When the Crysis was released, it was so slow that unless you had the latest and highest-end PC hardware in the market, you could end up watching a Crysis slideshow instead. It was obviously not an acceptable situation. On January 8, 2008, Crytek released the long-awaited Crysis patch 1.1 which mainly addressed its performance deficiencies, as well as a few bug fixes and tweaks. Will this patch finally allow gamers to run Crysis on their current hardware? Let's find out... Here's a quote from the article :- Link : Performance Improvements In Crysis 1.1
Actually, they should take a leaf out of Epic Games book (Bioshock was based off of the Unreal 3 Engine that was made by Epic Games). I really like the Unreal 3 Engine (Rainbow Six Vegas is another game).
I did the GPU benchmark with v1.1 and got: Average 29fps @1680x1050 everything on high. -DFI INFINITY 975X/G Motherboard -Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 CPU, 2.13GHz -Corsair XMS2, TWIN2X2048-6400C4, 2x1GB, DDR2-SDRAM, DIMM, DDR2-800, EPP -Leadtek GeForce 8800 GT 512Mb -Seagate Barracuda, 250GB, 7200rpm, 16384KB Cache, SATA-2 WinXP SP2 Forceware version 169.04 The whole game is perfectly playable. Playing it for the third time. I wouldn't classify my system as highend. It's pretty good RAM. Just did another Benchmark: DX9 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 38.375
People need to realize that Crysis's levels are far more ambitious than most FPS' out there. Bioshock's levels are narrow corridors, or what FPS' have been doing for over a decade... boring. Does Bioshock render a tropical island or an entire naval strike group? I find it funny that people didn't raise nearly the same amount of stink when FEAR came out. Aside from the gimmicky, cliched bullet time and the supernatural distortions, the game didn't look much better than Half-Life 2 and ran a lot worse. People need to stop ragging on Crysis because it is an great game with amazing graphics. Personally the game runs perfect at 1280x720 on high details. Granted its not directx10 mode on ultra high, but people need to stop focusing on maxing the graphics are insane resolutions and just enjoy the damn game. Btw my system is a 3ghz c2d, 4gb of ram (3gb accessible), Geforce 8800gt. A very good system, but hardly top of the line.
That's the point. To enjoy the game, it has to be played at a reasonable level of resolution and quality. Forget Ultra High. Right now, even if you have the fastest graphics card available (GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB or GeForce 8800 Ultra), you cannot run Crysis at 1600 x 1200 at the High settings without overclocking the card to achieve "usable" frame rates. Although our Crysis GPU benchmark delivered an average frame rate of 26 fps, the game was really unplayable at 1600 x 1200 (High). There was so much jerking, I felt really nauseous. In DX10 mode, the game was only playable at 1280 x 1024 (High). In the Ice section, I even had to drop the quality to Low just to get a good frame rate. Frankly, the performance does degrade the level of enjoyment. IMHO, it's a pretty nice (albeit short) game but its performance really sapped quite a bit of the enjoyment.
Hehe.. Crysis was the only game where I had to settle for blur graphics (because I was running 1280 x 720 on a 1920 x 1200 monitor!) just to finish the game. I'm still hoping and praying that they will come up with a patch that will improve performance by 10-15% or more. Then I can replay the game at 1600 x 1200.
I tried turning down to Medium, the image quality dropped to unbearable... To the point that I prefer jerkiness over lower image quality.
