Crysis demo with G8800GTX benchmark - Is this true ???

[n-sanity]

Guys, jesus, can't you see past the test?

What are the demo's running on at the live demonstrations of crysis at exhibitions if 88's can barely do 40 fps lol ?

The demo's are run at like 2560 x 1600 on 30" screens, at uber high fps so either they're running not yet released r600's or the above test is bull/incomplete/incorrectly compiled!

[//porre]

but wasn't the demonstration dx9??

[akshayt]

There is nothing to worry. The lead designer has AMD 64 3500 + 2GB RAM + 1900XT, he has played the game on his rig and he said that it ran great with most settings on. It has been put on the website that he said it ran very well with reasonably high settings ( still unoptimized).

Fast single cores + 1900xt/xtx 7900gtx etc can expect anything between 1024x768 High to 1280x1024 near max settings without AA, low physics/sound

[theteamaqua]

1. the newest nvidia vista driver 100.54 dont even have support for SLI on vista, let alone 100.31. SO that means it was running on 1 card only, jsut 1 GeForce 8800GTX

2. Vista gaming performance is slower than XP, give it some time

3. They didnt try running it on XP, why??

There is nothing to worry. The lead designer has AMD 64 3500 + 2GB RAM + 1900XT, he has played the game on his rig and he said that it ran great with most settings on. It has been put on the website that he said it ran very well with reasonably high settings ( still unoptimized).

Fast single cores + 1900xt/xtx 7900gtx etc can expect anything between 1024x768 High to 1280x1024 near max settings without AA, low physics/sound

link??

[Fatal Error]

Core 2 QX6700 2.66GHz ... 1000$
2x 8800GTX .... 1200$
4GB DDR2 ... 800$

Running Crysis on cutting edge hardware at 1280x1024 with 17.1 fps ... Priceless

[Timmay]

Oh god, I hope that isn't the case... I was looking forward to getting away with a 8600U with 1440x900.

[DeltZ]

come on guys, we all know crysis made this game with NO compromises. It's not meant to work well on highest quality on the average guys pc. It's mean to beat the hell out of the best. And average guy can play on 640 res:P

[grimREEFER]

does this game benifit from quad core? otherwise bottleneck for sure.

yes, it is optimised for quad core.
also, the game doesnt have ageia ppu support, but the pc they used just happened to have a ppu.

[n-sanity]

@ //porre, they've had both dx9 and 10 demos for a while now.

@ DeltZ, CRYTEK made the game to be scalable to any hardware. If they made it runnable properly only on high end systems they'd loose A LOT of cash, and EA simply doesn't allow that.

[G.Foyle]

I call that review bull .
All evidence speaks against it.

[HungryForHertz]

Core 2 QX6700 2.66GHz ... 1000$
2x 8800GTX .... 1200$
4GB DDR2 ... 800$

Running Crysis on cutting edge hardware at 1280x1024 with 17.1 fps ... Priceless

LOL, so true.

[Master_G]

yes, it is optimised for quad core.

Link for that info? I didnt know it was quad core optimised. Is it quad core specific or just multi-core? (i.e. 1core < 2 < 4 etc)

G

[J-Mag]

There is nothing to worry. The lead designer has AMD 64 3500 + 2GB RAM + 1900XT, he has played the game on his rig and he said that it ran great with most settings on. It has been put on the website that he said it ran very well with reasonably high settings ( still unoptimized).

Oh yeah nothing to worry about, it's not like the "lead designer" has any stake in the game or anything

Do you really think that the devs will say their game runs poorly? They will ALWAYS say it runs well at "reasonable" settings as reasonable is completely arbitrary.

We should remember, as seen in the past, 8800GTX does NOT take a very big hit when applying AF and AA...

Maybe not "very big", but it is definitely a substantial, especially in non SLI configs.

Not really, SLI ain't working in Vista yet. Well, perhaps with newer drivers, but not with 100.30.

Yeah even with the newer 100.5X drivers SLI still isn't enabled. Essentially these graphs don't give us much insight as to how well Crysis will run on an 8800gtx SLI config. The graphs may not even be representative of a single 8800GTX performance...

[DeltZ]

@ //porre, they've had both dx9 and 10 demos for a while now.

@ DeltZ, CRYTEK made the game to be scalable to any hardware. If they made it runnable properly only on high end systems they'd loose A LOT of cash, and EA simply doesn't allow that.

fair enough...except crytek don't belong to EA...at least last time i knew...

[Drunner611]

but wasn't the demonstration dx9??

No, did you even watch that last trailer? It was definitely DX10

[[XC] Lead Head]

fair enough...except crytek don't belong to EA...at least last time i knew...

EA is the publisher for Crysis though.

[//porre]

No, did you even watch that last trailer? It was definitely DX10

i was talkin about the demonstration #27 was refering to...

[xlink]

I'd wait until better drivers are out before making jusdgements...

[DilTech]

Oh yeah nothing to worry about, it's not like the "lead designer" has any stake in the game or anything

Do you really think that the devs will say their game runs poorly? They will ALWAYS say it runs well at "reasonable" settings as reasonable is completely arbitrary.



Maybe not "very big", but it is definitely a substantial, especially in non SLI configs.





Yeah even with the newer 100.5X drivers SLI still isn't enabled. Essentially these graphs don't give us much insight as to how well Crysis will run on an 8800gtx SLI config. The graphs may not even be representative of a single 8800GTX performance...

Not only that, but the current vista driver is also an average of 30 fps lower in every game compared to the current XP driver.

I'm claiming 100% BS on these benchmarks, considering every showing of the game as of late has been on 8800's.

[J-Mag]

Not only that, but the current vista driver is also an average of 30 fps lower in every game compared to the current XP driver.

I'm claiming 100% BS on these benchmarks, considering every showing of the game as of late has been on 8800's.

Have you seen any good gaming comparisons of Vista and XP? Most forum posts I have seen are people posting 3dmark comparisons or just Vista frame rates of games...

[thephenom]

Why did they have the Ageia PhysX card in the setup? Crysis is supposed to be using their own Crytek physics engine.

[deathman20]

Have you seen any good gaming comparisons of Vista and XP? Most forum posts I have seen are people posting 3dmark comparisons or just Vista frame rates of games...

Agreed. I have no issues with Vista and most games I've run perfectly. Oblivion, Rainbow Six Vega's, GRAW, X3, HL2, AoE III, Dungeon Siege II, NeverWinder Nights 2, Supreme Commander. Thats just a few most hold there FPS compared to XP and some (SC that I know of) actually get a slight boost FPS wise.

[turtle]

I totally concur with the pre-alpha software + incomplete drivers (first DX10 driver + no SLI) thoughts, but it may still be a cause to worry. Perhaps 8800GTX doesn't handle DX10 well, or perhaps Crysis is just going to be a killer game on gfx cards. All possible.

Need I remind ya'll though that when Far Cry came out in March of 2004, the greatest cards available (9800XT/5950) at that time could barely run 1600x1200 (today's 1920x1200) over 30FPS, if that, with no AA/AF. The generation that came after that (X800/6800) could barely break the 40's, if that, with 4/8x. It's not inconceivable that Crysis will bust 8800GTX's (and R600's) balls, even when all the bugs are ironed out.

But really, would you want it any other way? Crytek makes glorified playable tech demos, meant to be barely playable when released, but pretty as hell to look at. Personally, I hope it's not playable at ultra-high rez until the following gen for the reason it could be gorgeous now, but more gorgous later, just like Far Cry was then, and games like Oblivion are now.

[gr8golf]

QFT! I remember getting a 6800GT just to make Far Cry workable. The 7800GT and now the 8800GTS eat it up. I'm not worried - quite certain that when it releases I can finally go SLI and it will run well.

[J-Mag]

But really, would you want it any other way? Crytek makes glorified playable tech demos, meant to be barely playable when released, but pretty as hell to look at. Personally, I hope it's not playable at ultra-high rez until the following gen for the reason it could be gorgeous now, but more gorgous later, just like Far Cry was then, and games like Oblivion are now.

Yeah good call. I hate the whiners that pop out every time a name game is released ing and moaning at performance. AT first we only had high settings but the Ultra settings were introduced in D3 to avoid the whiners, because basically no one could play D3 at ultra when released. This still didn't solve the problem because now you still see people about not being able to run at the "highest" settings because they have the newest card.

I think ini editing is the way devs should allow "ultra" settings, this cons all the n00bs into thinking they are playing at the "highest". Then later on down the road when new hardware comes out, the devs could always provide a patch for ultra settings...