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.

2»

Posts

  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User
    edited February 2008
    SLI is very iffy--with some games you'll get a huge performance boost, and with others you'll get almost nil. Crysis may be in the latter group (though I'm not sure).

    You're usually better off with one better graphics card than two, every-so-slightly worse graphics cards.

  • DoomulonDoomulon Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Crysis is a strange game for my machine. I have run into numerous bugs and seeming memory leaks with it.

    The worst example of this is when I play through the (spoilers)
    Spoiler:

    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...

  • DratatooDratatoo Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    The Demo of Crysis runs fine for me (I know, that is the "it works for me" response everybody is fond of in a I have a problem with XY thread ;) )

    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.

    gargoylesbanner4re.gif
  • DashuiDashui Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I have an 8800GTX and I have performance issues with Crysis, too. The ice levels in the later half of the game utterly destroyed my framerate, making the game unplayable. However, I was able to get the ice levels to play smoothly, and this should improve your framerates elsewhere, as well. It's not the miracle cure, however, and you'll still have performance issues throughout the game, but it should help.

    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.

    Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis

    steam_sig.png
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I'm just using the console to see the fps, yeah. I get below 10 fps very frequently.

    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.

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    My specs:

    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.

    Saturday Oct 4th @ 3pm EST I will be hosting a Game Night with a bunch of friends. We plan to stream everything to the following twitch account, so please join us!
    Twitch.tv account: GameNightGoesll
    Direct Link
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    How/where exactly do I check to see if my processor is up to date?

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    How/where exactly do I check to see if my processor is up to date?

    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.

    Saturday Oct 4th @ 3pm EST I will be hosting a Game Night with a bunch of friends. We plan to stream everything to the following twitch account, so please join us!
    Twitch.tv account: GameNightGoesll
    Direct Link
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    As far as I can tell, the only update for the Phenom 9500 is for XP users and not Vista.

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • SatoriiSatorii Registered User
    edited February 2008
    If it's any help, I very recently bought a Q6660, 8800GT, 3GB DDR2 setup with an asus P5K board and I can run through Crysis with a good 30-35 FPS dipping every so often to mid 20's. This dipping aleviated with some CPU overclocking. I'm using the latest Forceware drivers. This is with 1680x1050 resolution and all high settings.

  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Trying one of NVIDIA's beta drivers(169.09) seems to have helped. I can get around 15-25fps on medium settings now(with physics on high). High settings still chug bad.

    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.

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Have you contacted EA about it? I know it seems silly, but something has to be done.

    Saturday Oct 4th @ 3pm EST I will be hosting a Game Night with a bunch of friends. We plan to stream everything to the following twitch account, so please join us!
    Twitch.tv account: GameNightGoesll
    Direct Link
  • chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I just picked up an 8800 gts today and one of the Best Buy techs actually gave me some good advice. Check out ntune. Sounds like it could do some good and it hopefuly wont break anything in the process.

    The list never changes: http://www.infinitebacklog.com
    Chamberlain.jpg
  • DietarySupplementDietarySupplement Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Satorii wrote: »
    If it's any help, I very recently bought a Q6660, 8800GT, 3GB DDR2 setup with an asus P5K board and I can run through Crysis with a good 30-35 FPS dipping every so often to mid 20's. This dipping aleviated with some CPU overclocking. I'm using the latest Forceware drivers. This is with 1680x1050 resolution and all high settings.

    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.

    Skull2185 wrote: »
    Basically, (PlayStation) Home is Second Life Ultra Light? Most of the cool stuff, none of the creepy blimp on blimp fucking.
  • victor_c26victor_c26 Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Trying one of NVIDIA's beta drivers(169.09) seems to have helped. I can get around 15-25fps on medium settings now(with physics on high). High settings still chug bad.

    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.

    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.

    steam_sig.png
    MK: DS Code: 528.341.706.032 - Import from Play-Asia PSN: VictorX10
  • LockedOnTargetLockedOnTarget Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Every single resolution has the EXACT same issue, from lowest to highest. My moniter's native rez is 1680 x 1050 so I commonly play on that, but as I've said before, even going all the way down to 900 x 400 doesn't help at all.

    iYBQTfcwSi2EW.jpg
  • DietarySupplementDietarySupplement Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I know this is a necro-post, but I have updates about my bouts with Crysis.

    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.
    This indicates that the higher the graphical quality, the MORE CPU bound we are. Crazy isn’t it? It's counter-intuitive, but pure fact. In speaking with NVIDIA about this (they have helped us a lot in understanding some of our issues here), the belief is that more accurate and higher quality physics at higher graphical quality settings is what causes this overhead. Also, keep in mind that we are testing in a timedemo with AI disabled.

    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):
    The test system we used is the same as the one from the 9800 GX2 review, as are the driver revisions.
    Test SetupCPU - 2x Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 @ 3.20GHz
    Motherboard - Intel D5400XS (Skulltrail)
    Video Cards
    ATI Radeon HD 3870 x2
    ATI Radeon HD 3870
    NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT 512MB
    NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB
    NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra
    NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2
    Video Drivers - Catalyst 8.3,ForceWare 174.53
    Hard Drive - Seagate 7200.9 120GB 8MB 7200RPM
    RAM - 2xMicron 2GB FB-DIMM DDR2-8800
    Operating System - Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit SP1

    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...

    Skull2185 wrote: »
    Basically, (PlayStation) Home is Second Life Ultra Light? Most of the cool stuff, none of the creepy blimp on blimp fucking.
  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User
    edited March 2008
    Maybe you just need to tone down the right settings. I run Crysis at 1280x1024 with mostly high, some medium settings, on Vista Ultimate x64, an 8800GT 512mb superclocked, 2GB of RAM (one stick is dying) and an x2 4200+ CPU at 2.2 ghz and I never experience any slowdown.

  • DietarySupplementDietarySupplement Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Describe "slowdown" though. You mean you get a solid frame rate, or a high frame rate?

    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."

    Skull2185 wrote: »
    Basically, (PlayStation) Home is Second Life Ultra Light? Most of the cool stuff, none of the creepy blimp on blimp fucking.
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah, I guess Anandtech isn't interested in real-world performance as much as getting things as objective as possible. But this is a test of the GPUs. Using the top of the line processors was supposed to really show the differences between the graphics cards. You can still make a decision about parts based on their reviews, but I guess they should probably include a 'real-world' test system. I read Anandtech all the time, so I know what to expect from them though.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User
    edited March 2008
    Describe "slowdown" though. You mean you get a solid frame rate, or a high frame rate?

    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."
    The game always runs smoothly. Whether there are tons of explosions or enemies or whatever, I always have enough FPS where there's no slowdown whatsoever. Always nice and smooth.

    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.

  • ecchiecchi Registered User
    edited March 2008
    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.
    I know this is from other a month ago, but I just want to point out that Vista does this automatically when you play a full-screen game. You do not need to manually disable desktop composition.

  • GophermasterGophermaster Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I might have missed this, but did you patch the game? 1.1 and up give most people a flat 4~5 fps boost.
    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).

  • randombattlerandombattle Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Speaking of Crysis problems I've run into a rather major one. I can't seem to install the 1.21 patch. Every time I try it doesn't recognize the exe as an exe and doesn't know how to run it. I've downloaded it from at least 10 places and it's always the same..

    itsstupidbutidontcare2.gif
    I never asked for this!
  • DietarySupplementDietarySupplement Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    fogeyman wrote: »
    Maybe you just need to tone down the right settings. I run Crysis at 1280x1024 with mostly high, some medium settings, on Vista Ultimate x64, an 8800GT 512mb superclocked, 2GB of RAM (one stick is dying) and an x2 4200+ CPU at 2.2 ghz and I never experience any slowdown.

    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).

    Skull2185 wrote: »
    Basically, (PlayStation) Home is Second Life Ultra Light? Most of the cool stuff, none of the creepy blimp on blimp fucking.
  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User
    edited April 2008
    fogeyman wrote: »
    Maybe you just need to tone down the right settings. I run Crysis at 1280x1024 with mostly high, some medium settings, on Vista Ultimate x64, an 8800GT 512mb superclocked, 2GB of RAM (one stick is dying) and an x2 4200+ CPU at 2.2 ghz and I never experience any slowdown.

    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).
    Sorry for the late response.

    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?

  • DietarySupplementDietarySupplement Registered User regular
    edited April 2008
    Thanks fogey. I'm wondering if I should just suck up my pride and kick it to medium...
    fogeyman wrote: »
    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.

    Skull2185 wrote: »
    Basically, (PlayStation) Home is Second Life Ultra Light? Most of the cool stuff, none of the creepy blimp on blimp fucking.
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.