Crysis GPU Bench (1280x1024 Very High 2x)

Since this is probably the most looked at benchmark, I think it's important to find out what people are getting in vista 32 and 64 at 2x and 4x very high settings (1280x1024 resolution), single card or sli, also include what all your settings are and drivers)

Quad at 3520, 2 gigs of 1100mhz memory (5-5-5-15), 8800gt 753-1955-1021, 169.04 drivers

Crysis in Vista 32 - 1280x1024 with 2x antialiasing on, all very high settings

15.36fps avg


To those that are unsure of how to bench, go to C:\programfiles\Electronic Arts\Crytek\Crysis SP Demo\Bin 32 (Benchmark_GPU.Exe)

man i so won't be able to play this @ high settings...

How much diff will i get with a gtx @ 650/1120 compared to your gt in fps??

same setting's as you...

With a gtx, probably close to 17-18fps.
At high you can play it with no problem. These are the max settings (very high) that people are drooling over and essentially what we want to get over 30fps. Add in a new penryn cpu, fast 1600+mhz ddr3 and maybe closer to 19-20fps.
It will take sli, driver tweaking, and a gpu doubling the performance of a gt, gtx to go passed 30fps, i think.
But in the meantime I would like to see what others are able to achieve so we can play with this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie3dfx

With a gtx, probably close to 17-18fps.
At high you can play it with no problem. These are the max settings (very high) that people are drooling over and essentially what we want to get over 30fps. Add in a new penryn cpu, fast 1600+mhz ddr3 and maybe closer to 19-20fps.
It will take sli, driver tweaking, and a gpu doubling the performance of a gt, gtx to go passed 30fps, i think.
But in the meantime I would like to see what others are able to achieve so we can play with this

---

cheers mate.... hopefully i can play on high no aa no af with my setup @ 30fps :up:

turn off aa and af and see teh fps double... seriously.

no real need for aa anyway in the game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XS Janus

no real need for aa anyway in the game...

---

Completely untrue. This is one of the most jaggy infested games I have seen in a long time - even 2xAA does wonders for cleaning it up. Unfortunately with this engine we are going to have to take a large hit for that luxury.

i hate jaggies.

BUT I RECKON YOULL GET ANOTHER 10 FPS WITHOUT AA AT THESE SETTINGS (:shrug:):

Quote:

---

Crysis in Vista 32 - 1280x1024 with 2x antialiasing on, all very high settings

---

i think the eye candy of v.high settings is worth it at this point in time.

im getting 25-35 fps min (depending on the scenery/view) with modded dx9 "high" textures ('v.high')@ 1280x1024 0xaa 8xaf.......18-24fps with 2x or 4x AA at this res.@ these settings.

Did some testing in DX9 with the 163.75 WHQL driver. All tests was done with an 8800 GTX running at stock speed with no aa and all settings at high.

DX9 32 Bit HighSpec HDR DevMode

1024 x 768
cpu : 47.21 FPS
gpu : 52.86 FPS

1280x1024
cpu : 35.12 FPS
gpu : 38.64 FPS with 2xAA ~ 33.42 FPS

DX9 32 Bit Custom HDR DevMode

Where custom means running with the following

r_UsePOM=1
r_sunshafts=1
e_water_ocean_fft=1
q_Renderer=3
r_colorgrading=1
r_UseEdgeAA=0

placed in an autoexec.cfg file located in Crysis\Game\Config directory which means that in advanced options shaders quality, postprocessing quality and water quality will all be listed as custom and not high.The above tweaks will give DX10 like graphics.

1024x768
cpu : 42.29 FPS
gpu : 46.93 FPS

1280x1024
cpu : 31.03 FPS
gpu : 33.81 FPS with 2xAA ~ 29.09 FPS


It would be interesting to see single vs dual vs quad core scores

@ 1280x1024 and your config file, gpu batch (xp pro)
4x 29.89fps
2x 32.63fps
0x 39.85
I wasn't sure if you had 2x or nothing.

Hmmm...

I think my fps seems a bit low for what Im using but anyway here are my results

using vista 32 bit and dx10 mode

All settings medium 1280 x 1024
Avg fps 59.44

All settings medium apart from textures, object detail and water quality high
Avg fps 41.56

All settings very high
Avg fps 11.09

All setting very high +2Xaa
Avg fps 8.61

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skynet666

Hmmm...

I think my fps seems a bit low for what Im using but anyway here are my results

using vista 32 bit and dx10 mode

All settings medium 1280 x 1024
Avg fps 59.44

All settings medium apart from textures, object detail and water quality high
Avg fps 41.56

All settings very high
Avg fps 11.09

All setting very high +2Xaa
Avg fps 8.61

---

It is because you only have 320 MBs on your card, this give a poor preformance score, you would find the 640 would be a bit closer to the GTX than to the 320mb GTS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

Completely untrue. This is one of the most jaggy infested games I have seen in a long time - even 2xAA does wonders for cleaning it up. Unfortunately with this engine we are going to have to take a large hit for that luxury.

---

its only jaggy at resolutions below 1680x1050
anything above that the jaggies are hardly noticeable if at all

AF is different, higher resolutions dont fix the AF woes

i play 1920x1080 all on the max settings but with AA and AF off.
alot of explosions on screen are the only times i see any sloppy frame rates.

no game at 1920x1080 or higher needs AA people who claim they do need to pull their controller out of their anal retentive sphincter.
but jaggies are part of the doom/unreal/crytek engines because of the nature of their graphics/textures. they demand high resolutions to eliminate the jaggies.

I tried the new xp beta drivers 169.09
@ (1280x1024 2x enabled) in xp all on high with that special batch file that was posted above that enabled some thigns with directx10 quality
It came out to 33.4fps
1fps improvement from 169.04

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lestat

its only jaggy at resolutions below 1680x1050
anything above that the jaggies are hardly noticeable if at all

AF is different, higher resolutions dont fix the AF woes

i play 1920x1080 all on the max settings but with AA and AF off.
alot of explosions on screen are the only times i see any sloppy frame rates.

no game at 1920x1080 or higher needs AA people who claim they do need to pull their controller out of their anal retentive sphincter.
but jaggies are part of the doom/unreal/crytek engines because of the nature of their graphics/textures. they demand high resolutions to eliminate the jaggies.

---

or 8x AA...

but I'll largely agree with you. @ 1680*1050 I'll take mostly high/very high over AA anytime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lestat

its only jaggy at resolutions below 1680x1050
anything above that the jaggies are hardly noticeable if at all

AF is different, higher resolutions dont fix the AF woes

i play 1920x1080 all on the max settings but with AA and AF off.
alot of explosions on screen are the only times i see any sloppy frame rates.

no game at 1920x1080 or higher needs AA people who claim they do need to pull their controller out of their anal retentive sphincter.
but jaggies are part of the doom/unreal/crytek engines because of the nature of their graphics/textures. they demand high resolutions to eliminate the jaggies.

---

Are you telling me what I'm seeing isn't real?

I see jaggies in Crysis @ 1920x1200. Lots of them. Not on the character models - those are superb. Look at the trees, grass, rocks, and virtually any other object in the game.

I was about to think you were still playing on a CRT, but I see you have a 24" LCD like myself in your sig, so you should very well know already that you still need anti-aliasing at high res with an LCD due to the increased amount of detail shown over a CRT. Us LCD guys don't have the benefit of an analog CRT fuzzing an image and creating a pseudo-anti-aliased image (and without a performance hit too). We see pixel for pixel the exact output of the video card - which means resolution alone can not and will not fix aliasing in these games.

<I will try this in vista and report back on my original 15.36fps avg since this is the most important score with all settings enabled>

So I tried it in vista a few times and these drivers keep crashing on me, no luck so far.

Tomshardware reports that with a gtx, quad at 2.66 (1600x1200 4x, he is mustering out only 10.1fps.

Anyone with Sli with gt, gtx, ultra, or crossfire 3850/3870 do some benches in vista with very high settings and 0x, 2x, 4x?
Thanks

This will make benchmarking easier

Damn, talk about low FPS for those "pretty usually" settings...
Everyone are running on at least 1280x1024 and with AF/AA today, it´s an awful way to go on those FPS, and think about that 8800Ultra in SLI is NOT ENOUGHT for good FPS when playing on the today usually settings...

8800U is enough...after benching for many hours, it seems that this game is truly cpu-limited.

I remember hearing that this game would use a quadcore...it doesn't. Single thread avg 100&#37; cpu usage regardless of speed(2.4ghz all the way to 3.8ghz, Core2Duo, or Core2Quad).


Funny thing tho...if you've had an ATI X-series running FAH before, you've seen high cpu usage, but not high cpu temps..this game behaves the same. It truly seems that texture resolution is far to high to fit within vidmem of either 8800U or 2900XT, and so cpu spends ALOT of time shuffling textures, etc to gpu...

I have many issues running this bench proggie, BTW. it will not close crysis thread properly, so I can only run one set of benches at atime...very frustrating. I'd love to just load up a bunch of different settings, hit "BENCHMARK", and walk away and come back later to see results, but this is not possible ATM. Demo or retail version does not matter.

otherwise, this tool is really good!

Here is teamaqua's post on how to get some of the directx10 features in directx9 xp
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=163687

I also read an article on crysis and benchmarks online yesterday, but forgot to post the site. I'll search again for it and post the link, meanwhile here are the stats they came up with.

1280x1024 very high, no x enabled
Gtx 20.3fps
Gtx Sli 25.4fps

We are getting very close to 30fps.
Has anyone with Ultra Sli/ddr3 been able to get above 30fps?

Aliasing is not a problem caused by low resolutions as such, what matters is the actual size of a pixel on the screen which is related to the resolution and screen size. A 28" monitor needs twice the resolution of a 14" monitor just to get the same physical resolution on the screen.

If you add:
con_restricted = 0
r_DisplayInfo = 1
to benchmark_gpu.cfg or benchmark_cpu.cfg you will notice some disparities between what the fps is in the recorded benchmark vs what the display info provides. It makes me wonder which is correct. From my observations the display info (displayed using white lettering) is on par with Fraps while the recorded benchmark (displayed using green lettering) is different from both display info and fraps.

Anyone else notice this?

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&#37; actual FPS, partially dependant on CPU load, it seems. Not confirmed cpu bit tho.

So pc preformance has to quadruple for me to get good fps at qxga.

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?

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

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

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.

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

Try Fraps ... should do fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

This will make benchmarking easier

---

Fixed download link here (x86) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

I remember hearing that this game would use a quadcore...it doesn't. Single thread avg 100&#37; cpu usage regardless of speed(2.4ghz all the way to 3.8ghz, Core2Duo, or Core2Quad).

---

:shakes: :( :mad: :( :mad: :( :shakes:

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

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&#37; 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)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by disruptfam

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

---

+1...

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

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

aricua thats actually looking half decent

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

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:

did u find it playable @ 19fps?? anything under 30fps for me is unplayable :(

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.

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 :)

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

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