Finally guys i got some news for you, Before i begin i am sorry if i got all you guys worked up over this, it was my intention to get people interested in playing crysis on lower end systems as i believe you don't need such top end systems, I have run the crysis benchmark v1.05. I got average framerate of 20 fps. That sucks i ran it 3 times with all high settings in 1280x1024 with 4 AA. But if you read further i still believe my system on a budget is an a good system if you want to play crysis on a budget.
Now before you all pawn me, firstly i got it wrong, last week when i tried crysis for the first time i had chosen 1680x1050, my settings were getting reverted back for some strange reasons to 1280x768, so by this i mean i would got to the option settings and choose 1680x1050 but when i load up a level and then go inside the option settings it would read once again 1280x768, i had the option to do 1280x720 but the images would become distorted, so 1280x768 worked better on my monitor. So i chose that.
Last week, when i mentioned the game i had said it ran at 50 fps at 1680x1050 now as explained with the resolution reverting back to 1280x768 that's an honest mistake on my computer part. From the smooth frame rate that i was seeing it seemed to me to be running at 50 fps, but of course it was an estimate made without using a fps counter. I said i would get 50 fps running at 8x AF and 4x FSAA now this does not seem to be the case.
I ran the benchmark doing all 3 tests the GPU, CPU and level test. ran each one at 3 times, and the average fps was 20 fps for each test.
I have the screens, with some information of my computer, and my username on here to show that these screens are really from me.
Also the benchmark to me is pointless because the start of the benchmark flies in from above and obviously this would put a lot of strain on the gpu for it draw in all the trees in the distance and i found as the scene came more lower into the ground level the fps speeded up a lot until it then zoomed back out from above which cause the fps to drop in a huge way.
Also i wouldn't play a game in 1280x1024 with 4x FSAA
Now i checked the settings and i chose within my nvidia drivers control panel 8x AF. Then i went into the game and put motion blur on max, then v sync on, mouth smoothness on, 2x FSAA on, all settings on high, resolution 1280x768, then i applied and loaded up the first level. Load time was 1 minutes 20 seconds, cut scenes were incredibly smooth except a tiny bit of loading in at the start that lasted about 4 seconds, then the detail on the black guys face was unbelievable and a smooth framerate continued, absolutely no jaggy lines to be seen the AA was definitely working. Then as the aircraft flew past there was one freeze for like a split second. And just before you jump it loads in about 2 seconds of data. I exit the craft and all is good until you get hit by the alien and it again freezes for like 1 second now and then perfect from then on. I have touch down, graphics are amazing and not jerky, it's all running smooth, it loads in sometimes when you go around corners, but that loading only lasts 2 seconds. Again when you climb a mountain and look over it has 5 seconds of loading. You take out your binoculars and again there is loading for a few seconds but then all smooth again. If you get killed you can go back and play the whole scene again and as the data has already been loaded into the cache there is absolutely no jerky and choppy frame rates anymore.
I wanted to make sure all features were working, so i looked at trees, and even leaves of plants and the AA was on, definitely on, i was not mistaking crappy fps for motion blur, definitely not. The motion blur and explosions were just like all the videos i have seen of the game.
The rocks did not have even a jaggy line to them, Now i decided to bring the console down and i typed in r_displayinfo=1 and it said that FSAA was on, the framerate i was getting was if you were to look down at the ground you would get 40 fps, if you were to look at a new scene you would get 25 fps if you were to look back at a scene that had just got cached it would read 30 fps, sometimes it large expansive areas it would read 15 fps but mostly jump about from 20-30 fps. But the very interesting thing was even with this fps counter being displayed, the actual game was running smooth, which is impossible in a way because this is the fps counter if that is reading a low frame rate then i should be all choppy but it wasn't, it was totally playable throughout and i was happy, i had gun battles with 10 players on screen at once. No slow down, i was blowing things up, destructing the enviroment and taken down 15 trees and it was all smooth. So i don't get it.
I want to be able to take screenshots, but i don't know how to in game. The thing is i have posted screen shots of the benchmark. Of course the first run through of every test would give like 20fps on the counter but when it's running the second and third time through because the data was being cached it gave readings of 30-35 fps but it only gave an ending average score of 20 fps.
I still believe the resolution is good, of course i should still do a test running it in 1280x768 or 1280x720 with no AA and no AF and in high settings.
This i will perform later and post results, i want to make a video to still show you that it's very very playable.
Now i played call of duty 4 and within the options i put the slider al lthe way to the right on max AF. I put 2x FSAA. 1280x768, this time call of duty 4 didn't have any resolution above 1280x768. I put every detail on max at the same time within my nvidia control panel AF was set at 8x. The only thing i left on medium was the number of corpses to display. This thing must have been running at an incredible speed because there was absolutely no jerky frame rates. I will get a video up on here for this game to prove it.
Finally tiger woods 2008 all max settings with 8x AF and 4 FSAA super smooth frame rates.
pictures of crysis benchmark
http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=30495716sp6.gif
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=47709304eq2.gif
http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?image=12962121yc2.gif
http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?image=35008254ru4.gif
My future plan is to remove the 1GB of ddr2 ram and putting in 2x2GB sticks and running windows vista home premium x64, the ram at least will make levels load up quicker and may stop the 3 to 4 second loads up when drawing in new data, which only happens at the moment every 10 minutes or so, it depends on how fast you like to move within the game world. I like to explore everything, so my pace is slower and more enjoyable as i get to see the whole game and at the same time it's less stress on the cpu and gpu as it doesn't have to constantly every few minutes load new scenes into the cache, anyway quick saving and quick loading takes 1 second to load.
EDIT: one last thing while the benchmark was taking place i don't know if this makes any difference, but within my nvidia control panel i had AF on 8X, will this AF transfer to the benchmark affecting the results? If someone can please clear this up, thanks in advance.
and if he will show his computer as well as the game running in the same video, if not it will probably be coming from another PC...
