Crysis GPU Bench (1280x1024 Very High 2x)

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-23-2007, 07:19 PM
Eastcoasthandle

Quote:

Originally Posted by cadaveca

Yep, I mentioned this in the patch thread. All reviews posting Crysis numbers are wrong, pretty much. The difference between real FPS and bench dispaly varies from 45-75% actual FPS, partially dependant on CPU load, it seems. Not confirmed cpu bit tho.

I assume you are talking about the Crysis forum? If so could you post a link?
11-24-2007, 12:03 PM
Avid6eek

CrossFire Radeon HD 3870's:

1024x768
0X AA
All Settings Medium
http://hardware-geek.com/Pictures/Crysis1024.png

1280x1024
0X AA
All Settings Medium
http://hardware-geek.com/Pictures/Crysis1280.png

1600x1200
4X AA
All Settings High
http://hardware-geek.com/Pictures/Crysis1600.png
11-24-2007, 12:44 PM
Eddie3dfx

xp, vista, what drivers?
system specs, clocks, etc?
11-25-2007, 12:38 PM
Avid6eek

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie3dfx

xp, vista, what drivers?
system specs, clocks, etc?

XP x64, Catalyst 7.11, Q6600@ 4.0Ghz, 4GB DDRII 900Mhz 4-4-3-5.
11-25-2007, 05:55 PM
rob[GL]

I'm testing a Q6600 @ 3600MHz (1.4v) and 1280x1024 with all setting high (no AA though) and my average fps = 40, test with the benchmark tool and fraps... while gaming for real, i rarely see FPS drop below 40, usually between 40-50fps. very playable. i don't dare turn AA on though. XP 32bit for clarification. I won't move to vista just yet
11-26-2007, 05:18 AM
XSAlliN

Try Fraps ... should do fine.
11-26-2007, 11:27 AM
Biker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

This will make benchmarking easier

Fixed download link here (x86) :D
11-26-2007, 11:33 AM
Biker

Quote:

Originally Posted by cadaveca

I remember hearing that this game would use a quadcore...it doesn't. Single thread avg 100% cpu usage regardless of speed(2.4ghz all the way to 3.8ghz, Core2Duo, or Core2Quad).

:shakes: :( :mad: :( :mad: :( :shakes:
11-26-2007, 11:53 AM
Eddie3dfx

In defense of crytek, It is a brand new engine and I believe that nvidia/microsoft/and others had pushed them to release crysis before it was truely ready for the upcoming christmas season.
That being said, I'm more than 10000% sure that they are working on quad core support, graphic & coding kinks, and much more support.
Think of the released version as a beta and the patches and getting to the full version. You have to give them props, they didn't just code a new game into an existing engine, they create this one by scratch.
The idea is to get this from running on a risc based workstation to a desktop pc that is the problem.
This is a workstation game and I think thats what gamers truely need.
Look at quake wars for instance. The video in the beginning is just fantastic but the game isn't as nice as the video. Why not? It's not that much different than the video. ID should of done the same thing with a graphics option that would bog down anything thats thrown at it.
Peaking into the future is wonderful for gamers and crysis gives a little taste of whats to come
11-26-2007, 12:28 PM
Biker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie3dfx

In defense of crytek, It is a brand new engine and I believe that nvidia/microsoft/and others had pushed them to release crysis before it was truely ready for the upcoming christmas season.
That being said, I'm more than 10000% sure that they are working on quad core support, graphic & coding kinks, and much more support.
Think of the released version as a beta and the patches and getting to the full version. You have to give them props, they didn't just code a new game into an existing engine, they create this one by scratch.
The idea is to get this from running on a risc based workstation to a desktop pc that is the problem.
This is a workstation game and I think thats what gamers truely need.
Look at quake wars for instance. The video in the beginning is just fantastic but the game isn't as nice as the video. Why not? It's not that much different than the video. ID should of done the same thing with a graphics option that would bog down anything thats thrown at it.
Peaking into the future is wonderful for gamers and crysis gives a little taste of whats to come

No need for defense..... we know how the b*st*rds pile on the pressure :D

Multi threaded game design from the ground up was always going to be a nightmare™ so i'm sure this will smooth out over time along with the other Crysis niggles a la Far Cry...

ps. I *wonder* who was sooooo desperate to push for early release in time for the xmas rush hmmmmm?... step forward... (lol)
11-26-2007, 02:47 PM
disruptfam

EA is ruining the game industry as we know it..
11-27-2007, 12:42 AM
SkItZo

Quote:

Originally Posted by disruptfam

EA is ruining the game industry as we know it..

+1...
11-30-2007, 04:33 PM
jikdoc

vista32
driver 169.09
sli 8800gts 640mb @ 600/850
e6600 @ 2.8
4gb ddr2
cooling: gpu air, cpu water

comments:
avg fps reported is from last run in crysis gpu bench bat
this was an informal bench, i had a bunch of background stuff going like utorrent, firefox, nod32, etc.
crysis is running off a raptor raid (74gb versions)
i noticed some stuttering with disk thrashing so i threw in a usb stick and turned on readyboost, see results below

all tests are dx10 1920x1200

cpu bench
fps 26.96

aa off
all high settings
fps 27.10

aa off
all high + 4gb readyboost enabled
fps 27.17

aa off
all high (readyboost)
fps 27.67

following tests were with utorrent off

aaoff
high + very high shaders (readyboost)
fps 26.60

aaoff
high + very high shaders & textures (readyboost)
fps 19.59

aa2x
all high + readyboost + utorrent off
fps 18.63

aa off
all very high
fps 13.45
12-05-2007, 02:23 PM
AriciU

1280x1024, High, FSAA 2x, XP 32bit, 8800gtx @ 660/1090 / GPU only

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5...ighfgq6.th.jpg

1680x1050, High, FSAA 2x, XP 32bit, 8800gtx @ 660/1090 / GPU / CPU

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/2...50fsvs5.th.jpg

EDIT: 1680x1050 screenshot dissapeared for some reason :shrug:

Anyway, results with those settings were:

GPU: 31.08FPS average
CPU: 28.53FPS average
12-05-2007, 08:16 PM
disruptfam

aricua thats actually looking half decent

Hopefully i get fps similar to yours!!! :)
12-05-2007, 10:18 PM
Pub_Randy**

My system: Refer to sig, GPU is overclocked to 660/1500/1020MHz but the CPU is yet to be overclocked since i need a bigger radiator (easily pulls 3.6GHz though)

Drivers and OS: Windows Vista Home Premium 32bit | Forceware 163.75 | latest intel INF

Settings I used:
Water: V.High
Sound: V.High
Game Effects: V.High
Postprocessing: V.High
Volumetric Effects: V.High
Everything else: High

Resolution - 1680x1050

AA - 2x would like more though :(

My Results

Code:

6/12/2007 3:11:56 PM - Vista Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu DX10 1680x1050, AA=2x, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen Demo Loops=1, Time Of Day= 9 Global Game Quality: Custom Custom Quality Values: VolumetricEffects=VeryHigh Texture=High ObjectDetail=High Sound=VeryHigh Shadows=High Water=VeryHigh Physics=High Particles=High Shading=High PostProcessing=VeryHigh GameEffects=VeryHigh ============================================================== TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s) !TimeDemo Run 0 Finished. Play Time: 100.79s, Average FPS: 19.84 Min FPS: 10.77 at frame 148, Max FPS: 25.12 at frame 70 Average Tri/Sec: -17589628, Tri/Frame: -886385 Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.03 TimeDemo Play Ended, (1 Runs Performed) ============================================================== Completed All Tests <><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><> 6/12/2007 3:11:56 PM - Vista Run #1- DX10 1680x1050 AA=2x, 32 bit test, Quality: Custom ~~ Last Average FPS: 19.84

Hopefully my results see vast improvement with the 1.2GHz more i KNOW this CPU can do (when cooling improves) :) Maybe i'll even be able to run V.High. The infamous patch 1.1 should hopefully bring some FPS too :)

I've finished the game but will definently play again :up:
12-06-2007, 06:31 AM
disruptfam

did u find it playable @ 19fps?? anything under 30fps for me is unplayable :(
12-06-2007, 06:44 AM
AriciU

Quote:

Originally Posted by disruptfam

aricua thats actually looking half decent

Hopefully i get fps similar to yours!!! :)

Thanks. It's OK i guess. The problem is that those benchmarks don't really represent the performance of the game. In the last stages of Crysis things get more GPU demanding... i remember i used to get around 22-26FPS around there. It would drop to less then 22 even in some parts (my regular settings are the 1680x1080 all high, fsaa 2x btw).

I've edited my previous post with the 1680x1050 results. Seems that the imageshack screenshot i had dissapeared for some reason.
12-07-2007, 10:22 PM
enumae

GPU Isolation test.

For anyone who is interested I have compared Medium Quallity Settings to Ultra High Quality by modifying the Configuration files at resolutions of 1024x768 and 1280x1024...

These test were isolated to show the performance impact of each Ultra High Setting while running the GPU benchmark.

http://www.cpu-gpu.com/crysis1.jpg

Here is a comparison with 2xAA with High and Ultra High Shader Quality.

http://www.cpu-gpu.com/crysis2.jpg

Here is a comparison using Custom Settings that are somewhat playable.

http://www.cpu-gpu.com/crysis3.jpg

And the same Custom Settings with the CPU Benchmark.

http://www.cpu-gpu.com/crysis4.jpg

I did these test so that people can see which parts of Crysis are effected by the GPU and by how much.

Hope it is useful :)
12-08-2007, 06:53 PM
Eddie3dfx

I believe with the new drivers, in sli it is possible to play 1280x1024 at very high settings (30fps+) with the 8800gt, gtx, and ultra cards
12-09-2007, 06:51 PM
BTK

I have

E6750 @ 3.55
2x1GB Ballastix @ 444 MHz 4-4-4-4
8800GT SC @ stock (169.06)
WD 250GB 7200RPM SATA
Vista Home Premium 32 Bit

Pllaying 1280x1024 DX10 Very High no AA

seems very smooth to me havent actually benched it

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page