Topic: Looking for a new PSU.

[Pugnate]

Well gorgeous is an overstatement on my part, but at medium it still looks pretty damn good, especially compared to S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

[scottws]

I disagree.  I think Crysis should run much better than it does on medium.  In reality, even though the visual difference between medium and high is massive, the performance difference isn't all that great.

[Pugnate]

Well I'll check it out on fraps and post some results.

[Pugnate]

I think the problem for you was Vista 64. It had some massive issues with the game, which is the only reason I can come up with in your case.

I'll post the fraps results tomorrow, but basically at medium settings I am getting over 60 fps (vsynced at 60) in normal conditions. During firefights it goes down to 50-55 fps in Vista, and between 40-50 in really intense battles. Is smoother in XP by 8-12 fps average. That matches the results PC Gamer published in their mag, who stated that with an 8800GT at medium settings they were getting about 57 fps.

As for how it looks at medium, I disagree in that I think it looks pretty damn good, but its a matter of perspective really. We just have different opinions on this, and I guess it is a personal thing. I just have to say, and it is something that you may or may not agree with, at medium the game looks insanely better than S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Have you played that?

I also think technically Crysis at medium looks better than Gears of War or Unreal Tournament 2007.

In the end, I do agree that Crysis could have used with better optimization on medium, but I find it performs much better for me in XP.

I have some work to do, or I'd be posting the fraps screenies. Will post them tomorrow for sure.

Also I apologize to hoob for the thread hijack.

[scottws]

I definitely disagree that Crysis on medium looks better than UT3 or GoW.  Maybe S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but that was a game that should have released two years ago.

Here's the thing that really puts me off:  FarCry had amazing performance for the visual acuity of its engine, and Crytek was rightly lauded for its efforts.  I feel like Crysis is the opposite.  It's a visually impressive game (on high or very high settings, anyway), but not so much so as to explain the extremely poor performance.

I feel that its engine is on par with the UT3 engine in most respects and games that run on the UT3 engine run worlds better than Crysis does.

And what sort of "massive" problems were there on Vista x64?  I ran the game on that and the only problems I had were performance-related.  I was able to run the game respectably on high settings at the lowest widescreen resolution (1400x900?)

[Cobra951]

c) People forget that the Xbox 360 is capped at 30 fps in its shooters.

Yep, me again, with the obligatory counterpoint.  There is no such mandatory cap.  If you want to see what the console can do at 1280x720 at 60 vsynched fps, see the Burnout Paradise game or demo on a friend's 360.  Developers may shoot at a 30fps target to double their per-frame rendering budgets.  That's their prerogative.

[Pugnate]

I wasn't concerned with what the 360 can or can't do, even if it might have come across as such. We were discussing frame rates, and my point was regarding gamers who find it perfectly acceptable to play shooters at 30 fps on their 360s, yet complain (on other forums, not you guys) about being unable to get 100+ fps in games like Unreal Tournament, Crysis, Doom III etc. In fact Doom III's frame rate on the PC was initially targeted at 30 fps by Carmack, yet PC fans were pretty unhappy, accustomed to over a 100 fps on Quake. 

I cited the 360 as an example not because I was trying to say it was teh weak or incapable, but because I was pointing out how gamers found a cap of 30 fps acceptable. If you look at the context of that post, you will note that I was just talking about frame rates and stuff. Not that I am saying that you took it that way or anything. I know you are just pointing out that the 360 is capable of more than 30 fps, which I realize. I am just clarifying regardless.

I definitely disagree that Crysis on medium looks better than UT3 or GoW.  Maybe S.T.A.L.K.E.R., but that was a game that should have released two years ago.

I wish I had S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (god I hate the artificially abbreviated names) installed, so I could post comparative screenies. The game's textures up close looked like ass. 

I feel that its engine is on par with the UT3 engine in most respects and games that run on the UT3 engine run worlds better than Crysis does.

UT3 and GoW feature closed environments with no calculations being made other than the character to character interaction. The outdoor worlds rendered in the unreal engine are just a series of closed levels, with 3D tricks in the background that make the environment seem large scale. I think the developer of COD4 was talking about how they've basically got background images to create an illusion of a vast environment. In fact if you look at COD4 or GoW, those games are a series of restricted areas. 

I actually haven't played Enemy Territory, so I can't really comment on that.

Basically I feel that the game that compares to Crysis is Oblivion, and it performs similarly, if not worse.

At the same time, while I find Crysis is a better looking game at medium settings, I guess there isn't really a technical comparison between it and games powered by the Unreal Engine. They are both designed for different purposes in mind, and are good at what they are meant to do.

And what sort of "massive" problems were there on Vista x64?  I ran the game on that and the only problems I had were performance-related.  I was able to run the game respectably on high settings at the lowest widescreen resolution (1400x900?)

We've talked about this a couple of times before, and I've posted links previously . Basically the massive problems I refer to were performance related. I think they've been fixed through Windows Update.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?Itemid=34&id=4435&option=com_content&task=view

Crysis 25 percent slower on Vista 64 bit

We just wanted to prove that Nvidia's driver for Vista 64 bit is definitely far behind the Windows XP driver. We compared Forceware 169.12 for Vista 64 and 169.09 for XP.

We tried the same demo under Windows XP and Vista 64 bit with the same hardware. The test machine was equipped with two Athlon FX74 CPUs at 3GHZ, 4GB of Corsair 8500 memory and two Raptor drives.

In Vista 64 bit, it turns out that you get only 26.51 FPS average with all settings at high, 1280x1024 with 4X FSAA and 8X Aniso. This is the best that Vista 64 can do for you. This is probably the lowest resolution you expect from Geforce 8800 Ultra overclocked card.

It wouldn’t be so bad if the same demo and the retail game itself at same settings score 34.83 FSP or some 25 percent better score under “old” XP. Under XP, the minimal score is 18.84, while under Vista 64 bit you get 7.9 as a minimal FPS.

In Windows XP, the maximum score is 44.51 while under Vista 64 with Nvidia Forceware 169.12 for Crysis the maximal score is 35.51.

To make the situation even worse, you cannot get anything close to playable frame rates in Vista 64 at 1280x1024 at very high settings and using this resolution. Nvidia had better fix these drivers, as Microsoft wants to sell more copies of its Windows Vista operating system, and after this there will be barely anyone who will choose to play Crysis in Vista 64 bit.

I feel like Crysis is the opposite.  It's a visually impressive game (on high or very high settings, anyway), but not so much so as to explain the extremely poor performance.

Yea it should have been better. I found it pretty good (on XP) till the last battle

(click to show/hide)

on the battle cruiser

. The performance there was below par at the final battle for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryENGINE2

The CryENGINE2 was first licensed out to French company IMAGTP who specializes in architectural and urban-planning communication. The purpose of licensing the engine was to create a program to allow clients to see exactly what a building or other structure would look like before any actual building was undertaken.

As of March 7, Avatar Reality, Inc., a new development studio, has licensed the CryENGINE2 out to use on a Massively Multiplayer Virtual World (MMVW) that takes place on a terraformed Mars.[1]

On May 11, 2007 Crytek announced that they would be using the engine to create a game based on their new Intellectual Property. The new game is rumored to be a Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 game based on an interview in which Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli said that it would be. It is also confirmed that it will not be a port of Crysis and in fact will not even be a first person shooter.

On the 17th of September, 2007, Ringling College of Art & Design became the first higher education institution in the world to license CryENGINE2 for educational purposes.

I find it cool as a gamer, than an engine familiar to us for violent fun can be used for such purposes.

[scottws]

Nvidia recently released a new Vista x64 driver, but I was sad to see that all it did was add support for the 9600.

I can't imagine CryEngine 2 will power a 360 game.  It would crush the 360.  The motherboards would be so warped they would be popping out of the case!

[Pugnate]

Well apparently the 176 mb patch supposedly added 10fps to Vista 64. You didn't find much of an improvement? Actually Crytek said that Vista 64 (a few months before they launched the game) was actually going to be taken advantage of 64 bit bla bla bla, and run 15-20% faster. All of that was talk I guess.

As for it coming to consoles:

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/17/rumorang-crysis-1-5-to-ps3-not-xbox-360/

50% new game??

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/03/rumorang-ps3-crysis-will-be-50-new-game/

[gpw11]

I think I was the only one who compared Crytek to those companies on these forums .

You are partially correct on the lack of scaling, but the rest of it, I disagree with. I know you were being facetious with the SLI comments, but here is what I think: 

1. I am getting an average of 25 fps at a resolution of 1440x900 on high settings using a system not significantly better than this. That PC you can build on NewEgg without the Windows CD for about $750. The system was recently tested on Maximum PC with Crysis running on high on a 19'' monitor, and earning 30+fps second. So yea, the quad SLI thing is normally something echoed by console gamers with a bone to pick.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3183&p=3

Triple SLI, 40fps, 1920 x 1200, no AA.  This isn't the article I originally read about this on, but there's a reason that people bring this up.  That's $600+ for the GPUs alone for not much in the way of performance.

But seriously, do we have to get into this?  I get where you're coming from and don't entirely disagree (except for the whole thing about the game looking nice and being marginally playable at the same time...even on medium.  You either give up one or the other), but no one is ever going to convince anyone else in a thread like this. 

[Pugnate]

but no one is ever going to convince anyone else in a thread like this.

Sure, but this is more fun, no? 

Triple SLI, 40fps, 1920 x 1200, no AA.  This isn't the article I originally read about this on, but there's a reason that people bring this up.

Yes, but isn't that the immaturity of triple SLI, and basically Nvidia's issue? Isn't that about as well as triple SLI functions? At a monstrous resolution of 1920 x 1200, they are getting 25 fps on a single 8800 card. It is a bit like blaming the price of petrol on the car.

On an Xbox 360 with 40% less the resolution gamers are happy with 30 fps, so what's wrong with 25 fps?

Triple SLI, 40fps, 1920 x 1200, no AA.  This isn't the article I originally read about this on, but there's a reason that people bring this up. 

Yes that's technically correct, but that's like saying you have to buy a Ferrari to enjoy the road.

Don't you think it is weird that three cards aren't yielding even twice the performance of a single one? If you look at the performance of other games like Oblivion, WiC on the same graph you posted, they aren't getting frame rate boosts after the second SLI either, so is this really a Crysis issue or an Nvidia problem?

Also when there are two SLI cards used, the frame rates are at 42, and at three they are 43. So why would someone pay $600 for 1 more fps? In reality, the third SLI card isn't being utilized.

That's $600+ for the GPUs alone for not much in the way of performance.

But like you yourself have stated before, those $600 GPUs are targeted at the luxury crowd. You know the Intel Quadcore QX6850 is priced at $1200, while the Q6600 is $350. The price difference is of $900, yet the Q6600 is very close in gaming benchies. You aren't seeing anyone say people need to spend over a grand on a QX6850 to enjoy PC gaming though.

But back to the 8800ULTRA. It performs what, 10% faster than the 8800GT priced at $220? So isn't saying Crysis needs the $600 card misleading?

Two 8800GTs ($450) are getting 37 fps (compared to 25 by the 8800ULTRA) at the resolution of 1920 x 1200 (where you really don't need anti aliasing). So basically you are paying $450 and getting nearly the same fps as a $1800 set up.

So, yes, I think the whole triple SLI thing is pretty misleading, and is really the sort of stuff that falsely scares people about PC gaming. Keep in mind those are two 8800GTs performing 5 fps behind three 8800GTX cards. Like I said, this is more of an Nvidiot issue.

edit:

I do agree that Crysis needs better performance tweaking of course. I mean Hoob was having issues as well, so there is a problem here.

[gpw11]

Also when there are two SLI cards used, the frame rates are at 42, and at three they are 43. So why would someone pay $600 for 1 more fps? In reality, the third SLI card isn't being utilized.

Because there are a lot of PC gamers that will buy into pretty much anything.  That's why SLI exists in the first place and pretty much why companies get away with releasing poorly running games like Crysis.