This is something i have been wondering about lately maybe someone here has a good answer.

Every single time a new graphics card, or processor or whatever comes out, the question is, "will it run Crysis". What i want to know is can Crysis really be considered a true benchmark of what hardware is capable of.

I've read numerous articles on the internet saying how Crysis does not scale well over multiple cores (has high usage of a single core and hardly any over other cores), it does not scale well with SLI either.

So whats the deal? UT3 has signifigant gains from 1>2>4 cores as well as SLI, granted it does not perform all that well on ATI hardware, but thats what i would look for in a benchmark, good scalling from budget to expensive hardware.

Anyway, i just thought i'd throw that out there, if Crysis was written using the UT3 engine for example, which scales well with multiple cores/ SLI, would we see graphics just as pretty at higher fps? Or, is crysis really just that harsh of a game.

Well, with Crysis we can also see if the new drivers does any better for SLI. Well, I've come to believe that Crysis is very demanding, and newer drivers won't improve performance very much.

I mean look at CoD4 and stuff...

OK CoD4 isn't as advanced, but come on...the FPS speaks for itself.

Its 11.30pm here so i cba to write a bit argument on it... maybe tomorrow

LAST A LEVEL EXAM TOMORROW.

Crysis is a beast of a game in terms of graphics. I don't know why people say it's poorly programed. I can run everything high/very high with no AA at 1680*1200 on an 8800GTX, 6 gig ddr800, and a Q6600 at stock speed. I also have 64-bit Vista Ultimate.

To answer the question, yes it is a good benchmark because like spuddyt said, Crysis is the only really challenging game for graphics cards now and really shows a card's power.

You guys all have good points. I guess it can go both ways, i was just suprised to see the CPU usage while playing this breakthrough game thats supposed to use every sq inch of a PC and its hitting one core for 80%+ and maybe 15% on the second core...no action on cores 3 and 4, where as UT3 had 75% or greater usage across all 4 cores.

Heres to hoping for a multi core patch in the future....or more games based on the UT3 engine!

Does that not scream to you, when new cards don't blow Crysis open, that there is some sort of bottleneck?? I mean look at the increase in other games. Looking at benchies ive seen a 20/30 fps gain with the 280, and then like a 10 in Crysis.

it will be irrelevent soon , when farcry 2 is released there will be a new benchmark in town

Didn't the 6800 Ultra come out at about the same time as Doom 3, and i'm sure the 6800 Ultra can run Doom 3 on max details.

Also, I think what a lot of people seem to forget is that the graphic settings in crysis can be changed in game without exiting out or even reloading. If there is one particular part that just won't run, you can just turn down the settings for a bit and then crank it back up when it's over. I think the most lagg I ever get is when I'm playing the last mission on the aircraft carrier. With all the rain and then the water in the sea along with the explosions AND the AI running for the soldiers and aliens, I have to turn a few things down to stay smooth, but it's nothing major.

lol I can understand people who were dissapointed after the ammount of hype that surrounded it, but c'mon, it's really not that bad of a game. The only sections I didn't enjoy were the vehicle sections, the spaceship interior and the "boss" fight. The rest of the game was very enjoyable and I have played through it a few times and not been bored.

As for it being a benchmark, I think that it is since it pushes hardware in order to run decently and limitations become apparent. Benching with something like UT3 doesn't show any visible performance/graphical difference after a point as it runs at such a high FPS, even with mid range hardware, that it just doesn't gauge your hardware. It's like giving Stephen Hawking a 5 year olds math homework, he won't do it notably faster/better than the average person since it's so frickin easy that just about anyone could do it, but something more challenging would show the difference in their capabilities.

AGREED

You'd be quite misinformed in that belief. Crysis is light years ahead of nearly every other shooter on the market in terms of graphical effects. It also has one of the best level editors out there in terms of practicality.

The game runs fine on 1.5 year old modern hardware at medium settings and it still looks equal if not better than any other game out there at medium. It also has a 50% scaling ratio with SLI which is pretty good.

The only thing that hurts Crysis is level-of-detail distance; the game at high/very high demands that too many objects be rendered at their highest quality even if you can't see them that clearly while playing (even standing still) - there are a number of mods which will allow you to optimize this game for lower distance detail, or ultra high details, or really whatever you want. If you have the patience to tweak the configuration script then you can optimize it to your own configuration - the game is very, very tweakable.

www.crymod.com

Why do you post everywhere about rocks in Cyrsis? Do you seriously have nothing better to do? You said the same thing in a different thread.