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.
Posts
You're usually better off with one better graphics card than two, every-so-slightly worse graphics cards.
The worst example of this is when I play through the (spoilers)
That portion of the game is either very buggy or something is wrong with my machine, but occasionally I get major slowdown there and sometimes even odd hud effects (i.e. whenever your hud freaks out like in the skydive sequence) that won't stop after they're supposed to.
Has anyone else experienced this? I run the game on all high settings with no aa/vsync with decent performance in the 20-30 fps range for the most part, until the memory leaks catch up and I have to quit and reload...
Epen.: Intel Core 2 Duo 6850; 4GB RAM; Geforce 8800 GTX, 780i nforce motherboard
Well, but the demo seems to have certain problems with the suit mode toggle key. I tried the default configuration and also tried to use one of my mouse buttons instead (in order to get it to work). The suit mode would only change after pressing the appropriate button multiple times, or simply at random. The weapon modifier menu button does not work, or sometimes works after switching the weapon. This pretty much kills the game for me - not being able to switch suit modes on the fly.
Probably the game would rape my FPS later on. (snow level, alien space ship). I wonder if a SLI-Setup would improve things there.
Right click on the game's .exe, go to properties, and then the compatibility tab. Make sure Disable visual themes and Disable desktop composition are checked and hit apply. This will free up resources and give you a nice boost in frames. This is a good thing to remember for any game, actually. I have Vista's Aero theme enabled, for instance, and it uses a lot of resources. Disable visual themes means when I start up the program, the background will revert to Basic while I play.
If you want to play the game without a hitch, you're going to have to sacrifice some graphical settings. Most of the high settings are out of the question. You'll have to set some, if not most of them, to medium. Christ, the sad thing is that didn't even work for me, and I have 4GB of memory, a dual core processor, and a 8800GTX. Even with a bunch of settings on medium, the game still runs like complete ass when certain things happen on the screen or during certain levels.
It looks like we'll have to wait for the new line of graphics cards before we can play the game in all its glory at an acceptable framerate.
I guess I'll try the setting afinity thing...I'm just about to give up hope here.
other games are a mixed bag so far. CoD4 and C&C3 run great on highest settings no problem. the Witcher starts to chug any time I'm in a town. Sins of a Solar Empire drops to a lower-but-still-playable fps when fleets start getting medium-sized. Supreme Commander and World in Conflict are most likely the next games I try.
AMD FX60 Proc (Dual 2.4Ghz Processors)
2GB RAM
8800GTS
XP Pro SP2
And I get about 30-40 fps at a constant rate using the following settings:
Everything set to High
1280x1024 Rez
4x AA
V-Sync enabled
So it's definitely odd that your setup would not yield more than 20fps. Have you made sure your processor is up to date? I know I had to download the Dual Core Processor patch from AMDs website when I first installed mine. When I did, I saw a massive improvement.
Go to your device manager, and go down to processors. If you click the (+) and under the drop down menu it has some generic names for a processor instead of the actual name of the processor (mine says: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 FX-60 Dual Core Processor, and lists it twice... Since you have a quad core, yours should list 4 times) then you need the update, which you can find on AMDs website.
Still, I am utterly dissapointed. I've tried every suggestion I've gotten and I can not even get close to the performance I'm told I should be getting.
On the same settings I get around 30 - 40, except in villages.
Better than what I get... and I got dual 8800's. The only differences here is that you've got an extra gig of ram, and a quad core.
I just want to make sure: Are you running at a resolution close to 1920*1200 or 1280*960?
I just want to eliminate any possible wildcards. People with a resolution close to 1280*960 get around 45 fps. It's people that are running at 1920*1200 that are getting 15-30 fps.
MK: DS Code: 528.341.706.032 - Import from Play-Asia PSN: VictorX10
There's a long story behind it, but since the last time I posted in this thread, I've upgraded to a 4GB kit of ram (2 sticks) and Vista Home Premium x64. I was very disappointed with my Crysis experience, even in 1280x1024 with default "high" settings I was pulling 20 - 30 frames in heated firefights (and slightly better when traversing the jungles). Reading various benchmarks I was stunned I wasn't seeing better numbers. I've since learned three things:
In reading reviews of the 9800GX2 (or whatever) and the 9600GT SLI'ed (remember, I have two 8800GT's SLI'ed) it seemed that I should be getting at least that performance at 1680x1050. Not so much, as I've found. "Similar" systems were pulling close to 40 frames at the same settings.
So I continued to dig, and I've learned a very interesting concept: while it's known that you can't enable DirectX 10 on XP... you *can* force DirectX 9 on Vista with Crysis by simply adding "-dx9" to your launcher shortcut. Since that time, at my same settings above I noticed about a 10 frame gain at a point I had saved at during a very heated fight in the level "rescue." I can't link to the guide that taught me this trick, but do a quick google search for "Crysis Tweak Guide" for all the details. Furthermore, the differences between "very high" in DX9 and DX10 are virtually imperceptable (as screen shots testify to on the guide). So if you're running Vista, I'd highly reccomend using the -dx9 switch for a performance boost.
Still, I thought I should be pulling better results. So that leads me to point #2: Crysis isn't a dog on just your graphics settings, it will dog your CPU. At a recent pre/review over at AnandTech, they took the 9800GX2 and SLi'ed it in a "quad" setting. What they found was, even with all that incredible GPU horsepower, performance wasn't THAT improved. Rather, they were "running up against a wall" and the only way to get better performance was to overclock their CPU. The results were pretty astounded, and I can't begin to think I'm smart enough to do it justice, so just go read it.
The point is, *my* performance may be linked to the fact that I'm running "only" a dual-core processor at 3Ghz. My 4GB of RAM and dual video cards may not amount to a hill of beans.
In reading these reviews, (third point coming up), I'm left with one conclusion: if you're reading hardware reviews on sites these days, you're pretty much setting yourself up for disappointment. At some point in the very recent past, more and more hardware sites are using "test systems" made up of things like this (from the same article quoted above):
That's right, kids: we're supposed to gleen similar results in our builds, because even if the hardware was available, even the slightly-richer members of the forums would wince at purchasing TWO Core 2 Extreme processors, let alone the dual GX2's or the board itself (purported to retail for $350+ when it debuts). Not only will I ever get anywhere near that performance, but they're getting those frames in DX10 (which, to my point above, I am not using).
Tom's makes a better effort at it, using an X-48 based motherboard with my exact processor and slightly faster RAM, and they run in XP (DX9) and they're getting pretty decent results.
On, and one final thing: I've noticed that some reviews don't even use the built-in benchmark utility, and some reviews use quote "A 20-second run through the forest, avoiding enemies" as the basis for their test. Right, because Crysis is a jungle safari simulator...
I just feel like my performance could be a little better too. For the money I spent, I feel like I *should* be playing in "high."
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
For me, solid=high. AFAIK, the eye can't tell the difference between 35 fps and 50 or 60 or anything higher, so I guess my fps is always 35 or higher.
I really do think something is wrong on your end though, I get the same frames you are desrcibing on an e6550, 2 gigs of ram and a 1950pro (worse than yours).
I never asked for this!
I'd ask you to post what you have, then, settings-wise. I can't get anywhere near that and I have double the ram, same OS, a newer CPU, and double the graphcis cards and I know for a fact I don't get that. Hell, I got to the "assault stage" and, as an example, when you meet the officer on the ridge and you zoom in to see the AAA guns in the harbor, my performance dips to 10fps. Now, running UP to the overlook I get about 30fps (with everything on "high" @ 1280x1024).
1280x1024, no AA
Texture quality: medium
Objects: medium
Shadows: medium
Physics: high
Shaders: high
Volumetric Effects: high
Game Effects: high
Postprocessing: medium
Particles: medium
Water: high
Sound: high
Motion Blur: high
Does anyone know what the slider under "Motion Blur" is for?
Yeah, they added that in 1.1. The detail drop-down is the level of detail present when motion blur kicks on, and the slider is the amount dictates how "often" (or the threshold) to perform motion blur, so a full bar means that you get blur even on a slight wave of the mouse, and an empty bar disables motion blur entirely.