So... I thought this would break my PC

#1 Posted by Rattle618 (1463 posts) -

But it turns out Im playing it maxed out (on extreme or whatever the highest option is) at 1680x1050, it looks awesome and framerate doesn't drop below 60. It seems to be a lot better optimized than I expected, cause this is my rig: 
 
-Radeon HD 5770 (slightly OC'ed by vendor) 
-Phenom II x4 3.2ghz 
-6gbs of RAM 
 
That will probably change if DX11 implementation is not done well, but I'll have to wait for that patch to become available to find out. Im pretty happy though.

#2 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

How well does Crysis1 run on that setup?

#3 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
@Rattle618 said:
" But it turns out Im playing it maxed out (on extreme or whatever the highest option is) at 1680x1050, it looks awesome and framerate doesn't drop below 60. It seems to be a lot better optimized than I expected, cause this is my rig:  -Radeon HD 5770 (slightly OC'ed by vendor) -Phenom II x4 3.2ghz -6gbs of RAM  That will probably change if DX11 implementation is not done well, but I'll have to wait for that patch to become available to find out. Im pretty happy though. "
The game is very optimized from what I have read. On the quicklook they even said it played fine on the older computer they had. 
#4 Posted by Rattle618 (1463 posts) -
@nintendoeats said:
" How well does Crysis1 run on that setup? "
Im curious about that myself since I haven't played crysis since I updated CPU and some other stuff, I'll probably have an answer for that in a few days though.
#5 Posted by alternate (2697 posts) -

It is because your monitor is modest - what is that 22"?  It is when you are trying to run games on the native resolution of huge panels that you really need the gpu horsepower.

#6 Edited by Beaudacious (927 posts) -

Crysis 2 does not have direct x11, which will be released later on in a patch. So right now you're playing DX9 xbox game, so thats like a 2006 video game. It play above 30fps on my old comp with a 8800gt at max. Also wheres my fing procedural destruction crytek. 

#7 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@Beaudacious said:
" Crysis 2 does not have direct x11, which will be released later on in a patch. So right now you're playing DX9 xbox game. "
C2 looks almost as good as DX11 Metro 2033, and better than DX10 Crysis 1, so the fact that it's DX9 and is present on Xbox has little to do with it. The Xbox version runs lower than the lowest PC setting and at 720p. Hardly comparable.  
 
The linear and downsized aspect has a lot to do with the good performance, but Crytek also did a really good job of optimization. 
#8 Posted by Beaudacious (927 posts) -
@Geno:
 I disagree on the metro 2033 comparison, that game in certain scenes just blows ones mind. This on the other hand really does nothing for me, the only difference as  you said , is that the pc version is running a highrez texture pack, with additional shadows and lighting.  This engine  has potential as long as it ain't crytek making the game.
#9 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

im running it on 8600 GT, 4 GB RAM and 2x3.0 GHz AMD Athlon 6000 +, lowest settings and it lags a bit when theres alot of action 
 
cant wait to upgrade my PC in a couple of months

#10 Posted by Bollard (5449 posts) -
@Rattle618 said:
" @nintendoeats said:
" How well does Crysis1 run on that setup? "
Im curious about that myself since I haven't played crysis since I updated CPU and some other stuff, I'll probably have an answer for that in a few days though. "
Probably not particularly well considering its optimised horribly... My GTX 580 barely manages 60FPS out of Crysis 1 everything maxed (and a few tweaks in config). Then again I play on 1920x1080 rather than 1680x1050, so you can probably get an alright framerate.
#11 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

I'm running a 9600GT (slightly overclocked, 1 GB RAM) at 1680X1050. It generally hovers from 35-40 maxed with 2XAA, though that last part on the ship...fuuuuuuuuu...
 
YES MY CARD IS OLD...

#12 Posted by Hashbrowns (650 posts) -
@Chavtheworld said:
 "Probably not particularly well considering its optimised horribly... My GTX 580 barely manages 60FPS out of Crysis 1 everything maxed (and a few tweaks in config). Then again I play on 1920x1080 rather than 1680x1050, so you can probably get an alright framerate."


 
I'm only running a GTX 470, but I was still very much surprised just how poorly optimised Crysis 1 really was.  In the Crysis 2 review, Jeff stated that it's now "trivial" being able to run Crysis at full settings.  That doesn't line up with reality, I'm afraid.  Sure you can run it all on high, but it is STILL difficult to  have a rock-steady frame rate with v-sync at most modern monitors' native resolutions. 
 
Crysis is nearly 4 years old, and it's still difficult to get flawless performance at the highest settings.  That's at the feet of Crytek, not hardware.
#13 Posted by Mikemcn (6982 posts) -

Im really glad Crytek made a really nice looking game thats actually playable at max settings on a much wider array of computers. 

#14 Posted by Bollard (5449 posts) -
@Hashbrowns said:

" @Chavtheworld said:

 "Probably not particularly well considering its optimised horribly... My GTX 580 barely manages 60FPS out of Crysis 1 everything maxed (and a few tweaks in config). Then again I play on 1920x1080 rather than 1680x1050, so you can probably get an alright framerate."
 I'm only running a GTX 470, but I was still very much surprised just how poorly optimised Crysis 1 really was.  In the Crysis 2 review, Jeff stated that it's now "trivial" being able to run Crysis at full settings.  That doesn't line up with reality, I'm afraid.  Sure you can run it all on high, but it is STILL difficult to  have a rock-steady frame rate with v-sync at most modern monitors' native resolutions.  Crysis is nearly 4 years old, and it's still difficult to get flawless performance at the highest settings.  That's at the feet of Crytek, not hardware. "
I absolutely agree. I heard Warhead ran a bit better though? I've still yet to install it, I'm trying to complete Crysis first. Also yeah, I don't think Jeff was too accurate about brushing off how easy it is to get Crysis running smooth. He mentioned that on the most recent podcast too I think? Or I'm remembering it from the review, not sure.
 
I can't decide whether or not the fact Crysis 2 seems to run so well (and for many people in comparison to the original) is testament to the fact Crysis 1 was optimised so poorly, or that Crytek have really picked up their game in squeezing the most out of Crysis 2.    
#15 Edited by dezvous (542 posts) -

I think it's definitely a testament to how incredibly well optimized Crysis 2 is. I just finished the singleplayer campaign at 1920x1080/Extreme/V-Sync with a Radeon 6950 2GB/Phenom X-4/8GB RAM and it ran without even the slightest of hiccups through it's entirety. Just like everyone else is saying, running Crysis 1 at the same settings does not yield the same results, it plays fine but it's not consistent enough with occasional noticeable dips in framerate. 
 
Let me just say this, thank goodness the idiocy that is running rampant elsewhere about Crysis 2's graphics has not infected the GiantBomb forums. Edit: (I guess I spoke too soon but at least it isn't as bad as some other places here on GB) I don't know if you guys have seen it out there but people are mindlessly bashing Crysis 2 and Crytek and they're being very hostile about it. It seems the graphics in Crysis 2 aren't good enough for them. They don't point to anything specifically except that it's running in DX9 instead of DX10/11 and apparently that alone has them infuriated.
 
 It doesn't make any sense, if anything is should be a testament as to just how beautiful Crysis 2 is that it's running solely in DX9 mode and still manages to look better than almost any game out there and not to mention play beautifully. On the point of Metro 2033, that is a gorgeous game but I think Crysis 2 has better cohesion and consistency visually.  Metro 2033 is a little more rough around the edges even though it has some fantastic looking effects going on. 
 
And I just cannot get over how good the depth-of-field looks in Crysis 2. The way things in the distance take shape is so realistic and incredibly cool looking.

#16 Posted by Rattle618 (1463 posts) -
@dezvous said:
" I think it's definitely a testament to how incredibly well optimized Crysis 2 is. I just finished the singleplayer campaign at 1920x1080/Extreme/V-Sync with a Radeon 6950 2GB/Phenom X-4/8GB RAM and it ran without even the slightest of hiccups through it's entirety. Just like everyone else is saying, running Crysis 1 at the same settings does not yield the same results, it plays fine but it's not consistent enough with occasional noticeable dips in framerate. 
 
Let me just say this, thank goodness the idiocy that is running rampant elsewhere about Crysis 2's graphics has not infected the GiantBomb forums. Edit: (I guess I spoke too soon but at least it isn't as bad as some other places here on GB) I don't know if you guys have seen it out there but people are mindlessly bashing Crysis 2 and Crytek and they're being very hostile about it. It seems the graphics in Crysis 2 aren't good enough for them. They don't point to anything specifically except that it's running in DX9 instead of DX10/11 and apparently that alone has them infuriated.   It doesn't make any sense, if anything is should be a testament as to just how beautiful Crysis 2 is that it's running solely in DX9 mode and still manages to look better than almost any game out there and not to mention play beautifully. On the point of Metro 2033, that is a gorgeous game but I think Crysis 2 has better cohesion and consistency visually.  Metro 2033 is a little more rough around the edges even though it has some fantastic looking effects going on.   And I just cannot get over how good the depth-of-field looks in Crysis 2. The way things in the distance take shape is so realistic and incredibly cool looking. "
Yeah, I think the issue is that people feel the need to justify to themselves hundreds of dollars of video cards with games like this, and they get really pissed when that doesn't happen.  
Don't get me wrong, I would drop a few grand in a heartbeat on video cards if I could, but feeling guilty and lashing out on devs later on is not cool.
#17 Posted by bybeach (4792 posts) -
@Geno said:
" @Beaudacious said:
" Crysis 2 does not have direct x11, which will be released later on in a patch. So right now you're playing DX9 xbox game. "
C2 looks almost as good as DX11 Metro 2033, and better than DX10 Crysis 1, so the fact that it's DX9 and is present on Xbox has little to do with it. The Xbox version runs lower than the lowest PC setting and at 720p. Hardly comparable.   The linear and downsized aspect has a lot to do with the good performance, but Crytek also did a really good job of optimization.  "

 
It's subjective on my part, not real measuring, but I dissagree. I was running warhead DX1o on Enthusiast except game models which the game locked at Gamer because of the DX10, and I'd swear warhead outright looked better. Not by a whole lot, and maybe tropical vistas appeal more than NEW YORK CITY. But that was my impression between the two at 2048 X 1536 on a 20" Diamond Pro CRT..
#18 Edited by dezvous (542 posts) -
@Rattle618 said:

Yeah, I think the issue is that people feel the need to justify to themselves hundreds of dollars of video cards with games like this, and they get really pissed when that doesn't happen.  Don't get me wrong, I would drop a few grand in a heartbeat on video cards if I could, but feeling guilty and lashing out on devs later on is not cool. "

Being a person who just dropped 270 on a GPU myself, I am actually on the other side of the fence. I am ecstatic that they've optimized this game to run virtually perfectly on the top of the line hardware that's available now. It's not like Crysis 2 isn't pushing computers, unless you've got the very latest GPU's you won't be getting 50+ FPS at the 1920 and up resolutions with AA etc. Either way, it's a beautiful game and it's awesome to see that even people with slightly older cards can enjoy the game.
 
And it's not like I'm the kind of person that doesn't enjoy tweaking my games and overclocking my hardware/flashing modded drivers to my GPU. I must have played the opening to Crysis 1 about a hundred times tweaking cvars and what not and there's something really tedious/enjoyable about knowing you're doing something techy to get more out of your system. But there's also something great about seeing a game that is just so well optimized it just flat out works, I don't see the problem with that. 
 
Here's the bottom line, I really don't think Crytek is "selling out" like some are saying. That's ridiculous. Look at the visuals they're pushing on the consoles and what CryEngine 3 is capable of. This is also their first foray into the console market and I think it was a big learning experience for them. I'm actually really excited to see CE3 take off and be used in more games. It's such a gorgeous engine and they have gone to incredible lengths to make sure it runs great and looks even better. I have faith in Crytek, and what's even more ridiculous is just how AWESOME Crysis 2 actually is to play! I mean probably the best FPS experience this year. Just so well polished.
#19 Posted by Raineko (433 posts) -

I have an ATI 4870X2, AMD Phenom II X4 3,4 Ghz and 4 GB RAM.
Crysis 1 runs pretty sweet on max details but because Multi GPU cards are not supported by C2 this game runs pretty horrendous. :(

#20 Posted by amir90 (2154 posts) -

Really? I have the 4870x2, and it doesn't run well for me :/
 
Gotta wait for the next drivers/patches to be able to run this bad boy!

#21 Posted by owl_of_minerva (1455 posts) -

To be honest I always thought Crytek were better at making engines than making games, so that they're bringing some competition to the Unreal engine is a good thing (for console users, if not for PC-only users). If they become successful enough they could acquire the capital to push graphics forward even more than they have done so far. Those bewailing the consolification of Crytek are not seeing the big picture here. 

#22 Posted by JerichoBlyth (1044 posts) -
@Rattle618 said:
" But it turns out Im playing it maxed out (on extreme or whatever the highest option is) at 1680x1050, it looks awesome and framerate doesn't drop below 60. It seems to be a lot better optimized than I expected, cause this is my rig:  -Radeon HD 5770 (slightly OC'ed by vendor) -Phenom II x4 3.2ghz -6gbs of RAM  That will probably change if DX11 implementation is not done well, but I'll have to wait for that patch to become available to find out. Im pretty happy though. "
That's the exact same set up I have.
 
Yes, it does run Crysis 1 on max settings...mainly due to the amount of fucking RAM we both have. My mate has the same card but only 3.5/4gb (Windows 7 takes up a lot of RAM on his PC so it's hard to tell how much he actually has to spare lol) and he cannot run Crysis 1 on max settings. So that's how I came to that conclusion lol
 
Crysis 2 was never going to be a challenge for a decent graphics card tbh.  It was designed for consoles and I doubt there will be an 'Ultra. advanced' graphical setting for the PC anytime soon. Direct X 11 won't do shit tbh.
 
If you want to play a truly beautiful game - purchase Bulletstorm for the PC and play that on the highest settings on your card. You'll be glad you did. I came.
#23 Posted by Khann (2834 posts) -
@owl_of_minerva said:
" To be honest I always thought Crytek were better at making engines than making games, so that they're bringing some competition to the Unreal engine is a good thing (for console users, if not for PC-only users). If they become successful enough they could acquire the capital to push graphics forward even more than they have done so far. Those bewailing the consolification of Crytek are not seeing the big picture here.  "
I've heard rumours of Crytek doing something similar to Epic is doing with UDK.  
 
That would be fantastic for everybody. If Crytek can follow in Epic's footsteps and sell the crap out of that engine, we will finally see graphics/physics/AI/whateverthefuck pushed beyond where they seem to be at the moment.  Epic is already doing this to some extent with their recent updates to the Unreal Engine.
#24 Posted by Ghostin (369 posts) -
#25 Posted by buft (3316 posts) -
#26 Posted by notha (239 posts) -
@Rattle618 said:
" That will probably change if DX11 implementation is not done well "
in every game i've played with dx11 support, it always runs better than the dx10 version. 
#27 Posted by notha (239 posts) -
#28 Posted by Rattle618 (1463 posts) -
@JerichoBlyth said:
 Yes, it does run Crysis 1 on max settings...  
Nice to know, I'll probably install it again eventually so I can see that.  
And I did like Bullestorm a lot by the way, it looks very nice.
#29 Posted by Pixeldemon (244 posts) -
@amir90 said:
" Really? I have the 4870x2, and it doesn't run well for me :/  Gotta wait for the next drivers/patches to be able to run this bad boy! "
 
I'm in a very similar situation.  4870x2, i7 860, 8 gb ram.   Crysis 2 chokes on Extreme at 1920x1200 (like 25 fps in outdoor areas).   Crossfire is not working well with the game presently.   I played windowed at a lower res and lower settings to get about 40fps...

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.