Crysis finally playable (Benchmark GTX 580 SLI)

[platinumyahoo]

Just think of the poor kid who saves up his pocket money to purchase that GTX280 just so that he can max out Crysis on V.High, only to find out that u were talking pish or that 'no frame rate problems' just means that you were perfectly happy with 25-35 FPS for the whole of the game (with no AA).

very good point, just because you were happy with ~30fps on crysis dosnt mean i am, i like games to play an avg 45+ and a min of 35-40 to be completely happy. I am completely happy with the 580 in SLI set up for crysis despite the fact that im selling one. but even one 580 at this resolution is enough to get me to finally play through the whole game.

one last thing, where can i get this .ini that improves performance?

 

[erixx]

This thread is -long ago- stuffed with crazy statements. First is showing off 2x 580's with such a tiny monitor... lol, then the Crysis dramaqueens (i finished it long ago and forgot about it), wow, and finally the "PC=pain, etc", sorry but
ha ha haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaa!

 

[brandonwh64]

Like panther and frick said! its only one game, the game itself wasn't that fun anyway. there are plenty of PC games that play every well on older systems that are a blast to play

 

[pantherx12]

very good point, just because you were happy with ~30fps on crysis dosnt mean i am, i like games to play an avg 45+ and a min of 35-40 to be completely happy. I am completely happy with the 580 in SLI set up for crysis despite the fact that im selling one. but even one 580 at this resolution is enough to get me to finally play through the whole game.

one last thing, where can i get this .ini that improves performance?

I'd recommend learning to tweak it yourself it you don't already
http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=11614

I find a lot of settings can be upped since there is so many settings that you can lower without effecting things to much

 

[platinumyahoo]

This thread is -long ago- stuffed with crazy statements. First is showing off 2x 580's with such a tiny monitor... lol, then the Crysis dramaqueens (i finished it long ago and forgot about it), wow, and finally the "PC=pain, etc", sorry but
ha ha haaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaa!

at least give me credit for giving some kind of reference for this crazy hardware intensive game, despite my "tiny" monitor.

playing crysis on a bigger monitor on very high with AA is probably only possible with a 580 or something close in SLI

 

[Kreij]

I had no stress from Crysis.
I grabbed the Demo and I set the resolution at max (2560x1600) as well as all the settings.
It ran like a slideshow, so I moved on.

Life's to short to fret over one game.

It is kind of interesting that this game is still being used to judge hardware.

Oh ... and good job Plat. I found the thread interesting.

 

[erixx]

credit where i is due yeah, congrats for testing and sharing, really!

 

[EarthDog]

LOL, more $ than sense here. 2 GTX 580's for 1680x1050. Yeah, thats CPU limited 63 FPS.

 

[Kreij]

@Plat : I'll be happy to test the boards out at 2560x1600 for you. Just mail them across the little pond and I'll get started right away.

 

[newtekie1]

Being a PC gamer is a stress ridden pain in the arse.

Or you could just lower the settings so that is is playable.

Set it to 1280x720 resolution, with medium textures, no texture filtering, and no AF. See how it plays then, because that is what your Xbox buddies are getting.:shadedshu

Everyone complains about how poor PC gaming is because you are forced into upgrades. No one is forcing you to do shit. If you are happy with the shitty graphics quality that you get with consoles, then you don't have to upgrade all that often with PCs. You don't have to play games at max graphics settings for them to be fun, and if the max graphics settings is what makes the game fun either the game isn't worth playing or you really aren't a gamer.

Like panther and frick said! its only one game, the game itself wasn't that fun anyway. there are plenty of PC games that play every well on older systems that are a blast to play

I actually enjoyed it greatly, but to each their own. I also played through and beat it with an x800XL...

 

[platinumyahoo]

@Plat : I'll be happy to test the boards out at 2560x1600 for you. Just mail them across the little pond and I'll get started right away.

Or just mail me your monitor

 

[DrPepper]

Would that i7 really be a bottleneck?

Yeah I seem to have a bottleneck with my i7 at 3.6ghz and my single 470

 

[pantherx12]

I actually enjoyed it greatly, but to each their own. I also played through and beat it with an x800XL...

My first play was 1440x900 with a HD4350

15-19 fps fortunately the dropped frames coincided with movement like running so it just seamed a bit more shaky than usual well... aside from fights or breaking things that slowed down things even more than that .

5fps-9 on the last level with settings on low

( I really enjoyed it though!)

 

[TheMailMan78]

The fact that it takes two 580s in SLI to average 60 fps on a 1680x1050 monitor screams so much fail I can't even put it into words. Crysis sucks.

 

[Kreij]

Crysis may go down in history as the epitome of inefficient coding for high-end, graphical eye-candy, but the fact that people still try to get it to work to their satisfaction says something too.

 

[MatTheCat]

Crysis may go down in history as the epitome of inefficient coding for high-end, graphical eye-candy, but the fact that people still try to get it to work to their satisfaction says something too.

Exactly.

With the advent of good online console gaming (360,PS3), if you are still an enthiusiastic PC gamer, chances are that you are also an obsessive performance freak, otherwise it would make much more sense to game on a console.

Although there are more stunning games around than Crysis these days (that also run a lot better), at its time, Crysis represented the pinnacle of what gaming technology could bring to the consumer and everyone wanted it running maxed on their system regardless of whether they fought the game was any good or not (I for one did think that the actual gameplay was fantastic). Not everyone knew at the time that the game was a poorly coded hardware raper, with many thinking that a maxed out stunning Crysis was just a GPU or CPU upgrade away, only to be badly dissapointed each time).

Crysis has been the ultimate 'cock-tease' in the world of PC gaming, having led millions of gamers down the exorbitantly expensive garden path of PC upgrades, only to laugh in thier faces and slam the door shut everytime.

Platinumyahoo's post is valuable (to fellow performance freaks) in that it shows just what a dirty whore Crysis is. 2*GTX 580 in SLI, and still imperfect performance although perhaps finally 'playable' in the highest settings.

 

[pantherx12]

You could just use two 6870s instead http://techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/Radeon_HD_6870_CrossFire/8.html

cheaper.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

sigh and i find those that bash game engine code but cant see whats really going on to be even worse.
Cryteks Game Engine is actually state of the art and in terms of the image quality it can produce it is better currently then just about every game engine in use.

Areas that they failed in would be proper threading support as in crysis will use only 2 cores and those are not used effectively. As mussels stated in a couple threads DX9 and DX10 only use 1 thread for graphics aka feeding the gpu info from the cpu if given a DX11 overhaul where that limitation dosent exist would give in general a huge performance benefit. A way to look at it is the min fps in BC2 from dual to quadcore the minimum frame rate doubles. I wont say Crysis is a great game as thats opinion based but i can give a few facts.

The way crysis renders graphics is a bit different

Everything is Dynamically done where as in most games and in Crysis 2 it will be static

that means static lighting in some cases static shadows reflections.

Think of it in terms of the issue with Ray Tracing in games today the hardware needed is to high to make mainstream. Saying Crysis is horribly coded is in essence correct. But Crytek dosent create Direct X or determine how many threads it allows for certain things. They were also a bit to ambitious in terms of size and scope of which to add an entirely dynamic lighting system among other aspects. Call it what you want but to be blunt most here have no idea how much information is being crunched to render the eyecandy.

theres Diffuse (color maps) specular (highlights) normal maps, glow maps, alpha maps, complex shaders subsurface scattering effects, now roughly add all those to get a single character rendered now add in multiple enemies plants objects props water now add in the fact all of that is being lit dynamically much like standing in the sun or watching light shimmer on water its never static the difference is minimal in games to be sure, but we have currently hit the wall where every 5% in image quality we gain requires an exponential increase in rendering power.

 

[TheMailMan78]

sigh and i find those that bash game engine code but cant see whats really going on to be even worse.
Cryteks Game Engine is actually state of the art and in terms of the image quality it can produce it is better currently then just about every game engine in use.

Areas that they failed in would be proper threading support as in crysis will use only 2 cores and those are not used effectively. As mussels stated in a couple threads DX9 and DX10 only use 1 thread for graphics aka feeding the gpu info from the cpu if given a DX11 overhaul where that limitation dosent exist would give in general a huge performance benefit. A way to look at it is the min fps in BC2 from dual to quadcore the minimum frame rate doubles. I wont say Crysis is a great game as thats opinion based but i can give a few facts.

The way crysis renders graphics is a bit different

Everything is Dynamically done where as in most games and in Crysis 2 it will be static

that means static lighting in some cases static shadows reflections.

Think of it in terms of the issue with Ray Tracing in games today the hardware needed is to high to make mainstream. Saying Crysis is horribly coded is in essence correct. But Crytek dosent create Direct X or determine how many threads it allows for certain things. They were also a bit to ambitious in terms of size and scope of which to add an entirely dynamic lighting system among other aspects. Call it what you want but to be blunt most here have no idea how much information is being crunched to render the eyecandy.

theres Diffuse (color maps) specular (highlights) normal maps, glow maps, alpha maps, complex shaders subsurface scattering effects, now roughly add all those to get a single character rendered now add in multiple enemies plants objects props water now add in the fact all of that is being lit dynamically much like standing in the sun or watching light shimmer on water its never static the difference is minimal in games to be sure, but we have currently hit the wall where every 5% in image quality we gain requires an exponential increase in rendering power.

Well whatever they did it wasnt that great. Two games were made from the engine so people who DID know what was going on still thought it sucked.

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

not exactly mailman companies are in it to make a profit no matter how forward thinking a game engine might be if it cant be run on the lowest common denominator of systems it wont get used

why do you think bethesda still uses gamebryo engine after 7 + years.

why is Unreal Engine 2.0 still used today?

or the old but stalwart Id Tech 4 engine which saw use in Doom 3?

the industry uses what works best at the time on the greatest number of systems. Its also why companies dont change software often either

example we are using today 3ds Max 2011 yet Bethesda still uses Max 4 and 5 for there games which was released in 2002.

Another example of this is sure a Ferrari is fast but if your stuck behind grandpa on a single lane road and hes driving a beetle you stuck at his pace. that pace is much like PC hardware adoption most still use integrated or old DX9 gpus those with DX10 gpus are now underpowered by are standards and few are using decent DX11 gpus. as such we have the bleeding edge hardware sure but any company that comes out that stresses that hardware is instantly called out on bad programming etc, yet I really dont know anyone on TPU that can program better or who has the knowledge to do better myself included.

another way to look at it Toy Story in 1995 took 2hrs per frame 24 frames per second so every 1 second on toy story took 48hrs to render out now Cars released in 2005 took 15hrs per frame x 24fps = 360hrs for 1 second of animation for reference the difference in performance on hardware between 1995 and 2005 is 300x

what that means is Crytek did something fairly amazing in what they had built into the engine but at the time of its release it wasnt ready for prime time its an engine that should of hit the market in 2010 to have made sense.

 

[TheMailMan78]

not exactly mailman companies are in it to make a profit no matter how forward thinking a game engine might be if it cant be run on the lowest common denominator of systems it wont get used

why do you think bethesda still uses gamebryo engine after 7 + years.

why is Unreal Engine 2.0 still used today?

or the old but stalwart Id Tech 4 engine which saw use in Doom 3?

the industry uses what works best at the time on the greatest number of systems. Its also why companies dont change software often either

example we are using today 3ds Max 2011 yet Bethesda still uses Max 4 and 5 for there games which was released in 2002

So then what was the purpose of creating Crysis?

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Every crysis thread turns into some whiny bullshit-a-thon.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1985506&postcount=35

 

[newtekie1]

My first play was 1440x900 with a HD4350

15-19 fps fortunately the dropped frames coincided with movement like running so it just seamed a bit more shaky than usual well... aside from fights or breaking things that slowed down things even more than that .

5fps-9 on the last level with settings on low

( I really enjoyed it though!)

1024x768@Low settings on the x800XL, of course it was on a monitor that only did 1280x1024 anyway. It actually looked better than a lot of games the x800XL played, even with the other games maxxed out setting wise.

When you started lowering settings, the performance to IQ was in line.

The fact that it takes two 580s in SLI to average 60 fps on a 1680x1050 monitor screams so much fail I can't even put it into words. Crysis sucks.

Again, ever so slightly lower settings, takes a hell of a lot less to run at 60FPS and still looks stunning. Hardly what I would consider "sucks".

Crysis may go down in history as the epitome of inefficient coding for high-end, graphical eye-candy, but the fact that people still try to get it to work to their satisfaction says something too.

Not really inefficient coding, but rather just allowing the engine to really use graphic horse power beyond what is reasonably necessary. If they just capped the engine settings at High and never really allowed it to be maxxed out people would still praise it for how good it looked and wouldn't bitch about it running like shit when "maxxed out".

 

[crazyeyesreaper]

well LAN most people dont care why something does X but not Y and why Y causes performance loss while X looks just as good. Most cant see the difference nor do they care to, as ive said Crysis may or may not be a good game thats for each person to decide on there own. As for what the engine is capable of is rather astounding.

dosent matter much i suppose tho most people dont care to understand why there hardware cant push a game instead they would rather scream this game sucks cause there leet hardware cant handle max settings. I agree with newtekie1 drop it done 1 notch and it runs fine.

I see it as if you want great graphics and companies to push the envelope and use your hardware then shut the hell up when they do and be thankfully there not spoon feeding you farmville

 

[Benetanegia]

Or you could just lower the settings so that is is playable.

Set it to 1280x720 resolution, with medium textures, no texture filtering, and no AF. See how it plays then, because that is what your Xbox buddies are getting.:shadedshu

Everyone complains about how poor PC gaming is because you are forced into upgrades. No one is forcing you to do shit.[...]

sigh and i find those that bash game engine code but cant see whats really going on to be even worse. [...]

not exactly mailman companies are in it to make a profit no matter how forward thinking a game engine might be if it cant be run on the lowest common denominator of systems it wont get used[...]

Very well put both. It's been long since I read something with some sense on this kind of topics. Ah. common sense... please could I take some and put it into a little bottle, so that I have one last reserve for when I finally run out of it due to all the nonsense in the internet?