Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Low FPS Crysis w/ 75% usage

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 7:20:36 PM

I still play Crysis so I can see what my rig can do as its the most demanding game I own right now :) . But I noticed something weird...

(When I play Crysis I open up task manager and pull it across my 24" 1920x1080 screen so i have a preview of a long time of CPU usage. I also open up MSI Afterburner and set it on top of Task manager to see GPU usage.)

Now I noticed something funny when I closed Crysis. I was having frame stutters occasionally and low FPS overall, but my CPU usage never went higher than 75%. My GPU usage in Afterburner never went over 80%. Sooo:

Why is Crysis have stuttering and low FPS, but it isnt using my GPU or my CPU?

My Rig:
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
MSI 870-G45
AMD Phenom II B45 x4 3.1 Ghz (Unlocked Athlon II x3 445)
MSI GTX 460 1GB Cyclone (Operating at 820/1640/2000)
4GB G. Skill Ripjaw DDR3 1600 (Operating at 1333)
500 Watt Corsair PSU

More about : low fps crysis usage

a c 91 U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 7:45:54 PM

your processor is slow and doesn't have any L3 cache and your video card lacks enough vram for that game. Lower your resolution to 1024x768 and try again. You can also turn off motion blur and crank back other settings.
September 17, 2011 7:52:01 PM

1GB of VRAM is probably enough for 1080p but your processor is holding your video card back.
Related resources
a c 91 U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 7:56:01 PM

.............. and disable physx in the nvidia control panel.
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 9:27:55 PM

One, did anyone read my post? Even if my computer was too slow (which it is not) then Crysis SHOUlD use all the computers resources. Two, L3 cache is insignificant to gaming performance, there is even a toms article on this (there's like a 2-5 FPS difference). Three I don't believe Crysis even supports Physx. Four, 1GB of vRAM is plenty for '1080p'.
a c 91 U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 10:13:33 PM

I read your post. Did you read mine ? First of all Tom's is wrong about the L3 cache if someone did write an article here about it being insignificant. I suggest you look it up elsewhere. Ram, L3 cache and HD cache all help to keep your games from stuttering to put it simply. There is physx involved in Crysis. 1gig is NOT enough for 1080p and it surely isn't enough for Crysis. I've been down that road. If you don't lower your resolution and tinker with your game settings you'll keep complaining until the cows come home. Your system cannot run Crysis the way you want or the way you expect. Try running in DX9 mode. That's the only other thing I can suggest that would help you.
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 10:25:37 PM

swifty_morgan said:
1gig is NOT enough for 1080p and it surely isn't enough for Crysis.


Hahahaha!

Dont believe this guy, 1GB DDR5 is more than adequate for 1080p.


And seeing how a you have a GTX 460 Cyclone, you should be able to max out Crysis at no problems, have you tried updating the video drivers?
I'm more than sure its the video drivers.

As for your CPU, that is also holding you back, and I suggest you upgrade ASAP for no more bottlenecks.

My bets on the drivers. If not, it's a dying card :( 
a c 91 U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 10:29:11 PM

I had to belittle myself. Here's a quote direct from tom's;;;

"Finally, it remains to be said that L3 cache memory is imperative if you want to reach the highest performance levels. At the 2.6 GHz clock speed that we benchmarked, it may not be that obvious, but at 3 GHz and up we see the Phenom II scaling much better than the Athlon II X4."
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 11:05:03 PM

Swift, you are wrong. I have gone higher settings than what I have now and it worked just fine. Look at toms benchies for the GTX 470 (around the performance of my overclock), and look at their settings. My card does fine with Crysis on their benches and it has done fine with me. This isn't even the issue, and you missed my very first point in my previous post. EVEN IF my computer was too slow, my computer would be maxed out, not at 75%.
September 17, 2011 11:19:07 PM

I hate to throw into this flame fest...but my 955 overclocked to 3.8 and crossfired 5770's that I used to run forced me to drop resolution to 1680. At that resolution I could play most settings on the highest level and drop a few to keep things running nice. Crossfired 5770's roast a 460. I would recommend dropping to 1680 and tinkering with a few settings down in that range. You should be able to get good FPS at 1680.
a c 91 U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 11:21:45 PM

I never "maxed" out any processor while playing ANY games, ever..... If the processor can't deliver it can't deliver. That's that. Your processor doesn't deliver. I don't care if the cores aren't maxed out or not. It's too darn slow and it has no L3 cache. Crysis needs more than you have. I don't understand why you don't see that. Try running in DX9. ......... belittled my self again..... the shame.
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 11:25:55 PM

Haha thanks for your input :) .

BUT, my question wasn't: Can my computer run Crysis? It is: Why am I only using 75% of my rig?

I did run it with higher settings and it still ran just fine. Not to mention I have my GTX 460 OC'ed to about 470 speeds. I just got home, and ill tinker with it for a few... :) 
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 11:29:26 PM

swifty_morgan said:
I don't care if the cores aren't maxed out or not. It's too darn slow and it has no L3 cache. Crysis needs more than you have. I don't understand why you don't see that. Try running in DX9. ......... belittled my self again..... the shame.


Your not getting it: NEITHER my GPU OR MY CPU were maxed out. One or the other should be maxed out. With Crysis I understand that my GPU should choke up before my CPU, but NIETHER of them were maxed. People use CPU usage and GPU usage to figure out bottlenecks, when one hits the ceiling before the other, that component is the bottleneck.
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 11:35:46 PM

Here at the L3 tests on gaming that Toms did:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-l3-cache,241...

Here’s a forum. Look at the last post (Against another guy who made ridiculous claims without backing it up):

http://www.overclock.net/hardware-news/586854-tomshw-at...

I used to think the same thing till i was told differently by about 7 other people in a thread I posted in. I did some research and pulled up mutlple things that pointed that L3 cache does almost nothing in gaming.
a c 164 U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 11:40:46 PM

What is using 75%? Crysis.exe? What is using the other 25%?

I've never done a lot of crysis digging, any chance it's only using 3 of your 4 cores by design? Perhaps it can't max a quad?
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2011 11:48:14 PM

4745454b said:
What is using 75%? Crysis.exe? What is using the other 25%?

I've never done a lot of crysis digging, any chance it's only using 3 of your 4 cores by design? Perhaps it can't max a quad?


Finally someone else :) . Roughly 75% of my CPU is being used by Crysis, the other 25% is free, according to Windows Task Manager. My GPU usage ranged from 65-70%, spiking to 85% sometimes. Im not sure how many cores it can use...
a c 155 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 12:03:08 AM

You can see how many cores it's using in task manager.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 12:18:40 AM

I know irts that I had to leave agin and I didnt see this morning when I posted.
a c 216 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 12:33:35 AM

swifty_morgan said:
I read your post. Did you read mine ? First of all Tom's is wrong about the L3 cache if someone did write an article here about it being insignificant. I suggest you look it up elsewhere. Ram, L3 cache and HD cache all help to keep your games from stuttering to put it simply. There is physx involved in Crysis. 1gig is NOT enough for 1080p and it surely isn't enough for Crysis. I've been down that road. If you don't lower your resolution and tinker with your game settings you'll keep complaining until the cows come home. Your system cannot run Crysis the way you want or the way you expect. Try running in DX9 mode. That's the only other thing I can suggest that would help you.



These two items you list take all credibility out of your diagnosis. I was ready to believe the cache issue, but this is just flat wrong.

Crysis does NOT use physX. It uses the Havoc physics engine instead.

People, myself included, have been running Crysis at maxed settings for years with 1GB and lower VRAM.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 12:34:30 AM

wow these other people are trolling you bud, honestly there is VERY LITTLE performance difference between no L3 and L3.... i mean srsly guys calm down and get off your high pillar, quit trying to drum up sales be feeding people false info so they can waste 200 bucks on a new processor...

anywho, have you tried it with a completely fresh windows install?

Edit and when i say very little i mean not even 15 dollar upgrade worthy
a c 216 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 12:40:00 AM

Btw, what kind of FPS are you getting with your 460 in Crysis? I would not expect a single 460 would perform very well at that resolution in Crysis.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 1:34:00 AM

I'll bench it later tonight and stick the results up. I also will try messing with the settings and see if I can get that to work.

No i haven't installed a fresh copy. I have 6 users, all with multiple "i" devices and personal programs, its a pain in the **s to get them all back to where it was. Plus I have Adobe Suite Master Collection CS5 all set up, i dont want to reinstall that mess :) . I could try, but its a last ditch effort and im not there yet :) .
a c 216 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 1:40:18 AM

If you have a 2nd HDD, you could try installing a fresh copy of Windows on a 2nd HDD to test. I have in the past run into problems with Crysis with other software. It's possible another program in the background is giving you issues.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 1:41:52 AM

mouse24 said:
i mean srsly guys calm down and get off your high pillar, quit trying to drum up sales be feeding people false info so they can waste 200 bucks on a new processor...


haha I was actually planning to upgrade to this sometime soon:

8 Core Bulldozer
A Better Mobo :) 
Corsair H80 or H100
Either ATI 6990 or GTX 590 (I don't have room for two cards in my case)
16GB DDR3 1600 RAM
1200 Watt PSU

(Edit) Sometime soon meaning like Christmas lol
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 1:45:47 AM

hahaha, i find it humorous that you can afford all that and not a HaF 912 or something similar :D 

you could also make like say a 25g partition and dual boot :)  maybe?

Edit: now that i think about it maybe your Direct X got corrupted?

Edit2: ah nvm that, doesnt Crysis 1 only use DX9?
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 1:56:04 AM

Didn't read nearly the whole thread, but there was certainly plenty of fail up front, as well as some sound advice. Here are the facts of the matter:

1)Your CPU is holding you back. I've taken a Phenom II X4 well over 5GHz on LN2 and it still bottlenecks 2x GTX 460 in SLI in the Crysis graphics benchmark some of the time. That's right, not even talking about the CPU benchie. Idk if you've unlocked the L3 cache or if you even have it to unlock, don't know much about such things. BUT, Crysis/Warhead love L3 cache.

2)Your performance monitor can hide from you that you're CPU bottlenecked. You CPU monitor reports to you every second; in that time your CPU does billions of operations. So even if too many of the cycles were full when critical operations needed to be performed and it got backed up, it will still say to you, "Hey, I only used 75% of my cycles over the last second, I'm good." Afaict, Crysis is poorly optimized in two ways; it's not serious about multithreading and the thread(s) it does run are poorly optimized in themselves.

3) I know that Crysis needs more than 1GB of VRAM at 1080p if run on very high with heavy antialiasing. Exactly what the cutoff is, I don't remember, but the core of a GTX 460 can't nearly handle everything at very high at 1080p anyway, say nothing of anti aliasing. I haven't paid too much attention to VRAM requirements, but I'd suggest getting a graphical mod like Blackfire's to get good looking graphics and decent performance, rather setting everything to a combo of high and medium. Unfortunately, the mod doesn't help with the CPU too much.
September 18, 2011 2:00:28 AM

Just for comparison and to add my 2 cents, I can max out crysis on my PII 940 and 4870 1GB at 1980x1200. It will get a tad choppy in the high action scenes where a lot of sh*t is going down but that's about it.

I will add though that if you are running dual monitors while playing Crysis and/or Crysis in window mode that will have adverse effects on your gaming performance. If you're doing any of that, try disabling one monitor while playing and/or running Crysis in full screen mode. It could also be driver related if you haven't tried to just reinstall drivers yet, I didn't notice if you had mentioned you doing that. chkdsk'ing and defragging might help also if you'd like to try that.
a c 106 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 2:32:04 AM

Well, if your using 80% that means either 20% is being used either waiting on some event and/or system processes. If you haven't done a clean install in a while then it's possible some copy protection or another is sucking up cycles. It could also be that you have some processes running that are sucking up RAM (monitoring tools, bit torrent, chat clients, development tools, etc.) and the slow down is a result of your system having use the swap file every now and then. Of course with 4GB you would really have to clean out your system if that was the case since that shouldn't happen on a decently clean install :p .

Finally it could be your antivirus. Microsoft Security essentials seems to hide some of it's processes so you may not see it in the regular task manager. It also likes to do a quick scan of files you access (that's a pain if it's an iso :p ) but Norton and Macafee are alot worse in that reguard.
a c 106 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 2:34:57 AM

In noticed further down you said that there are 6 users, so I'm guessing your family also uses that PC or something. If that's the case I'd bet there was some junk programs and perhaps a virus or rootkit ^_^
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 2:45:48 AM

cuecuemore said:
Didn't read nearly the whole thread, but there was certainly plenty of fail up front, as well as some sound advice. Here are the facts of the matter:

1)Your CPU is holding you back. I've taken a Phenom II X4 well over 5GHz on LN2 and it still bottlenecks 2x GTX 460 in SLI in the Crysis graphics benchmark some of the time. That's right, not even talking about the CPU benchie. Idk if you've unlocked the L3 cache or if you even have it to unlock, don't know much about such things. BUT, Crysis/Warhead love L3 cache.

2)Your performance monitor can hide from you that you're CPU bottlenecked. You CPU monitor reports to you every second; in that time your CPU does billions of operations. So even if too many of the cycles were full when critical operations needed to be performed and it got backed up, it will still say to you, "Hey, I only used 75% of my cycles over the last second, I'm good." Afaict, Crysis is poorly optimized in two ways; it's not serious about multithreading and the thread(s) it does run are poorly optimized in themselves.

3) I know that Crysis needs more than 1GB of VRAM at 1080p if run on very high with heavy antialiasing. Exactly what the cutoff is, I don't remember, but the core of a GTX 460 can't nearly handle everything at very high at 1080p anyway, say nothing of anti aliasing. I haven't paid too much attention to VRAM requirements, but I'd suggest getting a graphical mod like Blackfire's to get good looking graphics and decent performance, rather setting everything to a combo of high and medium. Unfortunately, the mod doesn't help with the CPU too much.


i seriously doubt that you can get a phenom 2 to 5ghz, (in fact I'm outright calling bs, phenom 2's hit the wall and lose stability around 4ghz) and on top of that how the heck would it bottleneck anything at that clock rate? I have a 955 be @ 3.8 ghz with 2 gts 460 768mb cards and get about 50-60 fps at maxed out details @ 1080p with 4x aa
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 2:48:54 AM

Pepole put way to much stock into cpu power, granted, of course you would be better off with a better processor, but if you were to sli with another 460, I'm sure you could get at least 50 fps with max settings @ 1080 with 4x aa. I get performance a litttle better than that with a 955 be @3.8ghz and 2 768mb 460's
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 3:08:21 AM

holdingholder said:
i seriously doubt that you can get a phenom 2 to 5ghz, (in fact I'm outright calling bs, phenom 2's hit the wall and lose stability around 4ghz) and on top of that how the heck would it bottleneck anything at that clock rate? I have a 955 be @ 3.8 ghz with 2 gts 460 768mb cards and get about 50-60 fps at maxed out details @ 1080p with 4x aa

SIGH

1) Read what I said
2) Understand what I said (Google something like "Phenom X4 LN2" [you obviously haven't a clue what the italicized part means])
3) ???
4) Profit

Edit: A golden Phenom II X4 will be stable at 4.4GHz on water, no problem. Mine is far from golden and I have it 24/7 stable @4.2 on an H50.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 3:27:50 AM

Wow lots of activity since i last looked. Before I read it all I did a quick Crysis Benchamark and this is some of the info it spat out.

High FPS: 59
Average FPS: 37
Low: 25 FPS
I was watching the vRAM used and it went up to 799mb max

I find this weird cause one i shouldn't get this with my computer, and two from your comments it should be sucking up more vRAM. Though i did only use 4x AA...
a c 164 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 3:45:39 AM

Do you have fast user switching on? Any chance that 25% is being used for other users logged on? Have you tried making sure your the only user on (Clean boot) and that it still uses only 75%?

I would think it should be a bit higher, but from what I know 75-80% is rather normal for a game.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 4:00:51 AM

mouse24 said:
hahaha, i find it humorous that you can afford all that and not a HaF 912 or something similar :D 


Haha I have a computer cabinet, and the case I have now is the largest one that can fit in it. It does have enough room, but it would be really tight, and i would want to OC them :) .

Quote:
In noticed further down you said that there are 6 users, so I'm guessing your family also uses that PC or something. If that's the case I'd bet there was some junk programs and perhaps a virus or rootkit ^_^[


I have them let me give them the OK to download anything, and then I scan with Malwarebytes, Spyware Doctor, and MSE. :)  Junk programs could be there though, i haven't looked through them.

Quote:
Of course with 4GB you would really have to clean out your system if that was the case since that shouldn't happen on a decently clean install


I use CCleaner, I defrag my HD's, and clean/defrag the registry regularly. And I make sure that I keep the number of programs installed to a minimum. :)  I have a SSD as the swap file disk, so when it does need to do that, it is on something fast. :) 

Quote:
Do you have fast user switching on? Any chance that 25% is being used for other users logged on? Have you tried making sure your the only user on (Clean boot) and that it still uses only 75%?


Yes, I make sure I'm the only one and it gets a clean reboot at gaming time :) . I try to shut it down each night too.

I'm trying to figure out how the tests came out so good, when I have lower FPS in game. I guess I can try FRAPS to see the actual in game FPS.
a c 216 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 4:05:05 AM

gidgiddonihah said:
Wow lots of activity since i last looked. Before I read it all I did a quick Crysis Benchamark and this is some of the info it spat out.

High FPS: 59
Average FPS: 37
Low: 25 FPS
I was watching the vRAM used and it went up to 799mb max

I find this weird cause one i shouldn't get this with my computer, and two from your comments it should be sucking up more vRAM. Though i did only use 4x AA...


Those numbers are about exactly what I'd expect with your system. I'd recommend turning AA down to x2 or off. A single 460 is not exactly the most powerful setup, and Crysis really is that demanding.

By these benchmarks, you are doing quite well (though I'm sure those slow downs are more in line with this): http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-460-gf1...
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 4:15:56 AM

cuecuemore said:
SIGH

1) Read what I said
2) Understand what I said (Google something like "Phenom X4 LN2" [you obviously haven't a clue what the italicized part means])
3) ???
4) Profit

Edit: A golden Phenom II X4 will be stable at 4.4GHz on water, no problem. Mine is far from golden and I have it 24/7 stable @4.2 on an H50.


Sorry I stand corrected on a couple points here. I actually do know what he italicized print meant but always thought that phenom 2's problems were not with heat but just stability past a certain point ( I've tried and tried again but can't crack 4ghz with mine, guess it's even less golden than yours). And i also missdd the part about heavy AA, because i do know that anything over 4x 768 or 1mb wont cut it. But 4x should be more than enough for anybody.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 4:20:53 AM

holdingholder said:
And i also missdd the part about heavy AA, because i do know that anything over 4x 768 or 1mb wont cut it. But 4x should be more than enough for anybody.

Agreed, I don't notice a difference between 4x MSAA and 16xCQ, other than the fact that 16x is utterly unplayable. As for the whole framebuffer issue, I suspect that Crysis looks at your system resources, and sets certain values like draw distance depending on how much VRAM you have. Even if I "max out" my in-game settings, my draw distance is terrible, and I know for sure that I can max out the 1GB on my 460s without breaking a sweat.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 5:19:50 AM

im sorry this is offtopic, but what is CQ? i googled for it and came up empty.... sorry

Edit: and doesnt the resources the operating takes = a non factor in game? i swear a read that somewhere on these forums... it seems a bit iffy to me though lol
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 5:40:17 AM

swifty_morgan said:
If you don't lower your resolution and tinker with your game settings you'll keep complaining until the cows come home.


I wasn't complaining, i wasn't whining. I was simply stating facts and asking questions. You were the one complaining when you were blabbing about how you were belittling yourself. Actually that might be considered whining...

Sorry everyone, when i reread his post, it kinda ticked me off.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 5:47:13 AM

And while I have a ton of activity, might someone help me with a trouble ive been having? I have my GTX 460 overclocked to 820/1640/2000, but can't go any higher. No matter what I do-even messing with all sorts of voltages- I get a Hypertransport Sync Flood error after the system hangs for about 10 minutes (Looks like a motherboard warning) when i go past 825/1650/2000. Between 820-825 the game just crashes to windows. This happens in Crysis and several other games. Been driving me nuts as I want to OC to at least 900/1800/2000, but I can't. Ive tried posting this, sending PM's and I either get crappy answers or silence or people who tried to help and couldn't-and then went silent. :/ 
a c 164 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 6:28:40 AM

Every card is different. If you've done all that your supposed to and cant' cross 820, guess what card you have?
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 7:07:11 AM

Yes, but I would have thought the Hypertransport Sync Flood error would be an indicator that something else is wrong...
a c 164 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 7:14:43 AM

Only hyper transport that I know of is the CPU. Might be an unstable unlock/overclock. Not sure why OCing the GPU would reveal that. Up the Vcore or NB voltage?
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 7:23:24 AM

I've tried that with little success (Helped, but VERY little). Ill try it again tomorrow as its off and im too tired to deal with it.

(Edit) I'm open to any and all suggestions that doesn't require money right now as any upgrade I make now ill just be upgrading (hopefully) in a few months :) 

(Edit 2) Here is a forum that discusses the HTSFE:

http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=22&th...

Looks like for them it was it was running with too little voltage for the RAM. My RAM is 1.5v and is running at 1.5v...

(Edit 3) Could it be that the vRAM isn't getting enough voltage?

(Edit 4) http://www.erodov.com/forums/hyper-transport-sync-flood...

This guy solved it by
Quote:
I faced exactly the same issue with similar configuration, I suspected RAM and BIOS, but finally NB is the culprit. There are 2 options for you here - Either decrease the HT Speed or Increase the NB.

I have chosen the send one "Increasing the NB Speed" and started executing Prime95 for almost 3 hours now, no issues till now, system still running.


(Edit 5)
Quote:
under stressful and continuous memory access conditions, the cpu-nb voltage might not be enough for the higher cpu-nb clock.
i would pin it to a higher cpu-nb clock in the BIOS and if i have to, increment the cpu-nb voltage a bit (one step).

that is of course if ddrams have been verified to be error-free (memtest86+ /prime95 blend 30 mins).

btw, make sure its the cpu-nb not the nb. they're different.


lol sorry for all the edits... I'm getting them down in one place, and here is a good idea because people might have ideas off of these.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 8:09:44 AM

Wow.... I went to Newegg to see if there were answers in the reviews and there are a great many people who get the HTSFE. They all say to manually set the Vcore and RAM voltage... There was also a guy who had the switch turn to 20% auto OC from the factory, though I doubt I missed that. So tomorrow I will try the combination of fixes and see what happens. Maybe I will get to 900! Yay!
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 8:22:16 AM

gidgiddonihah said:
I still play Crysis so I can see what my rig can do as its the most demanding game I own right now :) . But I noticed something weird...

(When I play Crysis I open up task manager and pull it across my 24" 1920x1080 screen so i have a preview of a long time of CPU usage. I also open up MSI Afterburner and set it on top of Task manager to see GPU usage.)

Now I noticed something funny when I closed Crysis. I was having frame stutters occasionally and low FPS overall, but my CPU usage never went higher than 75%. My GPU usage in Afterburner never went over 80%. Sooo:

Why is Crysis have stuttering and low FPS, but it isnt using my GPU or my CPU?

My Rig:
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
MSI 870-G45
AMD Phenom II B45 x4 3.1 Ghz (Unlocked Athlon II x3 445)
MSI GTX 460 1GB Cyclone (Operating at 820/1640/2000)
4GB G. Skill Ripjaw DDR3 1600 (Operating at 1333)
500 Watt Corsair PSU


Are you certain that Crysis is optimized for a quad core CPU? Afaik when you start the game you see only Intel's Core 2 Duo logo so how can you expect Crysis to max a quad?
a c 164 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 8:33:16 AM

It's nice to know when I said increase the vcore or NB voltage I was on the right path.

Fun, that's why I ask if anyone knew in my first post. If it only does two or three threads, you'll always be at 75%.
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 10:05:01 AM

4745454b said:
It's nice to know when I said increase the vcore or NB voltage I was on the right path.

Fun, that's why I ask if anyone knew in my first post. If it only does two or three threads, you'll always be at 75%.


Well, if you will find a benchmark of an E6850 beating a Q6600 in Crysis (lower settings and resolution) with patch 1.21 installed you will know that you are right.

http://lly316.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html
a c 164 U Graphics card
September 18, 2011 10:52:49 AM

I think this is the link you meant to give.

http://lly316.blogspot.com/2008/04/e8200-e8400-e8500-cr...

Your right. Looking at the Intel CPUs, they are ordered not by cores, but purely by clock speed. The faster your clock speed, the more FPS you get. It probably isn't coded to use more then two cores or else the quad would have done better.
!