“Crysis Makes Me Sick” [UPDATE]
Here is an update post to the article i posted here a few days ago entitled “Crysis Makes Me Sick“. Read that first if you haven’t yet done so. A few people mentioned that the benchmarks from the previous article were from the demo version of Crysis. This is true and WAS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE. I translated the article largely to display the “cooperation” between Crytek and hardware developers so that readers hopefully will be more skeptical toward game hype and the need to upgrade in the future. A poster by the name of “rwd” brought a more recent article to my attention in which benchmarks from the full game of Crysis were displayed. This article compares results between the demo and full version as well as investigates how Crysis makes use of multiple cores. As the article states: Its a game, so have as much fun with it as you can, dont take benchmarks too seriously!
The Hard Truth
Crysis is finally out and no doubt many of you are working your way through it now. Before we post our review we wanted to quickly revisit our earlier article where we did some benchmarking with the single-player demo. If you’re like us you were more than a little disappointed when the Crysis demo ravaged your computer hardware turning a once mighty machine into a stuttering, panting reminder that you need to upgrade. Still we held out hope. We thought to ourselves, “Well this isn’t final code so it’s not optimized yet,” and, “it probably isn’t fully utilizing all the available cores”. No excuses will save us now. With the final code in hand I went back to my test system for some comparison runs to the numbers from the demo.
Just as a reminder here’s the hardware I used - the only real difference being that I used a newer version of NVIDIA’s Forceware drivers this time around.
- Intel Core 2 Quad 2.66 GHz
- Windows Vista 32 bit
- 4 GB of RAM (registers as 2814 MB)
- 768 MB NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
-
- Core clock speed - 576 MHz
- Shader clock speed - 1350 MHz
- Memory clock speed - 900 MHz
- ForceWare 169.09
I ran the same set of tests that I ran on the demo and came out with numbers that were almost identical and in some cases a tad lower. This is definitely not what I was hoping to see. I knew there wouldn’t be any dramatic improvements but I wanted a little better performance out of the final game.
The Crysis single-player demo and the retail game perform very much the same.
Since I was manually benchmarking by replaying the same section of the game I opted to try the built-in benchmarking tools this time as well to be more thorough. You’ll find two batch files in the Bin32 folder under your Crysis installation; Benchmark_CPU.bat and Benchmark_GPU.bat. All you have to do to run them is configure Crysis the way you want to test it, exit the game, double-click the batch file and follow the prompts. The GPU benchmark makes four passes through and around the opening island level computing minimum, maximum, and average frames-per-second. It’s a good test to task your video card but it’s not really that interesting to watch.
The CPU benchmark on the other hand is more entertaining. This test runs four passes as the nanosuit soldier runs around blowing things up with grenades and a rocket launcher. It’s interesting to note that when I ran the test with the advanced settings on “Low” at 1024 x 768 there were explosions but not destruction. The buildings didn’t come apart and there was very little debris flying through the air. If you like your explosions chunky and your buildings destructible you’ll want to bump the physics and particles settings to at least “Medium”.
Using the Crysis benchmark tools I tested the system using the same three previous configurations. A consistent multi-pass benchmark like this is more accurate than doing it yourself but the numbers came out pretty close to my earlier tests. The built-in benchmarks are great for tweaking your settings to see which ones you can increase without taking a big f.p.s hit so I went back to the settings I settled on when testing the demo - 1280 x 1024, 2x anti-aliasing, with textures, objects, shaders, and postprocessing set to “High” and the rest on “Medium” - then ran the test multiple times to see how I could get it to stick around 30 fps. The settings I ended up with were almost identical to the ones I got from the demo.
Quad-Core Utilization and Overclocking the Video
Since I was working with a quad-core machine I wanted to make sure that the game was utilizing all four cores. I did some performance monitor captures while running the CPU benchmark to see if each core was getting some action.
EDIT: When I originally published this article and looked at the graph of the processor performance capture my first impression was that Crysis was utilizing all four cores - which is true. Crysis is passing instructions to all four cores but not maximizing their ability to handle instructions concurrently. All four cores look busy in the graph but the reality of it is that they are basically operating as a single-core and taking turns. In it’s current state Crysis does not take full advantage of multi-core processing. Thanks go out to the readers who pointed this out.
Processor performance capture during Crysis CPU Benchmark. (Right Click->View Image to Zoom)
In a last ditch effort to wring out some more performance from my hardware I decided to try overclocking my video card a little. I did some testing with 3DMark06 and settled on a core clock speed of 621 MHz (up from 576 MHz), a shader clock speed of 1458 MHz (up from 1350 MHz) and a memory clock speed of 1000 MHz (up from 900 MHz). With those settings I was topping out at about 12,070 on 3DMark and increasing beyond those settings was causing the score to drop. Overclocking the video card resulted in a very slight increase in performance at my balance settings on 1280 x 1024 but, in my opinion, not enough to risk destabilizing the system or shortening the life of the component.
Overclocking the video card resulted in a slight increase but nothing you’d notice while playing.
So our fears were legitimate but I think we all knew it was going to be this way. The retail version of Crysis performs almost exactly the same as the single-player demo. It’s good to know that you can install the demo and see how it runs before purchasing the final game. After all the tweaking and balancing hopefully you’ll get to a point - much like I did - where you say, “ENOUGH! I want to PLAY!” and you can start enjoying the game. Sometimes we get so engrossed in performance that we forget to just play the game and I think that will be especially true with Crysis. My advice is to get your settings to a point where you’re happy and then leave them alone until you beat the game.
Like with the demo all these tests were done on a single system for the sake of speed but we’re in the process right now of putting Crysis through the full battery of tests on as many different hardware configurations as we can scrounge together. We’re also still working on building the ultimate Crysis PC with your input so look for that as well as our complete review of Crysis in the near future.
Source: TomsGames
first
well done little man
thanks g
wow…..thts preety cool..now i aint frustrated no more…
He uses a Quad Core and 4 gigs of ram on a 32 bit OS.
Which means it bottlenecks his system like an idiot.
What a moron, he should first know what he’s doing before complaining.
Thanks ReeGed. Nice article.
Interesting read. thanks for the information/test results
I haven’t tested crysis yet… but it’s soon ready. I wonder if you could get better scores with 64bit Vista. atleast then you would use all your 4g of memory. Like I do
And btw, offtopic but 64bit vista runs nicely (even 32bit programs) no problems here, more stable than 32bit ^^ well for me atleast.
why do people still think this is fuc|(ing slashdot and insist on being the first to post?… i hope you morons get cancer and die.
i agree with the 64bit os but vista 32bit supports 4gb ram …
My system, and the results.
Specs:
Athlon 4600 = 2.4ghz Dual Core (Stock)
GF 8600GTS = OC 675/1008 to 710/1010
3gig (3×1) 667 DDR2
Windows XP 32
All medium, besides LOW OBJECTS and HIGH PHYSICS.
@1152×864
I got anywhere from 10 FPS to 30FPS throughout the game.
This is bad. Very painful. I was constantly turning shadows off and all sorts of crap in different places (Like inside the alien ‘area’).
Very unfortunate :(. Least I can run COD4 perfectly (40+ FPS always)! And online via private servers (http://www.game-monitor.com/search.php?search=cracked&type=server&game=cod4)
i cant see the images can u guys chk it out
Anyways and interesting article i found out abt the 4 gb RAM issue http://compreviews.about.com/od/memory/a/Vista4GB.htm
of topic but The.Mist.CAM.XViD-CAMERA i out
crimson: wrong.
Read this:
http://blogs.msdn.com/hiltonl/archive/2007/04/13/the-3gb-not-4gb-ram-problem.aspx
hrm, so what’s the conspiracy then ?
pictures are broken?
Picture problem fixed..
How do you play on a cracked server? Wouldn’t it give you the usual ’serial is already in use’ error?
BlakIdPea87 @ lol didn´t know that .. don´t use vista anyway ;p
I’ve had the same performance issues with COD4 too. In the demo it play smoothly DX9 (45-55 FPS) on 1280×1024 @ High settings. In full retail version I could hardly play on 1024×768 @ Med settings (25-35 FPS). So I do think that this is new fashion novadays - when game companies cooperate with hardware manufacturers to make us buy more powerful “gadgets” for our PCs.
@matt
If you mean COD4, then you just need to join those servers at Game-Monitor.
http://www.game-monitor.com/search.php?search=cracked&type=server&game=cod4
You need to just add the IP of the server to your favorites in-game.
Thats the link to a search for COD4 servers which have CRACKED in their name - meaning that they have been “cracked” to the point where an invalid key is valid!
And damn it is fun online… Im level 17, as they are also ranked.
I invite everyone to get on them.
It’s claimed that this is unfortunately true. Crytek tricked us about 64bit with Far Cry and this time Quad core and the difference between DX9 and DX10.
The real problem is that Crytek will of course do this again and people who loves/adore them will probably tell others that this kind of claiming isn’t true.
Sad future if this comes too often, to hide the truth from people that should know and show it to people that shouldn’t.
I dunno.. I run Crysis on my old Asus M4N (Centrino) lappy at 1024 x 768 at ~15fps using the cfg file tweaks.
Low detail but buildings still come apart, trees fall, all the basics are there and it’s playable.
That’s all you need to see if it’s a good game or not. If you rely on funky gfx to enjoy a game, then good luck with the upgrade path.
Me, I like games that play well. In that, Crysis is ok, nothing special. Had more fun with Far Cry to be honest. Other FPS’s have had much much better gameplay and been more enjoyable.
my 2c.
Amusingly enough, after all the Crysis hype, Portal (which I’d never heard of before seeing it here) beats the hell outta Crysis for addictive enjoyable gameplay and interesting storyline, but that’s just me.
You know in about 1 or 2 years most modern comp setups which are considered “gaming machines” (They are not put together by dell) and are around the 1400$ price range will be able to run CRYSIS at very high settings flawlessly.
I am just assuming this is the case. In about 2 years the 9 series NVIDIA and ATI (or amd) equivalents will be a fair bit cheaper with even more powerful cards out (10 series?).
But there will probably be CRYSIS 2 or something out by then anyway :D. Probably promoting the new windows operating system with DX11 capabilities or some crazy sh!t…
lol, i dont know what ur problem is! most ppl dont know how to config their hardware! i have an x2 4200 (s939) 3gb ram, 8800gts 640 oc2, i run vista 64bit and crysis runs PERFECT with everything on high/veryhigh except physics is medium bcause of my “slow” cpu! damn first learn to setup a well performing computer, then cry about bad FPS!
lol, if they hate crysis so much why analyse every freaking bit about crysis.. makes me sick to listen to there bs.
@27
They analyze it as much as they do because it is THE current benchmark game. It’s the game people will run when they want to test the new overpriced Alienware computers.
When computer manufactures try to hype their machine, nobody is going to care that their system can run Hellgate:London at 60fps, they’ll ask “yeah, but what about Crysis? Can I run that with all the pretty options turned on?”
Until the next benchmark game comes out, and I haven’t heard of it on the horizon this will be the game by which people measure their gaming PC’s.
@5 your damn right
32bit OS can only utilize 3gb of RAM…Putting in more will send data to the RAM the CPU will dump it automatically, thus having to request a second output….using too much RAM will cause the game to chug because it has to ask for data twice.
its 2 bad there is no rlslog fourm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izROuv6qpvU
meh cryses, i just want my gaming computer to not cry blood when i try to run UT3 ;(
Crysis was an awesome game i must say. I thoroughly enjoyed it start to end BUT……The game was not freekin long enough!!! I finished it in 8 hours on HARD not to mention not challenging enough.
I like to think my rig is quite good for gaming, but i was getting quite a bit of lagging here and there in certain areas….like in the mine/alien area…..and the end boss fight. 30fps on HIGH
Win XP 32-bit
Pentium D Dual Core 3.40ghz
3GB Ram
Radeon HD 2600pro IceQ 512mb
Ohhhh and evan on Very high settings tested on vista 64bit 4gig running in 1440×900 resolution the GRAPHICS are not all the cracked up to be, CRYTEK you could of done so much better.
@32
Bullsh!t! The graphics are amazing for something being rendered in real time…
There is effectively no other game out there that has better graphics and therefore it ‘cant’ be compared to anything. It is the top of the line in alot of aspects. Some games have better effects and graphics with some parts but I think that crysis has most of what makes great visuals while there are no other games that can truly rival its massive landscapes.
Btw who here actually cut down a tree for “strategic” purposes throughout the game?
I hit a few over just to test it but damn it is a pretty useless feature :P.
crysis runs CONSIDERABLY slower on vista 64bit (crappy 64bit drivers, thanks nvidia). so don’t taunt him for benching with 32bit, he did it right!
@33
YES maybe so but considering the stage they started production of this game they had so much time and yet there are alot of details in this game that need some work! ESPECIALLY the AI and story line in this game it was a very poor effort by crytek.
BUT hey dont get me wrong the game was brilliant as i said i loved it start to end but could of done a alot better.
@35.. u sure u checked vista 32 bit and vista 64 bit
What makes me so sad about this game, is that its all graphics, and really no story. Sure the graphics are good? but i really dont play a game for a few hours to look at the graphics, i want good gameplay and i want a good story.
They really worked like 30 min on the storyline etc!
Who really cares? Crysis is a good game that I can play perfectly at medium settings (30-40 fps). Even then it looks better than other recent FPS like Half Life 2: EP2 and Jericho.
Hardware and software devs have worked together for years, it’s really nothing new. Wake me up when a game is actually unplayable on ALL current systems instead of the ones made up from inferious brand components.
@37 hm read it somewhere 2-3 weeks ago, I googled it after and it seems it is now the opposite.
64 bit is faster now
reeged, typical anti ea guy who probably gets orgasms everytime he plays halflife, the ultimate fangirl soap opera.
yet again a propaganda article……lol! why does everyone think that just because some guy posts an article where they “investigate” a game, it is the truth and not a SPIN. it is a spin with half lies, to fool you and make you go … hmmm, see, this is a fraud people, we are being conned!”!!!123zomg
crytek always maintained that the pcs of now wont be able to play it ALL on max, but in 2 years they will probably. just like with far cry you have morons who just dont get it.
i have dual core, 4gb ram, 8800 ultra, play it on 1024 widescreen res, most options on high and i get between 35 and 47 fps, all the time. so obviously some of you dont know what you are doing, including this moron from the article who has his own agenda.
Could rlslog stop being a propaganda site of some sort, and continue reporting quality releases again? Thanks.
Some servers allow cracked games to play on (the servers are legit though):
http://www.gametracker.com/search/?sort=players.desc&per_page=25&page=1&search_by=name_ip&query=&game=crysis&loc=_all
Not all of them work, try them. Hit and miss.
Anyways, there will always be some game which will take the technological leap in these graphic and performance requirements. This time it was Crysis.
The hardware is trying to keep up and I think they’re doing somehow good, considering the very cheap 8800GT(210€~) which has about the same speed as GTX(Costs over twice than GT) in Crysis… We’ll see about those new (G92) 8800 GTS and later on ,Q1 2008 those 9xxx what can they really do :p
Although the Crysis team said they already had dx10.1, but they won’t release it until the first SP1 for vista is out. Will dx10.1 take even more juice from the comp, no idea.
And to add, yea this feels like somekinda anti-ea propaganda. :/
Am I the only one who thinks it’s strange that computer games today are designed to run well on systems that won’t be available for at least another 5 years? I mean they release a game with all kinds of fancy graphical options but nobody can run the game at the highest settings. Everyone has to tweak the settings, trying to figure out what combination of resolution and eye-candy will allow them to play the game at an acceptable speed. By the time that a majority of the systems in use are able to play the game at max, all the people who would really want to do so have moved on to something else that runs like crap on their current system unless they turn the settings down.
Personally I don’t consider Crytek’s game “an achievement”. It’s not a big deal for skilled programmers to create an engine that looks great. Sure, it requires a lot of work but gaming companies do it all the time.
The true masterpiece would be to create the engine that looks amazing WHILE running on lower-end systems. I just don’t get what all the hype is about. Crysis minus the graphics (a sacrifice you need to make if you have a comp older than a few months) is just an average shooter.
These guys should look and learn from the demoscene artists and coders - code optimization is something that would earn them real praise.
Yes, I may feel sour because I cannot play it with decent framerate, but I guess it is the story of FarCry all over again. I waited a year or so since the release of FC till I got the rig capable of playing it on high settings - the “fun” lasted just a couple of hours. After all I’ve read about the game, it was just not worth it.
Call me what you want - a Valve fanboy, a lamer, whatever… but when I see the games like the ones in Orage Box perform super-smooth with all the settings maxed out, play great, look amazing and have a lot of design and thought put in them, seeing all the commotion about something that’s more of a tech demo for future systems than a playable game just makes me sigh.
Hey CL, Stop being a douchebag. You insult the guy that he doesn’t know how to setup a game machine, well not everyone was stupid enough like you to get scammed on a 8800GTS 640MB OC2 when we knew the 8800GT was coming with a huge discount.
Big wow, I guess the only thing you have to say is get an 8800 and you now know what you’re talking about when it comes to gaming. What a Leet Looser.
I agree with Knarps. Even Bioshock is way better than Crysis. Crysis is Far Cry with better graphics, only.
Knarps and dmf: yeah but the multiplayer is what makes it a lot better. Try it.
To the people and writer of this article:
Half the problem with all of you is that YOU, yourself, buy into all the hype.. Hell, you create 9/10ths of it yourselves!!! LOL @ all of you!! Not to mention, that most people who own “gaming” machines, build the machine according to what people THOUGHT would run this game good.. or what you were TOLD would run this game well… FOOLS!! I have been a computer technician (professionally) for 10 years now, and I have seen hardware come and go and people buy it, just because a game or someone tells you it will run this or that..
The problem is, you create your own hype.. if you would have just done some “homework” on the game engine, what it needed in hardware to run it, and studied on how to make your windows based operating system run WELL and stay VIRUS free, then you, LIKE me, would be sitting here, running Crysis at VERY playable framerates (30-60 through the entire game) and also QUITE happy with all the work CryTek has done for us..
Shame on you all for even thinking about blaming them… without them, you’d still be in the dark ages… where you most likely, deserve to be…
Build a real machine tailored to the software you want to run, learn how to run the software correctly, get a job to afford it all, and for the love of god, QUIT COMPLAINING SO DAMN MUCH!!! —You keep the hype machine running
You need to relax Mr. Computer Technician. Not all of us can be as perfect as you. Some of us have to rely on what we read to get a better idea of what is worth buying or what you need to run a certain game well.
And by the way…… If you’re so damm perfect and have all the answers on what runs this game well, what are you doing reading this article in the first place?
This is odd, my machine is much weaker and I get better FPS.
P4 2.8, GF8880 640, 2GB RAM.
1280 x 1024 medium 40~50 FPS.
1280 x 1024 high 25~40 FPS.
coolman that’s impossible!!!
As a matter of fact, it is.
I really do not understand what you do to your computers that reduces the FPS by so much.
I could not play a game with less then 30 FPS, it’s not fun, it’s choppy.
Any how, I keep my computer clean, firewall, cleaners, antivirus from time to time, anti-spyware, etc’.
less than*
Interessting article, but what are u complaining about? every now and then a superb game comes out with requirements, that blow most excisting hardware… this is how advancement in computer graphics work. first the industry needs a good gameing excuse for people to buy the latest hardware. once the new hardware is considered to be standard, more games will come out that will use the new technology.
if we were like: oh no this is just another conspiracy, letz never buy new hardware again, then games would still be text adventures…
Puny Humans…
What the game CAN look like with Ultra option enabled (not currently enabled by Crytek as technology can’t run it at a acceptable FPS) :
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/7880/68658468kl9.jpg
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3258/53318809zh1.jpg
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3222/15mx6.jpg
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/4435/theditor200711090009475oo8.jpg
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/6864/theditor200711090015579lf5.jpg
Use theses in the game console :
con_restricted=0
e_detail_materials_view_dist_xy 4096
e_vegetation_sprites_distance_ratio 2
e_view_dist_ratio_vegetation 50
e_lod_ratio 8
e_max_entity_lights 20
r_EnvTexUpdateInterval 0.025
r_beams 1
r_beamsDistfactor 0.01
r_beamsmaxslices 300
e_vegetation_bending 1
r_HDRlevel 1.25
r_useedgeAA 2
r_ssao_quality 4
r_ssao_amount 2
r_ssao_radius 15
r_TerrainAO_FadeDist 0
r_SSAO_darkening 0.15
r_eyeadaptationfactor 0.25
To make your game look like this :
http://img115.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crysis41pp6.jpg
Not recommended with DX9 instead of DX10, as it’s react weirdly.
MUAHAHAHA
There are allso lots of “hacks” (console variables) for crysis.. by tweaking them you can get more FPS in crysis without loosing much of the eye-candy.
This is how my autoexec.cfg looks in C:\Program Files\ElectronicArts\Crytek\Crysis\Game\Config
http://pastebin.com/f54e223d6
if you set r_displayinfo = 1 youll get info about how the game performs.
sys_budget_sysmem = 2048 (set the value to your ram size)
Other Configs:
Cuban’s Custom Crysis Configs v 1.2 http://www.fileplanet.com/182659/download/Cuban’s-Custom-Crysis-Configs-v-1.2
Cuban’s Custom Crysis Configs v 1.0
http://www.fileplanet.com/181952/180000/fileinfo/Cubans-Custom-Crysis-Configs
damn.. the first link is broken. :\
http://www.fileplanet.com/182659/180000/fileinfo/Cubans-Custom-Crysis-Configs-v-1.2
Just wanted to point out that I have a Acer 5920G (t5250 1.5GHZ C2DUO, 2gb ram…8600M GT.. and 163.44 drivers)
……..and Crysis runs great on Med-High settings @ 1024×768…
….dont know whatcha’llre doing worng out there but maybe its just tweaking that you need to do- or might be just a wrong combination of hardware…remember that its almost impossible to test the thousands of different combinations or hardware/software/heat/weather types of various variables…this all being aside the fact I think Crysis is overrated…cant wait till me COD4 download finishes.
game sux anyways.Only grafix are great.
Gameplay is so bad.You need to empty an entire clip just to kill human enemies.
This is worse when aiming down the sight from a distance.
They dont seem to die.Even when u shoot ten bullets they just dance about and fire back.SUX!!!
thats maybe because you can’t shoot ?
LOL. I have a e6600 (2.4ghz) overclocked on liquid cooling to 3.4ghz and an 8800GTS overclocked to GTX clocks. Crysis played fine at 1680×1050 with everything on high, but it upset me i couldnt play on the highest setting. Just got a new 680i mobo with some crucial pc8500 ram and another 8800GTS to run in SLI and with new mobo should get 3.6ghz to 4ghz out my e6600. So I just dumped over 600 dollars to play a game that already looked and played fine, but hey im a ghetto blaster and I can do things like that! Tell your moms there pc you are using sucks and u want a better one for xmas, suckers!
but hey im a ghetto blaster WTF?
The games ok. COD4 and Timeshift FTW
To all 32-bit OS users:
The absolute maximum amount of memory your software can handle is 4 gb. The practical amount you can handle is a bit less. XP 64, Vista 64, in their various forms, can handle various amounts of memory greater than 4 gb. What does this mean in terms of resource-intense games? When the game’s install folder is ridiculously large, i.e. 8+ gb, the engine, textures, and whatnot are going to be eating up a ridiculous amount of memory while you are playing. If you want to run these games at ridiculous settings but respectable rates, a 64-bit operating system and an elite squadron of cpu’s is a must, not to mention the memory. It’s not a ruse to boost sales of new hardware and software; the requirements of these games are just that serious.
hhahahahahaha I’m glad i didn’t upgrade my PC
i played the game with 40+ FPS and my rig is far form new
i have a P4 HT 3.0 GHz, 2GB ram the best geforce ever (thats what i think) the 7800GT from Gainward with only 256MB, with this beast of PC I’ve played all the best games since 2005
and its still going :p
ah i almost forgot UT3 is going even better 70+ FPS
i feel sorry for u guys hahahaha
oh one more thing stop using vista its crap for games
crisys is just a game that got publish at a time that software developers outshot the hardware developers - which hasn’t been the case for about a year and a half when hardware reigned and could run everything on a little above midrange hardware - now there’s a big leap forward in software development with everybody trying to get on the DX10 bandwagon so you just have to wait for the hardware guys to catchup…..