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/2007/1 [...] o_vs_full/

64-bit Vista benchmarks please!!!!! =)

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.

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.

Performance alone is what is keeping me from purchasing the game.

Crysis machine =

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

4x Xeon X7350 quads (total 16 cores) , Price = 4x $3000 = $12000
http://www.intel.com/products/proc [...] +tab_specs

16x Crucial  4gb DDR2 sticks (64gb ram), Price = 16x $600 = $9600
http://www.crucial.com/store/parts [...] 51272AF53E

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

by the time my 1kb/s torrent finishes, that hardware would be totally obsolete

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

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/Prod [...] o%2bfx5500
 
800+ FPS in BF2 and CRYSIS LMAO.  "Tech Level High"

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

No it doesnt, it only needs 1GB memory. It plays games fine with 2GB's.

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.

the ultimate crysis machine is an overclocked quad and two high end Nvidia SLI cards..., Crysis LOVES sli...!!!

in fact, crysis loves the cards that aren't out yet, and may not have had their designs finalised yet....

Ok how about some benchmarks of the full game with single, dual and quad core cpu's.....................  
 
Don't forget the latest video cards.......and some old ones as well.

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.

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.

surprised... no improvements at all

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.