Oh, so thats why people complain about Crysis performance...

eyetrip

eyetrip

eyetrip

Soldato
Joined
8 Nov 2006
Posts
9,237
When the game first came out I played it on a q6600 at 3.2 and a G80 GTX, and would play happily at 1680x1050 with everything high except shadows on medium - until the later sections anyway.

I have changed components a lot and have played it with a G92 GTS and a G92 GT too, and with my e4300 at 3/3.2GHz, and its always been playable on about the same level.

But I have dropped GPU down to a 3870, and am no longer overclocking CPU as am trying to get power consumption of my PC down to as little as possible with it being on so much now.

This is now what I would consider a very average PC, and the game doesn't provide decent framerates even on low settings!

I never knew the game scaled so poorly, having always been OCing and having more powerful hardware. Not only GPU, but largely CPU too.

I wonder if they will sort this with Warhead, or if they are just spouting rubbish once again about making the game run well.
 
Performance was fine until you started adding aa/af filtering then it would drop dramatically. Also their was the issue of it looking nothing like it did in the tech demo's.
 
Not really much of a surprise though surely, a 3.2ghz cpu paired with a G92 is a fair bit more powerful than a 1.8ghz with 3870.

Why not experiment with speed-stepping and/or software overclocking to give yourself top notch performance in games while retaining fairly modest power consumption at idle?

I can't imagine the next game from Crytek running any faster than Crysis.... with the possible exception of GTA:VC I can't really think of many developers who have released a sequel which runs better than the earlier games in the series.
 
I've never had a problem with crysis, and i've only ever has fairly modest machines.
I think people expect a little too much.
 
haven't had any real problems with crysis after it was patched to 1.1, that seemed to do wonders for my performance, people expect too much IMO, what resolution you gaming at cause always hear people saying 'why won't crysis run on 8800 ultra at something stupid resolution', i mean have you seen how much cryengine2 does at any one time, its amazing it runs as well as it does :confused:
 
You've downclocked your PC to save money on the power bill? You honestly think thats going to make an appreciable difference? :confused:
 
[TW]Fox;11992083 said:
You've downclocked your PC to save money on the power bill? You honestly think thats going to make an appreciable difference? :confused:
Click to expand...

I have this lidl meter thing with my machine plugged in a power strip right in front of me, so I thought I would give it a bash - just for kicks - set CPU and GPU clocks back to normal, Aero off, power settings to "Saver". Fluctuating slight, but over 60W shaved off from previous 239W at regular browsing use total. Not too shabby, if bill is the priority?
 
Nothing wrong with Crysis performance imo. You just need the hardware to power it.

I get over 50FPS average on my rig @ 1680x1050 everything High.

The game was just a little ahead of it's time imo in terms of system requirements. The only thing I think they did wrong was the labeling of the requirements.

For example Medium settings should have been High and High settings should have been Very High. This would have saved them a load of criticism but I think they took it on board and are changing tact for Crysis Warhead.
 
Last edited:
v0n said:
I have this lidl meter thing with my machine plugged in a power strip right in front of me, so I thought I would give it a bash - just for kicks - set CPU and GPU clocks back to normal, Aero off, power settings to "Saver". Fluctuating slight, but over 60W shaved off from previous 239W at regular browsing use total. Not too shabby, if bill is the priority?
Click to expand...


I'd say 90% of the saving is just turning aero off.

Rather than underclock the CPU just leave speedstep on, so the power's there when you need it.
 
I struggled for many a long night go get my x1800xt and X2 4200+ to stomache Crysis MP @ 1680x1050 Low details without stuttering... and i failed. That was the beta... but meh.

You may win the battle, but you'll still lose the war.
 
Forgot I created this.

Think some of you missed my point - that it scales horribly to slightly slower hardware. Yes, when you got a 3GHz dual or quad and something like a G92 GT or better, it runs well on high (mostly)

The problem is that on low, it runs like poo on something like an e4300 at stock and a 3870...

So yes, it runs ok on decent hardware on high, but it runs awfully on slightly slower hardware even on low settings. I was only pointing out the poor scaling.
 
you see the thing is, crysis should still run perfectly fine on a 3870 at a reasonable resolution and not highest settings, i mean at 1280*1024 with medium/high settings it should run fine, what resolution you trying to run at?
 
Tom|Nbk said:
The only thing I think they did wrong was the labeling of the requirements.

For example Medium settings should have been High and High settings should have been Very High. This would have saved them a load of criticism but I think they took it on board and are changing tact for Crysis Warhead.
Click to expand...

Hehehe.
I've been harping on about this for a while now (e.g. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7226178&postcount=27 from over 2 years back), the obsession people have with whatever the setting is called in the menu. All that seems to matter to some people is whether they can run a game on "HIGH" or "MAX SETTINGS" - regardless of what the game actually looks like. The fact that medium settings on one game may look better than max on another seems completely lost on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom