CRYSIS vs. The Modern GPU (Part 1)

[The Asgard]

IAnd I would not expect the CPU to affect the GPU benchmark much. Perhaps trying running the CPU benchmark? Have not tried it myself.

Well if it doesn't whats the point??

The all idea is to get more FPS. If the cpu doesn't effect the FPS then the cpu is pretty much redundant regardless of it using 2 or 4 cores.

Like I said I was playing the game last night and I left performance monitor running. I could see about 30% activity on 2 cores but the other 2 where pretty much idle.

 

[eyetrip]

Could not give you exact usage. This was some time Saturday. What I can remember is that the 4th core was getting used the most. But across the cores, usage spiked between very low and fairly high.

When I get home tonight I will load the game up and take some screens of CPU usage.

 

[Margaret]

/\ 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.

I was getting like 20-30 fps on the last level during the intense parts, 1680x1050 all High with a modded config for better visuals.

 

[eyetrip]

Well if it doesn't whats the point??

The all idea is to get more FPS. If the cpu doesn't effect the FPS then the cpu is pretty much redundant regardless of it using 2 or 4 cores.

Like I said I was playing the game last night and I left performance monitor running. I could see about 30% activity on 2 cores but the other 2 where pretty much idle.

Actually I would think the point of the CPU would be to handle such thigs as physics and AI, while the GPU was left with the resposibility of handling the graphics. Dunno know where I got that idea form though...

Where a cpu will help is when there is a lot happening on a map, with loads of NPCs with lots of Physics required. It will more than likely help to maintain FPs during heavy sections.

 

[The Asgard]

Actually I would think the point of the CPU would be to handle such thigs as physics and AI, while the GPU was left with the resposibility of handling the graphics. Dunno know where I got that idea form though...

Where a cpu will help is when there is a lot happening on a map, with loads of NPCs with lots of Physics required. It will more than likely help to maintain FPs during heavy sections.

CPU provides data for the GPU. The end result of the Physics and AI calaculations generally produce visible results on the GPU. Enemy moving, debris ...... but in Crisis the CPU is waiting on the GPU most of the time which is why the cpu cores get very little use and why the cpu doesn't effect the FPS.

I would imagine in a few years time when we have graphics cards capable of playing Crisis at 300 FPS then the CPU will come into play.

 

[Things change I've changed]

I was getting like 20-30 fps on the last level during the intense parts, 1680x1050 all High with a modded config for better visuals.

could you do me a favor then mate just for peace of mind, could you in the spoiler thread here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17802983 post me a pic of you on *SPOILER/* top deck of the ship attacking all the enemies */SPOILER* with the fps showing @ 1680x1050 with the modded config, because I for the life of me can't get near that frame rate in the later levels not even at 1280x1024 high no AA.

also to everyone else, how do you work out the average fps in this game when each level you pass the more grahiclly intensive it gets and becomes more of a strain on the system ?.

 

[willhub]

On the deck I was getting 11.8fps and it was hell, I dont get how people get 30fps there, that made me worry, up to the part were the game got crappy I was happy with performance tho.

 

[Things change I've changed]

On the deck I was getting 11.8fps and it was hell, I dont get how people get 30fps there, that made me worry, up to the part were the game got crappy I was happy with performance tho.

ah ha, I told you . (wooo hooo, Christmas smileys are back)

Chill Out!!

30FPS is all you need for a good experience.

Although I would prefer more fps than that I totally agree with you, the first half of the game was quite playable for me running at an average of 25-30fps, but the main thing is that the fps in Crysis for far for consistent, most 360 that run at 30fps are.

 

[eyetrip]

I would imagine in a few years time when we have graphics cards capable of playing Crisis at 300 FPS then the CPU will come into play.

Though by the time we have those GPU's, Crysis will be old news and no one will be playing it any more

Wonder how long before we load this game up and think it looks rubbish?

 

[Things change I've changed]

Though by the time we have those GPU's, Crysis will be old news and no one will be playing it any more

Wonder how long before we load this game up and think it looks rubbish?

your be suprised mate, many people still highy rate Farcry graphiclly, running it at 1920x1200 16xaa/16xaf with all the graphics mods I still think it looks great.

 

[Robert]

Well for a start Crysis still has options which are unavailable to us. Add to that, that it has so much more than just "nice" graphics...

 

[yeti]

Add to that, that it has so much more than just "nice" graphics...

like what? gameplay is almost identical to far cry, islands, jeeps, boats add nausea. Feels just like far cry when i play it.

 

[eyetrip]

like what?

Suppose we can always hope there is some magic AI setting that can be enabled some time in the future, to qualify for using the word "intelligence" in that annagram

 

[robj20]

I have to say i thing its just FarCry 2, just looks nicer. It even gets a bit boring half way through. Crysis is boring when you meet the aliens, farcry went boring when you met the trygens.

 

[ebilcake]

Great thread, getting somewhat annoyed by all this idiots who think 30fps or lower average is "silky smooth" because from own experience in this title I know it's not, far from it infact.

 

[The Asgard]

Great thread, getting somewhat annoyed by all this idiots who think 30fps or lower average is "silky smooth" because from own experience in this title I know it's not, far from it infact.

Idiots, LOL.

 

[zytok]

Great thread, getting somewhat annoyed by all this idiots who think 30fps or lower average is "silky smooth" because from own experience in this title I know it's not, far from it infact.

silky smooth is in the eye of the individual so you're out of line calling everyone who is happy with 30fps "an idiot".

Whilst 30 fps is perhaps not ideal for an FPS, it is generally pretty playable in a slow paced tactical shooter. As you'd have to knock down the settings pretty low to get 60fps even on a top rig, most are happy to sacrifice a few fps to see what all the fuss is about graphics-wise.

 

[eyetrip]

Great thread, getting somewhat annoyed by all this idiots who think 30fps or lower average is "silky smooth" because from own experience in this title I know it's not, far from it infact.

Well, to be honest 30FPS is playable. Though it seems mroe so in DX9 than DX10.

And the occasional drops below 30 are bearable. Its just when it is below 30 for some time that it becomes a problem. Starts giving me a headache.

And the only thing which seems to get 30FPS as a min is dropping the shaders to medium. That is at 1680 x 1050 with rig in sig (heavily OCed).

Note to self: q_shadershadows might be the option to improve shadows when shaders on medium. Yes, that really is just a note to self to try later.

 

[Smoogels]

Anyone that thinks 30fps is silky smooth is a noob and doesn't know any better. Stick to the xbox.

 

[eyetrip]

Anyone that thinks 30fps is silky smooth is a noob and doesn't know any better. Stick to the xbox.

Theres no need to be a prat.

The majority of users find this game playable at 30 FPS. If you don't agree, fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but don't insult anyone else for theirs.