Soldato
how the hell are you all getting these FPS, running 3.8Ghz C2D, 8800GTS (overclocked) and i get CRAP FPS on anything higher than medium, am i missing something?
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
CRYSIS vs. The Modern GPU (Part 1)
- Thread starter Big.Wayne
- Start date
Yes you only have a 8800GTS 320mb.
The op is running a 8800GT 512mb.
Simply put you gpu whilst having the horsepower to run the game on high (just) it doesn't have the memory to do it.
Recentlly got myself a new Samsung Syncmaster 223BW (22" widescreen) with native of 1680x1050.
I run Crysis, everything on High 0xAA on an 8800GTS 640mb OC, C2Duo E6320 @ stock (havent bothered to OC yet) and 2x1gb DDR2 800mhz.
Runs absolutely fine for me, although it does very rarely slow down but not so much its unplayable
I run Crysis, everything on High 0xAA on an 8800GTS 640mb OC, C2Duo E6320 @ stock (havent bothered to OC yet) and 2x1gb DDR2 800mhz.
Runs absolutely fine for me, although it does very rarely slow down but not so much its unplayable
Associate
Imo Cod4 is a linear run, gun boring pos which I couldn't wait to finish. Killing enemies wasn't satisfying at all. Multiplayer is even worse with no tactics needed what so ever. Throw a grenade and run.
The sheer amount of ways you can kill enemies in Crysis coupled with the better graphics makes it a better game.
The sheer amount of ways you can kill enemies in Crysis coupled with the better graphics makes it a better game.
For everyone claiming they get great performance, silky smooth, etc ,etc, does that include the levels like Paradise Lost? I bet not.
I was running "silky smooth" at high, except shadows at medium and there are certain sections on the Map where FPS was sticking around 20 FPS, not dipping briefly, but staying there for a whole sluggish battle. Unplayable.
The only way for that part to become playable was to go to medium on shaders. Problem with Medium shaders in Jungle bits is that it loses a lot of atmosphere.
Oh, and this is with my Q6600 at 3.6GHz, and my 8800gt at 775/1815/2000.
Just saying that some of you who thinkit is smooth. Get used to the idea that you will have to drop settings. And if the snow levels were not bad enough, wait til you get to the end!
As I have stated elsewhere, I don't mind that we can not max this game. I mind that the performance levels are HORRIBLY inconsistent throughout.
I was running "silky smooth" at high, except shadows at medium and there are certain sections on the Map where FPS was sticking around 20 FPS, not dipping briefly, but staying there for a whole sluggish battle. Unplayable.
The only way for that part to become playable was to go to medium on shaders. Problem with Medium shaders in Jungle bits is that it loses a lot of atmosphere.
Oh, and this is with my Q6600 at 3.6GHz, and my 8800gt at 775/1815/2000.
Just saying that some of you who thinkit is smooth. Get used to the idea that you will have to drop settings. And if the snow levels were not bad enough, wait til you get to the end!
As I have stated elsewhere, I don't mind that we can not max this game. I mind that the performance levels are HORRIBLY inconsistent throughout.
Soldato
/\ totally agree, some people are living in a fantasy when they say that they can play this game fine 1280x1024 and above, High settings, no AA, if people want to do an average fps count then they should use the last level of the game, even at 1024x768, high, no AA, I was having major slow down in the intense action parts.
Soldato
I'm playing the retail and its been silky smooth for me apart from the bit where you have to take out the 2 tanks. For some reason when that part started I had some nasty lag. I restarted the game and it was fine. Memory leak?
Thats with everything on high, xp @ 1920x1200.
While I do like Crisis I think COD4 is much, much better. The graphics on COD4 are amazing and the immersion factor is just, WOW. For a scripted game the execution so far is perfect.
Soldato
I don't want to create a fps argument but no way on this planet for a fact is this game silky smooth on ANY LEVEL, it may be at an acceptable frame rate at which you can enjoy but it's far far from silky smooth and quite frankly I'm getting tired of people saying that it is, it's misleading and more than any-thing it makes people that come on here and read these posts claiming that it's silky smooth question whether thier systems are running properly, I know how people perceive fps is very subjective but it really does make me mad, sorry, I barely even find this game playable (on the later levels) at 1024x768 and I know my system is running fine, I'm sorry I don't mean to have a go but it really is bugging me.
Soldato
Chill Out!!
I standby what I say TO ME it's silky smooth and totally playable.
30FPS is all you need for a good experience.
The Xbox360 min spec for games is 30FPS.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Welll.... at 1680x1050 at MEDIUM it IS silky smooth.
I dont think your system is running fine unless you find 40-60fps+ unplayable, try 1024x768 and medium, then it will be easilly playable, infact high with a config to make it look better will be at that res too.
Maybe you PPU is conflicting or something because it sounds like your system is not running properly, try XP if you are using Vista.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 37
Didn't I read somewhere that there is a difference between 2GB and 4GB in this game? I notice Asgard has 4GB whereas lowerider only has 2GB. Asgard also has a 1ghz clock advantage over lowrider...GTX vs GT.. Not sure if that would make up for all of it, but maybe.
Caporegime
The extra CPU speed wont make a massive difference, the game only uses one core atm aswell.
Caporegime
In game usage shown 1.4Gb and that was in XP.
Soldato
More than anything I think its down to what people deem to be an acceptable level of FPS. a lot of people have a number in mind and unless its >= its not acceptable. I go by how it plays and don't give a monkey about numbers. If it feels smooth then it is smooth.
Crisis for me is averaging at around 28 FPS and while the number seems low in game it seems silky smooth which is all that counts.
Soldato
I had task manger up last night while playing the game and it seemed to be using 2 cores.
This game is GPU bound like most of the latest games. Using a Quad over a Dual will make zero difference has will overclocking the cpu from 3 - 3.6 @ 1920x1200
Last edited:
I doubt it will be the last time I say this, but the game does use all four cores of a quad core.
For an example try loading up the map assault, and have a play through and look at your CPU usage (If you have a quad). I did this and it was using all my cores quite nicely.
For an example try loading up the map assault, and have a play through and look at your CPU usage (If you have a quad). I did this and it was using all my cores quite nicely.
Soldato
Maybe it does on muliplayer ( not tried ) but it doesn't use it in single player mode and a quad core doesn't effect the gpu benchmark.
Caporegime
And whats the usage on your other 3 cores because it certainly does not use a whole 2 cores here.