Crysis = Unplayable

SK07 · 2 Dec 2007 at 19:34

Uhm running it at 1280x1024, suppose I could lower it then.

Im on 163.75 drivers.

Funny how COD 4 runs maxed with no lag or issues yet this acts like a pain in the arse yet COD 4's graphics are pretty damn good imo.

dalin80 · 2 Dec 2007 at 19:35

BlairH said:
Most critics disagree with you.

.

i have a feeling most critics only play the first half of each game. its odd crysis is rated so high when its endgame is awful

Cannaton · 2 Dec 2007 at 19:42

for me running E6750 at 3.2ghz and x1900xt i can run it fine (25 - 40fps) at 1680x1050 with all on medium and post processing on high, looks rather good. So i'm confident with a new video card it will be really nice.

steve258 · 2 Dec 2007 at 19:48

Dureth said:
Heck I just got myself a new 8800GT and even that struggles on High/Medium at 1680x1050 with no AA. Fine most of the time but once you hit the ice part of the game it becomes a slide show at 5fps. Then the second you leave the ice it's fine again. Something very funny going on with the ice rendering.

Try the 169.09 beta for GT that gave me a nice performance boost I can actually play everything high at 1680*1050 smoothly, or are you already using that?? have not got to the ice part though.

SK07 · 2 Dec 2007 at 19:59

Cannaton said:
for me running E6750 at 3.2ghz and x1900xt i can run it fine (25 - 40fps) at 1680x1050 with all on medium and post processing on high, looks rather good. So i'm confident with a new video card it will be really nice.

Theres nothing wrong with my gfx card...

eyetrip · 2 Dec 2007 at 20:03

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_169.09.html

Try those.

Be sure to completely remove your current drivers, using driver cleaner maybe.

And have you done any of my others suggestions?

SK07 · 2 Dec 2007 at 20:09

This is rubbish though, I put it on all low and it's still all laggy :mad:

eyetrip · 2 Dec 2007 at 20:11

SK07 said:
This is rubbish though, I put it on all low and it's still all laggy

Well, obviously there is something wrong. Are you going to try any of the suggestions posted, or just complain?

SK07 · 2 Dec 2007 at 20:11

ffallic said:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_169.09.html

Try those.

Be sure to completely remove your current drivers, using driver cleaner maybe.

And have you done any of my others suggestions?

See when I first got it and started playing it, I was playing on med/highs fine but now it's seems to have degraded itself so I can't even play on lows with low resolution...

About to do scans for adware etc... doubt anything will come up though.

helpimcrap · 2 Dec 2007 at 20:19

to be perfectly honest - crysis needs upgrading!

the coding is absolute crap. developers get away with murder. best thing people could have done was not buy it.

Crossy · 2 Dec 2007 at 21:10

I can play it at Medium with my 7900GTO, AMD Athlon 3500+ and 2gb ram all at stock. @1650x1050. With just playable FPS.

Realist · 2 Dec 2007 at 21:26

Im playing this in Vista with a X1950Pro, Q6600 and 4GB ram.

It plays great, no lag and graphics are fine.

silversurfer said:
You need a custom config, read the tweaktown guide. The game plays well enough on a x1950pro imo

Dont play it on vista

NightSt@lk3r · 2 Dec 2007 at 21:29

mix of medium's and high's on my GTO at 1440x900 and it is usually arround the 30FPS mark so very playable.

Born_2_Kill_83 · 2 Dec 2007 at 22:37

I wouldnt bother upgrading for crysis, spend 1k on a Q6600 4GB 8800GTX oc and you'll still be turning settings down. This game has been released for next years hardware when every-one will have forgotten about it!

HangTime · 2 Dec 2007 at 23:05

El_Watcher said:
Have you actually tried it on low? The original Doom looks better. Things were popping up all over the place when you walk forward.

Nope, despite being a massive Far Cry fan I haven't bought Crysis yet due to all the horror stories about performance. I only have a 3.2ghz C2D with GTS320 so I'm waiting until I've got something with a bit more grunt (8800ultra-SLI speed or greater) before getting it.

Just seems common sense to me that if you are unhappy with performance in a game, you lower the settings and see how you fare with that.

fraps · 3 Dec 2007 at 00:00

SK07 said:
Absolutely struggling to even play this, it was okay before but now (im at the school level) it's unplayable, it just lags consantly and freezes all of the time so in a combat scenes it's like watching a security camera, freeze lag can't even play it. Put all settings to medium and it's still the same. Specs:

Geforce 7900 GTO 512MB
2GB Corsair
3.4GHZ P4 X2
2x250GB HD's

I even defragged the drive but still the same crap, I guess I'll try putting it on all low and seeing if it still does it.

Try 1024 x 768, it is not too diff from 1280 x 1024, also, try and turn shadows to low as you don't need all the millions of plant and tree shadows! Also, try lighting effects to low. If you have AA on turn that off. It should still look fine as I have played the demo.

Personally, I am avoiding the game as there are plenty of good PC games (such as COD4) which run very well on my PC.

Lastly, you could upgrade but it might be best to wait for a card which really nails this game and I am not sure there are any which currently do so.

Frosti · 3 Dec 2007 at 00:08

HangTime said:
Nope, despite being a massive Far Cry fan I haven't bought Crysis yet due to all the horror stories about performance. I only have a 3.2ghz C2D with GTS320 so I'm waiting until I've got something with a bit more grunt (8800ultra-SLI speed or greater) before getting it.

Just seems common sense to me that if you are unhappy with performance in a game, you lower the settings and see how you fare with that.

Give the demo a try, it ran about the same as the full game, performance wise for me.
Your rig is a lot faster than mine (A64 3500, X1950Pro) yet I ran it fine all on med @ 1024 x 764.

HangTime · 3 Dec 2007 at 00:26

I will probably try the demo at some point, but due to a lot of other quality titles doing the rounds I haven't really felt the need (for example I bought Bioshock a couple of months back and haven't really got very far in yet).

Also I have a TFT monitor so don't want to use less than native resolution (1680x1050). AA disabled is fine with me but even then judging by benchmarks I need more power to keep the framerate up around the level I find playable (min [not average] fps of 45+).

BillytheImpaler · 3 Dec 2007 at 00:29

It runs servicably for me at 1680 x 1050 at low everything on my dual Prestonia (Northwood) Intels at 3 GHz and my 256 MiB X850 XT PE. It should be quicker on your machine.

krisboats · 3 Dec 2007 at 04:21

HangTime said:
I will probably try the demo at some point, but due to a lot of other quality titles doing the rounds I haven't really felt the need (for example I bought Bioshock a couple of months back and haven't really got very far in yet).

Also I have a TFT monitor so don't want to use less than native resolution (1680x1050). AA disabled is fine with me but even then judging by benchmarks I need more power to keep the framerate up around the level I find playable (min [not average] fps of 45+).

Without having played it i'm sure you won't have realised this but crysis seems far more playble at low fps than other games. Its easily playable at just under 30fps average.

Crysis = Unplayable

Man of Honour