Crysis is VERY well optimized (with proof)

[Madpistol]

For all of you that are moaning and complaining about how ****ty the optimization of this game is, I'm going to burst your bubble right now...

This game is VERY well optimized, and I have conclusive evidence to support this. You know what the minimum requirements are for this game?

CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista), Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista), AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or better
RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT, ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or better
VRAM: 256MB of Graphics Memory


That's verbatim from the website. Look at the specs in my 2nd rig. With the exception of 2GB of ram, it's the minimum requirement listed. Well, I've taken the liberty of installing Crysis on this system.

Bear in mind that my system tanks (in a bad way) on Team Fortress 2 with anything more than 16 players on a server. If you get about 10 of those guys on screen at one time, my framerate dips down to about 10 fps. It's virtually unplayable in those cases... so here's the kicker.

Crysis runs VERY VERY well on my system. Surprisingly, not only is it playable at lowest settings, but it runs around 30-45fps constantly in single player. I've actually been able to set several of the settings up to medium, and it STILL runs very well (between 20-30 fps). Bear in mind, with this computer I do not see any of the cool effects that highend DX9/DX10 rigs see, but it is totally and completely playable. I would venture to say that a 6600 GT would work as well. It would be slow, but it would probably work.

I'm sorry guys, but the boys at Crytek put a lot of work into making this game so it will run on hardware that is several years old. The game scales amazingly well on a P4. I'm actaully blown away that this game runs better than Counter Strike: Source on this PC.

In a few years, this game is going to be rock solid, but right now, it scales well. Just live with it please.

EDIT: I'm going to go run a FRAPS benchmark of the first 5 minutes of the game, and I'll post back the results.

EDIT2: Also, note that this is with the game installed on an external Western Digital USB HDD. Talk about stretching the limits...

[nekrosoft13]

I'm sorry guys, but the boys at Crytek put a lot of work into making this game so it will run on hardware that is several years old.


agreed, but small minor correction ;)

[Madpistol]

agreed, but small minor correction ;)

Fixed.

Much appreciated. ;)

[CaptNKILL]

Wow, thats a bit unexpected.

Its very taxing at higher graphics settings. I didn't think it'd scale very well.

[Madpistol]

And the tests are in!

Benchmarks done with FRAPS. Each are 5 minutes long.

Specs are as seen in my signature (2nd rig). Crysis is installed on a Western Digital MyBook 160GB External HDD (USB 2.0)

Settings:

800x600
No AA or AF
Object Detail: Medium
Everything else: Low

The first one is from the beginning of the first cutscene to part of the way through the first level. Here are results:

Frame___Time (ms)_____Min_____Max_______Avg
10470___300000_______0_______104_______34.9

The minimum frame rate is 0 due to loading between scenes. This is coming from an external HDD on a dated system afterall... The frame rate is pretty nice, but it's bloated due to low poly counts and such. The next one is a much better indicator of real world performance.


Second one is done from the end of the first benchmark to the end of the 2nd cutscene (where the guy is found dead and mutilated in the forrest)

results:

Frames___Time (ms)____Min _____Max_______Avg
6491_____300000______10______47________21.637

So here, we see a much more dramatic dip in FPS. I think this occured during the 2nd cutscene. However, the frame rate is indeed very playable. Considering how Crysis is completely playable as low as 15fps, I would deem that this is totally acceptable for gameplay... remember, the object detail is set at medium, not low. This did decrease performance a bit, but it was worth it due to the extra detail that is shown on screen.

There you have it. Crysis is very playable even on the minimum requirement PC. I have no doubt in my mind that this game scales very well. The only problem is when people bitch and complain about how their highend system tanks when you turn up the detail to its maximum settings. This game was designed with the future in mind, but not at the expense of the present.

Thanks for reading! :D

[$n][pErMan]

Well done... glad someone took the time to run it on an old system. Maybe all these XP crybabies or those with dated systems will shutup now :)

[nekrosoft13]

[pErMan']Well done... glad someone took the time to run it on an old system. Maybe all these XP crybabies or those with dated systems will shutup now :)

that will never happen

[Madpistol]

that will never happen

Maybe not, but now they have evidence that this game is very well optimized for older systems. Perhaps this will shed some light on the situation and give the guys at Crytek some credit for all the hard work they put into this game. ;)

For my next task. I'm going to pick up the game right after the 2nd cutscene and run a 20 minute benchmark. I want to make sure that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that this game is very scalable and playable even on the minimum requirement system.

[XxDeadlyxX]

Well if you ask me Crysis only looks really good on High... Low/Medium look like a totally different game, so these results don't suprise me.

[Madpistol]

Last test.

Like I said above, I've run the game for about 20 minutes (I thought it ran too long, so I cut it off early I believe) from the 2nd cutscene to about 1/2 way through the first level. The settings are the same as in my previous post

results:

Frames___Time (ms)_____Min_____Max_______Avg
27869____1197868______0_______58________23.266

The 0 fps is due to a massive dump that my External HDD took. It was in hibernate mode, so when the game needed something new, it took the HDD about 4 seconds to come out of hibernation, and then it took another 3-4 seconds to load what was needed to continue playing. We're talking about real-world performance, so that incident is indeed a factor in this score. Of course, if this game were installed on an internal HDD (like it should be), then that would have never happened.

That being said, the average speaks for itself; the game was very playable at all times (except for that 8 second pause). The AI was very intelligent. It's also a massive resouce hog. After I eliminated about 3 Korean soldiers in an area, the fps picked up from about 30 to around 40-50. This was just from killing the AI. Another thing I noticed is that even though the game is at lowest detail, the gauges on the vehicles still work!!! :D All in all, I had a lot of fun running around the first level again. It was enjoyable. However, after seeing Crysis in all it's glory on my Main Rig, I'm ready to get back to that system...

For all the haters out there that say Crysis runs like poo, you have no excuses now. This game runs great under the correct circumstances. If it runs like crap and your system is higher spec than the minimum requirements, turn the details down ya dope. :p

[Madpistol]

Well if you ask me Crysis only looks really good on High... Low/Medium look like a totally different game, so these results don't suprise me.

This thread is not about how pretty the game looks... It's about playability. While I agree that the game looks like dog poo on the lowest settings, it is totally playable. That's all I'm trying to prove here. ;)

[$n][pErMan]

Any game looks like poo on low settings... no surprise really :)

[asd]

Failed to let top systems to play this game smoothly on HIGH or Ultra High is called "VERY bad bad optimized", we only got 8800gtx and ultra right now, if this game can't run nice on this 2 top video card, then it is a BS, bad coding indeed, but they will give out some patches for sure. ( if they have the skills to code it better lol! )

[Madpistol]

Failed to let top systems to play this game smoothly on HIGH or Ultra High is called "VERY bad bad optimized", we only got 8800gtx and ultra right now, if this game can't run nice on this 2 top video card, then it is a BS, bad coding indeed, but they will give out some patches for sure. ( if they have the skills to code it better lol! )

Here's the thing. There are game developers out there that design games so that bleeding edge hardware will cringe if they run it at highest settings. Futuremark and their "3DMARK" software is a perfect example of this. Crytek is another great example. They design their programs to be futureproof. They don't want to create a product that is wasted away after 6 months on the market; they want to be selling copies of the game 2 years down the road. This is how you do it. Up until recently, FarCry was a benchmark in computer performance for new video cards because the game was so taxing. When FarCry first came out, there was not a single video card on the market that would run the game at maximum settings with a decent framerate. Fast forward to today, and we now have hardware capable of running it flawlessly. However, this is 4 years later. Far Cry has had a very long life for a game, and I give props to Crytek for making the game last as a benchmark for this long.

Crysis will be exactly the same way FarCry was. It's an incredible piece of work, and just because your 8800 GTX can't run the game flawlessly at high settings doesn't mean that the game is coded horribly. What Crytek did was "futureproof" their game. For that, they've done an extrodinary job of creating a revolutionary game.

[asd]

Here's the thing. There are game developers out there that design games so that bleeding edge hardware will cringe if they run it at highest settings. Futuremark and their "3DMARK" software is a perfect example of this. Crytek is another great example. They design their programs to be futureproof. They don't want to create a product that is wasted away after 6 months on the market; they want to be selling copies of the game 2 years down the road. This is how you do it. Up until recently, FarCry was a benchmark in computer performance for new video cards because the game was so taxing. When FarCry first came out, there was not a single video card on the market that would run the game at maximum settings with a decent framerate. Fast forward to today, and we now have hardware capable of running it flawlessly. However, this is 4 years later. Far Cry has had a very long life for a game, and I give props to Crytek for making the game last as a benchmark for this long.

Crysis will be exactly the same way FarCry was. It's an incredible piece of work, and just because your 8800 GTX can't run the game flawlessly at high settings doesn't mean that the game is coded horribly. What Crytek did was "futureproof" their game. For that, they've done an extrodinary job of creating a revolutionary game.

lol, are you sure? I still remember that my 6800Ultra can run farcry everything on Highest and it still smooth like butter, only the last stage could cause me lag, but I can play the entire game with good framerate, and now, there is not a single game can cause me "LAG" even the nice looking game like CoD4 ( with lots of smoke and gun firing ) and STALKER ( with the float32 video upgrade patch ), and that monster TES4:oblivion can't "LAG" me also, I still can't totally agree with you, since even on the HIGH setting it still not playable, maybe it is true that the HIGHEST setting is not for the current gen hardware, but my 8800gtx can't run everything on the HIGH setting? This is not acceptable lol! (nana2)

[Redeemed]

lol, are you sure? I still remember that my 6800Ultra can run farcry everything on Highest and it still smooth like butter, only the last stage could cause me lag, but I can play the entire game with good framerate, and now, there is not a single game can cause me "LAG" even the nice looking game like CoD4 ( with lots of smoke and gun firing ) and STALKER ( with the float32 video upgrade patch ), and that monster TES4:oblivion can't "LAG" me also, I still can't totally agree with you, since even on the HIGH setting it still not playable, maybe it is true that the HIGHEST setting is not for the current gen hardware, but my 8800gtx can't run everything on the HIGH setting? This is not acceptable lol! (nana2)

It is quite evident you have not followed the developement of Crysis very well. Yerli himself has stated quite some time ago that running Crysis at the absolute highest settings will be virtually impossible on current generation hardware. They did this intentionally... why? Because that is what *PC Gaming* is all about.

You cited FarCry and your 6800 Ultra- you fail to realise one flaw about that analogy:

The top cards at the time of FarCry's release were the Radeon 9800XT and GeForceFX 5950U. NEITHER of those cards could run FarCry at high resolutions, with high AA and AF, and all in-game options maxed. Only the *next generation cards*- meaning the GF 6800s and Radeon x800s could. And even then, the 6800Ultra *could not* run FarCry with the sparse "beta" 1.4 patch that enables HDR- the game tanked. I know this cause my 6800GT @ just beyond Ultra clocks would tank. My setup at that time was an A64 3700, 1GB DDR400- more than sufficient for FarCry. Maybe dual 6800Ultras would have a chance, but not a single one.

My point: your 6800Ultra was considered "next-generation" at the time of FarCry's release- so to compare it to Crysis which is targeted at "next-generation" products while complaining about its performance on current-gen products is rather ignorant, no offense.

Do some research on the developement of Crysis and you'll see that you're grossly over-estimating the power of the 8800s. Crysis is coded nearly as efficiently as it can be when referring to it highest visual settings- no computer has the horsepower to handle that is the issue. This *is* how PC-Gaming *should* be. If you don't like it, stick to consoles.

Furthermore, I question your validity in regards to your knowledge about custom-building PCs. To this day no computer can run Oblivion at high resolutions, with high AA, and all in-game options maxed and never dip to lower FPSs. This very thing was discussed for near 50 pages in another thread here not too long ago. Yes, even the highest and most powerful of rigs are still brought to their knees by Oblivion at literaly the highest settings possible for that game. And it isn't all due to bad coding, a lot of it is that the computing power just is not there yet. Again, this is a good thing- it is what drives innovation in the PC market. If you really don't like it and can't stand it- then stick to console. And that's not intended as an insult, that is an honest suggestion as my attempt to guide you towards a hobby that will cause you the least frustration and lack of enjoyment. ;)

[Madpistol]

lol, are you sure? I still remember that my 6800Ultra can run farcry everything on Highest and it still smooth like butter, only the last stage could cause me lag, but I can play the entire game with good framerate, and now, there is not a single game can cause me "LAG" even the nice looking game like CoD4 ( with lots of smoke and gun firing ) and STALKER ( with the float32 video upgrade patch ), and that monster TES4:oblivion can't "LAG" me also, I still can't totally agree with you, since even on the HIGH setting it still not playable, maybe it is true that the HIGHEST setting is not for the current gen hardware, but my 8800gtx can't run everything on the HIGH setting? This is not acceptable lol! (nana2)

First, Far Cry was released before the 6800 Ultra. It was released under the Radeon 9800's and the Geforce 5900's. Under those cards, the game COULD NOT run acceptably at highest settings. There was just no way it was possible. When the 6800's hit the market, everything changed because the 6800's were supposedly twice as fast as any card before it. That would be more than enough to blow through Far Cry like it was nothing. The FX 5900 choked on the game. I remember that my FX 5900 128mb card had so much glitching that it was nearly unplayable. I had to switch back down to my Ti 4200 in order to get the game to run well and look good.

On the same note, if Crysis is causing you "LAG" then you need examine the drivers and installed software on your system as well as your settings. My current setup is not causing any sort of lag. However, the frame rate does tend to tank in high activity areas. That's how the game was designed: to tank on heaviest of hardware.

My 8800 GTX can run EVERYTHING on the High setting. I've tweaked the CVars too, and it's still completely playable... No lag. The framerate drops into the mid teens sometimes, but even then, the game is totally responsive. There is no sort of control lag whatsoever. We'll have to wait a while before the game is playable at maxed out settings at a completely acceptable FPS.

[Redeemed]

First, Far Cry was released before the 6800 Ultra. It was released under the 9700 Pro and the Geforce 5900's. Under those cards, the game COULD NOT run acceptably at highest settings. There was just no way it was possible. When the 6800's hit the market, everything changed because the 6800's were supposedly twice as fast as any card before it. That would be more than enough to blow through Far Cry like it was nothing. The FX 5900 choked on the game. I remember that my FX 5900 128mb card had so much glitching that it was nearly unplayable. I had to switch back down to my Ti 4200 in order to get the game to run well and look good.

On the same note, if Crysis is causing you "LAG" then you need examine the drivers and installed software on your system. My current setup on my top end rig is not causing any sort of lag. The only way I get any hint of lag is if I push the settings to "Uber high" with the Cvar tweaks. Bear in mind that I run this game on XP, not Vista. There is a way to force DX9 under vista as well though. Vista is not as good for gaming as XP is currently, but that should change soon, especially with the next generation of cards due on the market.

My 8800 GTX can run EVERYTHING on the High setting. I've tweaked the CVars too, and it's still completely playable... No lag. The framerate drops into the mid teens sometimes, but even then, the game is totally responsive. There is no sort of control lag whatsoever.

Beat you to it. :p

And, FYI, the vast majority of games play as well under Vista as they do XP. Crysis seems to be the main exception to that. Just thought I'd let you know. :D

[conroejoe]

umm since when was 23 FPS even considered playable? WTF is the matter with you guys?!!?! :wtf:

[Madpistol]

It is quite evident you have not followed the developement of Crysis very well. Yerli himself has stated quite some time ago that running Crysis at the absolute highest settings will be virtually impossible on current generation hardware. They did this intentionally... why? Because that is what *PC Gaming* is all about.

You cited FarCry and your 6800 Ultra- you fail to realise one flaw about that analogy:

The top cards at the time of FarCry's release were the Radeon 9800XT and GeForceFX 5950U. NEITHER of those cards could run FarCry at high resolutions, with high AA and AF, and all in-game options maxed. Only the *next generation cards*- meaning the GF 6800s and Radeon x800s could. And even then, the 6800Ultra *could not* run FarCry with the sparse "beta" 1.4 patch that enables HDR- the game tanked. I know this cause my 6800GT @ just beyond Ultra clocks. My setup at that time was an A64 3700, 1GB DDR400- more than sufficient for FarCry. Maybe dual 6800Ultras would have a chance, but not a single one.

My point: your 6800Ultra was considered "next-generation" at the time of FarCry's release- so to compare it to Crysis which is targeted at "next-generation" products while complaining about its performance on current-gen products is rather ignorant, no offense.

Do some research on the developement of Crysis and you'll see that you're grossly over-estimating the power of the 8800s. Crysis is coded nearly as efficiently as it can be when referring to it highest visual settings- no computer has the horsepower to handle that is the issue. This *is* how PC-Gaming *should* be. If you don't like it, stick to consoles.

Furthermore, I question your validity in regards to your knowledge about custom-building PCs. To this day no computer can run Oblivion at high resolutions, with high AA, and all in-game options maxed and never dip to lower FPSs. This very thing was discussed for near 50 pages in another thread here not too long ago. Yes, even the highest and most powerful of rigs are still brought to their knees by Oblivion at literaly the highest settings possible for that game. And it is all due to bad coding, a lot of it is that the computing power just is not there yet. Again, this is a good thing- it is what drive innovation in the PC market. If you really don't like it and can't stand it- then stick to console. And that's not intended as an insult, that is an honest suggestion as my attempt to guide you towards a hobby that will cause you the least frustration and lack of enjoyment. ;)

Very well said. :clap2:

[Madpistol]

umm since when was 23 FPS even considered playable? WTF is the matter with you guys?!!?! :wtf:

Crysis shows no signs of "control lag" until you get under 10 fps. As long as the game is completely controllable in real time, the game is playable. Crysis is one of the very few games that I know of that doesn't require 30 fps to "run well".

[Madpistol]

Beat you to it. :p

And, FYI, the vast majority of games play as well under Vista as they do XP. Crysis seems to be the main exception to that. Just thought I'd let you know. :D

Thanks for the heads up. I fixed a few things in my "history" post. Apparently, I got some of my facts mixed up. :p

[Redeemed]

umm since when was 23 FPS even considered playable? WTF is the matter with you guys?!!?! :wtf:

Since the intro of properly utilised motion blur. ;) It can quite successfully mask what would normally be considered unplayable framerates.

[SH0DAN]

It is quite evident you have not followed the developement of Crysis very well. Yerli himself has stated quite some time ago that running Crysis at the absolute highest settings will be virtually impossible on current generation hardware. They did this intentionally... why? Because that is what *PC Gaming* is all about.

You cited FarCry and your 6800 Ultra- you fail to realise one flaw about that analogy:

The top cards at the time of FarCry's release were the Radeon 9800XT and GeForceFX 5950U. NEITHER of those cards could run FarCry at high resolutions, with high AA and AF, and all in-game options maxed. Only the *next generation cards*- meaning the GF 6800s and Radeon x800s could. And even then, the 6800Ultra *could not* run FarCry with the sparse "beta" 1.4 patch that enables HDR- the game tanked. I know this cause my 6800GT @ just beyond Ultra clocks would tank. My setup at that time was an A64 3700, 1GB DDR400- more than sufficient for FarCry. Maybe dual 6800Ultras would have a chance, but not a single one.

My point: your 6800Ultra was considered "next-generation" at the time of FarCry's release- so to compare it to Crysis which is targeted at "next-generation" products while complaining about its performance on current-gen products is rather ignorant, no offense.

Do some research on the developement of Crysis and you'll see that you're grossly over-estimating the power of the 8800s. Crysis is coded nearly as efficiently as it can be when referring to it highest visual settings- no computer has the horsepower to handle that is the issue. This *is* how PC-Gaming *should* be. If you don't like it, stick to consoles.

Furthermore, I question your validity in regards to your knowledge about custom-building PCs. To this day no computer can run Oblivion at high resolutions, with high AA, and all in-game options maxed and never dip to lower FPSs. This very thing was discussed for near 50 pages in another thread here not too long ago. Yes, even the highest and most powerful of rigs are still brought to their knees by Oblivion at literaly the highest settings possible for that game. And it isn't all due to bad coding, a lot of it is that the computing power just is not there yet. Again, this is a good thing- it is what drives innovation in the PC market. If you really don't like it and can't stand it- then stick to console. And that's not intended as an insult, that is an honest suggestion as my attempt to guide you towards a hobby that will cause you the least frustration and lack of enjoyment. ;)


Your right about that,he said more then a few times that "Crysis will bring even the 8800GTX to its knees" Why this is so shocking to people is whats suprising to me.The game is very well optimized,but like other AAA titles,it will take a gen or two of hardware releases before we catch up to it. :)

[SH0DAN]

My only problem with Crysis preformance is in a few very specific areas of the Core level.It tanks (sungle digits) but only for seconds at a time,and not often.It might just be my system,I am not sure.