Is Crysis really a benchmark?

[FHDelux]

This is something i have been wondering about lately maybe someone here has a good answer.

Every single time a new graphics card, or processor or whatever comes out, the question is, "will it run Crysis". What i want to know is can Crysis really be considered a true benchmark of what hardware is capable of.

I've read numerous articles on the internet saying how Crysis does not scale well over multiple cores (has high usage of a single core and hardly any over other cores), it does not scale well with SLI either.

So whats the deal? UT3 has signifigant gains from 1>2>4 cores as well as SLI, granted it does not perform all that well on ATI hardware, but thats what i would look for in a benchmark, good scalling from budget to expensive hardware.

Anyway, i just thought i'd throw that out there, if Crysis was written using the UT3 engine for example, which scales well with multiple cores/ SLI, would we see graphics just as pretty at higher fps? Or, is crysis really just that harsh of a game.

 

[spuddyt]

the only problem is, when you compare 100 fps with 150, it becomes completely irrelevant to real life, and since crysis is the only thing that can choke modern gfx....

 

[Evilonigiri]

Well, with Crysis we can also see if the new drivers does any better for SLI. Well, I've come to believe that Crysis is very demanding, and newer drivers won't improve performance very much.

 

[jonisginger]

I believe Crysis is poorly programmed.

 

[jonisginger]

I mean look at CoD4 and stuff...

OK CoD4 isn't as advanced, but come on...the FPS speaks for itself.

Its 11.30pm here so i cba to write a bit argument on it... maybe tomorrow

LAST A LEVEL EXAM TOMORROW.

 

[pauldh]

SLI scales very well in Crysis if you look at actual gameplay in GPU demanding levels. Considering no single card out can max crysis at a decent level in DX10 very high, it's a very valid game to benchmark.

 

[tallguy1618]

Crysis is a beast of a game in terms of graphics. I don't know why people say it's poorly programed. I can run everything high/very high with no AA at 1680*1200 on an 8800GTX, 6 gig ddr800, and a Q6600 at stock speed. I also have 64-bit Vista Ultimate.

To answer the question, yes it is a good benchmark because like spuddyt said, Crysis is the only really challenging game for graphics cards now and really shows a card's power.

 

[baracubra]

Also, Its only with Crysis that we see the improvements of new cards. Like in the review of the 280/260 gtx, it was only those two cards that could run crysis at decent res with AA and Filters on. The results were still unplayable but it showed that the new-er gen ahd improvements..

About SLI, I have 2 8800GT 512's and the improvement is barely noticable. I play at 1920x1200 on a 28", and going from single card to SLI only gets me from 26 to 32-ish, verging on unplayable, mix of high and med settings

Althought the scalability problems, I feel Crysis is a good bench, and I personaly am always gratefull when I get to see how the newest cards still fail and deliver, with only slightly better results then my 8800GT's 😀

 

[FHDelux]

You guys all have good points. I guess it can go both ways, i was just suprised to see the CPU usage while playing this breakthrough game thats supposed to use every sq inch of a PC and its hitting one core for 80%+ and maybe 15% on the second core...no action on cores 3 and 4, where as UT3 had 75% or greater usage across all 4 cores.

Heres to hoping for a multi core patch in the future....or more games based on the UT3 engine!

 

[Heyyou27]

This is something i have been wondering about lately maybe someone here has a good answer.

Every single time a new graphics card, or processor or whatever comes out, the question is, "will it run Crysis". What i want to know is can Crysis really be considered a true benchmark of what hardware is capable of.

I've read numerous articles on the internet saying how Crysis does not scale well over multiple cores (has high usage of a single core and hardly any over other cores), it does not scale well with SLI either.

So whats the deal? UT3 has signifigant gains from 1>2>4 cores as well as SLI, granted it does not perform all that well on ATI hardware, but thats what i would look for in a benchmark, good scalling from budget to expensive hardware.

Anyway, i just thought i'd throw that out there, if Crysis was written using the UT3 engine for example, which scales well with multiple cores/ SLI, would we see graphics just as pretty at higher fps? Or, is crysis really just that harsh of a game.

Crysis uses the most advanced lighting engine ever see in a game bar none. Per pixel volumetric soft shadows being cast by every object in the game is no small feat, and among that Crysis also manages the most realistic vegetation and physics engine ever in a commercial game. Light is even refracted by water breaking it into the rainbow effect, and I have not seen another game take on this level of detail yet.

While it's true the game could be better optimized for quad core CPUs, it's unlikely that would improve performance very much, at least not to the level we would like.
I'd go as far to say that Crysis is the only real "next-gen" game on the market in comparison to other titles. Crytek originally said they had planned on an even higher quality setting, "Ultra High" but I'm sure you can guess why they never implemented that.

 

[jonisginger]

Does that not scream to you, when new cards don't blow Crysis open, that there is some sort of bottleneck?? I mean look at the increase in other games. Looking at benchies ive seen a 20/30 fps gain with the 280, and then like a 10 in Crysis.

 

[mi1ez]

I like to see what new GPUs can do with Crysis. So long as they bench against other games and Crysis isn't the be all and end all, I think it's always interesting to see.

 

[samuraiblade]

it will be irrelevent soon , when farcry 2 is released there will be a new benchmark in town

 

[JeanLuc]

If my memory serves me correctly it took about a year before video cards and CPU's could run Doom 3 at ultra quality. So I don't know why some of you are scratching your heads about Crysis's performance as it isn't unprecedented to have a game that murders all current hardware.

 

[quantumsheep]

If my memory serves me correctly it took about a year before video cards and CPU's could run Doom 3 at ultra quality.

Didn't the 6800 Ultra come out at about the same time as Doom 3, and i'm sure the 6800 Ultra can run Doom 3 on max details.

 

[Heyyou27]

Does that not scream to you, when new cards don't blow Crysis open, that there is some sort of bottleneck?? I mean look at the increase in other games. Looking at benchies ive seen a 20/30 fps gain with the 280, and then like a 10 in Crysis.

Perhaps if Nvidia released hardware that wasn't only marginally faster this wouldn't be an issue. Did you ever think that the bottleneck in Crysis could come from the Geforce GTX 280's 80 TMUs when the 8800GTX already had 64? Sure some games will be a lot faster on the newer hardware, but this has always been the case. For example, look at F.E.A.R. on an 8800GTX vs. the 7900GTX; yes the 8800GTX is faster, but it's not nearly the margin you would see in Oblivion or UT3.

 

[tallguy1618]

Also, I think what a lot of people seem to forget is that the graphic settings in crysis can be changed in game without exiting out or even reloading. If there is one particular part that just won't run, you can just turn down the settings for a bit and then crank it back up when it's over. I think the most lagg I ever get is when I'm playing the last mission on the aircraft carrier. With all the rain and then the water in the sea along with the explosions AND the AI running for the soldiers and aliens, I have to turn a few things down to stay smooth, but it's nothing major.

 

[getme]

The question should be "Is Crysis really a game?"

 

[mothhive]

The question should be "Is Crysis really a game?"

lol I can understand people who were dissapointed after the ammount of hype that surrounded it, but c'mon, it's really not that bad of a game. The only sections I didn't enjoy were the vehicle sections, the spaceship interior and the "boss" fight. The rest of the game was very enjoyable and I have played through it a few times and not been bored.

As for it being a benchmark, I think that it is since it pushes hardware in order to run decently and limitations become apparent. Benching with something like UT3 doesn't show any visible performance/graphical difference after a point as it runs at such a high FPS, even with mid range hardware, that it just doesn't gauge your hardware. It's like giving Stephen Hawking a 5 year olds math homework, he won't do it notably faster/better than the average person since it's so frickin easy that just about anyone could do it, but something more challenging would show the difference in their capabilities.

 

[Guest]

If my memory serves me correctly it took about a year before video cards and CPU's could run Doom 3 at ultra quality. So I don't know why some of you are scratching your heads about Crysis's performance as it isn't unprecedented to have a game that murders all current hardware.

my 6800gt raped doom3. also to the guy with bad gains from sli, try using hacked drivers, i honestly was amazed at the difference. 177.35 fps isnt much more but it just feels better, less drops in fps and none of that weird feeling that its almost slowing down and speeding up.

 

[pmerritt]

I believe Crysis is poorly programmed.

AGREED

 

[spook24]

it will be irrelevent soon , when farcry 2 is released there will be a new benchmark in town

not really FC2 can run on a P4 3.0 and 6800(???) at least that what Clint Hocking said at E3. they havent released the specs for it yet but thats what he said he saw it running on and it had some eye candy.

watch it here:

http://e3.g4tv.com/e32008/blog/post/687159/Exclusive_Hands_On_Far_Cry_2.html

 

[ovaltineplease]

I believe Crysis is poorly programmed.

You'd be quite misinformed in that belief. Crysis is light years ahead of nearly every other shooter on the market in terms of graphical effects. It also has one of the best level editors out there in terms of practicality.

The game runs fine on 1.5 year old modern hardware at medium settings and it still looks equal if not better than any other game out there at medium. It also has a 50% scaling ratio with SLI which is pretty good.

The only thing that hurts Crysis is level-of-detail distance; the game at high/very high demands that too many objects be rendered at their highest quality even if you can't see them that clearly while playing (even standing still) - there are a number of mods which will allow you to optimize this game for lower distance detail, or ultra high details, or really whatever you want. If you have the patience to tweak the configuration script then you can optimize it to your own configuration - the game is very, very tweakable.

www.crymod.com

 

[spac13]

no way is this poorly coded piece of you know what a legitimate benchmark.

for thoes who say "Crysis is light years ahead of nearly every other shooter on the market in terms of graphical effects". needs to get their hands out of the crytek wallet that they continue to fill by promoting this game.

i have 1 thing to say to people that say this game is ahead of anything else......

GO LOOK AT A ROCK.......

i've seen better textures on gamecube.

 

[tallguy1618]

Why do you post everywhere about rocks in Cyrsis? Do you seriously have nothing better to do? You said the same thing in a different thread.