New Crysis High-End benchmark released

[nt300]

I actually think Crysis is nicely optimised.

It runs on quite varied hardware, just maxing it out its hard, and its no surprise.

Just look at it, its the rich environments that cause crysis to be a megahurtz junkie, NO other game I've played has the level of ambient detail that Crysis has.

FarCry was the staple of ultra high quality and playability when it was released on March 23, 2004. This game alone raised the bar. It even forced Valve to delay Half Life 2's release back in the day. Both HL2 and Farcry were playable with absolute MAX quality settings on average vid cards where as Crysis cripples high end cards and CPU's.

It's no Crysis, but for a game that's 6 years old, it still a rockin
FARCRY

 

[InnocentCriminal]

That first screeny is an artists initial level design idea surely?! I must admit, the Source engine really does have it's work cut out with it against the CryEngine 2...

... Superheld is the 'artist' behind these screenies. He's from the same community as the dude that created the benchmark. The rest of the images are 'ere.

 

[imperialreign]

Regarding the whole performance debate - I can say that with my current rig, I could run both Crysis and Warhead at 1920x1200 with "maxed" in-game settings . . . although, I did use some other custom cvars to eliminate things that aren't needed, and to tweak other aspects a bit more . . .

But, running 4 GPUs, and utilizing a x64 OS with 8GB installed made a lot of difference, too . .. needless to say, I wasn't hurting in the FPS department - the games ran smooth and enjoyable.


And - for some of us, that's not enough . . . still planning on getting two 5970s


I think, though, CryEngine 3 is to be a lot more optimized than the current engine . . . but, if Crysis 2 will take place mostly in urban environments (which I'm guessing at based on the early tech demos), any performance boost by the optimizations will probably be negated by the geometry and build details . . .