Crysis @ Very High @ 60 FPS?

By Elliot B.
in PC Gaming

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

That Guy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
And what's wrong with a card that got 512mb of DDR3 memory, in this days of time?

Not new enough?

I think your confusing DDR3 with GDDR3 - which is completely unrelated to DDR3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR3

And clock and memory speeds are what's more important, not just the memory capacity. Why do you think there's a ?400 difference between your HD2600XT and a GeForce 8800 Ultra? It's not the memory capacity, I can tell you. And there's quite some difference between 30fps and 60fps.

Grand Master

xendrome

Posted
Posted
Currently on Windows XP - Core 2 Extreme X6800 - 4 Gigs - 8800 Ultra ( Overclocked ) and i can manage around 40 steady FPS at mix of High / Very High settings at 1650x1200.

We still need to get a hardware generation ahead before It's possible i believe.

Any by then noone will care about that game.. as half the people who followed the hype already gave up on it.

Whats the term I have heard all over the net? "Thats it??!?"

Veteran

That Guy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Any by then noone will care about that game.. as half the people who followed the hype already gave up on it.

Whats the term I have heard all over the net? "Thats it??!?"

+1, by the time we have computers powerful enough, at sensible prices, Crysis 2 will be out and we'll all be bored to death with Crysis 1 lol. I hate the way that it's always going to be like this, as I doubt that GFX cards will ever be ahead of games demands (although that's currently the case with processors, right?).

Experienced

TogaForComfort

Posted
Posted

Anyone remember when FarCry came out? Didn't we have the same discussions then, and now a fairly cheap mahine can run it at acceptable FPS with decent settings.

One or two gens of card down the line and we will be having the same discussion about another game.

Veteran

That Guy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Anyone remember when FarCry came out? Didn't we have the same discussions then, and now a fairly cheap mahine can run it at acceptable FPS with decent settings.

One or two gens of card down the line and we will be having the same discussion about another game.

Come to think of it, it's always been like that. Games seem to always be pushing hardware to it's limits. I remember when I was on a 200Mhz P2, and was shocked that Thief II: The Metal Age needed a whole 400Mhz in order to play properly lol. Hopefully graphics cards will race ahead though like processors.

Mentor

darkz

Posted
Posted
Come to think of it, it's always been like that. Games seem to always be pushing hardware to it's limits. I remember when I was on a 200Mhz P2, and was shocked that Thief II: The Metal Age needed a whole 400Mhz in order to play properly lol. Hopefully graphics cards will race ahead though like processors.

i wonder what hardware do these game developer dudes run

Veteran

That Guy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
i wonder what hardware do these game developer dudes run

I can't remember exactly, but I know F.E.A.R developers had the very best machines Alienware sold when they worked on it.

I presume it would be some Intel Extreme Quad Core 3.0Ghz 12Mb cache, with perhaps dual 8800 Ultras in SLI, and 4GB DDR3. I doubt even they were able to run it at it's best though, and had to do a bit of prediction. Of course they could have used a small supercomputer to test it.

Whatever they used, I'm sure it won't be in my budget for a good 5 years :p

Neowinian

slyjerry

Posted
Posted

I can play at HIGH settings and keep an average of 50FPS with it at 1280 * 1024. It will not let me select VERY HIGH settings.

E6600 @ 3.4Hz, 2GIG dominator PC2-8500 @ 1024, XFX 8800GTX XXX, Ultra X3 1K power supply, second XFX 8800GTX on the way with the Dell SP2208WFP 22' wide screen. will let you know soon!!!

Grand Master

Vice

Posted
Posted

It plays really smooth at 1680x1050 with all the settings on high (no AA or AF) I wouldn't say its at 60fps maybe 50. When I crank it up to 2560x1600 I have to put the settings on medium to retain a playable framerate (35-40fps). It's not so bad really because Crysis in my opinion looks awesome but the gameplay is severly lacking. It's the sort of game you buy to see play a few times and leave by the wayside.

Call of Duty 4 however is a whole nother kettle of fish. In my opinion it looks just a few notches below Crysis (Doesn't have Destructable Trees and stuff) But COD4 really shines with grass density models textures and general level detail, not only that but it plays smooth as silk at 2560x1600 with all settings maxed to the highest. Which is really saying something considering that Crysis buckles.

The Producer of Crysis did once stand up on stage and say there was more code in a wave in Crysis then there was in the entire Farcry game, some might say that's really impressive but I just think "whoa bloated to hell" considering that Crysis is pretty much just a graphical overhaul of the original game with a few updated game elements (Like the Nano Suit).

It reminds me a lot of Oblivion. Everyone thought it looked fantastic but we look back at it today and we can see how terribly optimised it is. It eats even the top of the line cards and yet its graphical prowress is outdated by other titles that don't require nearly as much exspensive equipment to look as good if not better.

This is just my opinion of course but I think it's a valid one.

I've done all my gameplay testing with the following system:

QX6700 OC'd @ 3.6GHz

8800GTX OC'd @ Ultra

4GB 800MHz RAM (Low Latency)

EVGA 680i

3007WFP-HC Dell 30" Monitor

Grand Master

Sethos

Posted
Posted
Quad core works fine, despite what you may have read. It doesn't give you higher FPS, it gives you more consistent FPS.

From my own tests and looking at various reviews, that statements seems a bit ... wrong?

Haven't seen a non-Quad core, where the FPS is jumping all over the place - My friend has a Quad core, getting almost exact same performance as me, the game plays exactly the same performance wise, same little FPS drops in certain areas and during some scenes.

Veteran

That Guy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
The Producer of Crysis did once stand up on stage and say there was more code in a wave in Crysis then there was in the entire Farcry game, some might say that's really impressive but I just think "whoa bloated to hell" considering that Crysis is pretty much just a graphical overhaul of the original game with a few updated game elements (Like the Nano Suit).

Wow, although that sounded impressive at the time, now we can see that actually it would explain why the whole thing is so power consuming.

Surely, with the likes a Call Of Duty 4, using Direct X9, that with a little more work Crysis-standard graphics will be achievable on DX9 too? Destructible environments is not really to do with graphics, so that too should be possible on DirectX9.

I think CoD4 just shows how unoptimised Crysis is. After all that hype, and then disappointment, I hope Crytek learn a lesson or two from this one before they make Crysis 2.

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

From my own personal tests on single core and quad core machines (as well as dual core), I'm going to say they seem a bit... correct :)

As I have said: you're not going to see FPS improvements simply by using a quad core machine. You will get more consistent framerates, just as you do when going from a single core processor to a dual core. The jump from dual to quad isn't as high because it doesn't need to offload as many threads to keep a consistent framerate on a dual core machine.

Your vague tests don't really say much, since I'm going to bet you didn't actually check the exact same frame rates at the exact same times with the exact same machines (minus the item you're testing, in this case, the processor).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.