CRYSIS - what do I need? 15 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Nittany Tiger Advanced Member

Feel me. Do I feel pretty?

289,182 XP

15th September 2004

0 Uploads

27,142 Posts

0 Threads

#11 12 years ago

gatzke;4495613I've been watching youtube videos of crysis gameplay and noticed that even with some nice systems, the gameplay was a little choppy (like mine). I'd like to know what I should add/replace to my system to be able to play it with absolutely no choppyness or lag whatsoever. My current setup is:

ASUS M2N-32 SLI Deluxe (wireless edition) Motherboard AMD Athlon 64 4600 Dual Core 4 gigs RAM Geforce 7600GT 256 video Samsung 1920 x 1200 60 Hz Monitor DirectX 10 Vista 64-bit (I threw in the monitor because I'd also like to play at high resolution.) So what do I need? How many fps is considered smooth? Cheers.

You're going to need more than that. It was laggy during fighting in my case as well. It's partially the game's fault as well (inefficient CryEngine :mad: ).

This is what I have:

AMD Phenom 9600 (64-bit quad-core CPU) ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe GeForce 8800 GTS (PCI-E 2.0 I think). 4 GB DDR-2 1066 RAM (G. Skill Dual-Channel) Vista Home Premium 64 bit System Builder's Edition (Haven't found anything special about it).

What you'll need is 2 video card that run at the same time and act as one (Called SLI for GeForce and Cross Fire X for ATI). You'll also need a motherboard that supports this. Quad-Core CPU and 8-GB DDR-2 high performance RAM or more will help as well.

I should warn you that the game is glitched, and no amount of computing power will fix that. I encountered a glitch at the end that prevented me from beating the game and I had to step back a couple of saves (twice) to finally get a bug-free instance of the end. There aren't too many glitches, though.

Also, doesn't this belong in the Crysis forums? Since n0e came by, you don't have to move it.

EDIT: Based on what n0e is saying, I would recommend using the UE3 engine (Gears of War, Unreal Tournament 3) as a benchmark. It looks just as good as CryEngine (though it has a different look to it altogether), but it is way more efficient than CryEngine and bug free. I run UT3 on my comp on the highest settings (I think) and it never lags.

If you can run a game a bit beyond the graphics and performance of the UE3 engine, then you can run pretty much anything out there.




Serio Advanced Member

The Dane

149,972 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,513 Posts

38 Threads

#12 12 years ago

n0e;4498889don't rate a system by crysis requirements. The game itself is realistic, sure, but just as realistic as games such as call of duty 4 and others that are far better made.

The games engine wasn't optimized enough for the amount of physics it generated on screen at any given time. (this is called craptastic coding) So, unless you're on some stupid level of power in a system, you won't be able to run it properly max settings. (when it comes to hardcore gaming, is there any other level?)

To me, asking about a system that can run crysis well is like asking what would run a decent game with a huge memory leak and saying just add more memory when the real solution is either use a different game as a benchmark or wait for the developers to actually release a patch for the game that fixes its bugs that cause it to have such steep requirements. (The fix now, patch later concept that publishers have used for over a decade now to maximize profits to get you to buy the game even though it was never finished)

Sure, I'm probably just bitter from seeing how things are run in this industry by people that have no place being in this industry and are trying tactics that don't mesh with the way the gaming community is. But using just one game as a benchmark to build a system, especially a crappy game like crysis (it's true, sorry.), isn't something that I would suggest.

Think of the games you play the most, the top 3-4 of varying types of playstyles. (an rts game, an rpg, etc..) and look up reviews on other websites to find out how well the games ran under the hardware you're looking at. Sure, it sounds like a lot of work, but in the end you get the best bang for your buck and come out more satisfied knowing you've invested a great deal into the system and know pretty much how every component works and well it will work in varying games.[/quote] Call of Duty 4 was badly optimized too. A 8600GT, which is above the recommended, ran at Medium at 15 FPS on average. Haven't tried with my 8800GT though. I haven't had any problems with the physics yet. I have the Physics on high, and no matter how many things i blow to pieces, it doesn't affect my FPS. But that maybe because i have a QuadCore . [quote=Killer Kyle;4498925]You're going to need more than that. It was laggy during fighting in my case as well. It's partially the game's fault as well (inefficient CryEngine :mad: ).

This is what I have:

AMD Phenom 9600 (64-bit quad-core CPU) ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe GeForce 8800 GTS (PCI-E 2.0 I think). 4 GB DDR-2 1066 RAM (G. Skill Dual-Channel) Vista Home Premium 64 bit System Builder's Edition (Haven't found anything special about it).

What you'll need is 2 video card that run at the same time and act as one (Called SLI for GeForce and Cross Fire X for ATI). You'll also need a motherboard that supports this. Quad-Core CPU and 8-GB DDR-2 high performance RAM or more will help as well.

I should warn you that the game is glitched, and no amount of computing power will fix that. I encountered a glitch at the end that prevented me from beating the game and I had to step back a couple of saves (twice) to finally get a bug-free instance of the end. There aren't too many glitches, though.

Also, doesn't this belong in the Crysis forums? Since n0e came by, you don't have to move it.

EDIT: Based on what n0e is saying, I would recommend using the UE3 engine (Gears of War, Unreal Tournament 3) as a benchmark. It looks just as good as CryEngine (though it has a different look to it altogether), but it is way more efficient than CryEngine and bug free. I run UT3 on my comp on the highest settings (I think) and it never lags.

If you can run a game a bit beyond the graphics and performance of the UE3 engine, then you can run pretty much anything out there.

The UE3 Engine isn't exactly the best benchmarking either. It's actually TOO optimized. I ran it on Max on my old 8600GT, with 50 FPS. No decrease. Ever. I recommend a game like World In Conflict. It has a HUGE amount of particles, but also alot of tiny details, making it perfect for benchmarking.

Also, the reason the UE3 Engine runs so well is because it uses a different way of texturing and shading. Where the CryEngine2 uses a rough and right-on Shading and HDR, UE3 uses a more soft, faked shading that makes it look great, and run great.




Flodgy

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

27th May 2004

0 Uploads

6,034 Posts

0 Threads

#13 12 years ago
Serio;4498974Call of Duty 4 was badly optimized too. A 8600GT, which is above the recommended, ran at Medium at 15 FPS on average. Haven't tried with my 8800GT though. I haven't had any problems with the physics yet. I have the Physics on high, and no matter how many things i blow to pieces, it doesn't affect my FPS. But that maybe because i have a QuadCore .

Woah now. Call of Duty 4's propriety engine is one of the most scaled and perfectly optimised I have seen to date. I wouldn't call it a benchmarking tool, as it has no intention nor ability of being so, but the work Infinity Ward put into that engine resounds through and through. I'd call it a hardware problem on your end with the card.

Currently playing with 1GB of crappy DDR RAM, a 7900 GS 256mb GeForce card, and with a crappy AMD single core CPU, at 1280x1024, with most settings on high and dynamic lighting/shadowing enabled. I get a constant 30 fps normally unless in insanely busy areas.




Serio Advanced Member

The Dane

149,972 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,513 Posts

38 Threads

#14 12 years ago

Odd. I'll need to play it through with my new card though. I expected a small difference between the 8600GT and 8800GT. Just a quick comparison;

8600GT CoD 4 - Medium/High, 25-30 FPS Average Crysis - Low/Medium, 15 FPS Average Oblivion - Medium/High, 25 FPS Average 8800GT CoD 4 - No clue yet Crysis - High/Very High(Config: Ultra High), 25-30 FPS Average Oblivion - Medium/High, 25 FPS Average

Only oblivion haven't improved. But the 8600GT was crap.




Nittany Tiger Advanced Member

Feel me. Do I feel pretty?

289,182 XP

15th September 2004

0 Uploads

27,142 Posts

0 Threads

#15 12 years ago
Serio;4498974 The UE3 Engine isn't exactly the best benchmarking either. It's actually TOO optimized. I ran it on Max on my old 8600GT, with 50 FPS. No decrease. Ever.

Really. Didn't know that. Epic did a good job with their engine, then.

I recommend a game like World In Conflict. It has a HUGE amount of particles, but also alot of tiny details, making it perfect for benchmarking.

Yeah. I've played that some, and it runs fine on my comp. It isn't just a top-down RTS, so it would be graphic-intensive.




Jeff Advanced Member

I am a mean boss ⬆️⬆️⬇️⬇️⬅️➡️⬅️➡️??

184,643 XP

6th April 2000

0 Uploads

14,592 Posts

1,534 Threads

#16 12 years ago
Serio;4498974Call of Duty 4 was badly optimized too. A 8600GT, which is above the recommended, ran at Medium at 15 FPS on average. Haven't tried with my 8800GT though. I haven't had any problems with the physics yet. I have the Physics on high, and no matter how many things i blow to pieces, it doesn't affect my FPS. But that maybe because i have a QuadCore .

Blame NVIDIA for the bad performance of the 8600GT, not CoD4's engine. They intentionally made it a slow performing card to make people buy the more expensive one for the better results.

The UE3 Engine isn't exactly the best benchmarking either. It's actually TOO optimized. I ran it on Max on my old 8600GT, with 50 FPS. No decrease. Ever. I recommend a game like World In Conflict. It has a HUGE amount of particles, but also alot of tiny details, making it perfect for benchmarking.

Also, the reason the UE3 Engine runs so well is because it uses a different way of texturing and shading. Where the CryEngine2 uses a rough and right-on Shading and HDR, UE3 uses a more soft, faked shading that makes it look great, and run great.

The point I was trying to make is that you shouldn't base a badly optimized game like crysis as a benchmark because it will make you spend more money then you need to. Why buy an expensive $2500-3000 system when you then realize you'll be upgrading just as much as if you'd have spent less? Trust me, I know. Technology moves to fast to want to benchmark on a crappy game. Use a variety of popular games that will all run well on a system, not just a crappy one.

I do agree about world in conflict though, it's a nice game that can either run great or not at all depending on your hardware. Not simply not run well regardless of your hardware like crysis.


Product Manager | GameFront.com




  • 1
  • 2