Retail Crysis plays better than DEMO....

[FastRedPonyCar]

I installed vista 64 to run retail version on, since i heard it would perform better. Plus i bought more ram to make use of it.

Retail under x64 w. 4gb ram is running slower than the demo did on x32 with 2gb. The load times are better and so is the IQ. I put that down to the driver. The cruddy texture / water reflection bugs running in 32bit with 169.04 didn't occur in 64bit, which probably account for a lot of the performance drop. Since installing 169.09 the performance has gotten closer, although i noticed 32bit was still a slightly faster in the time demo, but not as much as it was before.

In game it doesn't seem to matter if i run under 32 or 64 bit (or even dx9 or dx10). With detail set to high the performance is pretty much uniformly bad. :(

Did you totally ignore all of the online reviews and tests and users here saying that DX10 performance was substantially worse? Along with other countless threads here with simple config file tweaks that offer up all of the fancy DX10 effects using a safe, stable, smoothly operating XP operating system??

To this day, the only game that has offered a shred of evidence to go from XP to vista is lost planet and possiby call of juarez but I wouldn't consider either of those games monumental or worthy of an entire OS upgrade.

That money you spent on vista could have been put towards probably a pair of 8800GT's or an ultra.

[conroejoe]

Did you totally ignore all of the online reviews and tests and users here saying that DX10 performance was substantially worse? Along with other countless threads here with simple config file tweaks that offer up all of the fancy DX10 effects using a safe, stable, smoothly operating XP operating system??

To this day, the only game that has offered a shred of evidence to go from XP to vista is lost planet and possiby call of juarez but I wouldn't consider either of those games monumental or worthy of an entire OS upgrade.

That money you spent on vista could have been put towards probably a pair of 8800GT's or an ultra.


QFT and a big hahahahah :p

[Logical]

Did you totally ignore all of the online reviews and tests and users here saying that DX10 performance was substantially worse? Along with other countless threads here with simple config file tweaks that offer up all of the fancy DX10 effects using a safe, stable, smoothly operating XP operating system??

To this day, the only game that has offered a shred of evidence to go from XP to vista is lost planet and possiby call of juarez but I wouldn't consider either of those games monumental or worthy of an entire OS upgrade.

That money you spent on vista could have been put towards probably a pair of 8800GT's or an ultra.

So why admit it here and not on the other thread ?

[mumstheword]

That money you spent on vista could have been put towards probably a pair of 8800GT's or an ultra.

I wonder how many people here actually purchased Vista (lee63)

[agentkay]

I wonder how many people here actually purchased Vista (lee63)

I did, and it was only $70 (OEM). Sure I use XP most of the time (70% or so) but Vista was worth the money I paid for it compared to how often I use it.

[six_storm]

I wonder how many people here actually purchased Vista (lee63)

My copy was free from the university.

[methimpikehoses]

I bought mine OEM for a new build... I'm not really impressed with DX10 yet, but I like Vista pretty well. The drivers are getting much better.

[Lfctony]

I'm wondering too !!

www.legionhardware.com reported massive performance boosts with Vista x64, but unfortunately didn't clear up the 2GB-4GB RAM confusion. btw did you remember to choose ' Single Display Performance mode' and Force on Vertical sync...... thats supposed to improve performance dramatically under Vista x64.
Would someone running Vista x64 with 4GB RAM and using a 8800 GTX or Ultra please enlighten us ?

Legion Hardware are DUMB! They ran the 32bit exe vs the 64bit exe in Vista 64. How stupid is that? Check their system specs... Of course it runs better in x64, the 32bit version was not in its native environment. For me, the 32bit exe runs like crap in Vista 64... Right now it's like this: XP32 > Vista 32 > Vista 64. I've tested and retested, XP is slightly faster, Vista 64 and 32 are roughly equal, with Vista 32 performing maybe 0.5-1 fps better. XP32 is maybe 2-3 frames up from there.

Tony.

[JasonPC]

You Vista haters are ridiculous. Vista is not going anywhere face it. It will eventually replace XP like XP replaced its predacessors. Yes it has a bigger resource footprint. Yes it's demanding. But you act like hardware is not going to get better. Hardware will get better and all the concerns about Vista's resource usage will be null and void eventually. Aside from that Vista has good features and I much prefer it over XP on daily usage. But I have XP dual booted since I know it is less of a resource hog and may provide a better environment to play certain games.

[FastRedPonyCar]

You Vista haters are ridiculous. Vista is not going anywhere face it. It will eventually replace XP like XP replaced its predacessors. Yes it has a bigger resource footprint. Yes it's demanding. But you act like hardware is not going to get better. Hardware will get better and all the concerns about Vista's resource usage will be null and void eventually. Aside from that Vista has good features and I much prefer it over XP on daily usage. But I have XP dual booted since I know it is less of a resource hog and may provide a better environment to play certain games.

I think that the vista hater's points are not that there's something wrong with the OS, it's just that it seems that for some reason or the other DX10 isn't doing it's job of rendering things more effeciently. That's one problem.

Second problem is that hardware companies can't seem to figure out how to make decent drivers.

So it's not totally MS's fault. It's just that others are making what is actually a decent product look worse than it actually is.

I've got vista on my laptop and I actually like it. It looks great and after figuring out where they put all the stuff used to actually do real admin tasks on the machine, it wasn't too bad.

[ahheadlock]

Did you totally ignore all of the online reviews and tests and users here saying that DX10 performance was substantially worse? Along with other countless threads here with simple config file tweaks that offer up all of the fancy DX10 effects using a safe, stable, smoothly operating XP operating system??

To this day, the only game that has offered a shred of evidence to go from XP to vista is lost planet and possiby call of juarez but I wouldn't consider either of those games monumental or worthy of an entire OS upgrade.

That money you spent on vista could have been put towards probably a pair of 8800GT's or an ultra.

most of those benchmarks are done in the demo using the older drivers.

What I'm saying, and this may not go for everyone, is that for ME - it doesn't matter what i do, i cant get it running smoothly. I got to the level after the tanks and thought 'stuff this' and tried DX10 32 and 64 bit exe's, and DX9 and it didn't make a damn bit of difference. Frame rate was still in the low 20's at high settings. That is using 169.09 with what i have in my sig.

ps. I'd happily upgrade my video card if there were something worth upgrading too. I'm not willing to pay 1k for an ultra when the new card is apparently so close. SLI GTS's seem like a waste of time.

[conroejoe]

Hi all
Will someone running Windows Vista 64 bit please confirm that running Crysis with 4GB RAM gives a better frame rate than running it with 2GB RAM ?


It does not.

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html

[six_storm]

I'll say that the multiplayer framerates are a whole lot better than it was in the BETA, for me at least.

[Logical]

The retail definately plays better for me than the demo.

I had everything set to high except post processing which was set to medium on the demo with 4x AA on DX10. If i set post processing to high then it would make the framerates so low that it would be unplayable with severe mouse lag.

On the retail i can use exact same settings but with post processing set to high, although i get framerate drops there is absolutley no mouse lag.... I do set post processing to medium though as the extra fps certainly make it more enjoyable at little effect on visuals.

I have said that i wouldn't buy Crysis yet but i gave in last night and glad i did, awesome game with awesome visuals....Can't wait to see what its going to look like in 12 months time when maybe we have hardware capable of running this at full whack settings at full framerates. ;)

[crainger]

The retail definately plays better for me than the demo.

I had everything set to high except post processing which was set to medium on the demo with 4x AA on DX10. If i set post processing to high then it would make the framerates so low that it would be unplayable with severe mouse lag.

On the retail i can use exact same settings but with post processing set to high, although i get framerate drops there is absolutley no mouse lag.... I do set post processing to medium though as the extra fps certainly make it more enjoyable at little effect on visuals.

I have said that i wouldn't buy Crysis yet but i gave in last night and glad i did, awesome game with awesome visuals....Can't wait to see what its going to look like in 12 months time when maybe we have hardware capable of running this at full whack settings at full framerates. ;)

What is Crysis gonna do if us haters end up liking the game? :)

[Lfctony]

Just got my CE edition in a lovely tin case. :) Too bad I have to go to work now, don't have time to even install the game.