Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 8,010
- Location
- Wiltshire
or bin64 for the 64bit version.
Official Crysis Demo thread
- Thread starter Born_2_Kill_83
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 1,945
- Location
- West Bridgford
The all-weapons mod is pretty incredible
Thanks got it working now.
This is awsome, any ideas were the tornado and all that is?
Try using High settings.
Well it has upped my FPS to a grand 20 - 25 FPS !!
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 8,565
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I was thinking about formatting and a fresh OS install to boost performance, I wont bother now thankx
What res? if its higher than 1680x1050 sounds about right lol.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 8,010
- Location
- Wiltshire
Deleted member 61728
Deleted member 61728
What do all the people with a 24inch 1920x1200 screen do if even a oc 8800GTX cant get decent fps on even high settings in xp ?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 3,806
- Location
- Manchester
I don't know why everyone's complaining about bad performance...
I get about 40-50 FPS (drops to about 30 when there's a bit explosion) with everything on high apart from shadows and shaders which are medium (they absolutely kill peformance) + 2xAA.
That's at 1920x1200 with an overclocked 8800GTX.
For a game that looks as good a Crysis does I don't think that sort of perf. is unreasonable. Especially when compared to the NFSS demo, which I only get about 40FPS with, and it doesn't look anything special...
I get about 40-50 FPS (drops to about 30 when there's a bit explosion) with everything on high apart from shadows and shaders which are medium (they absolutely kill peformance) + 2xAA.
That's at 1920x1200 with an overclocked 8800GTX.
For a game that looks as good a Crysis does I don't think that sort of perf. is unreasonable. Especially when compared to the NFS
S demo, which I only get about 40FPS with, and it doesn't look anything special...
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,095
- Location
- Norwich
Something's wrong with my system. With those settings, but at 1680x1050 I get 20-25FPS. That's with an overclocked 8800GTX and an E6600 @ 3.4Ghz.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 3,806
- Location
- Manchester
You using Vista?
Because we're running shaders at high, that's why
It makes by far the biggest graphical difference to the game and unfortunately performance too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,095
- Location
- Norwich
Yes. If you're using XP, I guess that explains some of it. But, still, there are people on Vista that still get much high frame rates than me.
Because we're running shaders at high, that's why
It makes by far the biggest graphical difference to the game and unfortunately performance too.
I have it on medium and tbh i think the game looks great like that, also lets me put AF @ 8x with an average of 40fps, id rather have performance than the shaders on high
When i first installed Crysis i left everything at default which was set to Very high, didn't change anything other than up the res to 1920 X 1200 and it played lovely. Just 2 mins ago, in an obvious fit of complete madness i tried changing the AA to 8X momentarily. Naturally it turned into a slideshow. Now then i managed to put the AA slider back to no AA but the performance is stuck to the same as it was when i set it to 8X. Now i'm really miffed!!! 
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 620
That is strange. The funny thing is that i read on another forum of someone saying the exact same thing. I wish i left mine on Very High which was the recomended setting and trying to play it that way instead of staright away lowering everything to high.
Always thought it was strange that it recommends very high while in reality High is stretching the PC.
Always thought it was strange that it recommends very high while in reality High is stretching the PC.