DF: Why crysis still melts the most powerfull gaming pc's.

Yes, crysis will still give your pc a run for its money. If you start running it at 4k on the best of the best, 60 fps is still kind of a challenge.

Because it's an unoptimized mess?

So consoles aren't holding gaming back, it's PCs.

the video showed that the game wasn't unoptimized, it was just so demanding.

It's awesome how there is a PS3 version......doesn't obviously look as good as the PC version but.

@commander:

Looks unoptimized as ****! Crytek should have been more considerate for the hardware available. 10 years is too long to be able to play it high quality.

My first thought. My laptop handles UE games just fine, several other engines just fine, but anything CryEngine (even heavily modified) and it just bogs down.

I bought Lichdom: Battlemage for my old laptop, ran like crap, not even playable. Upgraded to a new laptop, that can max out Doom (2016) on Ultra settings and gets 40-50 fps... still barely playable. I don't understand why so many developers are jumping on board with the CE tech. At least Ubisoft got the Dunia engine working well.

It’s unoptimized trash. Frostbite Engine and Unreal Engine 4 look light years ahead and run smooth as butter.

Cry Engine is a joke and it’s why Star Citizen is taking so long to release. CIG messed up big time when they decided to go with Cry Engine. They would have finished making Star Citizen by now if they went with Unreal Engine and they wouldn’t be getting sued by Crytek like they are now.

@foxhound_fox: @quadknight

you should really watch the video, it's not unoptimized, they are just using techniques that many games are skipping on because it's too demanding.

@commander:

1. Memory bandwidth improvement rate is slower than GPU's TFLOPS improvement rate. Tile cache rendering is work-around not the complete solution. South Korean high performance DRAM near-monopoly needs to broken up.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/04/30/dram_vendors_sued_again_for_price_fixing_again/

That's two south Korean DRAM vendors and one US DRAM vendor being sued again for price fixing.

2. GPU's register storage per compute warp/wave hasn't improve much since 8800 GTX era. Badly allocated register usage per wave/warp causes an over spill into L1 cache which is slower than register storage.

3. CryEngine 3 is last gen deferred rendering model which hasn't moved towards this gen's Forward Plus rendering model.

There isn't a gaming engine in existence that could do half of what they need it to do for Star Citizen. It wouldn't have made the slightest difference if they went with Unreal Engine, Unity or Frostbite instead.

I remember at the start of the crowd funding campaign, there were investors waiting in the background to see if the crowd funding was going to be successful or not. It's widely speculated that the major investor was going to be Crytek and that's why there is so much sour grapes, Crytek missed out on a massive pay day return when the crowd funding surpassed everyone's wildest imaginings and the lurking investors were ditched in favour of full crowd funding.

Just to add some more tin foil hat to this, it's also shortly after they dropped the investors that the hate campaign went in to full gear, I do find that a little conspicuous.

What they do have now though is a major backer in Amazon, a successful Star Citizen would promote Lumberyard far more than any other game could and they know it.

@commander: It’s unoptimized, I watched the video yesterday and it didn’t convince me it wasn’t. In fact, I’m running through a session of Crysis Warhead right now as I type this. The engine is still unoptimized. The graphics look dated compared to the modern shooters I play now and getting it to run at max settings without hiccups is still a bitch.

I don’t care what techniques they are using, a 10 year old game like it should run better on today’s hardware.

Earlier UE4 builds has issues with game world scaling.

@commander:

You make it sound like it's good to be demanding as ****. What's the point if the hardware available can barely do it? It's just flat out inconsiderate! It's not a good thing to brag about!

@ronvalencia: You’re making it sound like Cryengine doesn’t have issues with world scaling. They’ve had to to almost rewrite the whole engine for Star Citizen to work and it still runs like garbage. The whole engine is a joke.

Early Unreal Engine 4 builds are worst than CryEngine 3. There are large scale Asian MMOs built on CryEngine 3.

I’m not saying Unreal Engine would have worked with Star Citizen out of the box but I believe it would have been done quicker. They’ve had to rewrite almost the entire engine to get Star Citizen to run barely in Alpha and it’s still a glitchy piece of shit that runs terribly.

i know they are trying to do a lot of things with the engine that it wasn’t designed for but I still feel all of this would have been easier with Unreal Engine. They royally screwed up IMO by going with Cryengine and the fact Crytek is suing them makes the whole situation even more sad.

CryEngine 2... forward render engine for it's lighting. For many light sources, it's less efficient when compared to CryEngine 3's deferred rendering. Forward Plus render is the solution for many lights with forward rendering method and it runs better on AMD GPUs.

Sony's majority of PS4's first party games uses Forward Plus rendering model as per AMD's guidelines. Recent UE4 builds has forward render option as pressure from combined XBO/PS4's market size increases.

you underestimate the 8800 gtx, you also underestimate sli, and triple sli.

Of course this wasn't 4k, a lot of people even ran 4:3 screens. You had very high resolutions on that format as well, but this wasn't really a thing back then, not like it is now anyway.

Heck we barely left the sd era, and a lot of people were happy to run a game at 1280 x 1024.

This isn't so surprising actually, my 7950 I had in the past was just enough to keep me above 30 fps on very high and 1080p, and that card murders the ps4's gpu.

Also says CryTek gambled on the future of insanely high ghz/fewer cores but right now we are at more threads and wasn't their dream scaling.

@commander:

lol Like it would BE hard to murder ps4's gpu! That's not even fair! But that aside, what the hell was Crytek thinking?! Were they just worried about future proofing Crysis?

Honestly, unoptimized mess. The game is super outdated now tbh.

I mean that's pretty much the definition of unoptimized. Instead of making small sacrifices here and there for what was going to be by far the best looking game of it's time regardless, they instead threw in every single bell and whistle of Crytek and the dx9-10 era. Doing so with no regard to the state of hardware, software, or framerate at any point. Performance and compatibility be damned as long as you can make nice screenshots!

Vfighter usually doesn't know anything he's talking about.

From what I understood from the video the problem is the CPU. The engine was made with the vision that CPU's would evolve into these uber high clock monsters even above the multi-thread aspect. You would probably need one of those liquid nitro setups for some crazy OC to hopefully see how the engine was supposed to work with future PC's.

Its not the only one. Lot of old PC games were so badly programmed that they refuse to run smootly on even the most powerful PCs.

So, the game is just crappily programmed by lazy coders who could not code a fart outta their butts after a bowl of curry.

Crysis 1 only uses 2 threads which means that one of the two cores or threads have to feed the gpu its data. One core/thread with any modern cpu is not enough to feed today's gpu's .

Crysis isn't badly optimized. It's badly optimized for multi-core CPUs, but it's not badly optimized. That's one thing doesn't make it badly optimized.

The fact that I was able to play a demo of that, and have it playable, back in the day, on some shitty $20 AMD GPU, 2GB of RAM, and a single core Pentium 4 pretty much shows that it was well optimized for me since Crysis did get me into PC gaming in the first place. It's just that it was trying to future proof itself for a future that never happened. But you could pretty much get a decently playable experience on nearly any half-decent hardware of the time. Crytek made a big deal about the game being future proof and scaling to quad core CPUs though. With Core 2 Quads out at the time, one could argue Crysis wasn't optimized for high-end systems, and it ultimately didn't scale well to future hardware either because CPUs remained at 3-4 Ghz clock speeds with like 10% IPC improvements each gen.

The difference with Crysis compared to other old games is that Crysis is one, if not the only game to still run into performance issues despite being run on ten years more modern hardware. I think that Crysis reception had been better if Crytek's marketing had been more modest.

@zaryia: Sure thing hoss. I'm sure I'm wrong even though it was widely reported back then that the game wasn't optimized all that well and most people in this thread saying the same thing. Sorry I upset you at some point (probably proving you wrong and embarrassing you) but I don't remember you and I was lying about being sorry.

The game looked better than contemporary games even on High (versus Very High/Enthusiast) settings. I didn't worry too much about not maxing the game out right off the bat.

I think the game scaled well with various CPU/GPU combos. I didn't really care much for what the in-game frame counter showed because I was more interested in the feel of the controls. The game felt light and responsive at 30 fps and smooth at 40 fps and beyond. It remained playable even when framerates dropped into the mid-upper 20's.

I've played other games that was a stuttery mess whenever the framerates dropped below 30 fps such as The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, The Witcher 3, and Far Cry 3/4. Crysis wasn't that stuttery until its framerates dropped into the teens.

When I played the game in 2009, I recall saying Crysis at 25-30 fps felt much more playable than Elder Scrolls: Oblivion at 45-50 fps.

The level Relic, by far, sapped the most resources. But, even at spots with sub-30 fps, it remained playable. The only reason I thought the low fps might be a problem was because other PC gamers said so.

I would have quit playing most games if the framerates dropped below 30 fps because of the stuttering. Not Crysis (or Warhead).

Sometimes, I wondered if something was wrong with my frame counter. Perhaps, it was reading lower that it should. At some point, I just quit using it with Crysis.

@vfighter: unoptimized? Is that why some games make your PC sluggish. I used to play a game called MapleStory bit god did it make my laptop run like shit after playing it.

Crysis's CryEngine 2 has less efficient many light pass when compared CryEngine 3's deferred rendering.

Crysis doesn't use PBR.

no one cares pc games

They didnt go with Unreal Engine 4 for Star Citizen at the time because it wasnt even a finished engine back then the base engine was stil in development.

Why do armchair developers always think they can tell experienced developers what they could and should ha e done, Laughable.

Crysis Warhead runs better.

It was hard to tell sometimes. Just like Crysis, Warhead has its own spots where the framerates took a dip, particularly on the level with the train and the initial snow. And, just like Crysis, it remained playable regardless.

You and those two other console posters are confusing unoptimized for demanding. There is objectively a difference between these two. This is further demonstrated in the video in this very OP, making your statements even more objectively incorrect.

Please deal with facts, and less Trumpian style lies.

Yeah unoptimized is a lie that got around because the best grx cards couldn't handle it. The game was way ahead of its time, im surprised Crytek hasen't released Crysis for modern consoles. That mess they got on cryengine 3 is a joke.

Yup, just like many people in the thread before me said, Crysis wasn't un-optimized. It was demanding and future-proof. The only people calling in unoptimized are, surprise surprise, console gamers or console fanboys that are butthurt over the fact that for every single time that Crytek released their games, they murdered their precious console games in the technical department. They are butthurt that Crytek with their games have set the technical bar so higher that many of their precious games still couldn't compete with it.

@nepu7supastar7: why? I thought you people didn't like weak hardware holding the industry back lol.

I don't understand, why are PC Gamers complaining that a game was too demanding for its time? Isn't PC gaming supposed to throw everything it can to make the game look fantastic? Isn't it supposed to not care about being held back by weak hardware? I mean, you can always upgrade your rig, right?

Because many PC gamers now are younger than that and don't remember those good old days.

People used to love giving themselves an excuse to upgrade thanks to that one special title that would murder their system and the obvious added side benefit of it improving every other game you owned, everything these days is a bit more predictable and generic and "safe" :(

The minimum requirements weren't specified correctly.

I think I had an 8800 GT when Crysis came out. I put off playing through it until I got a GTX 260 so I could run it better. The game needed a beast rig back in the day.

I have so many hours in Crysis...... it still a ball ache to run for a few reasons:

1. CPU threading, or rather lack of! The game at best case can use 1.8 threads and as all of it's physics and other things are handled on the CPU you need a CPU with a monster IPS throughput to run it. The game has been CPU limited since AMD released the 7900 series. Test it for yourself, have MSI afterburner on showing GPU usage and play the game and watch how the GPU usage is all over the place and when the frame rate drops the GPU usage drops with it = CPU bottleneck.

2. It was the first, true fact! Crysis was the first game to have widely used POM, SSAO, GI and loads of other things....and that's the problem..... because it was the first there was no optimised way to do these effects so they were coded in the most efficient way the developers thought was best. By today's standards not only does the SSAO in Crysis look really outdated but it also has a really high performance cost by comparison to newer, more effect and better techniques.

3. DX10...... The game runs soooooooo much faster in DX9 it's scary...... Don't believe me? Run the built in benchmark in DX10 mode Very High and then do the same thing again in DX9 but with the modified .cfg file to allow Very High settings in DX9 and see what a massive increase in performance you get... DX10 performance is gimped.

It's so sad. They had Crysis that was revolutionary in the graphics department, but also the gameplay. Then they dumbed down everything to sell their games to the console crowd. Think about what we'd have now if they didn't throw away everything that was awesome and if they'd continue to evolve as a PC developer. We would be very happy as gamers, and they'd be successful as a company. Too bad the company was run by idiots.