Crysis 1.0 / 1.1 Benchmarks

ergonomics · 8 Jan 2008 at 15:59

ffallic said:
Of course, everyone keep srunning the GPU bench, but what if the larger gains are in the CPU usage?

it makes 0 difference tbh. the game performs exactly how it did before the patch, so even if the gains are in cpu usage, better memory handling, etc etc, the frame rates are the same, so it would appear to be pointless

Tom|Nbk · 8 Jan 2008 at 15:59

Oh God.

The end is nigh!

Slinwagh · 8 Jan 2008 at 16:03

Crysis 1.1 / DX10 / 64Bit / 1280 x 1024 / 2 x AA / High

eyetrip · 8 Jan 2008 at 16:04

ergonomics said:
it makes 0 difference tbh. the game performs exactly how it did before the patch, so even if the gains are in cpu usage, better memory handling, etc etc, the frame rates are the same, so it would appear to be pointless

Well, benching gave me around 40 FPs average. This however was not reflected in the game, as I would generally be getting lower than that.

It is possible that things like AI for example, which run on CPU, etc, have been improved and may result in higher average in-game, which would not be reflected in the bench.

Don't get me wrong, I am not thrilled with what we are seeing so far. All I am saying is we really need people to be testing out in-game to tell whether the improvements really are as abysmal as they seem before we all start cursing Crytek

Gashman · 8 Jan 2008 at 16:04

ffallic said:
Wow, 1 FPS and 0.045 FPS gains.... they really outdid themselves with this

hate to sound sarcastic, but its a step in the right direction, its AN improvement :rolleyes:

ergonomics · 8 Jan 2008 at 16:07

ffallic said:
Well, benching gave me around 40 FPs average. This however was not reflected in the game, as I would generally be getting lower than that.

It is possible that things like AI for example, which run on CPU, etc, have been improved and may result in higher average in-game, which would not be reflected in the bench.

Don't get me wrong, I am not thrilled with what we are seeing so far. All I am saying is we really need people to be testing out in-game to tell whether the improvements really are as abysmal as they seem before we all start cursing Crytek

i only really test ingame anyway. i always run through the first half of the first level, getting a few firefights and such, checking the stutters and things. maybe it has improved, but i just cant notice it at all.

Mattus · 8 Jan 2008 at 16:41

Vista 32bit DX9, [email protected], 8800GT @ 700/1800/1950, all high settings, Forceware 169.28

1.0: 38.425fps
1.1: 37.65fps

I can hardly contain my excitement at having lost 0.5fps for every month this patch was in development...

eyetrip · 8 Jan 2008 at 16:45

Mattus said:
Vista 32bit DX9, [email protected], 8800GT @ 700/1800/1950

1.0: 38.425fps
1.1: 37.65fps

I can hardly contain my excitement at having lost 0.5fps for every month this patch was in development...

Closer to 0.4 really, so not as bad as you thought - see, cloud, silver lining

Slinwagh · 8 Jan 2008 at 16:54

zytok said:
36fps seems a bit low considering your rig.

My Q6600 is only clocked by 100Mz

zytok · 8 Jan 2008 at 16:56

Slinwagh said:
My Q6600 is only clocked by 100Mz

why clock at all if you're not gonna push it a bit?

Slinwagh · 8 Jan 2008 at 17:04

zytok said:
why clock at all if you're not gonna push it a bit?

Because I have just rebuilt the rig on Air and I haven't got around to it!

zytok · 8 Jan 2008 at 17:11

good answer

as a side note, reinstalled Vista 32 last night and ran v1.0 benchmarks to compare against XP. Got 33 as opposed to 42 in XP and that was DX9!!! I like Vista but I do wish you didn't have to take the fps hit all the time.