Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Crysis performance issues.

LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
My specs:

Windows Vista 32 bit
AMD Phenom 9500 Quad-core 2.2 Ghz
3 GB DDR2 RAM
Geforce 8800GT
500W power supply

So I was under the impression that Crysis should run pretty damn good on this system, right?

Yet I get a horrible framerate.

I have settings on high, AA and Vsync off, and resolution at 1680x1050. I'm running in DX9 as well.

I get 20fps at the very most. Usually closer to between 10-15...and quite often it'll even dip below 10.

I even tried lowering the resolution, as much as I can't stand how it looks, to no result. Even on some of the lowest possible resolutions, framerate did not improve.

I'm pretty ticked here, as the PC cost me close to $2000 and I was expecting far better.

LockedOnTarget on
iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
«1

Posts

  • ben0207ben0207 Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    As I understand the only people who don't have performance issues with crysis are time travellers with the foresight to bring their computer back in time with them.

  • SerpentSerpent Sometimes Vancouver, BC, sometimes Brisbane, QLDRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    ben0207 wrote: »
    As I understand the only people who don't have performance issues with crysis are time travellers with the foresight to bring their computer back in time with them.

    I too have heard this.

    it looks to me like your vid card is the problem. you only have like, the SECOND BEST video card out there. You need two or three of the BEST video card out there to run crysis well.

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    The problem is it won't even run OKAY. Like I know I'm not going to be able to crank everythigng to very high on DX10, but with my specs running on high in DX9 I should be getting closer to 20-25 fps average at least, shouldn't I?

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Would it make a big difference if i took the 8800 GT 512MB card back and got a 8800 GTS 640MB card instead? Or only minimal improvement?

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    The problem is it won't even run OKAY. Like I know I'm not going to be able to crank everythigng to very high on DX10, but with my specs running on high in DX9 I should be getting closer to 20-25 fps average at least, shouldn't I?

    Yeah, you probably should be getting better performance, it's probably the AA, which absolutely kills the framerate because there's so much geometry. Also, the GTS 640 is worse than your card.

    camo_sig2.png
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    AA has been off since the beginning. So has Vsync.

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Would it make a big difference if i took the 8800 GT 512MB card back and got a 8800 GTS 640MB card instead? Or only minimal improvement?
    The 8800GTS 640mb card is worse than the 8800GT 512.

    It's possible that the high resolution is simply a huge performance hit. I don't think your CPU helps much there--that's all your graphics card and its RAM (I could be wrong about resolution being GPU-intensive, though). Try playing at High (in DX10! Why wouldn't you if you could?) at 1280x1024. If you get a solid framerate there, then the problem is your high resolution. I have similar specs (except a dual-core instead of quad-core CPU) and Crysis runs well on DX10 on High at 1280x1024.

    If your framerate isn't always good (say, above 35) at 1280x1024, then something is wrong with your computer. Go through the usual driver updates, make sure the nvidia control panel isn't set to force certain graphics settings, and then see what happens.

    Also, look for known issues between Crysis and quad-core systems. Before games supported dual-cores, dual-core CPUs would often have trouble with most games. You had to set the CPU affinity to one core for the game to work properly.

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I'm running in DX9 because DX10 decreases performance with a minimal graphics boost. It's not worth it, IMO.

    I tried some lower resolutions: no difference. Like, I even lowered it to some of the absolute lowest ones and gained maybe a frame or two at most.

    Made sure things like Vsync and AA are off in the NVIDIA control panel.

    I'll double-check the drivers, but I'm pretty sure they're fine.

    I'm really starting to hate PC gaming. Every time I try to get into it, I always end up in a situation like this.

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • The Black HunterThe Black Hunter Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Lower the resolution to 1000x700 (that is it roughly)

    It is what I play in on a very similar, but 4 gb dualcore computer and it runs smooth as throwing a korean into a house

    sig-1.jpg
  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User
    edited February 2008
    For me, DX9 and DX10 perform similarly. I have to run the game at slightly lower settings (medium and high in DX10, high in DX9) to get a good framerate, but the game looks much better. DX10 doesn't just offer graphics boost, it also offers destructible environments (and buildings?)!

    But I guess it's a moot point right now. Do other games run well?

  • sYnistersYnister Registered User
    edited February 2008
    fogeyman wrote: »
    DX10 doesn't just offer graphics boost, it also offers destructible environments (and buildings?)!


    ehh? are we playing the same game here? i have played it on Dx9 and DX10 and i can tell you that the environment and buildings are just as destructible in both versions.

    to the OP, i dont wanna sound like a vista hater but when i had vista home installed, crysis ran very much like yours did, on dx9 and 10. when i switched back to xp and dx9, it ran like butter, 1280x1024 @ 30fps constant with an almost similar setup. take that as you will

  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User
    edited February 2008
    sYnister wrote: »
    fogeyman wrote: »
    DX10 doesn't just offer graphics boost, it also offers destructible environments (and buildings?)!


    ehh? are we playing the same game here? i have played it on Dx9 and DX10 and i can tell you that the environment and buildings are just as destructible in both versions.

    to the OP, i dont wanna sound like a vista hater but when i had vista home installed, crysis ran very much like yours did, on dx9 and 10. when i switched back to xp and dx9, it ran like butter, 1280x1024 @ 30fps constant with an almost similar setup. take that as you will
    I guess I'm wrong about destructible stuff.

    In any case, an optimized Vista machine runs games as well as XP--reviews from professional sites agree. Just make sure you read recent reviews.

    Here's another possibility (an annoying feature of Vista, at first): how new is this machine? The first few days of using Vista tend to be slower than the rest because it's busy indexing your machine and analyzing your computer usage. Indexing isn't supposed to run while you're using the computer, but in my experience it does. Once Vista's done doing its thing, then your machine should run much faster.

    If you've had your machine running Vista for a while, then I guess this possibility isn't likely.

  • imperial6imperial6 Registered User
    edited February 2008
    If you have two slots for your graphics card make sure it's in the right one, sometimes one will be pci-e x16 and the other pci-e x4, or something. You should be able to run at that res on medium settings fine, but I wouldn't expect high.

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    What would I need to go high then? I though my specs were pretty high-end.

    And I have older PCs with XP, but they only came with recovery disks and not actual XP disks. Would one of these let me install XP on this PC?

    Lowering the resolution does NOTHING. Or if it does something, it is so small an impact it is not noticable. Even going to the very lowest rez on the list(with the added bonus of making the game look like it's running on a PS2) did basically nothing.

    I tried medium settings on DX10, and it did get a bit better. Still doesn't go above 20, stays closer to 15, but at least it doesn't drop below 10 all the time. It's a little more playable now, but precise aiming in the heat of combat is hard. I'll see what it's like in DX9.

    And yeah, seriously, DX10 is pretty worthless, at least in this game. The differences are so small. Unless you've got a super-PC that can go to very high settings, there's no real reason to not just play on DX9 if you need a performance boost.

    If I have to play on medium, I guess I will. But I tried researching as much as i can around different sites/boards, and as far as I can tell I should be getting a good 20-30 fps at least on high settings with my setup. Yet I have trouble hitting 20 even on medium settings.

    The only other new game I've tried so far is The Witcher. It has some issues, but looking around it sounds like they're the game's issues and nothing to do with my system, in general it runs fine, maxed out. I plan on getting CoD4 and World in Conflict soon, so I'll see how those go.

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Yeah, I don't know what to say, You really should be getting a lot better performance than you are.

    camo_sig2.png
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Well, a combination of medium and high settings on DX9 has given me around 20fps, dropping a lot when there's lots of effects going on but otherwise playable.

    Really dissapointed here, and I'm really starting to regret trying PC gaming again. D:

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • FrazFraz Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Well, a combination of medium and high settings on DX9 has given me around 20fps, dropping a lot when there's lots of effects going on but otherwise playable.

    Really dissapointed here, and I'm really starting to regret trying PC gaming again. D:

    Don't let one game fuck with you like that! PC gaming is great.


    Crysis Tweak Guide
    8800 GT and Crysis Benchmarks

    Looks like you should be getting at least 30 fps.

    What happens when you lower the resolution?

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Absolutely nothing happens, pretty much. Like even dropping it all the way to 900x400(or 400x900, whatever it is) gets me maybe an extra frame or two at most.

    Even going from high to medium settings only made a few frames difference.

    This is one of the games I got a gaming PC for in the first place. I don't just have a couple grand lying around, this was a big investment that's really not paying off. How am I supposed to play games that come out this year if I struggle with ones that came out last year? *sigh*

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • FrazFraz Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Sounds like it could be a driver issue.

    I have a 1900 XT, a card from last gen, and I can run Crysis just fine when I drop the resolution a little bit.

    Have you tried reinstalling your graphics card driver? Is Crysis patched? Is Vista patched?

  • FrazFraz Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I haven't used vista, but the process should be the same.

    1. Uninstall the graphics card drivers.
    2. Restart
    3. Download and install the latest drivers from Nvidia's website.

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Yes to all three questions.

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • FrazFraz Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Do you have similar problems with other games?

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I tried re-installing the driver one more time and it seemed to help a bit. At least i seem to hit 20fps+ more often. Still, I haven't got close to 30.

    Only other new game I've tried is The Witcher. It runs pretty good, but I get framerate drops there, too.

    I have yet to try CoD4 and World in Conflict, but I plan on getting them both

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Well someone told me to run 3dmark, so I did. I have no idea what is good and bad, but here's my results:

    Main test results
    3DMark Score 9019 3DMarks
    SM 2.0 Score 3375
    SM 3.0 Score 4210
    CPU Score 2827

    Test Results

    Graphics Tests
    1 - Return to Proxycon 29.08 FPS
    2 - Firefly Forest 27.17 FPS
    CPU Tests
    CPU1 - Red Valley 0.95 FPS
    CPU2 - Red Valley 1.34 FPS
    HDR Tests
    1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 46.61 FPS
    2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 37.58 FPS

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    You could try installing SP1 to vista. It fixed a lot of my game related issues.

  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User
    edited February 2008
    I don't know what good and bad scores are, but you can try searching for a similar build's scores and compare. There should be scores somewhere out there for every medium to high-end computer build imaginable.

    EDIT:
    Rook wrote: »
    You could try installing SP1 to vista. It fixed a lot of my game related issues.
    Most of the updates are available individually--SP1 is just a compilation. Also, the versions available to the public right now are pre-release (RC?) versions, so you'll have to uninstall the build you have and reinstall the release version whenever it's launched.

  • LittleBootsLittleBoots Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I have no experiencing with crysis but I just thought I'd add that performance issues can also be caused by the motherboard and its always a good idea to list it with your system specs, alot of people don't do this and they're leaving out a big portion of the picture.

    BUT what I really posted to say is that if you've tried changing vid drivers you might want to search around to see if anyone is experiencing similar issues with the same mobo as you. The reason I say this is because I've had similar problems with vista (and source games, not crysis) and its because of a incompatability with my mobo.


    Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
  • KwornKworn Registered User
    edited February 2008
    This is why the PC Gaming Market is so fucking annoying.

    It's so expensive and time consuming to get a game running 90% of what YOU would like it to.

  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    fogeyman wrote: »
    I don't know what good and bad scores are, but you can try searching for a similar build's scores and compare. There should be scores somewhere out there for every medium to high-end computer build imaginable.

    EDIT:
    Rook wrote: »
    You could try installing SP1 to vista. It fixed a lot of my game related issues.
    Most of the updates are available individually--SP1 is just a compilation. Also, the versions available to the public right now are pre-release (RC?) versions, so you'll have to uninstall the build you have and reinstall the release version whenever it's launched.

    Most but not all, and rather annoyingly you have to hunt out many of the hot fixes individually as they don't automatically download.

  • victor_c26victor_c26 Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Well, a combination of medium and high settings on DX9 has given me around 20fps, dropping a lot when there's lots of effects going on but otherwise playable.

    Really dissapointed here, and I'm really starting to regret trying PC gaming again. D:

    You picked the worst game to start PC gaming with again.

    Crytek are the masochists of hardware requirements. Lloyd Case from Extremetech has gotten similar frame rates (12-25), and he's running SLi'd 8800 Ultras on a Core 2 Extreme Processor.

    You could have started with any other game other than crysis to start with. Crytek have literally said this game was meant for future computers.

    steam_sig.png
    MK: DS Code: 528.341.706.032 - Import from Play-Asia PSN: VictorX10
  • ShujaaShujaa Registered User
    edited February 2008
    The only thing I can think of that's causing this is if the CPU is seriously bottlenecking your GPU.

    I have a Core 2 e6750 running at 3.4GHz and an 8800GT running at 720mhz and I get 20-30 fps with everything on DX9 High, and the Natural Mod installed with depth of field and motion blur enabled. It dips to maybe 10-15 on the really jaw-dropping sequences later on.

    But frankly anyone who thinks an 8800GT can't handle this game is wrong. The engine is simply built to last a few years, and it certainly will. I don't know why people expect to have everything on the absolute maximum setting with current hardware. There are ultra-high quality mods out there that you can try, which activate all these detail levels. But you need the serious SLI hardware to use them without getting a slideshow.

    Balefuego wrote: »
    When I play FPS games I just assume my dude is inside a tiny plane and he's sticking his arm out the window with a gun.
  • bentbent Registered User
    edited February 2008
    The other day I went into PC World and their highest specced machine was running Crysis (phenom, 512 8800GT, 2 gigs of RAM) and the framerate was absolutely horrible. And then on the other hand my friends dad recently bought the exact same card and a 2.6 duo core (intel, not sure what model) and the game runs very nicely on it.

    However he's running the game at 1024*768, and the store machine was running at 1440 on a 19" monitor. I'd suggest turning your resolution down and see how it copes then. I've recently bought a 22" monitor and as pretty as it is, running games at 1680*1050 is a bitch on my poor little 8500gt.

    sig1.png
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    As I've already said, turning the resolution down doesn't help at all. Even all the way down to 900x400 I get the same awful framerates.

    So how does upgrading the processor work, anyway? Like say if I wanted to upgrade to a faster quad-core(like I think one of the Phenom's is 2.8 or 3 ghz) would it make a big differerce? Would it be reletively easy to do? Would it cost me an arm and a leg?

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I really don't think going to a faster processor is going to help. If you're seriously struggling to get it playable 900x400 then there's something else wrong with it. I did have the same problem on my machine in that the first half of the game was running at 20-30fps on ultrahigh at 720p fine. And then as soon as the ice turned up it just plummeted into single figure framerates regardless of settings (e.g. 640x480 everything on low).

    Really the only sensible options are: wait for SP1, try XP or come back later when there's a new patch,. Or move on. Spending money on it is throwing good after bad.

  • capable heartcapable heart Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    The game gets more demanding of your video card as it goes along. The later levels are like half the framerate of the first 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the game. I remember reviewers (HardOCP, etc) needing to set things to low with a couple things at medium to keep above 25fps near the end of the game, regardless of the video card.

    Seriously, unless you have 3 8800 Ultras in SLI with an 8-core mobo, don't expect to be even playable above medium in the last half of the game.

  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User
    edited February 2008
    The game gets more demanding of your video card as it goes along. The later levels are like half the framerate of the first 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the game. I remember reviewers (HardOCP, etc) needing to set things to low with a couple things at medium to keep above 25fps near the end of the game, regardless of the video card.

    Seriously, unless you have 3 8800 Ultras in SLI with an 8-core mobo, don't expect to be even playable above medium in the last half of the game.
    I didn't find my performance to drop off significantly towards the end (my setup: 8800gt, x2 4200+, 2GB RAM). It all depends on your resolution, obviously; I'm running Crysis at 1280x1024 and while my frame rate did occasionally start chugging towards the end, the game was still playable. This was in DX10, by the way.

    At high resolutions, you'll need an insane setup to play above medium/high, but if you play at "average" resolutions then you don't need bleeding-edge hardware, just high-end.

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    And yet I get the same results on even the lowest resolutions.

    And I'm not on the later levels either.

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    victor_c26 wrote: »
    You could have started with any other game other than crysis to start with. Crytek have literally said this game was meant for future computers.
    Seriously, unless you have 3 8800 Ultras in SLI with an 8-core mobo, don't expect to be even playable above medium in the last half of the game.
    Sorry, these are false claims.

    I'm using a Core2Duo E6750 processor with a PCI-e 8800GTS 512MB card, 2GB dual-channel RAM, and I can knock out 30-40 FPS on High 1280x1024 at nearly all parts of the game, excluding the terribly optimized cutscenes. It's not a machine breaker like so many people believe.

    OP, your issues might stem from the quad core usage as opposed to dual core. I didn't see you respond to this quote:
    fogeyman wrote: »
    Also, look for known issues between Crysis and quad-core systems. Before games supported dual-cores, dual-core CPUs would often have trouble with most games. You had to set the CPU affinity to one core for the game to work properly.

    so that may be a way to improve performance. I don't actually know how to perform such a tweak myself, but it sounds like fogey might. I've heard of issues with quad cores in some games, that could be it. The fact that you can't get a good FPS with DX9 and a much lower resolution means it's probably not your graphics card that's to blame. And see if you can't borrow someone else's current-gen games to see how your computer handles them; that will let you know if you need to be googling Crysis-specific troubleshooting or hardware-specific troubleshooting.

    It's an easy game to hate
  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User
    edited February 2008
    ...
    fogeyman wrote: »
    Also, look for known issues between Crysis and quad-core systems. Before games supported dual-cores, dual-core CPUs would often have trouble with most games. You had to set the CPU affinity to one core for the game to work properly.

    so that may be a way to improve performance. I don't actually know how to perform such a tweak myself, but it sounds like fogey might. I've heard of issues with quad cores in some games, that could be it. The fact that you can't get a good FPS with DX9 and a much lower resolution means it's probably not your graphics card that's to blame. And see if you can't borrow someone else's current-gen games to see how your computer handles them; that will let you know if you need to be googling Crysis-specific troubleshooting or hardware-specific troubleshooting.
    All you do is after you launch the game, launch the task manager. Right click on Crysis, click go to Process, then right click the highlighted process and choose Set Affinity, and then choose the number of cores. Instead of 4, you can just choose 2 (or 1, but 2 should be fine) and see what happens.

  • DietarySupplementDietarySupplement Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I just want to throw in my experiences here.

    I JUST built a new PC three weeks ago. I am using an E6850, which is stock at 3Ghz. I have only 2GB of RAM. However, I bit the bullet and purchased 2 8800GT Cards, running in SLi. I use Windows XP, though, so... not sure how much variance this will cause.

    I have the game set to 1680x1050, high spec, no AA. Things were "okay" until the 2nd level load, when you have to fight the tanks. I get around 25 - 50 frames depending on where I am. What I've noticed is that even if I drop the resolution to 1280x1024* my frame rates don't see drastic improvement. What's funny is that game is certainly playable. I only notice drastic choppy-choppy action when I zoom in with a scope.

    One thing worth nothing, though, is that in comparing similar systems (via Tom's of Anand) is that processor speeds with the Extreme Editions do seem to provide better rates. I think once you get into a certain class of video card (in this case, the 8800GT) I think the engine looks for different resources to rape.

    Also, how are you measuring the framerates? Fraps and I computer had a horrible breakup, so I use the internal monitoring system, which you can get to by opening the console (` key) and typing in r_DisplayInfo = 1

    The bottom line is, I certainly expected far better frame rates with an SLi setup than what I'm seeing. Add to that, is that sometimes my SLi setup decides to just start flickering (seldomly, but nonetheless) but that's another story for another thread.

    *And n'thly, why the fuck can't I select a 1440-based resolution? Why are there 4 default monitor resolutions, but only 1 widescreen?

    Skull2185 wrote: »
    Basically, (PlayStation) Home is Second Life Ultra Light? Most of the cool stuff, none of the creepy blimp on blimp fucking.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.