Crysis Full Game Performance

I don't think it willnutcrackr

Hasnt it been said that the demo is only single threaded and doesnt support SLI setups?...or something like that?Spartan8907

well,it does seem multi-threaded, when theres lots of action it is using all 4 cores..it just doesnt have quad core optimisation. the quad core optimisation was supposed to be able to allow the CPU to pretty much assign specific threads to a core, for example sound processing, AI, physics etc..even be able to take some load off the GPU. instead of current multi-threading, which is pretty much running random threads through each of the cores to get the job done..in laymans terms.

Goes into it a bit Hereabout what we should expect from a quad core..
Quote from source:" How is gaming processing distributed among the cores? ex: AI, sound, effects, physics

This varies based on the type of hardware you are running on. In theory the physics, sound, many of the particle systems and the game logic can all run on separate cores. In additional much of the time spent in the graphics driver can be offloaded to another core as Crysis has a very highly optimised Direct3D graphics engine. "

so i havnt lost all hope yet...i doubt they will turn around and go "yeah, sorry, our bad, its not gonna work"

I think it will. Crysis not running well is the biggest fear they have, so I'm sure we'll see drivers and patches right away.

Can anyone CONFIRM (please note I said confirm, meaning with proof of some sort) that the demo was not using quad cores/all hardware to it's full potential? I'm hearing this around a lot, and it seems it's unfortunately getting my hopes up.Mochyc

I think it will run better, I wouldn't be suprised if they release a Day 1 patch and/or Nvidia released new drivers.VooDooPC

yep, although on release date im expecting nvidia to release their G92 heavyweight after all the 8800GT sellout hooplah. After all, its been a year since the GTX came out, thats a long time in gfx-land.

And why do you care so much about CPU?
For most of us it's not the bottleneck. To play it normally you need GTX/Ultra or couple
of GT cards which are better optimized for DX10. Anything below, medium settings at best.
I have $350 GTS card and it barely runs it on medium settings. I am sure my
3.2Ghz C2D (even on one core) is not the problem.


Creative

That's weird man, I've been playing on my Q6600 OC'ed to 3.2Ghz with 2GB of RAM and a 320MB 8800GTS and on all high settings I ran around 20-35fps. It was still pretty playable when it lagged down to 20 also.

I think it will run better, I wouldn't be suprised if they release a Day 1 patch and/or Nvidia released new drivers.VooDooPC

I think the full game will perform a bit better than the demo.

[QUOTE="Creative"]And why do you care so much about CPU?
For most of us it's not the bottleneck. To play it normally you need GTX/Ultra or couple
of GT cards which are better optimized for DX10. Anything below, medium settings at best.
I have $350 GTS card and it barely runs it on medium settings. I am sure my
3.2Ghz C2D (even on one core) is not the problem.


IndieRock13

That's weird man, I've been playing on my Q6600 OC'ed to 3.2Ghz with 2GB of RAM and a 320MB 8800GTS and on all high settings I ran around 20-35fps. It was still pretty playable when it lagged down to 20 also.

Yeah,i dont understand ppl saying they cant run it on medium with such good Graphic Cards.

I play it on High with my 7600gt,3800+ and 768mbRAMwith 10-15 fps,so u must be able to play it on 30+

I also use Windows XP

[QUOTE="Creative"]And why do you care so much about CPU?
For most of us it's not the bottleneck. To play it normally you need GTX/Ultra or couple
of GT cards which are better optimized for DX10. Anything below, medium settings at best.
I have $350 GTS card and it barely runs it on medium settings. I am sure my
3.2Ghz C2D (even on one core) is not the problem.


IndieRock13

That's weird man, I've been playing on my Q6600 OC'ed to 3.2Ghz with 2GB of RAM and a 320MB 8800GTS and on all high settings I ran around 20-35fps. It was still pretty playable when it lagged down to 20 also.

At what resolution?

[QUOTE="IndieRock13"]

[QUOTE="Creative"]And why do you care so much about CPU?
For most of us it's not the bottleneck. To play it normally you need GTX/Ultra or couple
of GT cards which are better optimized for DX10. Anything below, medium settings at best.
I have $350 GTS card and it barely runs it on medium settings. I am sure my
3.2Ghz C2D (even on one core) is not the problem.
salzdaprinze

That's weird man, I've been playing on my Q6600 OC'ed to 3.2Ghz with 2GB of RAM and a 320MB 8800GTS and on all high settings I ran around 20-35fps. It was still pretty playable when it lagged down to 20 also.

At what resolution?

Why are u so worried about resolution?

800x600 Verry High will ALWAYS look bether than lets say 1920×1080 at Low or Medium

[QUOTE="salzdaprinze"][QUOTE="IndieRock13"]

[QUOTE="Creative"]And why do you care so much about CPU?
For most of us it's not the bottleneck. To play it normally you need GTX/Ultra or couple
of GT cards which are better optimized for DX10. Anything below, medium settings at best.
I have $350 GTS card and it barely runs it on medium settings. I am sure my
3.2Ghz C2D (even on one core) is not the problem.
Lidve

That's weird man, I've been playing on my Q6600 OC'ed to 3.2Ghz with 2GB of RAM and a 320MB 8800GTS and on all high settings I ran around 20-35fps. It was still pretty playable when it lagged down to 20 also.

At what resolution?

Why are u so worried about resolution?

800x600 Verry High will ALWAYS look bether than lets say 1920×1080 at Low or Medium

That's your opinion, but I agree at some point. To me playing below 1280x720 in 2007 is a waste with the advancement in the quality of display we have gotten over the years. It's like listening toBeethoven on crap speakers.

[QUOTE="salzdaprinze"][QUOTE="IndieRock13"]

[QUOTE="Creative"]And why do you care so much about CPU?
For most of us it's not the bottleneck. To play it normally you need GTX/Ultra or couple
of GT cards which are better optimized for DX10. Anything below, medium settings at best.
I have $350 GTS card and it barely runs it on medium settings. I am sure my
3.2Ghz C2D (even on one core) is not the problem.
Lidve

That's weird man, I've been playing on my Q6600 OC'ed to 3.2Ghz with 2GB of RAM and a 320MB 8800GTS and on all high settings I ran around 20-35fps. It was still pretty playable when it lagged down to 20 also.

At what resolution?

Why are u so worried about resolution?

800x600 Verry High will ALWAYS look bether than lets say 1920×1080 at Low or Medium

Since resolution has an impact on performance, i just wanted to know what resolution you were playingon and getting up to 35Fps, thats all dude.

I've heard from some people that there is reason to believe the demo is the same build from E3. If that's true, the full game is certain to be much more optimized. However, I don't know what the reason to believe it is, nor have I heard official confirmation of it.JP_Russell

I think the game will run a little better than the demo. The demo seems a bit "off" with some glitches and AI bugs but i think either way, the game will be improved when it comes out or by some patch.

I think it will. They are a good company. The demo ran pretty good for me, but I have an ok set up. I don't know about older systems.zakaweb

O.K. setup? The8800GT SSC card is just an OK card? Not!

Alright, I'm not sure if this will help dispell any rumors that you're going to need two GTX or Ultra cards in SLI in order to run it at Very High settings. I played the Crysis demo on my g/f's computer, whichsports aCore2Duo @3.0, 2 gigs of ram, and a single 8800 GT Superclocked - at 1650x1050, all settings on Very High, and Antialiasing set to 2x, I was getting between 20-40 FPS.

Keep in mind that we're talking about Very High settings not Ultra High. This is on XP with Dx9. You won't need a supercomputer for these settings. However, I don't really have any relavent information regarding Vista with Dx10 and Ultra High.

And why do you care so much about CPU?
For most of us it's not the bottleneck. To play it normally you need GTX/Ultra or couple
of GT cards which are better optimized for DX10. Anything below, medium settings at best.
I have $350 GTS card and it barely runs it on medium settings. I am sure my
3.2Ghz C2D (even on one core) is not the problem.


Creative

Are you sure? I have a gts 640 MB , runs at 25 FPS on Very High, 1650 x 1050 ) with shadows and post on medium / low ... at 1280 x 1024 over 30 FPs smooth easily.

[QUOTE="Creative"]And why do you care so much about CPU?
For most of us it's not the bottleneck. To play it normally you need GTX/Ultra or couple
of GT cards which are better optimized for DX10. Anything below, medium settings at best.
I have $350 GTS card and it barely runs it on medium settings. I am sure my
3.2Ghz C2D (even on one core) is not the problem.


Meu2k7

Are you sure? I have a gts 640 MB , runs at 25 FPS on Very High, 1650 x 1050 ) with shadows and post on medium / low ... at 1280 x 1024 over 30 FPs smooth easily.

Yeah, seriously. You don't need SLI to play this game on Very High. Ultra High may be a different story.

To clear this up, if you're using DirectX9, the highest quality you'll be able to get is "Very High". So, if you're using Windows XP, "Very High" is technically maxed out for your system. If you're on Vista, however, and you're using DX10, then you have the ability to up the settings to "Ultra High".

Don't hold me to this, cause I'm not a Crysis expert, but after reading a number of previews and looking at a ton of discussions about it, this is basically what I understand the situation to be.

To clear this up, if you're using DirectX9, the highest quality you'll be able to get is "Very High". So, if you're using Windows XP, "Very High" is technically maxed out for your system. If you're on Vista, however, and you're using DX10, then you have the ability to up the settings to "Ultra High".

Don't hold me to this, cause I'm not a Crysis expert, but after reading a number of previews and looking at a ton of discussions about it, this is basically what I understand the situation to be.

SentientGames

No, very high is very high and is only accessible by vista users. The max a xp user can get is high. Crytek said they would release a patch with the ultra high features when the hardware is up to date.

Ahhh. Thanks for clearing that up. I just remembered this article from GS. It shows you the differences between High, XP Very High, and Vista Very High. Though you were only supposed to get Very High from Vista, some clever people manipulated the config files to "fudge" Very High onto XP.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.html?cpage=14

So, there you have it. When I played the demo on my g/f's computer, it must have been on High, not Very High. My bust. Don't flame me.Still, it looked and played amazingly.

Considering that players were able to manipulate DX9 to look as good as DX10, I wonder how good it will look when people manipulate the DX10 to look better then it already does.

Ahhh. Thanks for clearing that up. I just remembered this article from GS. It shows you the differences between High, XP Very High, and Vista Very High. Though you were only supposed to get Very High from Vista, some clever people manipulated the config files to "fudge" Very High onto XP.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182140/index.html?cpage=14

So, there you have it. When I played the demo on my g/f's computer, it must have been on High, not Very High. My bust. Don't flame me.Still, it looked and played amazingly.

Considering that players were able to manipulate DX9 to look as good as DX10, I wonder how good it will look when people manipulate the DX10 to look better then it already does.

SentientGames

I doubt they can, people only 'unlocked' the options that were already there and that were still supported by DX9, they can't bring out more ultra options unless it's actually in the retail version. Additionnaly, very high was only limited for vista users whereas the ultra has hardware limitations.

[QUOTE="Creative"]And why do you care so much about CPU?
For most of us it's not the bottleneck. To play it normally you need GTX/Ultra or couple
of GT cards which are better optimized for DX10. Anything below, medium settings at best.
I have $350 GTS card and it barely runs it on medium settings. I am sure my
3.2Ghz C2D (even on one core) is not the problem.


IndieRock13

That's weird man, I've been playing on my Q6600 OC'ed to 3.2Ghz with 2GB of RAM and a 320MB 8800GTS and on all high settings I ran around 20-35fps. It was still pretty playable when it lagged down to 20 also.

Thats probably down to you just having 320mb video memory, it really cuts into performance from 1280x1024 upwards.

Rather then continue to hijack this thread, I made a new one that talks about Very High settings on Windows XP.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26029609&msg_id=295297901#295297901