Crysis demo not playing like it should?

I just built my new rig yesterday (see sig for specs) and I downloaded the Crysis demo just to see how well my computer can run it. I put the settings on Very High, 0xAA and on 1440x900 (I have 19'' inch). When I am at my first gameplay sequence the average FPS was around 15-25. I thought my card could run it well. I've seen a few videos on YouTube and the GTS 250 performed very well. I know my RAM isn't the greatest, but it shouldn't make the game this bad. I toned down the resolution to 1280x800 (I think) and it was still the same FPS.

Does anyone know what's the problem? I installed the latest drivers and such. I can run TF2 fine with everything maxed out with 16x CSAA, 16x AF on 1440x900 and get about an average of 90 FPS. (Depends on server.)

I just built my new rig yesterday (see sig for specs) and I downloaded the Crysis demo just to see how well my computer can run it. I put the settings on Very High, 0xAA and on 1440x900 (I have 19'' inch). When I am at my first gameplay sequence the average FPS was around 15-25. I thought my card could run it well. I've seen a few videos on YouTube and the GTS 250 performed very well. I know my RAM isn't the greatest, but it shouldn't make the game this bad. I toned down the resolution to 1280x800 (I think) and it was still the same FPS.

Does anyone know what's the problem? I installed the latest drivers and such. I can run TF2 fine with everything maxed out with 16x CSAA, 16x AF on 1440x900 and get about an average of 90 FPS. (Depends on server.)

Chiddaling

There are a couple of problems going on here- 1) You're running the Crysis DEMO, not the full game or Warhead. The demo wasn't optimized quite as well as the full game. 2) You're trying to run Crysis on all Very High settings in DX10 mode (game defaults to DX10 mode in Vista or Win7) on a 512mb GTS 250. While that is a respectable graphics card, it's not up to that task. Even at your resolution you'll want a GTX275 or better to be running the game at all Very High settings with any decent performance. Try the settings down to "high" and see how it does.

What setting does the Optimal Setting Button default to?

[QUOTE="Chiddaling"]

I just built my new rig yesterday (see sig for specs) and I downloaded the Crysis demo just to see how well my computer can run it. I put the settings on Very High, 0xAA and on 1440x900 (I have 19'' inch). When I am at my first gameplay sequence the average FPS was around 15-25. I thought my card could run it well. I've seen a few videos on YouTube and the GTS 250 performed very well. I know my RAM isn't the greatest, but it shouldn't make the game this bad. I toned down the resolution to 1280x800 (I think) and it was still the same FPS.

Does anyone know what's the problem? I installed the latest drivers and such. I can run TF2 fine with everything maxed out with 16x CSAA, 16x AF on 1440x900 and get about an average of 90 FPS. (Depends on server.)

hartsickdiscipl

There are a couple of problems going on here- 1) You're running the Crysis DEMO, not the full game or Warhead. The demo wasn't optimized quite as well as the full game. 2) You're trying to run Crysis on all Very High settings in DX10 mode (game defaults to DX10 mode in Vista or Win7) on a 512mb GTS 250. While that is a respectable graphics card, it's not up to that task. Even at your resolution you'll want a GTX275 or better to be running the game at all Very High settings with any decent performance. Try the settings down to "high" and see how it does.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Chiddaling"]

I just built my new rig yesterday (see sig for specs) and I downloaded the Crysis demo just to see how well my computer can run it. I put the settings on Very High, 0xAA and on 1440x900 (I have 19'' inch). When I am at my first gameplay sequence the average FPS was around 15-25. I thought my card could run it well. I've seen a few videos on YouTube and the GTS 250 performed very well. I know my RAM isn't the greatest, but it shouldn't make the game this bad. I toned down the resolution to 1280x800 (I think) and it was still the same FPS.

Does anyone know what's the problem? I installed the latest drivers and such. I can run TF2 fine with everything maxed out with 16x CSAA, 16x AF on 1440x900 and get about an average of 90 FPS. (Depends on server.)

hofuldig

There are a couple of problems going on here- 1) You're running the Crysis DEMO, not the full game or Warhead. The demo wasn't optimized quite as well as the full game. 2) You're trying to run Crysis on all Very High settings in DX10 mode (game defaults to DX10 mode in Vista or Win7) on a 512mb GTS 250. While that is a respectable graphics card, it's not up to that task. Even at your resolution you'll want a GTX275 or better to be running the game at all Very High settings with any decent performance. Try the settings down to "high" and see how it does.

Yeah, I'm not sure about the RAM being an issue for overall FPS.. If he complained about the game freezing and hitching I would have mentioned the RAM too. I agree that 3 or 4gb of RAM or more is advisable for any gaming machine though. The GTS 250 isn't a re-worked 8800gt.. it's a reworked 8800gts 512mb/9800gtx/9800gtx+. The GTS 250 and all of these cards have 128 stream processors, as opposed to the 8800gt/9800gt which have 112.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Chiddaling"]

I just built my new rig yesterday (see sig for specs) and I downloaded the Crysis demo just to see how well my computer can run it. I put the settings on Very High, 0xAA and on 1440x900 (I have 19'' inch). When I am at my first gameplay sequence the average FPS was around 15-25. I thought my card could run it well. I've seen a few videos on YouTube and the GTS 250 performed very well. I know my RAM isn't the greatest, but it shouldn't make the game this bad. I toned down the resolution to 1280x800 (I think) and it was still the same FPS.

Does anyone know what's the problem? I installed the latest drivers and such. I can run TF2 fine with everything maxed out with 16x CSAA, 16x AF on 1440x900 and get about an average of 90 FPS. (Depends on server.)

hofuldig

There are a couple of problems going on here- 1) You're running the Crysis DEMO, not the full game or Warhead. The demo wasn't optimized quite as well as the full game. 2) You're trying to run Crysis on all Very High settings in DX10 mode (game defaults to DX10 mode in Vista or Win7) on a 512mb GTS 250. While that is a respectable graphics card, it's not up to that task. Even at your resolution you'll want a GTX275 or better to be running the game at all Very High settings with any decent performance. Try the settings down to "high" and see how it does.

The GTS 250 is a rebranded 9800GTX+ (which is a little better than the 9800GTX). The 9800GTX+ is roughly the equivalent of the 8800GTX/8800GTS 512 cards. Which both were better than the 8800GT by roughly 10-25%, depending on the game and settings and so forth and so on.

8800GTX/8800GTS 512 ~ 9800GTX < 9800GTX+ = GTS 250

8800GT = 9800GT

[QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There are a couple of problems going on here- 1) You're running the Crysis DEMO, not the full game or Warhead. The demo wasn't optimized quite as well as the full game. 2) You're trying to run Crysis on all Very High settings in DX10 mode (game defaults to DX10 mode in Vista or Win7) on a 512mb GTS 250. While that is a respectable graphics card, it's not up to that task. Even at your resolution you'll want a GTX275 or better to be running the game at all Very High settings with any decent performance. Try the settings down to "high" and see how it does.

neatfeatguy

The GTS 250 is a rebranded 9800GTX+ (which is a little better than the 9800GTX). The 9800GTX+ is roughly the equivalent of the 8800GTX/8800GTS 512 cards. Which both were better than the 8800GT by roughly 10-25%, depending on the game and settings and so forth and so on.

8800GTX/8800GTS 512 ~ 9800GTX < 9800GTX+ = GTS 250

8800GT = 9800GT

[QUOTE="neatfeatguy"]

[QUOTE="hofuldig"] And you forgot to add only have 2 Gigs of ram while running windows 7 Ultimate "32-Bit" for windows Vista or windows 7 if your going to be playing games weather its 32 bit or 64 bit you need 4 gigs of ram. also a GTS 250 is just a Re worked 8800GT hofuldig

The GTS 250 is a rebranded 9800GTX+ (which is a little better than the 9800GTX). The 9800GTX+ is roughly the equivalent of the 8800GTX/8800GTS 512 cards. Which both were better than the 8800GT by roughly 10-25%, depending on the game and settings and so forth and so on.

8800GTX/8800GTS 512 ~ 9800GTX < 9800GTX+ = GTS 250

8800GT = 9800GT

Granted that is rebranded, doesn't mean it's a bad card. I still have 2 of the 8800GTS 512 cards that I run in SLI. Quite frankly, Crysis (even the patched copy) is still a bit much for these cards to try and crank the game out on high settings (in DX10 or DX9, though DX10 does demand a bit more).

With all settings on high (no AA/AF) in DX10 and on my 1680 x 1050 screen, I average around 30fps. When I OC my CPU from stock 3.0GHz to 3.5GHz, I gain an extra 7fps on average; giving me about 37fps on average.

The GTS 250 at 1440 x 900 should be able to play on a good mix of high to medium settings. Once you hit a higher resolution, expect to turn those settings down a bit to around medium.

[QUOTE="hofuldig"][QUOTE="neatfeatguy"]

The GTS 250 is a rebranded 9800GTX+ (which is a little better than the 9800GTX). The 9800GTX+ is roughly the equivalent of the 8800GTX/8800GTS 512 cards. Which both were better than the 8800GT by roughly 10-25%, depending on the game and settings and so forth and so on.

8800GTX/8800GTS 512 ~ 9800GTX < 9800GTX+ = GTS 250

8800GT = 9800GT

neatfeatguy

Granted that is rebranded, doesn't mean it's a bad card. I still have 2 of the 8800GTS 512 cards that I run in SLI. Quite frankly, Crysis (even the patched copy) is still a bit much for these cards to try and crank the game out on high settings (in DX10 or DX9, though DX10 does demand a bit more).

With all settings on high (no AA/AF) in DX10 and on my 1680 x 1050 screen, I average around 30fps. When I OC my CPU from stock 3.0GHz to 3.5GHz, I gain an extra 7fps on average; giving me about 37fps on average.

The GTS 250 at 1440 x 900 should be able to play on a good mix of high to medium settings. Once you hit a higher resolution, expect to turn those settings down a bit to around medium.

Your results interest me. My last GPU was an 8800gts 512, OC'd to 740 core and a slight OC on the memory. I was running Crysis on all 'high' settings in DX10 at 1680x1050 and getting 33-35fps average with just a single card. That was with my E8400 at 3.8ghz. It makes me think there might be something wrong with your configuration? I know alot of people say you can get approximately GTX285 performance out of G92 8800gts in SLI.

crysis isnt optimized for todays cards. thats why an 8800gt single can get 30fps on high and a 4870 will get 40. 25fps on crysis very high at 1440x900 is pretty much what youd expect. the gts 250 is a decent card, but it isnt as good as other value choices. i myself got a 4890 for 170$ a couple of months ago. anyway, even the 4890 struggles on crysis at very high on higher resolutions. your pretty much getting what you paid for, and although it is a decent gaming card, it is not a very good one either. with only 512mb of vram, the buffer will be lower. sure it is more then enough for 1440x900 but still.

[QUOTE="neatfeatguy"]

[QUOTE="hofuldig"] Ok so its a re branded 9800GTX+. thats all fine and dandy. the fact of the matter is. its re branded.hartsickdiscipl

Granted that is rebranded, doesn't mean it's a bad card. I still have 2 of the 8800GTS 512 cards that I run in SLI. Quite frankly, Crysis (even the patched copy) is still a bit much for these cards to try and crank the game out on high settings (in DX10 or DX9, though DX10 does demand a bit more).

With all settings on high (no AA/AF) in DX10 and on my 1680 x 1050 screen, I average around 30fps. When I OC my CPU from stock 3.0GHz to 3.5GHz, I gain an extra 7fps on average; giving me about 37fps on average.

The GTS 250 at 1440 x 900 should be able to play on a good mix of high to medium settings. Once you hit a higher resolution, expect to turn those settings down a bit to around medium.

Your results interest me. My last GPU was an 8800gts 512, OC'd to 740 core and a slight OC on the memory. I was running Crysis on all 'high' settings in DX10 at 1680x1050 and getting 33-35fps average with just a single card. That was with my E8400 at 3.8ghz. It makes me think there might be something wrong with your configuration? I know alot of people say you can get approximately GTX285 performance out of G92 8800gts in SLI.

Crysis wasn't the best game optimized for SLI. And running a quad-core over a dual core doesn't really garnish you any benefits either (I have a Phenom II x4 940).

Crysis made good use of dual-core processors and really didn't take a tri or quad-core into consideration. So with Crysis running on two of my processors at 3.4 or 3.5GHz wouldn't be as good as running on your dual-core @ 3.8GHz.

In all honesty, running in SLI didn't give me much of a difference in performance in Crysis - roughly 20% gain. The downside to these cards is the 512MB. If they were made with 1GB, it would be a bit different story at the higher resolutions.

I've ran my two cards through 3DMark06 and I score around 17.8K - I've tried a GTX 280 in my computer and I scored around 17.5K.

If you can overclock your 8800GTS 512 cards well or voltmod them well, you can push past the performance of a GTX 285 and get something closer to a GTX 295. But I don't do that with my GPUs. One doesn't overclock well and the other does, so I'm pretty much stuck leaving them at stock (and no, I don't want to voltmod them unless I have a better GPU to replace them if I screw something up).

if all else fails, go into the config file, and turn down the lod, speculars,shadows and relflection sizes. at very high they are 2048 i think, and turning them down to 1024 will prove much better performance. also turn your 3rd core, or core 2(ex it will say core 0,1,2,3) to the physics core. this will let you have a lot of performance at higher visuals. you should play around with the setting based upon your card. for example, HDR with only 512mb of vram is stressing, so in options turn it off. things like that. make sure to backup every time you change something.

if all else fails, go into the config file, and turn down the lod, speculars,shadows and relflection sizes. at very high they are 2048 i think, and turning them down to 1024 will prove much better performance. also turn your 3rd core, or core 2(ex it will say core 0,1,2,3) to the physics core. this will let you have a lot of performance at higher visuals. you should play around with the setting based upon your card. for example, HDR with only 512mb of vram is stressing, so in options turn it off. things like that. make sure to backup every time you change something.

joshott

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="neatfeatguy"]

Granted that is rebranded, doesn't mean it's a bad card. I still have 2 of the 8800GTS 512 cards that I run in SLI. Quite frankly, Crysis (even the patched copy) is still a bit much for these cards to try and crank the game out on high settings (in DX10 or DX9, though DX10 does demand a bit more).

With all settings on high (no AA/AF) in DX10 and on my 1680 x 1050 screen, I average around 30fps. When I OC my CPU from stock 3.0GHz to 3.5GHz, I gain an extra 7fps on average; giving me about 37fps on average.

The GTS 250 at 1440 x 900 should be able to play on a good mix of high to medium settings. Once you hit a higher resolution, expect to turn those settings down a bit to around medium.

neatfeatguy

Your results interest me. My last GPU was an 8800gts 512, OC'd to 740 core and a slight OC on the memory. I was running Crysis on all 'high' settings in DX10 at 1680x1050 and getting 33-35fps average with just a single card. That was with my E8400 at 3.8ghz. It makes me think there might be something wrong with your configuration? I know alot of people say you can get approximately GTX285 performance out of G92 8800gts in SLI.

Crysis wasn't the best game optimized for SLI. And running a quad-core over a dual core doesn't really garnish you any benefits either (I have a Phenom II x4 940).

Crysis made good use of dual-core processors and really didn't take a tri or quad-core into consideration. So with Crysis running on two of my processors at 3.4 or 3.5GHz wouldn't be as good as running on your dual-core @ 3.8GHz.

In all honesty, running in SLI didn't give me much of a difference in performance in Crysis - roughly 20% gain. The downside to these cards is the 512MB. If they were made with 1GB, it would be a bit different story at the higher resolutions.

I've ran my two cards through 3DMark06 and I score around 17.8K - I've tried a GTX 280 in my computer and I scored around 17.5K.

If you can overclock your 8800GTS 512 cards well or voltmod them well, you can push past the performance of a GTX 285 and get something closer to a GTX 295. But I don't do that with my GPUs. One doesn't overclock well and the other does, so I'm pretty much stuck leaving them at stock (and no, I don't want to voltmod them unless I have a better GPU to replace them if I screw something up).

Crysis dose in fact take advantage of quad core CPU's it is designed to do so. also from what i have seen it dose scale very well on SLI and crossfirehofuldig

That's what they say, it takes advantage of quad core processors....but not very well. I've been running the CPU benchmarks for Crysis (though the programs are giving me issues, saying they can't find the files for the benchmarks yet the benchmarks run....) and on the CPU1 benchmark when I set the affinity for just 2 of the cores on my Phenom II x4 940 (@ 3.5GHz) I average around 24fps.

When I set the affinity back to using all 4 I average around 26fps.

A high-end, good overclocked dual core shouldn't have any issues playing Crysis just as well as most quad core processors out there. There isn't much of a difference between running 2 or 4 cores for me, about a 10% boost in performance. Not much of a difference, but there is one.

I also ran the GPU benchmark with my 8800GTS 512 (no overclock) in SLI and I was averaging around 39fps; DX10, no AA/AF, all settings on High. With one of the cards, same settings, I was getting around 32fps.

For kicks and giggles I tossed in my younger brothers GTX 280 (no overclock), same settings as above and I was getting around 45fps.

The limiting issues with the 8800GTS cards I have is the 512MB of memory. You can see the difference compared to the 1GB from the GTX 280. I've ran my two cards and the 280 in 3DMark06 and I score higher there with my two cards over the 280 (granted only by maybe 400 points).

I wish I could post some screen shots with the results, but the benchmarks keep telling me it can't find the files to run, yet the benchmarks run just fine. So nothing is recorded in the cmd screen. I suppose you'll just have to take my word on it. I installed Crysis and patched it to 1.21 just to run these benchmarks, time to remove the game again.