TechSpot: Crysis 2 GPU & CPU Performance Test

Crytek and EA unleashed the highly anticipated sequel to Crysis last week. So far reviews about the game are highly positive, while informal observations from bloggers and PC gamers tend to note that Crysis 2 has departed from some of its predecessor's gameplay essentials and feels closer to a Call of Duty-style shooter.

As things stand today, Crysis 2 on the PC does offer better textures, but that's about it other than the higher resolutions and frame rates usually offered by PC titles. DX11 effects are expected to be added in a future patch, but in the meantime don't misinterpret us, the game looks gorgeous regardless.

Clearly it's not exactly what we expected, but Crysis 2 does appear to be quite a lot of fun nonetheless. Now the question that remains to be answered is how demanding Crysis 2 is on PC hardware? Despite its shortcomings, can it bring the most power hungry rigs to their knees as the original game did?

Read: Crysis 2 Performance: 25 Graphics Cards + CPUs Tested

These articles are brought to you in partnership with TechSpot.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The Most Valuable Brand in The World - Google

Next Story

Windows 8 partial 'Install Windows' surfaces [Update] full image leaks

17 Comments

ApuBo said,
nice to know that i able to play in extreme ^^ (but dx9 ;(. )

And despite it's age, name one FPS that has used as many DX9-launched calls as Crysis 2.

While DX9c is old (goes back to XP), it was groundbreaking in and of itself, because it largely *wasn't* limited to gaming uses. However, game developers (the biggest users) had largely pushed on as soon as DX10 came out. (There are two exceptions - Stardock and Valve. However, not even Stardock and Valve uses that many DX9-launched calls; Crysis 2 uses more DX9c calls than Stardock and Valve have combined.)

Why would Crytek stay with a mostly (and at launch, completely) DX9c codebase for the core of a PC shooter?

"Can it run Crysis?"

Crytek got whacked with that particular brickbat since the launch of Crysis, and the whacking didn't let up with the Warhead and Wars (1.5, basically) launches.

And if you think it's a CoD clone, just wait until you get to the last few missions - all based in Central Park). I haven't completed it yet, but I am more than halfway through it (the Central Park missions) - I'm not going to give away any enemy-style spoilage. However, one of your biggest enemies in Central Park isn't the Ceph.

CELL? By then, disbanded.
Hargreave? Underwater.
Lockhart? Dead of a broken neck. (After listening to him lose it while at the Prism, it was one of my more satisfying takedowns in any FPS. Oh, yeah. Very Personal.)

The biggest enemy in Central Park is the chessplayer that repealed the law of gravity!

If you've played the original Crysis, you doubtless remember the end-stages where it's you and the Ceph scout mano-a-mano on that DPRK island with the whacked-out gravity.

Central Park is worse. Much MUCH worse.

It's the first FPS since UT that threatens to make me *airsick* while not flying.

Even more horrifying, gravity in one section of Central Park need not (and often doesn't) act the same as it does in the next section.

That's the REAL inspiration for you to take down the Ceph and their chessplayer.

So you can stop feeling like you're going to lose the lunch you can no longer eat.

The very fact that I am having to tackle the end stage piecemeal due to getting queasy-tummy syndrome means that Crytek did what they were supposed to do, despite the *supposed* limits of DX9c and five-year-old development targets.

Are we, as PC gamers, let alone a gaming community, that jaded that we have to pick nits instead of actually enjoying the game itself as pure escapism (you know - what movies were supposed to be, but often haven't been as of late)?

I personally like CRysis 2, my machine (in sig) is able to play it using the “extreme” graphics settings (highest), with absolutely no issues at all. Like a hot knife through butter actually!
It is very arcade though, and I completely agree with the author that is has departed from some of its predecessor's game play. Almost like they have a much heavier Console slant on it now! Never mind. Will carry on playing/enjoying it.

Im only slightly disappointed :- )

Looks like they finally did an official test rather than the previous one they did beforehand. This is the second game I have come across that doesn't include the full feature it is intended. Total War Shogun 2 being the second without DX11 support until a patch. Hoping this won't turn out to be a common thing in future games to come... That being said that they already charge for included content on some games like say Capcom ones.

Morisato said,
This is the second game I have come across that doesn't include the full feature it is intended. Total War Shogun 2 being the second without DX11 support until a patch. Hoping this won't turn out to be a common thing in future games to come...

The DX11 patch for Crysis 2 is just rumor, there is no confirmation of any patch from Crytek. We can expect a patch (happens for every game) but don't expect DX11. http://www.mycrysis.com/forums...wtopic.php?f=40&t=15962

ThaCrip said,
to bad they did not test lower resolutions (say 1024x768 or 1280x720 etc) AND on lower end CPU's that where around minimum system requirements.

because most of their tests are basically geared towards people with a good CPU setup and at super high resolutions. (i know their tests removed the bottleneck of CPU so it SOLELY shows how well the GPU does and that's nice but at the same time they needed to test a wider range of CPU/GPU combo's to show how it runs on low end PC's with decent graphics cards etc)

because i got a AMD Athlon X2 3600+ (2.0ghz overclocked to 2.4ghz) and a Radeon 5670 512MB video card and the game runs reasonably well if i leave it on it's defaults which goes to 1024x768. it seems when i try to push to 1280x720 (i.e. 720p) the frame rate seems to take a noticeable hit.

because as you can see i am one of those people floating 'near' the LOW LOW end. (i.e. near minimum system requirements especially my CPU)

plus in their review they typically don't like going below around 40FPS which you can still have a decent/enjoyable single player experience 'around' 30fps (give or take a little) as the mouse movement still works like normal, it's when you start to get on low 20's or worse is when it REALLY starts to suck (i.e. show stopper) and take you out of the game. (pretty much the only people who would disagree here are those who are spoiled and have to have a PC that can run MAX graphics @ 60fps+ constantly lol (don't get me wrong, that would be nice but it's not a showstopper especially if you can keep most of the visuals on at a decent resolution @ around 30fps)

plus, they say 50fps+ is optimal and not that i would complain to much here but i think everyone considers 60FPS+ 'perfect' and not 50. although obviously, 50fps+ at all times is still very enjoyable experience.

I'm just waiting on a fanboy-free review on a non biased site with credibility.

ThaCrip said,
to bad they did not test lower resolutions (say 1024x768 or 1280x720 etc) AND on lower end CPU's that where around minimum system requirements.

because most of their tests are basically geared towards people with a good CPU setup and at super high resolutions. (i know their tests removed the bottleneck of CPU so it SOLELY shows how well the GPU does and that's nice but at the same time they needed to test a wider range of CPU/GPU combo's to show how it runs on low end PC's with decent graphics cards etc)

because i got a AMD Athlon X2 3600+ (2.0ghz overclocked to 2.4ghz) and a Radeon 5670 512MB video card and the game runs reasonably well if i leave it on it's defaults which goes to 1024x768. it seems when i try to push to 1280x720 (i.e. 720p) the frame rate seems to take a noticeable hit.

because as you can see i am one of those people floating 'near' the LOW LOW end. (i.e. near minimum system requirements especially my CPU)

plus in their review they typically don't like going below around 40FPS which you can still have a decent/enjoyable single player experience 'around' 30fps (give or take a little) as the mouse movement still works like normal, it's when you start to get on low 20's or worse is when it REALLY starts to suck (i.e. show stopper) and take you out of the game. (pretty much the only people who would disagree here are those who are spoiled and have to have a PC that can run MAX graphics @ 60fps+ constantly lol (don't get me wrong, that would be nice but it's not a showstopper especially if you can keep most of the visuals on at a decent resolution @ around 30fps)

plus, they say 50fps+ is optimal and not that i would complain to much here but i think everyone considers 60FPS+ 'perfect' and not 50. although obviously, 50fps+ at all times is still very enjoyable experience.

I play *at* the defaults except the textures (bumped with the Crysis 2 AGO utility from Low to Medium), and I have more CPU (but less GPU) than you have (Celeron DC E3400 clocked stock at 2.6 GHz, 3 GB of system RAM, AMD HD5450 PCIe GPU with 512 MB, and 7 Ultimate x64). What chop I have is in the cutscenes (audio chop) - I certainly don't have any anywhere else (even with the texture increase).

The thing is, Crytek still came closer to the ideal FPS for folks like us - down in the weeds - than anyone except Valve has in the FPS space.

Most PC game developers (and most PC gaming-review magazines and gaming sites, to be honest), could care *less* about those of us with less-than-high-end hardware. They are, by and large, speaking exclusively or mostly, to the top five percent, income-wise, of all PC hardware owners - truth be told, that's where the money is. However, do that for long enough, and that audience becomes like Congress - jaded and set in their ways. Worse, they become USED to things going *their way* and are loath to accept anything that deviates from the status quo.

The console crowd can be just as bad.

Crysis 2 comes into this group of stilted (and largely stulted) audiences with all the subtlety of Alcatraz invading Greenpeace HQ - you have no clue that something Really Scary is in your building until somebody becomes a corpse. (Remember, Crytek, until recently, had been a part of *the system* the way it was - nobody could have seen this coming.)

It would be like finding out that John Carmack is really the pseudonym for Gov. Rick Perry of Texas.

Two quotes (neither from a game) sum up my feeling about how calcified things had gotten in the gaming space in general, and the PC gaming space in particular.

"The Prophet doesn't exist to to sell the truth - the Prophet exists to sell itself." - Rita Skeeter, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"

"If the little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes had been around today, he would have been lynched by the horrified crowd of insiders. The system isn't ready for different - the system is only ready for itself." Bob Holtzman, "Executive Orders" by Tom Clancy.

I'm running the game on a Q9300 with a 9800GTX with 8gigs of ram and I can't play it longer than about 45mins to an hour cause it causes the screen to go solid grey and/or lockup with a bluescreen error or similar. The last few blue-screens I saw were pointing to nvidia driver files so I'm thinking it was a driver issue but I've tried a few different ones and no change. The min is set at 8800 and I know my card is fine but for some reason I'm having this damn issue and it's driving me nuts!

Sava I would think it would almost have to be some kind of conflicting driver error. C2D E8500@3.16 9800GTX 8 gig ram I can play all day with no issues. No fancy setup here for cooling either hence I don't think it could be a heat issue....

Not to poo-poo Techspot's rig building skills, but I'm running Crysis 2 on a Core 2 Quad Q9450 @ 3.2GHz, 4GB of RAM, and an HD6950, and at 1920x1080 I'm getting perfectly acceptable framerates on Extreme settings. Much higher than the apparent 38FPS that they're getting with a far superior CPU.

I have found that a lot of PC users have been experiencing crashing, and freezing of the game, thankfully my rig is in tip top condition, mainly because I make sure everything is always up to date. I make sure that my OS is defragged on a regular basis, drivers up to date, check the HDD's for errors and maintain stability of the system. Never had an issue with CRYSIS , apart from a moan about no DX10 and DX11. I know that a lot of people think that general maintenance of you PC does not matter. But from experience it does. I had major problems with CRYSIS and CRYSIS WARHEAD but touch wood nothing with CRYSIS 2.

Commenting is disabled on this article.