crysis, what do you need to play on ultra with good fps

thevet · 27 May 2009 at 16:40

i play this game at max detail settings at 1920 res with anti aliasing of 8...in sli i get 30-45 fps but no more..for a constant 60fps you will need to be tri sli or quad sli

LoadsaMoney · 27 May 2009 at 18:06

A card or cards from the future.

psychas · 27 May 2009 at 18:20

time machine /closed

titaniumx3 · 27 May 2009 at 18:37

Using a C2Q @ 3.4ghz and HD4890 @ stock I get the following in Crysis (using the Crysis Benchmark Tool):

1680x1050, All High, DX9, Win XP: 54fps

1680x1050, All Very High, DX10, Win 7: 30fps

High is pretty damn smooth, very playable, rarely drops below 30fps (save the most intense scenes). It also still looks better than virtually every PC game out there.

Very High looks absolutely amazing ... unmatched visuals, full stop. FPS obviously takes a huge drop but it's still suprisingly playable due to the excellent motion blur.

psychas · 27 May 2009 at 18:44

very high is not ultra high ^

CK61938 · 27 May 2009 at 20:03

psychas said:
very high is not ultra high ^

I'm guessing a mod is needed for that? Cos I only see VERY HIGH in Crysis...unless I am missing something lol

mrk · 27 May 2009 at 21:55

I play Crysis warhead 1920x1200 DX10 in enthusiast setting with smooth - as in above 25fps which in this game is smooth!

FRAPS bench:

Code:

Min	 Max	 Avg
14	50	30.05

I say OC your CPU, helped me

Edit*

Oh, you have an AMD.... :O

Mattus · 27 May 2009 at 22:17

crysis, what do you need to play on ultra with good fps

A deep wallet.

aries2580 · 27 May 2009 at 23:10

1000000 servers with 100000000 GTX258's and 1000000 i7 processors, might get you to the 30fps mark...

EdGey · 28 May 2009 at 02:36

from my experience, the 4870 handled cryisis abit better than the GTX260, which goes against what ive read and seen on benchmarks, but thats the way it was

so id for gor a 4870X2 myself.

Duran · 28 May 2009 at 03:06

a gtx 295, sli 260, 280 or 285. When i tried the 4870x2 10 days ago it was 2 fps slower than my old gtx 280.

Nelly · 28 May 2009 at 03:15

Just a rough guide, this is with my rig below running AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.6GHz with a GTX295.

SIZE="1"]26/05/2009 02:54:07 - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX9 1900x1200, AA=4x, Vsync=Disabled, 64 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=5, Time Of Day= 8
Global Game Quality: VeryHigh
================================================== ============
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 40.40s, Average FPS: 49.51
Min FPS: 35.55 at frame 1941, Max FPS: 69.21 at frame 992
Average Tri/Sec: -30655514, Tri/Frame: -619218
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.48
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 38.12s, Average FPS: 52.47
Min FPS: 34.76 at frame 1945, Max FPS: 70.58 at frame 1008
Average Tri/Sec: -32401970, Tri/Frame: -617515
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.48
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 38.08s, Average FPS: 52.53
Min FPS: 34.19 at frame 1951, Max FPS: 70.58 at frame 1008
Average Tri/Sec: -32403638, Tri/Frame: -616891
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.49
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 37.89s, Average FPS: 52.79
Min FPS: 32.96 at frame 1958, Max FPS: 70.58 at frame 1008
Average Tri/Sec: -32653568, Tri/Frame: -618545
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.48
!TimeDemo Run 4 Finished.
Play Time: 37.94s, Average FPS: 52.71
Min FPS: 32.96 at frame 1958, Max FPS: 71.98 at frame 74
Average Tri/Sec: -32615278, Tri/Frame: -618778
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.48
TimeDemo Play Ended, (5 Runs Performed)
================================================== ============

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

26/05/2009 02:54:07 - Vista 64

Run #1- DX9 1900x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Overall Average FPS: 52.625

Duff-Man · 28 May 2009 at 03:37

Duran said:
a gtx 295, sli 260, 280 or 285. When i tried the 4870x2 10 days ago it was 2 fps slower than my old gtx 280.

At what resolution?

At 2560*1600 the 4870x2 I have now whips my old GTX280.

That being said, at 1920*1200 I wouldn't say that the improvement was worth the upgrade. The move to a bigger monitor was the only reason for the upgrade. I'm not sure about 'very high' mode though, as I was playing in 'high' with both cards.

layte · 28 May 2009 at 08:35

1920x1200 DX10 and 4xAA gets 35/36fps on my x2 using the usual benchmark with every detail setting at maximum. I would imagine that GTX sli setups are quicker, but seeing as you can now pick up a x2 for £235 you have to wonder..

CK61938 · 28 May 2009 at 09:50

Here some screens I took whilst playing Crysis Warhead:

Bit too much I think lol...but you get the idea

Fenris · 28 May 2009 at 09:54

FPS results while you are staring at walls in areas with very little light isn't exactly a great representation, unless you are trying to show maximum FPS and not average.

Jamesdavid3 · 28 May 2009 at 10:03

4870x2 wipes the floor with it. hands down

CK61938 · 28 May 2009 at 10:13

Fenris said:
FPS results while you are staring at walls in areas with very little light isn't exactly a great representation, unless you are trying to show maximum FPS and not average.

thats why these are just the beginning...there will be more to come when I am outside...watch this space and yes it was to show the max FPS as opposed to average...and I wasnt staring, I was in fact moving if you notice the pic where the arm is just below the screen, thats when I was punching through the walls...

balth_dire · 28 May 2009 at 13:23

Haven't played Warhead but in my experience, the most demanding parts of the original Crysis were:

Mission 7. Core (part 2 - inside the mountain)

Specifically the part where you have to destroy the three glowing devices in the large cavern in order to proceed through the tunnel.

http://guides.gamepressure.com/crysis/guide.asp?ID=3976

Mission 9 - Exodus (parts 4 and 5)

http://guides.gamepressure.com/crysis/guide.asp?ID=3987

http://guides.gamepressure.com/crysis/guide.asp?ID=3988

and finally

Mission 11 - Reckoning (parts 10, 11 and 12)

http://guides.gamepressure.com/crysis/guide.asp?ID=4000

http://guides.gamepressure.com/crysis/guide.asp?ID=4001

http://guides.gamepressure.com/crysis/guide.asp?ID=4002

Many systems that are able to FLY through ALL the time demos and comfortably handle virtually every other part of the game are still brought to their knees during these sequences, especially the last three.

Settings wise, I'm talking about:

1920X1200 or higher.

Everything on Very High (DX10 only - never heard of ultra high!!!)

and 4x Anti-Aliasing or higher with VSYNC ON.

Also, that's with the slider(s) for overall quality in the video card's control panel(s) set to the optimal level.

http://www.screenshots-archive.com/files/images/Catalyst_Control_Center_6.preview.png (for ATI)

For Nvidia

Mr. May · 28 May 2009 at 13:31

how would two 260 gtx 216 cores or a 285 gtx do at all settings on very high @ 1680x1050 ?