Maybe 3 GTX 280's in Tri-SLI will be able to get 30fps min on maxed Crysis...

Strife212 · 27 May 2008 at 23:48

Crysis is basically unplayable at my native res; I've been sitting here thinking that when GTX 280 is out I'll buy one and crush the game into the dust.

I did some benchmarks on my 8800GTX so that I could compare them with the results from the new card when its out and I was pretty shocked to be honest. GTX 280 wont play the game unless its around three times faster than the 8800GTX which I don't see happening to be honest :eek:

I know Crysis isn't the best game but its an excellent example of a high performance game engine IMO.

Its all total speculation at the minute, but if we say that GTX 280 is 100% faster than the old generation it still has no hope of playing Crysis at high settings

.

pugheaven · 27 May 2008 at 23:51

If nvidia or AMD release their new cards and they can't run Crysis at 1920x1200 at 60fps+, then they're going to lose a shedload of punters and I certainly will be one of them, sorry but when FarCry2 comes out, that's going to push it even more... my god I'd be expecting 2x the performance minimum...

Cheers
Pug

P.S. Weird, I run 1900x1200 timedemo, and get 29fps with 0xAA and 0xAF...

Strife212 · 27 May 2008 at 23:52

DX10 Very High?

I do have everything set to forced quality in nVidia panel which may affect my results.

mrk · 27 May 2008 at 23:53

? So you're saying you know how good or bad a 280 will perform when you don't even have one and you're merely comparing a card with half the stream processors....

GG

Strife212 · 27 May 2008 at 23:54

mrk said:
? So you're saying you know how good or bad a 280 will perform when you don't even have one and you're merely comparing a card with half the stream processors, older nm build technology....

GG

I'm saying that GTX 280 needs to be 300% the speed of 8800 GTX to max Crysis at a playable speed, thats all. I have no idea how it will perform!

mrk · 27 May 2008 at 23:57

280 is faster than a 9800GTX by a sizeable amount on paper, the 9800GTX is in turn faster than an 8800GTX, what's the fuss ?

It's like saying my GT 512MB needs to be at least 2x faster than your GTX to beat it due to it having less stream processors and a smaller memory bus when in fact it can easily keep up and in some cases even exceed it.

New cards, newer technology even though it's just a revised update with better specs = better performance always.

Gashman · 28 May 2008 at 00:00

Strife212 said:
I'm saying that GTX 280 needs to be 300% the speed of 8800 GTX to max Crysis at a playable speed, thats all. I have no idea how it will perform!

why does anyone want to run crysis on 'very high' you can get the game looking better than very high, surely you want MAXIMUM graphics, pun intended since its about crysis

making your own configuration is where its at, i can't get good frame/rate from crysis at my monitors native resolution, so i use a spare 17" i have, to be honest resolution isn't all its cracked up to be in that game, the HOLY GRAIL of crysis is to elimate all the jaggy leaves and stuff on trees and foliage, i think with a custom configuration its possible, but i don't think any current hardware has a hope in hell of pulling it off, damnit i hope the new cards are >100% faster

Tom|Nbk · 28 May 2008 at 00:02

Pardon me while I....

*YAWN*

Strife212 · 28 May 2008 at 00:03

It's like saying my GT 512MB needs to be at least 2x faster than your GTX to beat it due to it having less stream processors and a smaller memory bus when in fact it can easily keep up and in some cases even exceed it.

I'm talking about the pure framerates, if you measure it like that then GT 512MB is almost the same as GTX 768MB.

If an 8800GTX does 5 frames per second then the new card will have to be 6 times faster to do 30 frames per second, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the new architecture and design ofc.

mrk · 28 May 2008 at 00:04

You can do just that by using Edge_AA, I used it with the modded DX9 INF for some interesting GFX upgrades without a performance hit.

All that's left is jaggies from lack of normal FSAA setting (FSAA killsperformance but EdgeAA does not)

Strife212 · 28 May 2008 at 00:05

Gashman said:
why does anyone want to run crysis on 'very high' you can get the game looking better than very high

No reason in particular, just a test for fun.

BubbySoup · 28 May 2008 at 00:10

mrk said:
? So you're saying you know how good or bad a 280 will perform when you don't even have one and you're merely comparing a card with half the stream processors....

GG

I believe the point he is trying to make is if his GTX puts out 12fps on average, then it would need a card with roughly 3 times the performance to get it above 30fps on average.

I think we can safely say the 280 is not going to be 3 times the speed of the 8800GTX.

Gashman · 28 May 2008 at 00:11

well crysis very high is great benchmark and looks really good still, but we really need to be able to use high levels of AA in the game without turning into a slideshow (albeit good looking slideshow) and yeah edge AA helps a lot but theres still more jaggies than there would be with proper AA, but that destroys framerate, another holy grain is detail at distance, you can mess with the settings to get some pretty astonishing detail at long distances, but the performance hit doesn't justify using it, but i reckon you can get crysis looking like it did in cryteks pre-game 'screenshots' with tons of tweaking and some serious hardware, shame the hardware isn't around yet.

worth noting i dropped resolution in favour of AA and it didn't look too bad, similar detail minus a lot of jaggies, which is better for AA by the way, DX10 or DX9, performance wise i mean?

TheRealDeal · 28 May 2008 at 00:14

mrk said:
280 is faster than a 9800GTX by a sizeable amount on paper, the 9800GTX is in turn faster than an 8800GTX, what's the fuss ?

It's like saying my GT 512MB needs to be at least 2x faster than your GTX to beat it due to it having less stream processors and a smaller memory bus when in fact it can easily keep up and in some cases even exceed it.

New cards, newer technology even though it's just a revised update with better specs = better performance always.

Turn on some aa at high res and i would say the 8800gtx would probably be faster than a 9800gtx. The gx2 at really high res with aa af on is probably slower than a gtx or ultra at high res in some games.

HangTime · 28 May 2008 at 00:14

You don't have to run Crysis 'maxxxed out', but so many people come out and say that we don't need faster hardware, that there are no games out needing oodles more power, when clearly we already have games out there on the shelves today which can take advantage of it.

It's one reason why in other threads I've said that if people continue their obsession with 'smooth at max settings' in titles like Crysis, they need to be waiting for cards next year at the earliest, these GTX280s simply won't have the grunt in all likelihood.

Strife212 · 28 May 2008 at 00:17

I'm not taking shots at the GTX 280 here, I know it will be a lot better than 8800 GTX. I was just suprised by how slowly current tech actually runs Crysis more than anything else.

kylew · 28 May 2008 at 00:19

Something that everyone is obsessed with, ie, running crysis maxed. Any one considered that crysis appears to be very badly optimized anyway? There's games out there that look amazing, yet need a fraction of the power that crysis does. Crysis's performance to graphics ratio is extremely out of proportion compared to most other recent tittles out there now.

HangTime · 28 May 2008 at 00:23

This is true and has been the case with some other games in the past such as Halo (best way I heard it described was 'bling-to-fps ratio'!).

HOWEVER, this doesn't change the fact that Crysis does look very, very good, arguably the best looking game on the market which in this instance carries a premium. It's just that other games can give graphics say 90% as good (subjective, but you know what I mean) at double the framerate.

Perfect_Chaos · 28 May 2008 at 00:24

pugheaven said:
sorry but when FarCry2 comes out, that's going to push it even more...

dont know where you got that idea from but i highly doubt that, it looks no better than crysis

i wouldnt be surprised if it had slightly better or similar performance tbh

Gashman · 28 May 2008 at 00:30

kylew said:
Something that everyone is obsessed with, ie, running crysis maxed. Any one considered that crysis appears to be very badly optimized anyway? There's games out there that look amazing, yet need a fraction of the power that crysis does. Crysis's performance to graphics ratio is extremely out of proportion compared to most other recent tittles out there now.

talking about optimization, cryengine2 is doing a hell of a lot in-game all the time, more than most other engines i'd wager, for example the 'first light' part, looking out at the sunrise over the harbour, on very high you can see all the trees and buildings on the other side of the harbour, plus theres all that water, all those ripples and swells in the water, theres dudes patrolling the buildings below you, chickens running about, that radar jammer turning, the engine is doing a serious amount of computation at any one time, hell the most impressive thing is how little it slows down during firefights and stuff, was shooting up that town (with the school) this afternoon, grenades, rockets, fires, bullets interacting with foliage and trees and not much slowdown, thats seems pretty impressive optimizations if you ask me. with regards to running it maxed, played through it couple of times, just wanna see how good it can look and still be playable