS:S, and Quake.

As long as you test with the same settings, its a valid benchmark.
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 7, 2010 5:53:07 PM

nativeson8803 said:
Your point about Far Cry is well taken- I had forgotten how great that game was, it was fun as hell and you had to think- good story too. What's funny about that game is there was this one part I just couldn't get passed and since there was no goddamned quicksave system I just eventually gave up. It was an area where you had to go through an enemy camp and like as soon as you alerted the soldiers it was like they wouldn't stop hunting you. At first I picked off some guys shooting through tents silently but always blew my cover. Hard ass game!

Remember, though, Half Life 2 was made three and a half years before Crysis and in that respect it was revolutionary. But yeah, Gordon Freeman is probably my favorite hero of all games. I don't think I gave a *** one way or the other about the characters in Crysis.


Farcry remains the most fun FPS single player game I've ever played. Not only did you have to plan out your attacks, and a ton of freedom, and used cover unlike any game before it, the landscape was awe inspiringly beautiful.

You may try playing Farcry again, there were always multiple ways to make it past most maps. You might even turn down the difficulty level. Farcry's easy level was as difficult as most games medium or hard. There is no shame in playing it at easy.

There is also a quicksave option with a mod that you should be able to find. I personally liked the waypoint system myself, but it's worth using over quitting.

And without giving away any story, the game gets a LOT harder than it was there based on the type of enemy it sounds like.
a b U Graphics card
October 8, 2010 5:28:32 AM

Crysis is unoptimised, Crytec have admitted so in an interview which i posted not too long ago. There is a huge difference between un optimised and how well a game scale's between different systems and settings. said:
Crysis is unoptimised, Crytec have admitted so in an interview which i posted not too long ago. There is a huge difference between un optimised and how well a game scale's between different systems and settings.


we've had this conversation before, what they admitted was the lack of focus in gameplay. you can read it again if you want. so will you admit that if they made the visual half-arsed you'd call it "optimized"?

and when they said "optimized for console", i do hope you actually understand what that means. (hint: visual quality aspect).

here's the thing, when a pc game gets ported to a console and a game dev says "console optimized", it just means the visuals will be crappier, there's no magic in it. or do you actually fool yourself into believing that games like metro2033/bfbc2 on the 360 is directly comparable, visual quality wise, to the pc. i will lol @ you if you do.
a c 216 U Graphics card
October 8, 2010 7:23:42 AM

Quote:
^They also said crysis 2 will have the best visual ever.What do you have to say about that?

Everyone knows that cryengine 2 was unoptimised thats the reason why crytex is using brand new engine for crysis2.


The reason they are making a new engine this go around is two fold, to allow it to scale low enough for a concole, and to add in DX11 for the PC.

You probably will be shocked, but I bet only the concole version will be "optimised" (i.e. watered down).

They usually like to allow the PC engines to scale well beyond what current systems can handle at max. Unless people complaints about not being able to play at "maxed" settings from the past games they have made have gotten them to change.
a c 130 U Graphics card
October 8, 2010 7:52:40 AM

wh3resmycar said:
we've had this conversation before, what they admitted was the lack of focus in gameplay. you can read it again if you want. so will you admit that if they made the visual half-arsed you'd call it "optimized"?

and when they said "optimized for console", i do hope you actually understand what that means. (hint: visual quality aspect).

here's the thing, when a pc game gets ported to a console and a game dev says "console optimized", it just means the visuals will be crappier, there's no magic in it. or do you actually fool yourself into believing that games like metro2033/bfbc2 on the 360 is directly comparable, visual quality wise, to the pc. i will lol @ you if you do.



Yes we had this conversation before and im quite happy not to drag it all up again, which is why (hint: i didnt post the quote again) But as you have seen fit to miss quote it i will post this extract.
"With Crysis 1 on PC only, you can kind of brute force it. "Well, just throw more hardware at it." That was the solution to making a better game. So, in some ways, in places, it was a little unfocused and not as tight as it could have been"

Its got nothing to do with visuals,which you seem to think is the only optimisable part of game code or any other aspect of optimisation. Some say the game if poor optimisation wise and you say it isnt. I dont really care one way or the other but Crytec themselves admit it isnt that well optimised.
Console optimised means just that, and only someone desperatly trying to prove a point would try and sugest that its in anyway linked to how it performs on a PC.
Consoles dont even come into the equation as Crysis wasnt made for console so your just clouding things dragging it into the conversation.
We can have this conversation every time Crysis an doptimisation gets mentioned if you like. the quote is valid as far as im concerned and i will continue to use it to show that the game isnt as optimised as some would like to think.

Mactronix :) 

a b U Graphics card
October 8, 2010 1:13:17 PM

So in summary to all this bickering, Crysis 1 is not a optimized code as compared to Crysis 2. Your system will be heavily taxed and thus well benchtested.
!