Crysis runs horrible

[harr89]

I have installed crysis on my system recently with the 1.2v patch. Installation went fine wit no errors. Currently when I start the game there is a huge lag with the first intro and the nvidia screen but the second intro screen works fine. The game is very laggy at menu so I did not even bother trying to start a game.

Current Drivers:
catalyst 8.2, did not update to 8.3 because I heard of its issues and fps drops.

CPU specs:
e2160 OC to 3ghz
HIS 3850 256mb OC'd to 749/1026
2 gigs of Gskill ram at 5/5/5/12 running 1:1

All my other games work fine at full settings with no lag like cs:source, hl2, condemned...
Is there a specific driver fix? The last time I tried installing a hotfix it completely ruined my system and I had to reinstall everything.

 

[spuddyt]

I really think you should at least TRY and load a part of the game engine.... it might just be a weird glitch in the menu - apart from that, you could try turning down the graphics....

 

[harr89]

I decided to load the game and I get an average of 30 fps with settings on high but the game crashed once I got to the docks. Ill try another run later tonight and see how it goes.

 

[dos1986]

Harr you have a nice rig, you wont be able to play Crysis on everything very high ( no one can)

Mess around with the settings for 10 to 15 minutes to get a balance between looks and performance....

Something like below is a good balance for you imo..

http://i32.tinypic.com/23syx5t.jpg

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

Computer struggling in the Entry screens = DRM very often. Your PC checks for a valid version of the game and while reading from your CD or DVD it slowns down performance dramatically.

Your PC crashes minutes later: could be an Overclocking and/or heat issues. Try to bring these back at stock speed and see what happens then.

Furthermore, it's hard to compare the performance between Crysis and CS:Source or similar simply because you are comparing 2 very difference engines; CryEngine is a next-gen engine whereas CS:Source is using a 5 year old engine and the technicallities are quite different. In any case, I hope this works out for you.

 

[Guest]

According to ATI's release notes on 8.3, there's an improvement in Crysis DX10 of up to 15% on all supported Radeons.

May be worth trying out...

 

[harr89]

Im using a no cd patch and its still the same issue with entry screens. Its funny how the crytek and intel entry screens are smooth while nvidia and the first screen is horribly laggy. My computer passed prime95 and orthos for 8 hours each with my cpu at 50c max. Im up to the part with the tanks so that random crash might just be the game itself who knows.

 

[darkstar782]

This just in! Crysis is laggy!!!

The game is crap and demands too much. I haven't even bothered with it, and I'm running an 8800GTX Tri-SLI rig.

The graphics are not even THAT amazing that they should require so much power, and without the graphics its a decidedly average game.

I may play it through in a couple of years on a Geforce 11....

 

[jay_l_a]

Im using a no cd patch and its still the same issue with entry screens.

Perhaps that IS the issue.

 

[jmichaelstone]

This just in! Crysis is laggy!!!

The game is crap and demands too much. I haven't even bothered with it, and I'm running an 8800GTX Tri-SLI rig.

The graphics are not even THAT amazing that they should require so much power, and without the graphics its a decidedly average game.

I may play it through in a couple of years on a Geforce 11....

Darkstar, I have to agree with you. I picked up the game the other day. My off-the-cuff reaction is that it doesn't "look" like it should have such demanding hardware requirements. It doesn't look bad, of course, but it's not as jaw-dropping as I would have expected. Nothing looks particularly revolutionary to me.

But it's frustrating having to "dumb" the settings down as much as I do in order to get it playable. Granted, I'm running 64-bit Vista (which doesn't help), and the native resolution on my display is 2560x1600, which I couldn't even DREAM of trying to run Crysis at. But, for god's sake, I'm using an HD3870 X2. I shouldn't have to make so many compromises on the graphics settings. Not for a game that looks current-gen to me.

 

[darkstar782]

Same, 30" 2560x1600 panel here, hence 8800GTX Tri-SLi.

64bit vista should actually be better for crysis, I'm also running Vista Ultimate x64 with 8GB RAM

Crysis has a 64 bit executable which uses the extra RAM... or at least, doesn't swap to disk as much.

But yeah, even running at 1280x800 I couldn't play it the way I wanted.

Still, I haven't touched it since just after release.

 

[jay_l_a]

I'd like to jump on the wagon too.

I picked this game up last weekend, and got myself all HYPED for my first play and.........

well, yes. It doesn't look BAD, but somehow I was expecting more.
This can't be attributed to the game, probably more the HYPe that has been flying around.
Plus.
I don't find it that great of a shooter. It's too slow (personal preference). I much prefer COD4.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Darkstar, I have to agree with you. I picked up the game the other day. My off-the-cuff reaction is that it doesn't "look" like it should have such demanding hardware requirements. It doesn't look bad, of course, but it's not as jaw-dropping as I would have expected. Nothing looks particularly revolutionary to me.

But it's frustrating having to "dumb" the settings down as much as I do in order to get it playable. Granted, I'm running 64-bit Vista (which doesn't help), and the native resolution on my display is 2560x1600, which I couldn't even DREAM of trying to run Crysis at. But, for god's sake, I'm using an HD3870 X2. I shouldn't have to make so many compromises on the graphics settings. Not for a game that looks current-gen to me.

Agreed. Played through it once. Some things are nice and such but in the end I was not as impressed as I was when I saw HL2. HL2 made more leaps and bounds in graphics than Crysis has. In fact some things in HL2 seem better, such as facial animations and at least HL2 has ragdolls without a mod.

 

[tallguy1618]

Same, 30" 2560x1600 panel here, hence 8800GTX Tri-SLi.

64bit vista should actually be better for crysis, I'm also running Vista Ultimate x64 with 8GB RAM

Crysis has a 64 bit executable which uses the extra RAM... or at least, doesn't swap to disk as much.

But yeah, even running at 1280x800 I couldn't play it the way I wanted.

Still, I haven't touched it since just after release.

If I can run it just fine with all high and very high at 1680x1280 with 2xAA, then I'm sure u can run it at above 1280x800. I have a SINGLE 8800GTX.

 

[Flakes]

darkstar, have you downloaded the Nvidia beta patch that gives better performance in Crysis in SLI when using the official Crysis patch?

 

[darkstar782]

Like I say haven't touched Crysis since just after its release, before there were any patches.

Lost interest in it now to be honest, may revisit it aroung Geforce 10 time

 

[darkstar782]

Ok just for everyone here I reinstalled Crysis and patched to 1.2...

I have to say - MASSIVE improvement since release!!!

I had Textures and Object detail on Very High, Shadow detail on low (meh shadows...) and everything else on high.

Running at 2560x1600, the opening 10 mins or so of the game was perfectly smooth!

MUCH better

 

[Flakes]

thought you would

 

[Oh Snap]

Same, 30" 2560x1600 panel here, hence 8800GTX Tri-SLi.

64bit vista should actually be better for crysis, I'm also running Vista Ultimate x64 with 8GB RAM

Crysis has a 64 bit executable which uses the extra RAM... or at least, doesn't swap to disk as much.

But yeah, even running at 1280x800 I couldn't play it the way I wanted.

Still, I haven't touched it since just after release.

It seems like there were a lot of issues with Vista. Crysis ran like ass for me in Vista 64 bit with 2x 8800GTX SLI and 8gigs ram, but runs perfectly max everything in windows XP @ 1920x1200 (with the config fixes to give "DX10 effects" in DX9). I haven't tried updating to 1.2 yet, same thing happened to me where I basically just lost interest in it.