Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis: Demo vs Full Version Performance

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 16, 2007 12:25:37 PM

Article written by Travis Meacham.

Now that we've got our mits on the retail version of Crysis it's time to see if our hand-wringing over the demo performance was all for naught. We revisit our demo PC to see how it handles the full version.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/16/crysis_demo_vs_full/
November 16, 2007 1:19:18 PM

64-bit Vista benchmarks please!!!!! =)
November 16, 2007 1:38:15 PM

Ok, I wasn't nuts, I haven't run any benchmarks, but I swore the demo was much smoother (everything on high except shadows and shaders on medium it ran good in demo, but final version really really bad so I got everything to medium which is still getting less than demo).

PS Under the chart on the first page it says they perform the same, but its a 4-5 fps diff except for the highest res is that the same?

This isn't the first that i've played a demo that was way smoother than the final game.
Related resources
November 16, 2007 1:48:43 PM

Strange, I am using Vista X64 Ultimate and I get more performance in the full version than I do over the demo... Go figure. I even done a menchmark on the GPU settings and I was getting 27FPS thats 5FPS more than I was over the demo version. But indeed this could be more due to the 169.09 Nvidia drivers than the full game. I can test this once I get home as I still have the demo installed.
November 16, 2007 1:54:40 PM

Performance alone is what is keeping me from purchasing the game.
November 16, 2007 2:25:14 PM

Crysis machine =

1x Quad cpu Supermicro X7QC3 board, Price = $1200
http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon7000...

4x Xeon X7350 quads (total 16 cores) , Price = 4x $3000 = $12000
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon7000/specif...

16x Crucial 4gb DDR2 sticks (64gb ram), Price = 16x $600 = $9600
http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.aspx?IMODULE=CT5...

2x Quadro FX 5600, Price 2x $3000 = $6000
http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_fx_5600_4600.html

Total = 1200 + 12000 + 9600 + 6000 = $28,800.00
+ some case , and psu(s) round it off at $30,000.00

And if that doesn't totally blow crysis away, then EA must have written the entire thing in java or something
November 16, 2007 2:27:58 PM

by the time my 1kb/s torrent finishes, that hardware would be totally obsolete
November 16, 2007 2:28:08 PM

the missing destruction that the article alluded to, when all settings are at low, can be restored by changing physics to medium.

with these settings and no AA, i get 50-55 fps.... AMD x2 Brisbane 3800 (auto o/c'ed 8% using asus o/c bios utility), x1900gt, 2 gigs of DDR2800, xp 32bit

AA makes it absolutely unplayable :fou: 
November 16, 2007 2:33:19 PM

cruiseoveride,

Why did you list Quadros? They are optimized more for CAD work, than 3D gaming.

Also, would Crysis actually utilize 16 cores? It may work lovely w/ 4GB of RAM, but at 64GB, you could host the entire OS plus a variety of apps in a 40GB RAM drive image and still have plenty of memory not doing anything.
November 16, 2007 2:37:00 PM

blueeyesm said:
cruiseoveride,

Why did you list Quadros? They are optimized more for CAD work, than 3D gaming.

Also, would Crysis actually utilize 16 cores? It may work lovely w/ 4GB of RAM, but at 64GB, you could host the entire OS plus a variety of apps in a 40GB RAM drive image and still have plenty of memory not doing anything.


Don't you know?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

800+ FPS in BF2 and CRYSIS LMAO. "Tech Level High"
November 16, 2007 2:39:20 PM

dude, vista needs at least 4gb of memory to run
November 16, 2007 2:48:24 PM

No it doesnt, it only needs 1GB memory. It plays games fine with 2GB's.
November 16, 2007 3:14:52 PM

Stemin:

Ohhhhh,... 800?? Well, there ya go.

Money well spent, then.


Agreed cafuddled. In fact I had it running on a Pentium M tablet running @ 1GHz w/ 512MB RAM for awhile.
November 16, 2007 3:50:48 PM

the ultimate crysis machine is an overclocked quad and two high end Nvidia SLI cards..., Crysis LOVES sli...!!!
November 16, 2007 4:50:50 PM

in fact, crysis loves the cards that aren't out yet, and may not have had their designs finalised yet....
November 16, 2007 7:08:04 PM

Ok how about some benchmarks of the full game with single, dual and quad core cpu's..................... :D 

Don't forget the latest video cards.......and some old ones as well.
November 16, 2007 8:03:23 PM

you would find that crysis is not optimized by quads yet because another guy disabled 3 cores and it was the same FPS as with all 4 cores. Plus SLI isn't supported yet for crysis.
November 16, 2007 9:16:06 PM

I'm glad you tested this. I'm curious, Did you re-test the demo with the new drivers like the full game, or are those the old results with the old drivers? Drivers alone could rsult in + or - a couple fps.
November 16, 2007 10:51:06 PM

So let me get this straight (as if I didn't know) ... 10.1 fps at 1600 x 1200 4xAA DX10 on a reasonably good PC. So even if the hardware was available to double the "test PC" performance (on all fronts), we'd still only be at 20.2 fps at a miserable 1600 x 1200 4XAA.

So basically don't even think about running at 1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 1200 or 2550 x 1600 -- has anyone tested release version at these resolutions? What about 8XAA or 16XAA -- don't even bother? I know my MP Beta was a complete dog at these resolutions (as in single digit fps).

Also, I consider 40 fps a minimum for any twitcher game, so in order to get to 40 fps with details maxed we need 4X the current processing power of that test rig? Now, on an incredibly optimistic front even Intel's new CPU and the we hope soon to be released 9800GTX we may see a 2X improvement (with a ton of overclocking tossed at it) which is still only 20.2 fps.

I suppose I should be glad my ATI 2900XT 1GB Xfire cards run this just as badly as 8800GTX.

So I'm guessing the hardware to actually play this game at higher resolutions (1920+) at 40 fps is at least 4 years away? It's pretty unlikely I will be playing Crysis 4 years or so from now.

Anyone done tests with tossing more processors at it? At what point does one hit deminishing returns of more processors?

Anyway...if nothing else, it makes a good benchmarking tools for several years to come.

November 17, 2007 8:41:44 AM

a couple of reviewers on this link http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... are saying the Nvidia Quatro 5500 is running Crysis at 800 fps at 1680x1250 res, I think they mean 1050 though. If thats true, I don't see 2500x1600 as being much of a problem.

There are rumors the Quatro 5600 will be an option for Mac Pros soon, it's unconfirmed but it seems pretty likely. Also, Crysis is using making use of extra cores, so 8 cores on a Mac Pro will be pretty nice.

It's just sucks that Ati is not competing at the high end anymore. If gamers find out Quatros are running Crysis superfast, Nvidia gets to charge $2500 per graphics card to at least 10 times their present Quatro user base. If Ati had released something that smoked the 8800gtx in time for Christmas, we would've had maybe a Geforce 9800 that was as powerful as the Quatro for about $600-700.

What I'm saying is if Ati had something faster than the 8800, that Quatro 5600 that was just released in October could have easily been the Geforce 9800gtx.
November 17, 2007 9:09:38 AM

Somethings weird. In this test at xbitlabs http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/quadro-f...

The Quatro 5500 only scores 5800 on 3D Mark 06 with a quad core 3.0 processor. My friend's 8800 gtx running on a 3.0 dual core scores about 8700+. The Quatro 5600 scores 12k + which seems about right, but the guys over at New Egg aren't seeming like the most reliable sources, to say the least.
November 17, 2007 12:55:30 PM

Quadros are made for reliability, precision and quick multiple rendering, Geforces are made for super fast single app rendering (Precision here is not a must), people really need to stop thinking about quadros as super powerful cards just because of their price tag...
November 17, 2007 2:39:11 PM


This game is sooo much fun. Right now it's eerily similar to farcry, but with more options / tactics to kill the bad gize.

I really love the "cloak", it is so hilarious some of the stuff the bad gize say when they come looking for you.

As far as replayability goes, the verdict is still out on that for me. I'm at a point in the game where I "suspect" my previous actions before hand have influenced the game to act differently.

It's either that or it's a bug. I don't suspect a bug at this point because I'm still blasting the commy b@st@rds. :lol: 

Additionally I am playing this with a 7600 GS with all fresh drivers. So don't think for one minute this game can't be played with lower end hardware. Just realize you will have to sacrifice some resolution and other higher end eye candy to do it. But given that it's still a very fun game. I have had some hiccups but mostly where the game saves itself at checkpoints.

Spec of my system:
Win XP Pro SP2 + all patches
Amd Athalon X2 3800+ [939 chipset]
1 GB Ram
Nvidia Geforce 7600 GS [+new drivers]
Resolution : 1024x768
Settings: [let game decide / default]

I have plans to rebuild, but I've decided to go with the Geforce 8800 GT and it makes no sense to build until I can get the card I want so I'll wait for now.

It's really a fun game, I absolutely love it so far. If you liked farcry you will like it too.

If you don't like farcry then skip it. This game will be talked about for some time to come, I really think it's a case of good things to come for all of us gamers... more specifically single player games.

Rock on Crytek! :bounce: 
November 17, 2007 6:20:12 PM

Maybe it is just me, but I don't think it was really utilizing all the cores. If it was, then all the lines would have been at the top. What I see is that when the yellow line is high, all the others are low, eventually they all got busy, but each one at about 25->30%. It would have been nice if an overall CPU utilization line would also been show. So, it looks like dual core, one for the game, one for the background stuff, is all that is needed.
November 18, 2007 5:47:25 PM

tmeacham said:
Article written by Travis Meacham.

Now that we've got our mits on the retail version of Crysis it's time to see if our hand-wringing over the demo performance was all for naught. We revisit our demo PC to see how it handles the full version.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/11/16/crysis_demo_vs_full/


Well, there are some indication that WinXP can make quite a difference here.

Any plans to compare WinXP vs Vista? (Also, with "High" visuals activated by patch).
November 19, 2007 10:59:43 AM

Should have shown SLI performance, or rather how it works in the full thing and it doesnt in the demo. Article was just too brief really.
November 19, 2007 1:58:06 PM

cruiseoveride said:
dude, vista needs at least 4gb of memory to run


That's a silly thing to say, I'm running it on 512 MB right now with Aero. Mmmm, but it's pretty. Performance is what you'd expect from early '05 parts, but it runs.

Of course, in order to run Crysis I need to pop my second 512 MB stick in. It actually runs, despite the Vista minimum requirements being 1.5 GB. They need to learn the definition of minimum requirements...
November 20, 2007 6:16:29 AM

Running Crysis at 1680x1050 and getting approx on average 35fps.
This is with no AA and all settings at high. Running it on XP as for some reason stupid game doesn't run on 64bit Ultimate for me and I haven't time to research why.
This is with my 8800GTX overclocked with the core at 625Mhz and mem at 2050Mhz. Must use Rivatuner to overclock the shaders to see how much more that it gives me.
Did experience slowdown in certain places, particularly the end scene.. which is expectable given what's happening around you.
This game is just like FEAR. Both killed the current high end cards at the time and it took about 15 months before both could be played like they were intended to.
It's a pity really..in this time we'll be talking about another game with great graphics and it won't matter how good crysis looks then.
January 12, 2008 1:37:45 AM

could there be something wrong with the bech results on the article cause my specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 2.4ghz OC 3gz
PNY Optima 667 5-5-5-15
PNY GTS 320 Rtuner OC 640_link core/shader
Settings: 1280x1024 2xaa, tex, obj, shad, post high all else med. (same as article)

Crysis retail.
Bench:
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 65.79s, Average FPS: 30.40
Min FPS: 21.88 at frame 1947, Max FPS: 38.98 at frame 993
Average Tri/Sec: 27418218, Tri/Frame: 901890
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.02
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 63.20s, Average FPS: 31.64
Min FPS: 21.88 at frame 1947, Max FPS: 39.80 at frame 986
Average Tri/Sec: 28910126, Tri/Frame: 913622
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.00
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 63.20s, Average FPS: 31.65
Min FPS: 21.32 at frame 1953, Max FPS: 39.80 at frame 986
Average Tri/Sec: 28913450, Tri/Frame: 913667
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.00
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 63.57s, Average FPS: 31.46
Min FPS: 21.32 at frame 1953, Max FPS: 39.80 at frame 986
Average Tri/Sec: 28742512, Tri/Frame: 913580
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 1.00
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
=====================================================
almost identical performace of a GTX with a PNY 320mb??? I'll very pissed if I had a GTX$ and saw something like this, but fo me the question is, should I go SLI on GTS 320?
January 12, 2008 4:13:56 AM

Sure why not. It will improve your performance on most other games too. Just not that much on Crysis. My brother has 320 GTS in SLI and he doesnt get much better performance than my single OC'd 640 GTS. But I dont think he has tried the 169.28 driver that was just released for the 1.1 Crysis patch to improve SLI, so who knows?
January 12, 2008 3:03:48 PM

Actually, if you are to test a SLI system on Crysis and have Nvidia GPU then you should install patch 1.1 (or higher) from Crytek and the Beta drivers 169.28 (or higher) as this particular update was ment for SLI performance improvement for the new released patch. The patch also seem to improve performance in rendering in DX10 as well. The benchmarks I get on "very high" settings in Vista-64 bit are better than those I get from the tweaked "very high" settings in XP-MCE. Go figure?!

Also, I am currently playing the single player campaign (again) in Vista-64 bit at 1400x900 and all at Very High with smooth framerates. It goes down below 25FPS every so often but it plays smooth for the most part. It drops below the 20FPS however in the no-gravity level. I assume SLI GTXs would improve my performance quite a lot (or just enough to make the whole game to play smooth) at 1680x1050 with same settings.
January 17, 2008 2:43:42 PM

these are my specs running 25 avg fps on very high everything and largest resolution for my 22 inch monitor; 8800 GTX XXX Edition, Q6600 (stock), 680i MoBo, 2 gigs DDR2 800, Vista 64. I have had this game since it came out and after DAYS of testing and fiddling I have come to the conclusion that it needs more ram. No other resource has pegged out on my system and coincided with the lag periods. I need to pick up two more sticks I think. If you are getting decent FPS' I assume you either don't run Vista 64 or you have 4 gigs. My GPU is silky enough I believe but the ram is causing the HDD to run a LOT more and it freezes. Like I said I did benchmarks in the game and the ram is maxed out all the time, when it floors it, it stalls. Do you guys think I need more ram? Also turning the settings to LOW and a small screen is the same!! Still stalls and lags bad. Really making me irritated. Any ideas please message me or respond.
January 20, 2008 8:04:58 PM

I am currently playing it with a single Asus 8800GT, resolution of 1024x768(my monitor is old) and everything is set on high with 2x antializing and the game plays extremely smooth.
Its quite interesting game, I really didn't expect that. The engine is great, the maps are huge, although not endless and was even lost at one point. The enemies took ridiculous amount of bullets before they die, that kinda sucks, and the invisibility mode drains pretty fast the energy.
The enemi AI is good though. Those are some sneaky north Korean bastards.
January 21, 2008 6:17:38 AM

Hi

As I am new to this site, please bare with me. I have just made a new machine, and are haveing a little problem when playing Crysis, as it does not move as smooth as I had expected.
The machine consists of
Motherboard: ASUS Maximus Formula Republic of Gamers
CPU: Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 GHz
RAM: Kingston HyperX 2 x 1 GB
Video card: ASUS EN8800GT/G/HTDP
HDD: WD Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS 500 GB

In general I feel that I have set up a good system but.....

I have installed VISTA, and realize that this is not speeding up the system  compared to a short test with XP. However, when running XP, it is not possible to run the setting “Very high” , this is possible in VISTA, and the auto detected setting by Crysis. Again, when running at “Very high” the system are NOT smooth.

Can I do something to help this?

I have been wondering if 2 video cards would do the trick? Must they be absolutely identical?
January 21, 2008 6:55:45 AM

I noticed this right away when I told my dad about the game and he has an old dinosaur computer. He downloaded the demo and keeping in mind he is no game connoisseur and still loved it even at the lowest graphics and resolution settings possible with still the worst frame rate I have seen. So when he bought the game and played it and set all the graphics to the lowest again, the game looked better and actually ran at a stable frame rate. He was able to increase a few options after that.
January 21, 2008 1:41:21 PM

Tonny0909 said:
Hi

As I am new to this site, please bare with me. I have just made a new machine, and are haveing a little problem when playing Crysis, as it does not move as smooth as I had expected.
The machine consists of
Motherboard: ASUS Maximus Formula Republic of Gamers
CPU: Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4 GHz
RAM: Kingston HyperX 2 x 1 GB
Video card: ASUS EN8800GT/G/HTDP
HDD: WD Caviar SE16 WD5000AAKS 500 GB

In general I feel that I have set up a good system but.....

I have installed VISTA, and realize that this is not speeding up the system %uF04C compared to a short test with XP. However, when running XP, it is not possible to run the setting %u201CVery high%u201D , this is possible in VISTA, and the auto detected setting by Crysis. Again, when running at %u201CVery high%u201D the system are NOT smooth.

Can I do something to help this?

I have been wondering if 2 video cards would do the trick? Must they be absolutely identical?


Lol, Tony. You can't just Highjack a thread like that man...since it's got nothing to do with the actual title of this thread. Try and create your own thread if you have any issues, concerns, or questions and people generally will post hints to help you out.

But to answer your question. The "very high" setting is unavailable by default even if you have 2 videocards. However, "very high" is available in Vista, because of the version of DirectX. XP = DX9 and XP DX10. There is a way to enable most of the very high settings in XP which you can simply google and get the "how to do it".

SLI would improve framerates in both XP and Vista.

I have to say that the demo in Vista was pretty rough and the full version + patch is quite better.
January 22, 2008 7:26:59 PM

Kinkoyaburi said:
I am currently playing it with a single Asus 8800GT, resolution of 1024x768(my monitor is old) and everything is set on high with 2x antializing and the game plays extremely smooth.
Its quite interesting game, I really didn't expect that. The engine is great, the maps are huge, although not endless and was even lost at one point. The enemies took ridiculous amount of bullets before they die, that kinda sucks, and the invisibility mode drains pretty fast the energy.
The enemi AI is good though. Those are some sneaky north Korean bastards.


They dont take rediculous amounts of bullets before dying if you select maximum strength and use the iron sights/reflex sights. They are wearing body armour by the way, which has a teeny weeny effect on bullet damage lol.
!