crysis beta - how will the finished game improve fps wise?

People keep saying that the demo will run better..I just don't believe that's the case. I think the only gain the demo will give are a few fps maybe 2-5. If Crytek optimized the demo much more better than what the beta currently is, don't you think they'd release a patch to stop many people like me who are currently whining about how it runs? It's no excuses for this game running so poorly on $300 and EVENN $400 graphic cards. Look how good Bioshock looked and it played just wonderfully, even for people with not so good computer configs.

This game has so much potential..but the TRUE reason for the delay of the demo isNOT to optimize it, but to cover up the fact that the game will run very poorly even when the retail releases. That's why they pushed the demo closer to theNovember release date..as to not risk people giving the game the finger due to it's extremely high PC requirements and un-optimization.

so you are saying that they pushed the demo back bc the demo isnt going to run any worse than the full game once released?

was the beta patched? when? i downloaded the beta yesterday.

do you think itll run as good as bioshock, i maxed that and it was gorgeous

I got 15-30 fps on 8800 GTS, E6600 and 2Gb 800Mhz. I changed half of the settings to medium, but it helped by 5 fps. Now my fps is between 15 and 35.

I really hope that it's only a bad build.

Crytek said that my rig should be able to max the game, but even high settings without Dx10 are unplayable for me.

Well i just came out of playing the multiplayer BETA and i have to say the game itself is pretty fun, but the performance was pretty poor. When everyone first joined a server the textures and colours etc were all screwed up making it impossible to see anything (like doors, panels, walls etc). Turning on 2xAA made it even worse, everything went pure white or black. So i went to the default settings which changed everything to medium with 1028x768 resolution and the game runs alright, but often when a fire fight started i lagged up something aweful.

The enviroment and texture quality on medium wasn't that attractive, but far better than most games on high settings but nothing like the screenshots shown on Gamespot. I do hope they continue to optimise this game to improve performance because the BETA is pretty poor, everyone without an 8800 series graphics card has been suffering with poor performance, even on medium to low settings.

I have a feeling that i will have to purchase a Nvidia 8800 series graphics card if i have a hope of playing the final release on high settings.

EDIT - how do i check my FPS in the Crysis beta? is their a command prompt or something?

i'm starting to get the feeling this game is 8800GTX exclusive, because they seem to be the only ones able to run the game.._Pedro_

Think about it. The most over-hyped game of the century can only be played with a top-end rig. You REALLY think that will happen?

The company would have to commit ritualistic suicide afterwards.

Well i just came out of playing the multiplayer BETA and i have to say the game itself is pretty fun, but the performance was pretty poor. When everyone first joined a server the textures and colours etc were all screwed up making it impossible to see anything (like doors, panels, walls etc). Turning on 2xAA made it even worse, everything went pure white or black. So i went to the default settings which changed everything to medium with 1028x768 resolution and the game runs alright, but often when a fire fight started i lagged up something aweful.

The enviroment and texture quality on medium wasn't that attractive, but far better than most games on high settings but nothing like the screenshots shown on Gamespot. I do hope they continue to optimise this game to improve performance because the BETA is pretty poor, everyone without an 8800 series graphics card has been suffering with poor performance, even on medium to low settings.

I have a feeling that i will have to purchase a Nvidia 8800 series graphics card if i have a hope of playing the final release on high settings.

EDIT - how do i check my FPS in the Crysis beta? is their a command prompt or something?

1005

use fraps, and your description hit hte nail on the head

Lol.. I usually don`t post comments, had do to it this time tough. I noticed a guy here saying that the beta was unplayable on high-end setting with his (8800gts, e6600 and 2bg 800mhz) while for me it runs smoothly and fine with all settings turned to high, and with 1600x1000 (or something like that...) resolution. And I have 8600(640)gts, e6600 and 2gb 667mhz.

And yeah, this game is sweeeeeeeet!

Lol.. I usually don`t post comments, had do to it this time tough. I noticed a guy here saying that the beta was unplayable on high-end setting with his (8800gts, e6600 and 2bg 800mhz) while for me it runs smoothly and fine with all settings turned to high, and with 1600x1000 (or something like that...) resolution. And I have 8600(640)gts, e6600 and 2gb 667mhz.

And yeah, this game is sweeeeeeeet!

AkTa87

Haha, no mate, just no. Stop talking crap yeah? ;)

im still downloading the crysis beta...

i dont know exactly how this works either, i max out bioshock at 1280x1024, but quake wars will run at 10 fps on everything low and i have no idea why, according to system requirements it should be running great. =/

oh, and what effect will be of dx10 vs dx9? does dx10 have better/new effects that are impossible on dx9 cards (shader model 4.0?)? or only more fps?
Kh1ndjal

DX10 will atleast have desctructable environments, day/night cycle etc. in online over the DX9 and in SP some better moving vegetation etc. ..and who knows, maybe even some performance boost.

i always feel that judging performance based on a beta is very bad thing,,, how many of you tired the beta for vista when it was released? that thing was terribly slow and killed most PCs... why, because its a beta.. Im sure the guys at Crytek are well aware of the performance issues... I also think thats why they released the multiplayer beta... to see how it would perform... how many players does it support? i ask this because if it suppose 32 players, then laggy game play if to expected... if its only 4 like doom3 was, and its still laggy then i would be worried... then again, im sure its not four, so im not...

I remember Crytek specifically stating the game would be optimized to run well on mid-range machines. Hope they can keep that promise with the final release!narf101

Yes, the demo should give us a nice indication of how it will run. If retail ran like beta, Crytek would have to be employed by a bunch of retards according to some of the reports i'm hearing. But of course this is a beta and i'm confident things will be alright.

Onemic, Beta is no representation of the final game, got it? This is how it is for quite of a few betas but not all of them. A beta isn't an exclusive demo that you get to play the game earlier. It exists so we can help out the developers iron out bugs and report any problems.

[QUOTE="narf101"]I remember Crytek specifically stating the game would be optimized to run well on mid-range machines. Hope they can keep that promise with the final release!bignice12

Yes, the demo should give us a nice indication of how it will run. If retail ran like beta, Crytek would have to be employed by a bunch of retards according to some of the reports i'm hearing. But of course this is a beta and i'm confident things will be alright.

Onemic, Beta is no representation of the final game, got it? This is how it is for quite of a few betas but not all of them. A beta isn't an exclusive demo that you get to play the game earlier. It exists so we can help out the developers iron out bugs and report any problems.

But the thing is crytek stated this a few months ago with the current build they had, not that a 7800 or 7900 would max it in the retail game. I know what a beta is. I'm not stupid.

I think that 15-25 FPS will be the norm for this game. People without 8800GTX need to prepare themselves for this. I have a 7900 SLI rig and I know I'm going to have to play this on medium or low to get a good frame rate. This is the reality of Crysis. So the question is "Is it worth getting vista and 8800GTX to run Crysis better" The answer is no in my opinion.

I think that 15-25 FPS will be the norm for this game. People without 8800GTX need to prepare themselves for this. I have a 7900 SLI rig and I know I'm going to have to play this on medium or low to get a good frame rate. This is the reality of Crysis. So the question is "Is it worth getting vista and 8800GTX to run Crysis better" The answer is no in my opinion.

Vito25

? running the game in DX10 mode will make it run worse not better.

I think this is the 3rd Beta release and I cannot imagine how poor the game performs on anything less than an 8800 card. I wouldn't expect a big jump with final release since the game is suppose to benefit Nvidia.

Deihmos

Even in beta, the Crysis Multiplayer runs great on my X1950, as well as the 7900 series cards. I expect it to run even better upon release.

Even in beta, the Crysis Multiplayer runs great on my X1950, as well as the 7900 series cards. I expect it to run even better upon release.mismajor99

I'm running it on all medium settings, no AA at 1024x768 resolution on a Nvidia 7900GS and the game performs average. When i'm moving around the world my FPS is a average 38-40, sometimes dropping to 30, but when i get into a close combat fight my FPS drops all the way down to 14 or 15 resulting in jumpy gameplay and me dying. I wouldn't say the BETA runs great on the 7900 series cards but it runs good enough that i only lag and get bad FPS when im in a close combat fight. My new tactic to avoid this is kill from long range, sniper rifles ftw!

I maxed the beta at 1680x1050 with 8x AA. The game's fine.GodLovesDead

Whats you system specs?...

the beta isnt as optimized at all as the build they are working on (for the final product) The beta is simply to test the net code and squash a few multiplayer bugs. They arnt going to waste even moreee time than they need to in order to release a patch that will fix it.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]I maxed the beta at 1680x1050 with 8x AA. The game's fine.1005

Whats you system specs?...

Opteron 180 + 8800GTS

I'm playing the beta on my 2nd system (my primary system is being used by my brother) and it runs ok. I'm gettingan average of20-35fps on low/ medium settings/ shaders setto high (for some reason I get a lot of graphical corruption if theshaders are set to low/med)with an AMD 3800 (@ 3ghz), 1gb ram, 7900 GS and windows XP. Aside from the pretty crap performance I think the game play is excellent.If thefinal releaseruns smootherthen the beta I think we will have a new MP King on our hands.

the beta isnt as optimized at all as the build they are working on (for the final product) The beta is simply to test the net code and squash a few multiplayer bugs. They arnt going to waste even moreee time than they need to in order to release a patch that will fix it.

Kool_j

This.

The funny thing to me is I tried to download the beta and it told me I dont meet the specs. I have a

X2 5200

2gigs ram

8800 gts/320

Is that right?

People keep saying that the demo will run better..I just don't believe that's the case. I think the only gain the demo will give are a few fps maybe 2-5. If Crytek optimized the demo much more better than what the beta currently is, don't you think they'd release a patch to stop many people like me who are currently whining about how it runs? It's no excuses for this game running so poorly on $300 and EVENN $400 graphic cards. Look how good Bioshock looked and it played just wonderfully, even for people with not so good computer configs.

This game has so much potential..but the TRUE reason for the delay of the demo isNOT to optimize it, but to cover up the fact that the game will run very poorly even when the retail releases. That's why they pushed the demo closer to theNovember release date..as to not risk people giving the game the finger due to it's extremely high PC requirements and un-optimization.

gamer082009

While Crysis is indeed a good game the optimization is kinda poor. Crytek, Nvidia and Intel have a deep relationship and Crytek has alot of influence on the pc hardware market. ( logo adds at the start of the beta proves my point) After all... Crysis is the benchmark of all games. With that I mean a high technical achievement.

However Crysis does NOT represent the needs of hardware in order to runthe averagegame in high graphics.(Bioshock proves my point)I dare to bet my life on it that UTIII will be twice as better optimized and require much less powerfull hardware. Just like last-gen.

I have a Quad Core 6600, 2GB and a 8600 gt. The beta ran at descent frame rates at medium 1280x1024... high detail ran on unplayable framerates for me. (15-35 fps) If they can do a good job on the optimization part then I might run it at high detail in the final game. And when I buy a new gfx card I expect not very high but Ultra High guaranteeded. Either that or I won't waste 700 euro's on a 8800 ultra. Low settings on Crysis look slightly better then Far Cry on maximum details. Medium settings from Crysis can be compared to Half-Life 2 lost coast. So I want to aim least for High. Very High is considered maxed out for current hardware. However all those nice video's Crytek has shown us run at Ultra High and over 1080p resolutions for marketing reasons... obviously.

Crytek's CEO and President Cevat Yerli has stated himself that todays hardware will not run the game at Ultra High (max quality) for another year.

I still remember how 4/5 years ago I upgraded my pc 2 times for Far Cry. First I got a P4, 512mb and 5800 ultra... everyone thought the final game will run fine. Needless to say... it didn't. So I bought a P4 3,06 ghz hyperthreading, 1GB and a 9800 pro.

This time arround... due to my maximum budget I bought a poor grafix card for but for compensation a very good future proof quad core processor with quality cooling for it to to overclock over 3GHz each core. (equal to a xtreme q6850).

i'm starting to get the feeling this game is 8800GTX exclusive, because they seem to be the only ones able to run the game.._Pedro_

I remember crytek stating that a 7800(or 7900) I forget which) GT could run the game at max settings with a good framerate. What a load of bull***** that statement was. onemic

Is the game out yet? A beta is a beta, why don't you wait until the game is finished

What if they had such a build? Things can change A LOT from version to version

Medium settings from Crysis can be compared to Half-Life 2 lost coast. So I want to aim least for High. Very High is considered maxed out for current hardware. However all those nice video's Crytek has shown us run at Ultra High and over 1080p resolutions for marketing reasons... obviously.

Crytek's CEO and President Cevat Yerli has stated himself that todays hardware will not run the game at Ultra High (max quality) for another year.PullTheTricker

Actually, they haven't showed how they game will look in two years. Ultra high will be avalible for Vista. More demanding graphics options will be enabled through future patches

Also, compare the scale of lost cost with crysis

[QUOTE="gamer082009"]

People keep saying that the demo will run better..I just don't believe that's the case. I think the only gain the demo will give are a few fps maybe 2-5. If Crytek optimized the demo much more better than what the beta currently is, don't you think they'd release a patch to stop many people like me who are currently whining about how it runs? It's no excuses for this game running so poorly on $300 and EVENN $400 graphic cards. Look how good Bioshock looked and it played just wonderfully, even for people with not so good computer configs.

This game has so much potential..but the TRUE reason for the delay of the demo isNOT to optimize it, but to cover up the fact that the game will run very poorly even when the retail releases. That's why they pushed the demo closer to theNovember release date..as to not risk people giving the game the finger due to it's extremely high PC requirements and un-optimization.

PullTheTricker

While Crysis is indeed a good game the optimization is kinda poor. Crytek, Nvidia and Intel have a deep relationship and Crytek has alot of influence on the pc hardware market. ( logo adds at the start of the beta proves my point) After all... Crysis is the benchmark of all games. With that I mean a high technical achievement.

However Crysis does NOT represent the needs of hardware in order to runthe averagegame in high graphics.(Bioshock proves my point)I dare to bet my life on it that UTIII will be twice as better optimized and require much less powerfull hardware. Just like last-gen.

I have a Quad Core 6600, 2GB and a 8600 gt. The beta ran at descent frame rates at medium 1280x1024... high detail ran on unplayable framerates for me. (15-35 fps) If they can do a good job on the optimization part then I might run it at high detail in the final game. And when I buy a new gfx card I expect not very high but Ultra High guaranteeded. Either that or I won't waste 700 euro's on a 8800 ultra. Low settings on Crysis look slightly better then Far Cry on maximum details. Medium settings from Crysis can be compared to Half-Life 2 lost coast. So I want to aim least for High. Very High is considered maxed out for current hardware. However all those nice video's Crytek has shown us run at Ultra High and over 1080p resolutions for marketing reasons... obviously.

Crytek's CEO and President Cevat Yerli has stated himself that todays hardware will not run the game at Ultra High (max quality) for another year.

I still remember how 4/5 years ago I upgraded my pc 2 times for Far Cry. First I got a P4, 512mb and 5800 ultra... everyone thought the final game will run fine. Needless to say... it didn't. So I bought a P4 3,06 ghz hyperthreading, 1GB and a 9800 pro.

This time arround... due to my maximum budget I bought a poor grafix card for but for compensation a very good future proof quad core processor with quality cooling for it to to overclock over 3GHz each core. (equal to a xtreme q6850).

thats retarded that they do that. i believe your theory, but its dumb they make something that can't be maxed on today's stuff, or run well on med hardware like bioshock did and still look great. i say this , bc think of doom 3. everyone hyped iit up, saying "omg they say itll be able to run on ultra on stuff that wont be out in 2 years" and 2 years after its release no one played it, it wasnt installed on anyone's new pc's either to even try what they said we would be able to do. it should be able to be maxed on today's hardware. if not, then i just lost a lot of excitement. i maxed bioshock, crysis ran like crap.

I've just come out of playing the BETA for another couple of hours, tried playing with the settings to improve my FPS but nothing worked. Turned V-Sync off through my GFX card, lowered the resolution from 1024x768 to 800x600 and kept everything at medium settings. Still the FPS sucked at 15-35, so i changed the shader and shadow options to the lowest and the game screwed up visually, everything was coloured in trippy bright colours. So put the shader and shadow settings to medium again and played around with the other settings. Nothing worked in helping improve my FPS, no matter how many different configurations of the settings i tried my FPS stayed at 15-35 at best.

I've just been pricing a Nvidia 8800 GTX and nearlly died when i saw it cost £300+, so Crytek better optimise this game damn good. Or i doub't i will be buying it....

I've just come out of playing the BETA for another couple of hours, tried playing with the settings to improve my FPS but nothing worked. Turned V-Sync off through my GFX card, lowered the resolution from 1024x768 to 800x600 and kept everything at medium settings. Still the FPS sucked at 15-35, so i changed the shader and shadow options to the lowest and the game screwed up visually, everything was coloured in trippy bright colours. So put the shader and shadow settings to medium again and played around with the other settings. Nothing worked in helping improve my FPS, no matter how many different configurations of the settings i tried my FPS stayed at 15-35 at best.

I've just been pricing a Nvidia 8800 GTX and nearlly died when i saw it cost £300+, so Crytek better optimise this game damn good. Or i doub't i will be buying it....

1005

you hit the nail on the ehad again, i've done the same. and if you lower the graphics, even on medium with a res around or under 1000 this game looks worse than far cry. i want what i saw in the dx 9 screens. or what ran on their demo a year ago on the 1900gtx

you hit the nail on the ehad again, i've done the same. and if you lower the graphics, even on medium with a res around or under 1000 this game looks worse than far cry. i want what i saw in the dx 9 screens. or what ran on their demo a year ago on the 1900gtxncderek

lol thanks :P

I think Crysis on medium settings looks like FarCry or HalfLife2 on max settings, i don't want to play this game on medium settings and get visual quality that resembles a game 2 or 3 years old. I wan't to play the DX9 version on maxed settings and experience the same quality as the HD demo videos i found on Stage6 awhile ago.

These are the videos i found on Stage6, they require DivX web player to work. Beware minor spoilers if you haven't been watching every Crysis video thats come out. Click links at your own risk, Gamespot and myself take no responsibility for you clicking these links. Always wanted to say that, so figured i would :P

DX9 vs DX10 v1

DX9 vs DX10 v2

DX9 vs DX10 v3