Crysis Performance

[FrostyBoy]

(What happened to the forums while I was away in Hong Kong!?)


Anyway, I bought a new computer, this time a quad core Intel (I wanted AMD, but they ran out of stock), 2gig ram (will upgrade if I really need to) and 8800GT 512mb.

So I tried Crysis again, runs like a bloody dream. I have played 1/4 of the way through so far and experienced absolutely no slow downs at all. While the graphics looked really good, I was skeptical what the settings actually were, so I checked them and to my surprise it was all on Very High.

Just thought I'd mention it; seems the quad core is what was really needed to make Crysis play nicely.

[Asher]

Define nicely. I've got a quad core Core2 and an 8800 Ultra and noticed slowdowns.

Are your standards low, or was the demo code crap?

[FrostyBoy]

Nicely, would be absolutely no slowdowns, completely smooth.

Resolution was set to 1024x768, no AA, which is fine by me. I added 2xAA just to see how it went, it was still fine, but I have not tested it in large open areas yet.

I'm not sure about the demo code.

[Asher]

1024x768? That would be why. Welcome to 1999.

[FrostyBoy]

I play games on their highest resolution and I did test it on Crysis's highest resolution setting, but it was a little draggy, not jumpy, just slow to move, as if I am running through quicksand, but not that bad of course.

Anyway, nothing wrong with 1024x768, in fact it kind of adds to the artistic atmosphere, if it's too sharp, then it can make it look unrealistic (Halo 3).

Don't forget, in the real world, our vision is distorted by many different things such as dust/particles and blur.

If you take those factors out, it's as if you're playing in outer space.

[Patroklos]

Anyway, I bought a new computer, this time a quad core Intel (I wanted AMD, but they ran out of stock), 2gig ram (will upgrade if I really need to) and 8800GT 512mb.

Thats exactly what I put together 3 days ago, and Crysis runs like a dream as well. I did get a few temporary freezes right after one the middle game cinamatics, but thats it. I am not even sure why it happened there, as I was in a confined room with no action going on, oh well.

[Solver]

Performance is not fine. 1024 with no AA on such a machine is unacceptable. In outdoors areas in Crysis, aliasing is very noticeable. Yes, it does still look very good, but it does also run like crap compared to other FPS games.

Call of Duty 4 is a game with great performance. Runs great on highest graphics settings, has very quick loading times and, quite remarkably, doesn't slow down during the parts when there are 20 soldiers coming after you.

[Patroklos]

Like I said, Crysis doesn't slow down in open areas with 30 soldiers and tanks running around. I'd imagine CoD4 won't either

[snoopy369]

Perhaps 'fine' is a relative term, where some people like 1024x768 and some people like 25000x18000

[Asher]

I run it in 1440x900, but I need AA...otherwise it looks like ass, especially with the foilage in games like Crysis.

[Snotty]

Does anyone know if multiplayer is more or less demanding performance-wise. Im running low/medium in the demo for smoothness but was interested in finding out more about mp when i got to try multiplayer on my buddies rig

[Solver]

Probably less demanding. I know some features are disabled in MP, such as destructability.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Asher
I run it in 1440x900, but I need AA...otherwise it looks like ass, especially with the foilage in games like Crysis.

.... Damn colorblindness makes any foliage look like ass anyway. I often wonder what you guys see...needing all these fancy settings...