Crysis full game

D3B said:
Wow this is crazy, Triple SLI =37.9 fps!

http://kotaku.com/gaming/craziness/1800-in-video-cards-still-doesnt-max-crysis-333598.php
Click to expand...

Yeah amazing how it does 37.9fps average at 1920*1200p resolution with very high settings. And not only that but on the most hardware taxing levels, Ice levels with snow and Ice!!!, . Personally I think they look less good than other non snow/Ice levels but still. Of course it has some slowdowns but seeing the average speed they would not happen often.
Slowdowns is present in almost all games on all platforms. Actually i would think it is mostly becouse of HDD loading as happens during firefights sometimes for no 'legal' reason!

Hope they bench forest areas, should give a large boost to the average framerate!

Although an 8800ultra should take it at very high smooth and fluid at 720p, my 8800GTX does very well with v.high but I prefer high + some v.high and extra's at 1280*1024! :smile:

Edit: Here is the link to the source instead of Kotaku since they even fail to name the res and other details, but then what to expect from console fanboy sites, they are jealous of what they wont get until next console HW launch! :LOL:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu...id=624620&entity_id=-1&image_id=747563&page=2

BTW Paradise Lost is a Ice/snow level.
Crysis19201200veryHighParadiseLostI.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Was thinking how many screenshots, especially of console games are realeased with blurring added (either devs/promoter or users). The blurring from motion-blur or DoF or just bad camera quality offscreen ss makes everything look more uniform, lines of objects blend in together seamless and gives a more realistic impression.
When I took the Crysis ss i got 2 blurred ones becouse I turned fast when taking them (motion-blur). 3 images on without motion-blur, the other 2 with motion-blur and see how it makes it look more real or rather hard to distinguish from reality! :eek:

Although Crysis looks already so good and close to the real deal that the motion-blur/DoF wont help that much at all but still...! :cool:

Just for fun!
CrysisDiff1.jpg

CrysisDiff2.jpg

CrysisDiff3.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D3B said:
Wow this is crazy, Triple SLI =37.9 fps!

http://kotaku.com/gaming/craziness/1800-in-video-cards-still-doesnt-max-crysis-333598.php
Click to expand...

Some very impressive scaling from dual SLI and triple SLI there across all the games - getting close to 100% :D

Must say, i'm very pleased with that.

Its cool to see a setup playing Crysis at max settings and playable framrates - given Crysis generally smooth feeling anyway I would wager that average would feel buttery smooth.

It should be noted though that the articles talk about being unable to max out Crysis on $1800 worth of GPU is very misleading as firstly, it IS being maxed out and secondly you could probably achieve equal or even better framerates using the GTS 512 for under $1000. In fact it would probably still be plently playable (>30fps) on 3 GT's so under $800 is possible.

Also that Gizmondo guys statement is ridiculous. If a game has to be running at 1920x200 before its graphics "exist" whats the deal with all the console games out there? Is there no such thing as console graphics?
 
Dooby said:
Does your $800 come with an unseen tiple connector for those GTs? :D 3-SLI is only available on GTX and Ultras.
Click to expand...

Yeah I realised that after I posted.

Still, its only lack of driver support thats stopping them at the moment. Its possible to run 3 way SLI through PCI-E in theory if the driver supports it.

PCI-E would hurt performance though, however I wonder if PCI-E 2 would alleiviate that problem? It does have twice the bandwidth afterall.
 
pjbliverpool said:
Some very impressive scaling from dual SLI and triple SLI there across all the games - getting close to 100% :D
Click to expand...
Impressive? More like miraculous. Doubling the rendering hardware yields a 75% increase in minimum framerate, and then adding 50% more rendering hardware produces a 100% gain from that? Sounds fishy to me.
 
kyleb said:
Impressive? More like miraculous. Doubling the rendering hardware yields a 75% increase in minimum framerate, and then adding 50% more rendering hardware produces a 100% gain from that? Sounds fishy to me.
Click to expand...

I have been under the impression that the lows in Crysis benchmarks can happen during fights due to unexpected HDD loading or CPU bound. And the thing that Quad-cores are not supported and dual-cores are not fully utilized.
 
Either differences in every benchmark run or that the third GPu helps out with stuff that would otherwise be more offloaded to the CPU to pick up the slack. I wonder also if the GPU physics enables itself with a third GPU (setting exists in Crysis).
 
This is the demo , but is the same level of the final game . The framerate in this map is 15 - 25 fps at 720p an one 8800 gtx
 
Visuals and performance aside...

The first half of the game was superb. Brilliant design, great combat. A lot of fun.

The second half was terribly lame: generic, poorly constructed "vehicle" missions and the least said about the final level the better.
 
The dropship level almost drove me insane, it was so badly done. But yes the first half is by far the best FPS gaming has to offer.
 
See in full screen



0:28


The real framerate is bigger , about 20 -25 fps

0:49


This is with a custom autoexec , with 80 - 100 % more framerate than Crysis in very high .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Deadlock (PC ... not sure what else)
Replies
3
Views
517
GhostofWar
G
Cyan
The original Fallout.
Replies
7
Views
747
Cyan
Cyan
Z
I gave up on the Resident Evil series...
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
3K
Zombietoid
Z
Z
Its not just me, games used to be better
5 6 7
Replies
128
Views
5K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
E
The first Berserker
Replies
12
Views
1K
arandomguy
A
Back
Top