Wonder how well you PC will run Crysis

[Muppet]

http://www.crysis-online.com/?id=172

Crysis: 2048x1536 at 60 FPS

In case you're worried about how well Crysis will perform on your new rig, it looks like it runs pretty smoothly at 2048x1536 assuming you have a Core 2 Duo and (single) 8800GTX running on Vista.

In an earlier article, it was reported that Crysis was running at 60+ fps for most of the time at CES 2007. In this new article, Jack Mamais tells techspot that the game is running at a resolution of 2048x1536. Judging by the HUD size in the images below, this seems like it's true.Combine that information with the fact that most of the code is still unoptimized, and you can easily understand how well Crysis will run. Take note that Crysis was running in DX10 at CES 2007, so could Microsoft's claim of 6 to 8 time the performance be true? If you read some of the earlier news items or read the techspot link posted below, you'd also know that Crysis was running an unknown core 2 duo processor and a single 8800GTX.

This really is incredible news. This proves that any current DX10 rig will run Crysis perfectly smooth with all graphical settings max at a resolution of atleast 1600x1200. Like mentioned above, the size of the HUD in the images below tells us that the game was running at a fairly high resolution.

I'm predicting that a mid-range DX10 card (8600GT / X2600XT) will run Crysis in DX10 better than any current DX9 rig running Crysis in DX9.

[SH64]

Well all i care for now is Crysis under DX9.0 ... DX10/Vista is way off to me.
good news nevertheless! (if true)

EDIT : apparently that guy in the pic is using QuadSLI (7950GX2x2), or am i mistaken ?

[Muppet]

Well all i care for now is Crysis under DX9.0 ... DX10/Vista is way off to me.
good news nevertheless!

EDIT : apparently that guy in the pic is using QuadSLI (7950GX2x2), or am i mistaken ?
I'm not sure if that is supposed to be a video of it running at 2048 x 1536 beacause as you said it looks like Quad SLI and the Monitor looks like the 24in version.

[icecold1983]

that goes against everyone whos commented on what they saw of crysis at ces. no way does it run at 60 fps at that res on a 8800. no way no how.

[ALien8ed]

Personally i find that hard to believe.

Sounds like a shameless DX10 plug to me... :p

[agentkay]

It´s surely running at a higher resolution than 1280x1024 in those pictures. Now if the person who made the pictures says that it ran smooth (that alone can mean anything between 40-60fps), I have to say I´m very happy. Crysis is one game that I will spend a lot money on (if still necessary) to run it maxed out at my native resolution (1280x1024) with 16AF and 4AA, and if the performance report of the pre-alpha version is only half true, I´m not even slightly worried about performance on my current PC.

[Bman212121]

It´s surely running at a higher resolution than 1280x1024 in those pictures. Now if the person who made the pictures says that it ran smooth (that alone can mean anything between 40-60fps), I have to say I´m very happy. Crysis is one game that I will spend a lot money on (if still necessary) to run it maxed out at my native resolution (1280x1024) with 16AF and 4AA, and if the performance report of the pre-alpha version is only half true, I´m not even slightly worried about performance on my current PC.

Not at that res I sure wouldn't. As of right now I can run almost any game I want at 1920 x 1200 with 16 AA & AF, and still sit on the frame cap, or get very good fps, so even if crysis is a major hog, it should be easily playable at my res by backing down the extras.

[nutcrackr]

Almost sounds as though I don't have to spend as much as I thought.

Don't really need direct x 10 mode and would like 1280x1024 with some aa at med-high settings though.

[agentkay]

Not at that res I sure wouldn't. As of right now I can run almost any game I want at 1920 x 1200 with 16 AA & AF, and still sit on the frame cap, or get very good fps, so even if crysis is a major hog, it should be easily playable at my res by backing down the extras.

Well, I do plan a purchase of a 2nd screen here in my computer/office room (a 42" 1080P HDTV) and I´ll surely try Crysis on it as well. Depending on the performance and visuals, I might decide to upgrade the video card because the only settings I´d sacrifize are a little less AF/AA (8AF/2AA) but not really an actual ingame graphics setting. :)

[icecold1983]

Not at that res I sure wouldn't. As of right now I can run almost any game I want at 1920 x 1200 with 16 AA & AF, and still sit on the frame cap, or get very good fps, so even if crysis is a major hog, it should be easily playable at my res by backing down the extras.

theres a lot of games where that isnt true, unless good fps is in the 20s or u dont mind a very low minimum framerate

[slaWter]

Well, I do plan a purchase of a 2nd screen here in my computer/office room (a 42" 1080P HDTV) and I´ll surely try Crysis on it as well. D

Oh, this sounds good to me :)

[SemperFi]

Look at that first pic. Its a Video of crysis running in Media Player 11. You can see the menu options at the top and the progress bar at the bottom. The second pic looks like 1280 res at best to me.

[shungokusatsu]

Sounds too good to be true. If you watch all the trailers from CES, they all have very noticeable slowdowns. At times it's definitely hitting below 10fps.

I just watched the two new HD Gametrailers videos from CES. In both, the game entirely freezes for about 3-4 secs.

[BioHazZarD]

Haha yeah right.. i really doubt it was that high resolution and 60 stable fps.. like people said all the movies so far showed some extreme lag at some points.

[Redeemed]

Well, by the time Crysis is released I should have my QX6600, new mobo, and new ram. Heck, I might even have dual GTXs by that time. If not, these two GTSs will do great I'm sure. Honestly, I'd expect my 8800GTSs to do 1600x1200, 16xAA, 16xAF, with most (if not all) in game options maxed. I'll be quite bummed out if they don't manage playable frame rates at those settings.

And if they don't, then I'll just have to get dual 8800GTSs now wont I? :p :firedevil

[SH64]

Sounds too good to be true. If you watch all the trailers from CES, they all have very noticeable slowdowns. At times it's definitely hitting below 10fps.

I just watched the two new HD Gametrailers videos from CES. In both, the game entirely freezes for about 3-4 secs.
Yeah in most videos the gameplay was choppy & the framerate was noticably low-med numbers at best (i say in 20s).
in the couple last videos there were stuttering though i wasn't sure if its the video or the game itself. most likely its the game.

SemperFi : Good catch. i was wondering about the bars on top & buttom .. must be video then!

[icecold1983]

Well, by the time Crysis is released I should have my QX6600, new mobo, and new ram. Heck, I might even have dual GTXs by that time. If not, these two GTSs will do great I'm sure. Honestly, I'd expect my 8800GTSs to do 1600x1200, 16xAA, 16xAF, with most (if not all) in game options maxed. I'll be quite bummed out if they don't manage playable frame rates at those settings.

And if they don't, then I'll just have to get dual 8800GTSs now wont I? :p :firedevil

i think ur dreaming with the 16x aa

[CaptNKILL]

Interesting.

I doubt the game will run anywhere near that good at that resolution all the time, but it sounds possible to get around 60fps average in few places.

I'm really curious about the effect the motion blur will have on the smoothness of the game. I know they can't create a real film-like motionblur (its impossible without input lag) but it could possibly make the game appear a lot smoother, regardless of the framerate.

Anyway, its all speculation until we see it.

... as if I needed another reason to want a Core 2 Duo or Kentsfield. :p

[SlamDunk]

Crysis-Online has never been a reliable place for Crysis news (and even less now during CES) so... It's up to you if you want to believe all that is said on that site.

[|MaguS|]

Crysis-Online has never been a reliable place for Crysis news (and even less now during CES) so... It's up to you if you want to believe all that is said on that site.

So true... I mean they post articles from The Inquirer as a source... WTF

[stevemedes]

i'm sure as long as Crytek spends enough time optimizing the code it will run fine. If they rush it out the door, thats where problems could arise.

[SH64]

Interesting.
I'm really curious about the effect the motion blur will have on the smoothness of the game. I know they can't create a real film-like motionblur (its impossible without input lag) but it could possibly make the game appear a lot smoother, regardless of the framerate.

Already discussed (or being discussed) ;)
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33862326

[myshkinbob]

I'm not sure i'd call that a discussion in that thread, hehe. They seem to be saying that interlaced video fields and motion blur are the same thing?! bless. :)

The motion blur in crysis won't mask a low framerate in terms of responsiveness, but it will change the perceived smoothness of movement within the scene at low framerates. Whether that's moving the mouse (the entire perspective) or just a guy running across your view.

In short, it'll give the impression of a smoother framerate, without the same responsiveness improvement you get from a high fps.

I'd imagine it makes a huge difference to perceived fluidity of the game in the 35-to-50 fps range though (will appear more like a solid 'gaming' 60 fps to the eye). :)

I'd say it's a good thing, and it'll help immersion even when you've already got a great framerate. :)

[SH0DAN]

I think allot of people will be surprised at how well it runs on mid range(single 7800GT)to high end hardware(8800GTX).I am sure 1680x1050 with almost everything maxed in game as well as a little aniso,and maybe even 2xAA,will be smooth on my rig as it stands now under DX10.As I will be running under Vista my expectations are for a well optimized game.

[CaptNKILL]

I'm not sure i'd call that a discussion in that thread, hehe. They seem to be saying that interlaced video fields and motion blur are the same thing?! bless. :)

The motion blur in crysis won't mask a low framerate in terms of responsiveness, but it will change the perceived smoothness of movement within the scene at low framerates. Whether that's moving the mouse (the entire perspective) or just a guy running across your view.

In short, it'll give the impression of a smoother framerate, without the same responsiveness improvement you get from a high fps.

I'd imagine it makes a huge difference to perceived fluidity of the game in the 35-to-50 fps range though (will appear more like a solid 'gaming' 60 fps to the eye). :)

I'd say it's a good thing, and it'll help immersion even when you've already got a great framerate. :)
Yep, I agree completely.

I just hope the performance hit isnt very big. IMO, its extremely hard to justify getting lower framerates and less responsiveness for a blurring effect. If framerates are high enough, your eyes do the motion blurring. :p