• 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.

Who swapped there GTX for an ultra?

Some dont read fully, the GAME IS SUPPOSED to run well now, and Scale in Future upto 1.5years ahead with Updates/Patches that will be brought out.

The Game in its Demo form is a ballsup and does not use enough CPU % (takes 40% on 1 of my Cores, next to nothing on other Core) nevermind Dual or Quads Fully supported. (go and search for the posts about the CEO's Interviews as I aint going to repeat).

I would advise anyone who also thinks along the lines of above to Google for all the Interviews of the Crysis CEO " Cevat Yeril" right up till latest one from Oct 2007.

You can even find most of them here if you Search with my Name+ CEO or Cevat Yeril as keywords.

i) The Game was supposed to be CPU Dependant more than GPU and Memory.

ii) The Game was Suppsoed to fully support Quads.

iii) The Game was suppose to run at 1280X RES's at Very High on a 8800GTS (dont know if 320 or 640), and to run higher RES's more powerfull hardware was said to be needed, ie 8800GTX/Ultra he could only mean.
 
Last edited:
Loowi_ashley said:
This is madness.......

I can’t believe they've either brought a game out that cannot run on current top end hardware or yet again an un-optimised game
:mad:
Click to expand...


dont bring this up again, its been said hundreads of times, its not un-optimized at all, in fact its a great engine, its just like far cry, nothing at the time of release could run it fully maxed out with everything enabled smoothly (not just things which were added with patchs).
 
helmutcheese said:
Some dont read fully, the GAME IS SUPPOSED to run well now, and Scale in Future upto 1.5years ahead with Updates/Patches that will be brought out.

The Game in its Demo form is a ballsup and does not use enough CPU % (takes 40% on 1 of my Cores, next to nothing on other Core) nevermind Dual or Quads Fully supported.
Click to expand...

Well, it runs fine for me at very high settings, 1680x1050 (what can be enabled in XP with the mod anyway) on a £150 card and it's using about 60% on each core.
 
And like 10FPS ?

I cant run it with Vista64 and my hardware well at even 1290x960 nevermind 1600x1200 or 1920x1440 and I do not believe it the same as DX10 anyhow even if hacked. (All Very High real DX10).

The Game runs bad for 99.9% of peeps on WWW from what I have read since release and most say it dont use there Dual /Quads, or even load 1 core up near to Max.

I really have no idea how some can say they run it well.

I hope Full Game is sorted or the CEO is a LIAR.
 
Last edited:
No, lowest FPS I saw while playing was when I fired a nuke (18fps, generally 25 ish) which still seemed very smooth... it probably shouldn't, but there was barely a hint of lag/jerkiness while playing.

Considering I hate games like CSS at anything lower than 60fps and I thought it was fine, I think it is fair to say it runs quite well.
 
helmutcheese said:
Some dont read fully, the GAME IS SUPPOSED to run well now, and Scale in Future upto 1.5years ahead with Updates/Patches that will be brought out.

iii) The Game was suppose to run at 1280X RES's at Very High on a 8800GTS (dont know if 320 or 640), and to run higher RES's more powerfull hardware was said to be needed, ie 8800GTX/Ultra he could only mean.
Click to expand...

Well it's a matter of opinion but I would say it does run well now.

1280x1024 at very high runs fine on my 8800GTS 320Mb (oc) and even runs well at 1680x1050 with post processing, shadows and something else turned down.

That's all with aa off btw. But I notice in your quote that there was no claim that it would run well with high aa????
 
Well Im happy your happy with that, but its hardly comparable, Im on Vista64, trying to run Top Hardware in DX10 with a Game thats nothing like it was said to be over the coarse of the last year.

25FPS may look smoother than in other games but its ideally too low still.
 
helmutcheese said:
And like 10FPS ?

I cant run it with Vista64 and my hardware well at even 1290x960 nevermind 1600x1200 or 1920x1440 and I do not believe it the same as DX10 anyhow even if hacked. (All Very High real DX10).

The Game runs bad for 99.9% of peeps on WWW from what I have read since release and most say it dont use there Dual /Quads, or even load 1 core up near to Max.

I really have no idea how some can say they run it well.

I hope Full Game is sorted or the CEO is a LIAR.
Click to expand...

But at the end of the day, if he has lied and the real game is no improvement then don't buy it. Simple as that.
 
Greebo said:
Well it's a matter of opinion but I would say it does run well now.

1280x1024 at very high runs fine on my 8800GTS 320Mb (oc) and even runs well at 1680x1050 with post processing, shadows and something else turned down.

That's all with aa off btw. But I notice in your quote that there was no claim that it would run well with high aa????
Click to expand...

Its not a matter of opinion, its what the CEO said (seems BS so far).

If you want to know what he said or did not say, then go and read for yourself, and if he said MAX settings he means everything up full in AA IMO.
 
helmutcheese said:
Well Im happy your happy with that, but its hardly comparable, Im on Vista64, trying to run Top Hardware in DX10 with a Game thats nothing like it was said to be over the coarse of the last year.

25FPS may look smoother than in other games but its ideally too low still.
Click to expand...

Still opinion and the the people at Crytek will probably say that's fine.

Plus the CEO may have meant the new revision GTS since it will be out be the time of Crysis plus higher cards may have meant the new 9800 card which is "reported" to be 1.5 to 2 times quicker than a GTX.

So your 25 fps on a Ultra may well become 30-40 fps with the new card.
 
helmutcheese said:
The Game in its Demo form is a ballsup and does not use enough CPU % (takes 40% on 1 of my Cores, next to nothing on other Core) nevermind Dual or Quads Fully supported. (go and search for the posts about the CEO's Interviews as I aint going to repeat).
Click to expand...

It does use Dual cores, if you're looking at core usage on task manage and just standing their doing nothing in game, the usage will be low. The game does use more than one core when you're actually doing stuff.

coreusagetv7.jpg


I got that earlier, clearly showing that the game does use both cores of my E6600.
 
You trying to get him a way out ?, he clearly stated todays hardware, you need go and read it instead of 2nd guessing cause Im sick repeating his BS in threads.

And I did NOT state the Game is only using 1 Core for everyone, just 99.9% of threads I read, its public knowledge now its got issues over on Crysis Forum.

You think I dont know it will use more when in action scenes than at standing idle (some have recorded usage during game and reviewed later).

The demo IMO is a total letdown, I hope Full game is better and not same all over as Demo as that would be Farcry all over again and Eyecandy is only 1 aspect of a good game.

You want to argue about fact, go and read every interview of the CEO and see his claims, then read every thread about its lack of perfomance on the Crysis site.

You either have a very special PC or your happy with sub standard gameplay.

If the Final Game runs anything like the Demo his word is MUD for lots of peeps.
 
Last edited:
martin9887 said:
Yeah, set it to 1, it doesn't hit FPS much either.
Click to expand...

I cannot visually see any diffence enabling this at all. Turning off the AA to 0 also only gives me a 2FPS boost in the benchmark and 5FPS in the actual game.

So its either in-game 22FPS with beautiful graphics or 27FPS with lots of jaggys still.

Still cant make my mind up :confused:
 
omg what are you all ranting about its no different to doom3, fear or any other big game of its time. you couldnt run em at full settings as the hardware at the time of the games release couldnt do it so its not exactly new is it.as for cpu on crysis my 3800x2 runs 30% max during game which i think is great for a new game.
 
you might think its bad but i think its pretty good for a cheapo cpu and a rig destroying game like crysis.
 
No, I mean the low CPU usage is bad. Even the most simple of games with proper implementation should be using as much CPU as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom