benchmarking and crysis

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

maverick7

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2006
920
0
18,980
0
no, because the CEO has said that they have released no official requirements for the game NON at all. And any that were released were either made up or released by EA, but again the CEO at Crytek said that they have released no requirements for the game and the ones EA released were premature and made up. They have not even finished the game how on earth can they have requirements..

However, from his own mouth, he says that it will take 2 years for this game to come to its full potential. and so your sh1ty unofficial link is bull shi t.
 

justinmcg67

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2007
565
0
18,980
0


Right...ummm..where's your links? Where's your proof? And how are my links "****"??

Fine, here's MORE quotes. God I love proving a N00B wrong. :D

http://www.digitalbattle.com/2006/07/23/crysis-system-requirements-released/



And another...

http://www.pro-g.co.uk/pc/crysis/system_requirements.html



And another...

http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/68602/




Quote from http://www.incrysis.com/wiki/index.php/Crysis_System_Requirements[/quotemsg]

And another...



Need I go further? Or can you accept the facts N00B??
 

maverick7

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2006
920
0
18,980
0
holy **** man ****, if i could actually get the interview then that would help but until then you will just have to trust my word and btw i got the link to the interview from incrysis but i cant find it on the forum again..

anyways stop calling people noobs thats just lame escpecially when you are the misinformed one
 


Sure the GamesRadar interview says it will pay on Ultra-High, but not at what resolution.
http://www.gamesradar.com/us/pc/game/previews/article.jsp?articleId=200706129573775081&releaseId=2006032914441159019&sectionId=1001&pageId=200706121061280027

So Ultra high @ 1024x768 is a possability, but is that really 'Ultra-High', especially when the settings sofar seem to end at 'Max'

Unless he comes out and says something to contradict this interview statement;

Gaming Heaven: Performance, the main question every gamer has. What will be needed to run the game at playable framerates? How about playing with everything maxed? Will current rigs be able to run the game at 1920x1200 without making sacrifices? Do you recommend ATI or Nvidia and have you any performance figures for us for the Nvidia 8800 and ATi 2900?

Cevat: Everything maxed and at that resolution, you will need a seriously high rig of the latest generation available now. Bear in mind we don’t expose, but have built in scaleability for the upcoming 1-2 years. That will be available as hardware catches up. So when I say maxed, its maxed for now.

http://www.driverheaven.net/gamingreviews/crysisinterview/index.php

then it's far from a done deal, and if there's more to offer than what will curently be exposed, then what does 'Ultra-High' mean, other than it's still not the absolute maximum which sounds like it's Uber-Fantasma-Wonder-high if Ultra-high is still held back at 'max'.

And sofar all the other links cite other people's estimations and guesses they call 'guidelines', nothing official from Crytek itself.

So from what is on the page and actually supported above, Cevat says that the GTX should play Ultra-high (but no idea of resolution), and that they haven't unlocked everything yet and more is to come (thus Crysis won't even technically play at it's maximum upon release despite having the sliders pushed to 'max').

Seems pretty straight forward, and while it may or may not offer far tougher settings in the final SP release, it's use as a benchmark will likely depend alot on how it uses the available hardware, because as we saw with the difference between COH DX10 and Bioshock DX10, not all games are useful as tests of their relative impacts, and no two games act the same. So even if it's kicking out 150fps @ 1920x1200, it may still have alot to offer as a benchmark. Oblivion isn't a good benchmark just because it makes system come to a crawl, it's how and what systems that it does that (to) that matters most. If Crysis is wicked optimized and runs smooth as silk it doesn't make it less relevant than Oblivion, because it's more 'current' and more in line with the current gaming scene, not last year's.

Anywho, even if it does run at 300 fps, to me it'll be a more important benchmark than the original FartCry, D3, HL2, BF2 etc because I won't play them much anymore, however I will likely play Crysis more than all 4 combined, and also likely games based on it. That's my thinking on it's utility.
 

systemlord

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2006
2,737
0
20,780
0


Your joking right? Oblivion is one of the most pretty games I have ever seen! Just because a game is hard on your gaming computer doesn't make the game engine bad.

Where are the links that support your statement about Oblivion's game engine being crap? I really would like to see it. :) Or is this just your opinion?
 

justinmcg67

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2007
565
0
18,980
0

A general guideline from what...4 websites? Oh and a Google Search of "Crysis System Requirements" turns up countless more. But I'm sure they must all be wrong? :heink:

On another note, people have been able to scale requirements for games before an official release. that and it's pretty hard to beat this quote, which I've already posted...



Please...read that carefully before you repost...(Seeing as those are peopel from the Crytek team) :sarcastic:




Well, provide your evidence, until you do, stfu and read what the entire Crysis coverage sites are posting. Please, it'll save you and you're sanity just a bit more before you decide to flip the sh*t once more. :p
 

javimars

Distinguished
May 16, 2006
217
0
18,680
0
like i have stated a billion times;crysis_mp beta is capped at medium settings. you CAN change the resolution but the the video options such as "eye candy"(high or even ultra high settings). only those that are in the developing team have the access to such settings. Crysis IS playable on current high end cards but with low fps. remeber when F.E.A.R 1st came out?? yeah welll.. enuff said
 

javimars

Distinguished
May 16, 2006
217
0
18,680
0
like i have stated a billion times;crysis_mp beta is capped at medium settings. you CAN change the resolution but the the video options such as "eye candy"(high or even ultra high settings). only those that are in the developing team have the access to such settings. Crysis IS playable on current high end cards but with low fps. remeber when F.E.A.R 1st came out?? yeah welll.. enuff said
 

maverick7

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2006
920
0
18,980
0
Rob the person from THG?

and also, as to the x amount of sites have it posted so it must be right. Well the most reasonable explanation is that one site posted it and then all the others followed in suit
 

DeAtHrApToR

Distinguished
Sep 1, 2006
31
0
18,530
0
Does anyone else besides me remember reading about Crysis having code that current hardware couldn't handle that would be enabled through patches when the hardware existed?
 

bruce555

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2006
603
0
19,010
9



Can you provide some proof? I know that Beta 1 was capped to low settings but since then, it's been lifted. Now why would Crytek, when they released beta 1 lock the settings then, but not lock the settings now? Just prove your statement please.


EDIT: By the way I think that this game will be at the top of the used benchmarking games for a long time. This game stresses everything, GPU mem, high textures, extreme shader, cpu speed and core count and will probably be one of the first games to require us to use more than 2Gb of sys mem (Not counting SupCom)
 

Hatman

Distinguished
Aug 8, 2004
2,024
0
19,780
0
Why no counting supcom? Sumcom was around for like a year now and it hasnt been used.

Cant just say "this thing is unique, except that other thing just like it" supcom uses 4cores too.
 

stemnin

Distinguished
Dec 28, 2006
1,450
0
19,280
0


Toooo many problems when it was released I figure. Why bother testing nvidia cards with it when they BSOD your PC 20% of the time when starting Supcom up.
 

niz

Distinguished
Feb 5, 2003
900
0
18,980
0
I got and played the Crysis Beta last night (through my SLI club membership). The graphics are overall quite dissapointing, maybe its all the hype but I was expecting something better after seeing all those lush screenshots. At 1920x1200 with all the eyecandy maxed it doesnt run smoothly at all even though I have 2 8800GTX's in SLI, a core 2 extreme and am not using AA. When running around there are large areas where the textures take literally seconds to load and until they do everything in covered in yellow wallpaper that has "compiling shader program" printed on it. Maybe this is because its a beta but it seems like a serious issue.

But theres one reason I absolutely wont ever by Crysis...
It has this REALLY ANNOYING blur effect every time you turn everything goes artificially blurry. Its massively intrusive and really overdone and totally ruins the game by preventing you getting a good bead on someone while turning at the same time. Furthermore as far as I can see its not optional so you can't turn it off and just have non-blurry graphics. I don't know if they thought that effect added realism but it really doesn't. At least its certainly not how the world appears to me when I turn around in real life.

The worst thing is that after playing for a few minutes that overdone blurring causes a strong sense of nausea literally.
I remember a few years ago there seemed to be a few FPS games that made me feel sortof dizzy and sick after playing it for about 30 minutes, while some games never caused a problem. The original Doom game was one of the worst, but I could play unreal tournament all day with no problem. I never did figure out exactly what caused it or why, and haven't experienced that feeling for years now, except last night I got it again with Crysis after only about 10 minutes of playing because of that stupid artificial blurry effect.

Overall my opinion is that Crysis is massive dissapointment. Thats one title I won't be buying.
 

NightlySputnik

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2006
638
0
18,980
0



Wrong!

The game engine has many parameters that can be put scaled up. Running it at 1920*1200 with details scale down is easier then running it at 1280*1024 with details maxed out.

Check out last PC Gamer interview with the game creator (or is it PC Magazine?). The creator itself says that current owner of GeF8800GTX shouldn't expect to get decent frame rate at any better then 1280*1024 resolution with details pushed to the max. Il should be another 24 months before VPU make possible resolution of 1920*1200 playable with setting to the maximum available.

But like everything elses in the computer world, we'll only know when the game will be available and drivers optimized for it.

My 2 cents!
 

ShortRef

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2007
144
0
18,680
0


With all the videos and trailers we've/ive seen, what the hell were they playing it on then? The resolution is definately more than 720p on the videos, and the framerates are definately more than 50. I do beleive crysis wont live up to its reputation, the graphics wont be THAT amazing, unless they actaully DO look like the screenshots and videos.
 

General_Disturbance

Distinguished
Aug 6, 2007
88
0
18,630
0



Yes, Cervat has said this in several interviews! I think he said simple patches or updates will release the features! Likely DX10.1 and whatever that entails, and the engine can likely go higher reso as it is, but the current HW cant handle it.

Booyah!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS