• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Crysis Kills my 8800GTX

I would have been happier if Cevat Yeril simply told the truth on the many interviews instead of the BS about a 8600GTS being able to play at decent RES with High settings and needing a more powerful card to play Higher (ie 8800's I would guess).

you can easily go and Google for all these interviews, obv the 8600GTS part will be more recent after launch of card, and he did add it can be scaled into the future with updated patches not unplayable today for high end rigs.

This game rapes my PC, if you like 3-30FPS sure run it 1920x1440 or even 1600x1200 with full AA and all Very High lol.

Im hoping its down to a major buggy demo and need of better drivers as the new betas are a bit dodgy to say the least with crashes and white trees for some.
 
I would have been happier if Cevat Yeril simply told the truth on the many interviews instead of the BS about a 8600GTS being able to play at decent RES with High settings and needing a more powerful card to play Higher (ie 8800's I would guess).

you can easily go and Google for all these interviews, obv the 8600GTS part will be more recent after launch of card, and he did add it can be scaled into the future with updated patches not unplayable today for high end rigs.

This game rapes my PC, if you like 3-30FPS sure run it 1920x1440 or even 1600x1200 with full AA and all Very High lol.

Im hoping its down to a major buggy demo and need of better drivers as the new betas are a bit dodgy to say the least with crashes and white trees for some.


OMMGGGG You cant run it at 1920x1440 with everything turned up on the highest setting the world is over! Dont bother palying the game! Turn down the shadows and it runs a lot smoother. One of the dons posted getting 40+ on high with shaddows turned down and no aa but his rig wasn't as good as yours.


TBh wish all you lot would stop complaining. They could have just made the medium settinsg the top spec and called them ultra higha nd you would ahve all gone wow looks really good runs really well. So stop sodding complaining. waaa mummy i cant run it at the highest settings possible im gona go cry and complain.
 
Ive been doing some testing on the Crysis SP demo to find out which settings have the most impact on frame-rates.

Turns out its Shadows, Post Processing, and Object Detail which are the biggest hitters.

I started off with everything Medium, and was getting about 40. something average on the GPU bench, but with everything Medium it just looks like FarCry with a gfx pack slapped on it to make it look better, so i put the Shader setting back to High, as that makes a nice visual difference and ran it again, and i only went down to 37. something average, which was still fine for me.

Then i went through the settings starting at the top, and put them all back up to High one by one whilst running the GPU bench and noting the average, so first i put the Texture Quality up to High, ran the bench, noted the average, then next i did the Object Detail, up to High, ran the bench, noted the average, and so on with each setting.

The Texture Quality from Medium to High only dropped it by 1 frame or less, went down to about 36. something from the 37. something i started with.

The Object Detail however from Medium to High, dropped it by 3 frames, it went down to 33. something, so that turned out to be a bit a difference maker.

Shadows from Medium to High dropped it by another 3 frames just like the Object Detail, so now my average was 30. something.

Physics was next, and that didn't make a difference on the GPU test, that will only affect the CPU test probably, so my average stayed the same 30. something.

Next was the Volumetric setting, again no difference from Medium to High, still 30. something.

The Game Effects from Medium to High was the same result, no change, still 30. something.

Next Post Processing, and this on High from Medium, dropped it by 5 frames (the biggest drop so far), so i was now down to 25. something average.

Next was the Particles, and that made no difference, still 25. something, and the same for the Water, that back to High from Medium was still 25. something, so the biggest hitter being the Post Processing, dropping it by 5 frames, with the Shadows and Object Detail next, each dropping it by 3 frames, and the rest of the settings making no difference, so with dropping the Shadows back down to Medium, same for Post Processing and Object Detail, i gained 11 frames back, thus taking it back up to 36. something average from a 37. something average that i started with, and still looking great in the process with not being able to see any differences, unless i was just playing the game and standing about for 20 minutes staring at things to see the differences. :D

Thats on spec in sig thats all stock, 1280x1024 res, 0xAA/16xAF (doesn't look like it really needs AA to me tbh as it still looks great without).

Now its on to the CPU bench test, and just a fiddle with the Physics setting (if needed) to see how that affects all the debris etc... flying about when hes shotting that camp up.
 
Last edited:
I'm so rubbish at this game and keep getting killed constantly, I'm starting to not worry about how it runs 'cos at this rate I won't be buying the full version. :(
I have it set on easy but find myself constantly proning with cloak enabled, crawling through the bushes in order to not get spotted and killed, so its taking me ages to progress through the game.
Plus, how many chest shots do these guys need before they go down? Even at point blank range. If I do manage to take them out in the head with one shot - all their mates come over and find me.
Dread to think what it's like on Delta mode!
 
Ive been doing some testing on the Crysis SP demo to find out which settings have the most impact on frame-rates.

Turns out its Shadows, Post Processing, and Object Detail which are the biggest hitters.

I started off with everything Medium, and was getting about 40+ average on the GPU bench, but with everything Medium it just looks like FarCry with a gfx pack slapped on it to make it look better, so i put the Shader setting back to High, as that makes a nice visual difference and ran it again, and i only went down to 37. something average, which was still fine for me.

Then i went through the settings starting at the top, and put them all back up to High one by one whilst running the GPU bench and noting the average, so first i put the Texture Quality up to High, ran the bench, noted the average, then next i did the Object Detail, up to High, ran the bench, noted the average, and so on with each setting.

The Texture Quality from Medium to High only dropped it by 1 frame or less, went down to about 36. something from the 37. something i started with.

The Object Detail however from Medium to High, dropped it by 3 frames, it went down to 33. something, so that turned out to be a bit a difference maker.

Shadows from Medium to High dropped it by another 3 frames just like the Object Detail, so now my average was 30. something.

Physics was next, and that didn't make a difference on the GPU test, that will only affect the CPU test probably, so my average stayed the same 30. something.

Next was the Volumetric setting, again no difference from Medium to High, still 30. something.

The Game Effects from Medium to High was the same result, no change, still 30. something.

Next Post Processing, and this on High from Medium, dropped it by 5 frames (the biggest drop so far), so i was now down to 25. something average.

Next was the Particles, and that made no difference, still 25. something, and the same for the Water, that back to High from Medium was still 25. something, so the biggest hitter being the Post Processing, dropping it by 5 frames, with the Shadows and Object Detail next, each dropping it by 3 frames, and the rest of the settings making no difference, so with dropping the Shadows back down to Medium, same for Post Processing and Object Detail, i gained 11 frames back, thus taking it back up to 36. something average from a 37. something average that i started with, and still looking great in the process with not being able to see any differences, unless i was just playing the game and standing about for 20 minutes staring at things to see the differences. :D

Thats on spec in sig thats all stock, 1280x1024 res, 0xAA/16xAF (doesn't look like it really needs AA to me tbh as it still looks great without).

Now its on to the CPU bench test, and just a fiddle with the Physics setting (if needed) to see how that affects all the debris etc... flying about when hes shotting that camp up.

You dont mention shaders in you review, or is that what you mean by shadows?

EDIT: yes you do at the beginning!
 
OMMGGGG You cant run it at 1920x1440 with everything turned up on the highest setting the world is over! Dont bother palying the game! Turn down the shadows and it runs a lot smoother. One of the dons posted getting 40+ on high with shaddows turned down and no aa but his rig wasn't as good as yours.


TBh wish all you lot would stop complaining. They could have just made the medium settinsg the top spec and called them ultra higha nd you would ahve all gone wow looks really good runs really well. So stop sodding complaining. waaa mummy i cant run it at the highest settings possible im gona go cry and complain.

Dave your talking crap, thats what the DEV said and now it seems its BS.

You ok with being told BS I gather ?.


Everyone is entitled to say WTF they like and your post dont even say anything about the game from your opinion but get at others opinions.

I for one think the Demo is buggy esp as says PRE on Screen, I hope they optimise it lots more before final and Nvidia get more drivers for this game as the current Beta is pretty buggy with crashes and glitches like white trees.
 
Last edited:
The reason ppl complain is because they spend so much money on a machine, especailly a graphic card costing like £500 and it cant run it on very highm when it was said it could. ppl here want the best, when they pay for money like this. You could trade that graphic card and get a pS3 and a 360 and get no ******** with most the games. Bioshock, COD4, half life orange box....
But when they do get a top range game, we would at least like to know we have to wait for a better graphic card to make the best of it.

No swearing, JG
 
Dave your talking crap, thats what the DEV said and now it seems its BS.

You ok with being told BS I gather ?.


Everyone is entitled to say WTF they like and your psot dont even say anything about the game from your opinion but get at others opinions.

I for one think the Demo is buggy esp as says PRE on Screen, I hope they optimise it lots more before final and Nvidia get more drivers for this game as the current Beta is pretty buggy with crashes and glitches like white trees.

He said it wouldn't run at the top spec. He wasn't talking crap, they said it would run on a 8600 but he never said at top settinsg either did he.

Point is your all complaining that it wont run on your urber pc's when all you gota do is turn down a few things and will run better then everyone elses and they arn't complaining.

Its obious its not finnished as it doesn't use sli or crossfire or quad cores yet. So why are people saying its like it will never work on thier sytems when tis not the finnished game.
 
No he DID NOT, Crytek's CEO Cevat Yeril said it would run on a 8600GTS at High settings and to play higher you need a faster card (now you need to work out whats higher than High and whats a faster card), I would say Very High and 8800's IMO.

He did add the game has code in it that can be brought out in years to come with patches so the game is made to run NOW on Current Tech so thats also BS its simply running slow for 99.9% or dare I say 100% of users with very high end rigs.

Lets hope for a optimal Final and new Nvidia drivers.
 
No he DID NOT, Crytek's CEO Cevat Yeril said it would run on a 8600GTS at High settings and to play higher you need a faster card (now you need to work out whats higher than High and whats a faster card), I would say Very High and 8800's IMO.

He did add the game has code in it that can be brought out in years to come with patches so the game is made to run NOW on Current Tech so thats also BS its simply running slow for 99.9% or dare I say 100% of users with very high end rigs.

Lets hope for a optimal Final and new Nvidia drivers.

We you don't mention a res but perhaps it can do high at 640 or something lol :P
 
A64 X2 @ 3.2 ghz + 4 gb ram @ 900 4-4-4-12 + 2900pro @ XT + raptor 74gb + Vista X64 ultimate = runs fine(20-35 fps) at High settings @ 1920X1200 24'' monitor.
 
No he DID NOT, Crytek's CEO Cevat Yeril said it would run on a 8600GTS at High settings and to play higher you need a faster card (now you need to work out whats higher than High and whats a faster card), I would say Very High and 8800's IMO.

He did add the game has code in it that can be brought out in years to come with patches so the game is made to run NOW on Current Tech so thats also BS its simply running slow for 99.9% or dare I say 100% of users with very high end rigs.

Lets hope for a optimal Final and new Nvidia drivers.

Did he say vista dx10? How many people have palyed it on dx9 on xp? Im sure that runs a lot smoother. Also as already said this is not the final version. There needs to be new drivers and the sli and quads need optimizing. Therefore you cannot judge how it will run on this demo.
 
Correct, he did not mention a RES (AFAIR he did say decent Mid RES's) nor do most who post there settings and FPs here, they tell you all but the RES and get ratty when you ask what RES (as 1 did with me).

I still think the Demo is glitched and heres input.




From over at the Offical Forums.

crysiscoresig4.jpg


1 core doing most of the work and I would expect it to take it to 100%, its said to be more so like above on Quads, I aint checked on my Dual yet.

If the game really is more CPU dependant as Crytek's CEO Cevat Yeril, then thats why FPS are bad, they need get it to rape all 2 or 4 Cores to near/100% like games normally do for Single/Dual cores.
 
Last edited:
Loved the demo
Playing at 1920 X 1200 with all settings on High on a ati 2900HD XT can be a bit chopy at times I think about 10 - 25fps all the time knew getting a 24" monitor would come and kick me in the *** :)
 
Well, I played at 1680*1050 with settings all on medium, seemed smooth.
Tried it with settings on high, and it was like playing a slide show lol.
not bad for an out of date card :)
 
Correct, he did not mention a RES (AFAIR he did say decent Mid RES's) nor do most who post there settings and FPs here, they tell you all but the RES and get ratty when you ask what RES (as 1 did with me).

I still think the Demo is glitched and heres input.




From over at the Offical Forums.

[I*G]http://www.mediamonster.se/games/crysis/crysiscores.jpg[/IMG]

1 core doing most of the work and I would expect it to take it to 100%, its said to be more so like above on Quads, I aint checked on my Dual yet.

If the game really is more CPU dependant as Crytek's CEO Cevat Yeril, then thats why FPS are bad, they need get it to rape all 2 or 4 Cores to near/100% like games normally do for Single/Dual cores.


People are saying looks like it only supports dual core atm, the 3rd/4th cores doing nadda.

Maybe the final build will support it, it is gutting it cant play on the highest end and even super overclocked riggs out there but that will not last very long with Nvidia/ATI around.
 
Back
Top Bottom