Want to run Crysis w Very High Settings what will it take

[jonisginger]

LiuKang, try setting Crysis demo to run in X32 mode only?

 

[enewmen]

Does the demo run in 32Bit mode or does it do both 64Bit and 32Bit depending on what OS you are using?

There is both a 32bit and 64bit version.
I don't know why THG is using the 32bit version.
I also don't know of the advantages of 64bit (there should be some)

 

[Jorg40]

Using Quad cores are no use with the demo, I think they limited it to 2 cores like in the Multiplayer Beta i play.

Btw, the game runs on 25fps on Medium with my 6800XT, but with Very High and 8800GTX it runs with 22fps average? One word: drivers

After the second beta release I got a 6 fps boost with my graphics card, and another 2fps boost after the newest beta drivers.

The game is gold, but Crytek is allready working on a patch, so hopes up folks!

 

[Ironkidz]

i can tell you right now that 2 ultras will NOT run this game at very high at anything more than 25-30 fps even without anti aliasing. There is no card out that can pull that feat.

 

[wingsofzion]

If i'm not mistaken arent the "Very High" settings only selectable under Vista because those are the settings that use DX10 elements?

 

[Jorg40]

There is no such things as direct x 10 elements or graphics, just the fact that DX10 uses unified processing which gives the opportunity to create effects like Global Illumination without stressing the card that much. It is mostly just an efficiency of the graphics processing.

DX10 utilizes unified architecture and geometry shading which allows more instances at one time and faster working, not that a DX9 card can NOT handle it, it will just demand more of it.

 

[Rusmurf]

To max this sucker, you need hardware that isn't out yet.

Turn down post processing, that's at least 5 fps from high to very high. Go through and switch settings around, find settings changes that you don't notice. Some have an affect, some have no affect.

I have my game up to just over 30fps avg, with pretty much very high settings and 4xAA. It's never gonna look like the screen shots, until we have 9 series cards, the Penryns aren't gonna do much for performance.

 

[Heyyou27]

Fly i,m in the same boat as you ..
2 X Ultra 8800GTX in SLI will run the game well 1920x1200 prob 60-70FPS with 16X AA
Ultra High settings are to be used for new video cards in the future.. ie 9800's
I would not recommend ultra high settings for anything else.
Nvidias generation 9 cards will be late next year I expect.

I own an overclocked 8800GTX and I'd kill to get half that framerate at very high settings without antialiasing.

There is no such things as direct x 10 elements or graphics, just the fact that DX10 uses unified processing which gives the opportunity to create effects like Global Illumination without stressing the card that much. It is mostly just an efficiency of the graphics processing.

DX10 utilizes unified architecture and geometry shading which allows more instances at one time and faster working, not that a DX9 card can NOT handle it, it will just demand more of it.

Is that why the game runs faster for me on XP 32-bit on Very High quality than it does on Vista 64-bit with my 8800GTX?

 

[maverick7]

with a 24" dell your not going to be able to run it with aa and im not even sure about totally max being possible.

anyways i guess the best hardware would be:

2x 8800 ultra
4 ddr3 ram
2 western digital 10,000 rpm hard drives in raid 0
storage drive 750 gig western digital
asus striker extreme motherboard

 

[yuseaname]

I am running crysis in two different environments: vista 32bit and xp 64bit, both using catalyst 7.10 with a 2900xt (i can only overclock the gpu in xp64 and my speeds are 850MHz core and 900MHz memory). My settings in vista are all high except texture detail and one other thing i cant remember. Resolution is at 1680x1050 w/o AA and i get a framerate of 20-25 frames per second and to be honest it rarely goes below that. In xp64 all settings are high and on 1680x1050 and no AA. Framerate is about the same but I experience a complete system crash, my guess is some issue other than my oc cause it even does it at stock speeds, probably either the game or driver issues (i am using the .exe under the bin64 folder). My system is 2gb ddr2 at ddr1000, running in 1:1 with my e6300 at 3.5GHz. The quality of the game is impressive but since I am getting a reasonable framerate I do not see myself upgrading. For the record, I used fraps to check my framerates. If you are unsure about their rates, this is an awesome way to go. If anyone knows about any issues with crysis and xp64, let me know haha.

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

If anyone knows about any issues with crysis and xp64, let me know haha.

XP 64-bit: Is an great idea for an operating system but from start ti'll today as known lots of issues itself, let alone figuring out the problems you may encounter with Crysis' Demo. With your system, you shouldn't even have 64-bit as you don't have enough to benefit from it =Single core, 2gig of Ram. If you want to avoid problems, stick with Windows XP-32bit and your Crysis will see much improvement.

BUT: Assuming you have installed the latest drivers and windows patches, I had a similar problem with VISTA 64-bit where I couldn't even start the game.

Try this: I have NTune for my Nvidia card but Catalist probably has this option... Try forcing V-Sync on your game Crysis and see if it keeps on crashing. If it does, then you can also try to run the 32-bit version (if its available in XP) by going into the game directory and launching it from either the 32-bit folder or 64-bit forlder.

Good luck.

Alex

 

[systemlord]

You have to wait for Nvidia to release final drivers for Crysis to take advantage of SLI, to date SLI doesn't even work for Vista/DX10. The update to DX10.1 might solve that program, but time will only tell.

 

[yuseaname]

If anyone knows about any issues with crysis and xp64, let me know haha.

XP 64-bit: Is an great idea for an operating system but from start ti'll today as known lots of issues itself, let alone figuring out the problems you may encounter with Crysis. With your system, you shouldn't even have 64-bit as you don't have enough to benefit from it =Single core, 2gig of Ram. If you want to avoid problems, stick with Windows XP-32bit and your Crysis will see much improvement.

BUT: Assuming you have installed the latest drivers and windows patches, I had a similar problem with VISTA 64-bit where I couldn't even start the game.

Try this: I have NTune for my Nvidia card but Catalist probably has this option... Try forcing V-Sync on your game Crysis and see if it keeps on crashing. If it does, then you can also try to run the 32-bit version (if its available in XP) by going into the game directory and launching it from either the 32-bit folder or 64-bit forlder.

Good luck.

Alex

?
Dude, lol I'm not that clueless. My cpu is a Core 2 Duo, with a conroe 2m, B2 revision. Last time I checked, conroe is dual core. Two gigs of ram is also more than enough for my uses. Its not an issue of graphical anomalies (ie tears in picture due to no vertical sync) its a fact that there needs to be a patch or a driver hotfix because obviously the issue lie within there, as your system even failed to launch the game. That is what i believe is causing my system to crash. Why you think vsync is the cause of my system crash I have no idea. Also, xp64 is a fantastic operating system. I need not compromise anything as whatever I do in win32 i can also do in win64, not to mention the fantasic stability even with CATALYST 7.10. Other than these issues it runs like a champ in vista 32 bit. Everything is on high and is running on, as said earlier 1680x1050 with 20-25 fps average, little jumps and slumps here and there as would on any system. I'm not trying to steal your thunder or be arrogant or anything, thats just how it is. peace

 

[Tonkyboy]

Welll you guys with your core 2 Duo's and 8800's can keep em.

I'm running an Athlon 64 3000+ and 2 Gig Crucial RAM, and a 256Mb Leadtek GeForce 6600 (not even a GT), and I'm getting smooth frames at 1024x768 mixture of medium and low settings.

This game shouldn't run with a card lower than 6800GT ! I am impressed that I can even play this at all, let alone on the settings I've got.

 

[Rohmaan]

I'm running a Athlon 64 3500+ and 1 Gig corsair ram 256MB radeon X800 and getting 28-35 FPS at 1024x768 with everything at medium no AA.

A Core 2 Duo or Althon X2, and a 8800GTS, 8800GT, 8800GTX should be able to play crysis max'ed out the people who are having problems try playing on a lower resolution.

 

[wingless]

Back in 1987 I got an 8mhz Turbo XT (3.77mhz before you hit the turbo button). It had an ATI EGA Wonder video card that displayed 16 colors. I used to play games at much less than 10fps. I remember playing M1 Tank Platoon at maybe 2 or 3 FPS and mastering the game. The reason I'm mentioning all of this is that I not only ran the Crysis demo on HIGH settings at 1680x1050 (which is playable at ~20fps). I turned the AA up to 8x. OMFG it was cranking at 8 FPS according to Fraps. My 2900XT is bad with AA to begin with but in Crysis, its a joke. I plan on doing the VERY HIGH hack and seeing if I can break the 5 FPS mark. It will be a good memory to laugh about in 2 years when I have a system that runs it at 125 FPS at the same settings, Godwilling...... (this is assuming an 8 core Nehalem/Bulldozer or better with 2 next gen GPUs along with integrated graphics on the processor)

 

[GenericName]

I have the demo/ game engine - will install tomorrow and give it a go on SLI 8800 GTX cards with Vista 64 - 4 gigs ram - 6700 Quad Core etc..

 

[Alex The PC Gamer]

?
Dude, lol I'm not that clueless. My cpu is a Core 2 Duo, with a conroe 2m, B2 revision. Last time I checked, conroe is dual core. Two gigs of ram is also more than enough for my uses. Its not an issue of graphical anomalies (ie tears in picture due to no vertical sync) its a fact that there needs to be a patch or a driver hotfix because obviously the issue lie within there, as your system even failed to launch the game. That is what i believe is causing my system to crash. Why you think vsync is the cause of my system crash I have no idea. Also, xp64 is a fantastic operating system. I need not compromise anything as whatever I do in win32 i can also do in win64, not to mention the fantasic stability even with CATALYST 7.10. Other than these issues it runs like a champ in vista 32 bit. Everything is on high and is running on, as said earlier 1680x1050 with 20-25 fps average, little jumps and slumps here and there as would on any system. I'm not trying to steal your thunder or be arrogant or anything, thats just how it is. peace

Dear "Dude" guy,

I only ment to help, my friend, no need to get all hyped up. I may have wrongfully read your CPU info and missed that you had a dual core (as oppose to singlecore) so I will apologize for that. However, I would still recommend runing XP-32bit as oppose to XP-64bit as you are not benefiting from its features given your system.

You also sort'of proved my point as you mentioned that 2 gigs of RAM with a DUO processor was plenty for you...and i'll say for most of us in fact. In XP-32bit, your hardware will be able to provide you with best frame rates and gaming performance. Mind you that given your system, Vista 32-bit is your ultimate choice in as an OS if you want the best quality/performance in gaming.

What I ment to say earlier was: In your current XP-64bit, your operating system "should" make your hardware more efficient BUT with third parties writting their own 64-bit drivers, you will find your hardware performing at less or equal performance to the 32-bit drivers in many cases. So what I was saying is in theory, 64-bit IS better but in practice, is equal to worst given your hardware. As for your system, you have an awesome PC. However, XP-64bit was created for PCs using lots and lots of ram (servers with 8 gigs and more and with CPUs designed for servers). Therefore, most companies selling hardware to regular pc users or even gamers were not investing in writting top of the line drivers for the XP-64 bit version. Very few people were using 64-bit as a regular user and the hardware would not even benefit from a 64-bit driver. So they started writting drivers that were using their own emulators of the 32-bit version or the emulator the operating system would use making the actual 64-bit drivers. Keep in mind that some companies did actually write 64-bit drivers that took advantage of the X64 systems.

With today's needs, many hardcore gamers will need more than what 32-bit can offer. In fact, 32-bit will become the regular level users in around 2 years while gamers will be needing 64-bit. The amount of RAM needed for the next generation gaming platform will be more than 2 gigs of RAM and a lot more than 512mb VRAM. Hence, if you combine a SLI 2900xt (2x512mb VRAM) and 4 gigs of DDR3 RAM, 32-bit would only recognize about 3.3 gigs of ALL RAM combined = 32-bit is not enough. You have 2 gigs of RAM + 512 VRAM = 2.5 gigs total RAM and 32-bit meets your needs. Why would you go 64-bit? Well perhaps if you upgrade but wait, you mentioned 2 gigs was enough for your needs. See my point? The faster multi-threading is still a valid benefit when using 64-bit given your machine but you may have a lot more negative factors such as poor drivers and the fact that most coding is in X86 and forces you OS to operate with its own emulator and these will give you an overall performance that is poorer than using 32-bit.

You had mentioned your game crashed after playing for a few minutes. I looked at your Videocard (ATI Chip 2900XT), a fairly new videocard today, and related to my own experience in Vista-64bit. The 64-bit drivers for videocards have to be rewritten almost entirely unlike other types of hardware where they can use emulators (copies of X86 in X64 format). Given you have a widescreen, i'll assume your Frequency is 60 or 75mhz. As you know, even if you get a 150FPS your monitor can only process the same in frequency = 60 or 75FPS or so. I don't want to explain where the extra FPS goes and how coding can change things but long story short, Crysis or the Catalyst drivers may have had a glitch freezing your game after minutes of playing right? Well, since you can't choose VSync in game, this creates a problems such as a game freezing when your 2900xt creates more FPS than your monitor can handle...coding may create conflicts or bugs with both Catalyst and Monitor drivers (or windows assigned monitor drivers). This means that both Crysis, or ATI Catalyst, or your monitor drivers (if you installed them) can be responsable for your game crashing. So I will diagnose this like Dr. House and say that forcing VSync migh have fixed your freezing as it did for me when I use Vista 64-bit.

Regardless, you should see most of those bugs fixed in the actual game release November 16th.

Alex

 

[inglburt]

Hi

My system (in siggy)

Runs Crysis maxed at about 25 FPS (no AA)

If I turn a few things down then I can get it smooth.

Could someone please who has Vista AND XP run the game with teh same settings and tell me what teh FPS difference is?

Thanks

I am doing a dual boot, In XP Pro 32 at 1280 I get 28 to 40 on the highest, In Vista 32 I get 17-23 at the same resolution. It seems to run really strangely in vista. The frame rates seem to stay pretty consistent even when I raise the resolution. I haven't messed with it alot in XP yet. Another interesting thing, my 6000x2 was running one core maxed out and the second core at like 4%. Then started having lockups and stuff, so I checked it out.
Turns out it was crapping out on me. Now I'm running my ol 4200 @2.42 and it uses both cores pretty equally. Even tho I lost a couple fps in the demo. 2 gigs of ram run at 67% full, and my cpu (4200) averages about 60-70% in Vista.

ASUS Crosshair, 6000x2 @ 3.24, 2 gigs Corsrair XMS, 8800 gtx oc (629-2000), Sound Blaster XFI

 

[Tonkyboy]

Hey there Inglburt, was your 6000 X2 actually crapping out, or do you need to install the dual core patch from AMD's website? With the faster AMD X2's you need to install the patch, or the dual core's don't work properly on some games. Apparently it's not an issue with the lower spec X2's.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I'll admit to run it on very high at 1920x108 yea next gen maybe will run it. We have to wait and see what the 9800/R700 will do.

But I can tell you that at 1280x1024 on the same CPU(only clocked to 2.7GHz) as you with the same RAM(Corsair PC8500) and a Radeon HD2900Pro 1GB version I ran it on Very High with average framerate of 40-50FPS. And thats without OC'ing the card.

I think the game runs better if you have more V-RAM especially with those large textures.

 

[systemlord]

I'll admit to run it on very high at 1920x108 yea next gen maybe will run it. We have to wait and see what the 9800/R700 will do.

But I can tell you that at 1280x1024 on the same CPU(only clocked to 2.7GHz) as you with the same RAM(Corsair PC8500) and a Radeon HD2900Pro 1GB version I ran it on Very High with average framerate of 40-50FPS. And thats without OC'ing the card.

I think the game runs better if you have more V-RAM especially with those large textures.

Did you run every setting on very high? Can you just make it so you can just set the texture Q on very high and leave the other settings on high?